WA joins 15 states suing over deregulation of rapid-fire gun devices
Washington is joining a multi-state lawsuit targeting a specific type of gun trigger.
Washington Attorney General Nick Brown announced on Monday that he's joining 15 other attorneys general in suing the Trump Administration and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) over their plans to allow the sale of forced reset triggers.
'Communities are less safe with these mass-shooting devices in circulation,' Brown said in a statement. 'Essentially deregulating them is another example of this administration being driven by extreme ideology rather than commonsense.'
Forced reset triggers are devices that allow semi-automatic rifles to be fired more rapidly. The suit says returning the devices to market violates federal law, arguing they turn regular guns into machine guns.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) recently settled with the maker of the triggers, Rare Breed Triggers, resolving previous lawsuits brought by the Biden Administration.
The agreement states Rare Breed Tiggers 'will not develop or design FRTs for use in any handgun.' It also requires the ATF to return the triggers 'that it has seized or taken as a result of a voluntary surrender.'
'This Department of Justice believes that the 2nd Amendment is not a second-class right,' Attorney General Pamela Bondi said in a statement. 'And we are glad to end a needless cycle of litigation with a settlement that will enhance public safety.'
The federal lawsuit announced on Monday was filed in the state of Maryland. Attorney General Brown is joining New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Colorado, Hawai'i, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the District of Columbia.
Read more of Aaron Granillo's stories here.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Trump is making it easier than ever for criminals to get guns
Campaigning in 2024, Donald Trump made clear where he stood on gun policy when he pledged to 'terminate every single one of the Harris-Biden's attacks on law-abiding gun owners his first week in office and stand up for our constitutionally enshrined right to bear arms.' What he didn't say was that he would enact the most criminal-friendly gun policy of any presidential administration in U.S. history. As expected, Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi have moved to roll back Biden-era gun policies that took a tougher line on gun dealers who falsified records, on gun purchases that avoided required background checks, and that regulated 'ghost guns' to require serial numbers on formerly untraceable guns or gun parts. Central to Trump's deregulation of gun access is his evisceration of the federal agency charged with administering the nation's gun laws, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. For decades, gun rights proponents have pilloried the ATF, calling it 'scandal-ridden,' an out of control 'rogue agency' that has persistently abused its power, and that had amassed 'a tyrannical record of misconduct and abuse.' To be sure, the ATF has blundered, as when it tragically mishandled the siege at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas in 1993, and when it botched a covert gun-running operation into Mexico, named 'Fast and Furious,' in 2009. But these incidents, along with the relentless attacks directed against the agency, conceal a very different reality. When compared to other federal law enforcement agencies, the ATF consistently ranks as the smallest and most poorly funded. Its annual appropriations have grown more slowly than any other federal law enforcement agency. Charged with monitoring the more than 80,000 licensed U.S. gun dealers, the ATF barely has the personnel to conduct routine dealer inspections once every 10 years, not to mention the ATF's obligation to inspect the nation's 9,000 explosives license holders. The agency is even barred by law from computerizing its records. Background checks are still conducted by hand at a national tracing center in Martinsburg, W.V., where the sheer weight of its paper records nearly caused the building in which they are housed to collapse in 2019. Routine gun traces can take two weeks. And far from being a rogue or out-of-control agency, a 2021 investigation by The Trace found that the ATF's dealer monitoring 'has been largely toothless and conciliatory, bending over backward to go easy on wayward dealers.' In fact, it found that gun dealers were 'largely immune from serious punishment and enjoy layers of protection unavailable to most other industries.' Now the Trump administration is moving ahead to fire two-thirds of the 800 ATF personnel charged with monitoring gun dealers' compliance with federal law, to cut the agency's $1.6 billion budget by a third, to weaken or eliminate more than 50 existing rules and regulations and to refocus its resources on immigration. While most gun dealers ply their trade honestly, some have been found to flout the law consistently. In 2023, the ATF reported 93 gun dealers that willfully violated federal law. The ongoing evisceration of the ATF's monitoring abilities will have a predictable result of more dealers selling guns to those who shouldn't have them. After all, why should someone bent on obtaining guns for illicit purposes bother with an unpredictable and dangerous black market, the risks of gun theft or other unreliable secondary sources when anyone can more or less put down money at a gun shop and walk off with firearms, no questions asked? As for ghost guns, law enforcement agencies across the country have reported that they are increasingly being used in crimes. From 2017 to 2023, the number of ghost guns found at crime scenes skyrocketed from 1,629 to 27,490. With the end of efforts to serialize guns and parts, expect that number to keep rising, frustrating efforts to solve gun-related crimes. The abandonment of this initiative raises a question without an obvious answer: Why would any law-abiding citizen want a gun that cannot be traced? The protection of gun rights has nothing to do with feeding gun-fueled criminality. From America's very earliest days, governmental leaders enacted a wide array of laws to keep guns away from those considered a threat to public safety, including extensive use of gun licensing dating back centuries. The Trump administration now seems bent on rejecting one of our country's longest, oldest and most important legal and political traditions: protecting its citizens from criminality, violence and threats to public safety. Robert J. Spitzer is Distinguished Service Professor emeritus of political science at SUNY Cortland, and an adjunct professor at the College of William and Mary School of Law. He is the author of six books on gun policy, including 'The Gun Dilemma' and the ninth edition of 'The Politics of Gun Control.'
