Latest news with #2ndAmendment
Yahoo
10-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
WA joins 15 states suing over deregulation of rapid-fire gun devices
This story was originally published on 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.
Yahoo
10-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Washington sues federal government to block distribution of forced reset triggers
Jun. 9—Washington has joined 14 other states and the District of Columbia in challenging a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives plan to return seized "forced reset triggers," a device the Washington Attorney General's office says allows novice shooters to "achieve the firepower of a military machine gun." "Communities are less safe with these mass-shooting devices in circulation," Washington Attorney General Nick Brown said in a statement Monday. "Essentially deregulating them is another example of (the Trump Administration) being driven by extreme ideology rather than commonsense." The lawsuit follows a settlement by the Department of Justice, which announced in May it would resolve a case that challenged the ATF designation of the device as "machine guns." "This Department of Justice believes that the 2nd Amendment is not a second-class right," Attorney General Pamela Bondi said in a statement announcing the settlement. "And we are glad to end a needless cycle of litigation with a settlement that will enhance public safety." The device allows an operator to fire their weapon in quicker succession by mechanically resetting the trigger after each shot. Washington law bans machine guns, as well as any "mechanism or instrument" that does not require the trigger to be pulled for each shot. Federal law similarly bans the possession of machine guns. According to the complaint, at least 100,000 of the devices have been sold throughout the country. "A forced reset trigger uses a spring assist in shoving the trigger shoe back forward, resetting the trigger," said Jeremy Ball, owner of Sharpshooting Indoor Range and Gun Shop. "A forced reset trigger does not change the mechanical makeup of a gun; all it does is assist the shooter in resetting the trigger." Ball added that while the device still requires the user to pull the trigger, it takes less effort and skill to fire the weapon more quickly. Still, Ball said the device has limitations. "Anytime we're talking about shooting a gun fast, the only thing that matters is whether you're able or not to hold that gun on a target," Ball said. Forced Reset Triggers have been at the center of several legal battles in recent years amid an increase in machine gun fire incidents. In 2022, ATF determined that some of the devices would be classified as machine guns under the National Firearms Act, making them illegal to own. According to the Washington Attorney General's office, ATF seized "thousands" of the devices following the designation. The Department of Justice then filed a lawsuit against Rare Breed Triggers, which produced and sold the devices online. Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that ATF had exceeded its authority by designating bump stocks, which allows a shooter to fire a gun more rapidly by using the weapon's recoil to bump the trigger, as a machine gun. A federal judge in Texas cited that ruling, finding similarly that the agency could not designate forced reset triggers as a machine gun. As part of the settlement with the Justice Department, Rare Breed cannot develop or design forced reset triggers for use in any pistol and will enforce its patents to prevent infringement. Rare Breed also agrees to promote the safe and responsible use of its products. In May, the U.S. Attorney General's Office noted the settlement is in alignment with President Donald Trump's "Executive Order Protecting Second Amendment Rights" and the "Attorney General's Second Amendment Enforcement Task Force." The lawsuit brought by Washington alleges the settlement violates a federal prohibition on owning a machine gun and seeks a preliminary injunction to prevent the Trump administration from distributing the seized devices. According to the Washington Attorney General's Office, machine gun conversion devices allow firearms to shoot up to 20 bullets in one second. Use of the devices has increased in recent years, with machine gun fire incidents up 1,400% from 2019 through 2021, according to ShotSpotter, Inc., which has placed acoustic sensors in about 130 U.S. cities. Ball said while he doesn't "necessarily have a dog in the fight or care" about the disagreement regarding forced reset triggers, a rise in the usage of "Glock switches" is a reason for concern. The small, mostly 3-D-printed devices can be attached to the end of a firearm and transform a semi-automatic pistol into a fully-automatic weapon. "That is a device that legitimately turns a firearm into a machine gun," Ball said. In September, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts seized 350 internet domains that were used to illegally import the switches and silencers from China. Between Jan. 1 and Dec. 31 of last year, U.S. Customs and Border Protection in Chicago alone seized more than 1,500 of the devices, according to the agency.
Yahoo
02-06-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Supreme Court declines to examine appeals over Maryland, Rhode Island gun control laws
The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear two cases challenging separate state bans on so-called assault weapons and high-capacity magazines on Monday. The court declined to hear cases arising out of Maryland and Rhode Island relating to state regulations on AR-15-style rifles and high-capacity magazines, respectively. The cases had been submitted to the Supreme Court after lower courts upheld the bans in the face of challenges. Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch disagreed with the majority's decision and said they would have liked to have reviewed the cases. With respect to the Maryland ban, the Supreme Court's decision upholds the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling, which states that authority to ban AR-15-style rifles is consistent with the 2nd Amendment. Trump Denounces Court's 'Political' Tariff Decision, Calls On Supreme Court To Act Quickly The 4th Circuit argued in its ruling that granting AR-15s constitutional protection based on their common use would mean that any dangerous weapon "could gain constitutional protection merely because it becomes popular before the government can sufficiently regulate it." Read On The Fox News App Trump Administration Asks Supreme Court To Review El Salvador Deportation Flight Case Lawyers arguing against the ban claimed the Supreme Court had a duty to "ensure that the Second Amendment itself is not truncated into a limited right to own certain state-approved means of personal self-defense." While the court declined to take up the issue in this case, Justice Brett Kavanaugh stated that, "In my view, this Court should and presumably will address the AR-15 issue soon." Thomas, one of the three justices who sought to review the Maryland case now, was more blunt in his dissent. "I would not wait to decide whether the government can ban the most popular rifle in America," Thomas wrote. "That question is of critical importance to tens of millions of law-abiding AR-15 owners throughout the country." The gun cases come as the Supreme Court has been inundated with challenges to President Donald Trump's agenda, from his economic and regulatory policies to his anti-illegal immigration efforts. The Supreme Court is expected to hand down rulings relating to several of these topics in the coming article source: Supreme Court declines to examine appeals over Maryland, Rhode Island gun control laws
Yahoo
02-06-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Supreme Court turns away a 2nd Amendment challenge to blue-state bans on assault weapons
A closely divided Supreme Court refused Monday to hear a 2nd Amendment challenge to the bans on semi-automatic rifles in Maryland, California and eight other blue states. Gun rights advocates say these AR-15s are owned by millions of Americans, and they argue the 2nd Amendment protects weapons that are "in common use by law-abiding citizens." But they fell one vote short