CBS News
2 hours ago
- CBS News
Trump administration asks judge to deny temporary restraining order to halt "Alligator Alcatraz" operations
The Trump administration Thursday argued a federal judge should deny a request to block operation of a detention center in the Everglades for undocumented immigrants, saying Florida has been responsible for the project dubbed "Alligator Alcatraz." U.S. Department of Justice attorneys filed a nine-page document opposing a request by environmental groups for a temporary restraining order to halt operation of the facility. Friends of the Everglades and the Center for Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit last week, accompanied by the request for a temporary restraining order. The Justice Department attorneys said part of the lawsuit involves a federal law known as the Administrative Procedure Act. They said the environmental groups have not met a requirement under the law of showing a "final federal agency action." "DHS (the U.S. Department of Homeland Security) has not implemented, authorized, directed, or funded Florida's temporary detention center," the document said. "Florida is constructing and operating the facility using state funds on state lands under state emergency authority and a preexisting general delegation of federal authority to implement immigration functions. The 'final agency action' that the Administrative Procedure Act requires as a prerequisite to judicial review is entirely absent here." The document added that Florida "has received no federal funds, nor has it applied for federal funds related to the temporary detention center. Courts cannot adjudicate hypothetical future funding decisions or render advisory opinions on contingent scenarios that may never materialize." "Alligator Alcatraz" reportedly beginning to receive detainees The filing came two days after President Donald Trump, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Gov. Ron DeSantis and other federal and state officials gathered at the site to tout the detention center, which has drawn national attention. The Miami Herald reported Thursday morning that the first detainees started arriving at the facility Wednesday night. Friends of the Everglades and the Center for Biological Diversity contend in the lawsuit that the facility should be halted because it threatens environmentally sensitive areas and species in the surrounding Everglades and Big Cypress National Preserve. The state decided to build the facility at the Dade-Collier Training and Transition Airport, a remote site used for flight training. In part, the lawsuit alleges federal and state agencies have violated the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires evaluating potential environmental impacts before such a project can move forward. "In contrast to the significant environmental harms that will result from the construction of a detention center/airport in the middle of a national preserve, and the procedural harm from failing to comply with law requiring an assessment of such harms before proceeding, any harm defendants may shoulder if enjoined would be minimal at best," the motion for a temporary restraining order said. "DHS (the Department of Homeland Security) already has and contracts with multiple detention centers in Florida and across the United States. To the extent that DHS claims to have insufficient capacity to detain people in response to its own initiative to ramp up apprehensions, that lack of planning does not require or justify bypassing federal laws to develop a new facility within a national preserve and next to a national park." Attorneys for the state on Monday filed a 22-page response arguing that U.S. District Judge Jose Martinez should turn down the request for a temporary restraining order. The state has indicated it will seek reimbursement from the federal government for the center's costs. State and federal attorneys contend that the environmental groups have not shown the project would cause "irreparable" harm to the surrounding areas. Also, they have cited the broader effort by the Trump administration and state Republican leaders to crack down on illegal immigration. "Here, the significant national interest in combatting unlawful immigration favors allowing Florida to continue the development and use of its facility," Justice Department attorneys wrote. But in seeking the temporary restraining order, the environmental groups disputed such arguments. "Putting aside whether intractable political gridlock over immigration reform constitutes an 'emergency,' it does not give license to the state and federal governments to simply disregard the laws that govern federal projects affecting environmentally sensitive lands, essential waterways, national parks and preserves, and endangered species," wrote attorneys from the Earthjustice legal organization, the Center for Biological Diversity and the Coffey Burlington law firm. The lawsuit, filed in the federal Southern District of Florida, names as defendants Florida Division of Emergency Management Director Kevin Guthrie; Noem; U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Acting Director Todd Lyons; and Miami-Dade County. The county owns the site, which is also partly in Collier County.
Fox News
3 hours ago
- Fox News
Noncitizens get ‘only limited' due process rights: Conservative legal expert
FIRST ON FOX: Courts have repeatedly stymied President Donald Trump's efforts to quickly remove noncitizens living illegally in the country, but a conservative think tank is warning that the judiciary branch could, at times, be overstepping. The Heritage Foundation's Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at the organization and a former Department of Justice official, detailed in a new memorandum how noncitizens' due process rights are minimal when they are facing deportation. "As provided by Congress and by some court decisions interpreting the Constitution, aliens have only limited due process rights in immigration proceedings," von Spakovsky wrote in the document, reviewed by Fox News Digital in advance of its publishing. The document makes clear that noncitizens, including illegal immigrants, have the same rights as citizens when it comes to criminal proceedings. If a noncitizen has been charged with a crime, that person is entitled to a lawyer just like a citizen would be, for example. But outside of that, the legal processes for noncitizens facing deportation vary widely depending on their circumstances. These cases are often handled in immigration courts rather than federal courts. Heritage's document suggests how due process, a contentious topic at the heart of many of the Trump administration's immigration-related court cases, should apply to noncitizens in various scenarios. "Those rights differ depending on the status of the aliens and whether they are outside the United States and trying to enter this country or are already in the country, either legally or illegally, as well as their visa or other status," von Spakovsky wrote. Immigration law allows for near-immediate deportations in cases where a migrant has crossed into the country illegally but is apprehended within two years. "That alien can be removed without a hearing or any other proceeding," von Spakovsky said. But he added a caveat that has become a major source of frustration among border control advocates: "unless the alien requests asylum or asserts a credible fear of persecution if returned to his or her native country." If a migrant requests asylum, a form of protection for a person who fears they will be persecuted if sent back to their home country, an immigration officer, immigration judge, the Board of Immigration Appeals, and even the federal circuits and Supreme Court could all end up having a say in that migrants' case before their asylum claim is fully vetted. Critics of the asylum system say it has been roundly abused and that migrants making bogus asylum claims is common practice and allows migrants to be released into the country and drop off the government's radar. That concern came to a head on Wednesday, when a federal judge in Washington, D.C., issued a 124-page order blocking the administration from severely limiting asylum claims. The judge said Trump attempted a "wholesale rewriting" of immigration laws. Attorney General Pam Bondi has signaled an appeal is imminent. The Heritage Foundation has been a presence in Republican politics for decades and has significant influence over government policy. The organization spearheaded Project 2025, a controversial playbook designed for Trump to use as a blueprint for his second term. Heritage's new memorandum comes as due process has become the bane of the administration as it attempts to deliver on Trump's vows to deport all illegal immigrants. Stephen Miller, Trump's immigration adviser and White House deputy chief of staff, has been railing against the courts and immigration rights groups, who he claims have overplayed their hand and are illegally derailing Trump's agenda. "The only process illegals are due is deportation," Miller wrote online in May. The topic has cropped up in numerous heated, high-profile court cases, many of which remain pending. Kilmar Abrego Garcia alleged he was wrongly deported to El Salvador despite an immigration judge forbidding it. A group of deportees bound for Sudan, but held up in inhumane conditions in Djibouti, argued in court that they got no due process. And numerous men deported under the Alien Enemies Act to a Salvadoran megaprison have claimed in courts that they were not afforded a chance to contest their removal. Von Spakovsky indicated that the Supreme Court would ultimately continue to decide where lower courts were, or were not, overstepping. "Federal courts that assume jurisdiction over banned, prohibited, or limited claims by aliens are violating federal law, and the Supreme Court should tell them so," he wrote. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that the Constitution extends due process to anyone on U.S. soil, but illegal immigrants do not have the same rights as citizens to it. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed noncitizens are entitled to some form of due process. "It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in deportation proceedings," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in Reno v. Flores in 1993. In an order in April, the Supreme Court cited Scalia's words when it directed the Trump administration to give "reasonable" notice to the alleged transnational gang members at risk of being deported under the Alien Enemies Act. The high court said those who are subject to the Alien Enemies Act must be given a chance to "seek habeas relief" before they are deported. Habeas corpus petitions are a form of legal recourse for those who believe they have been wrongly detained.
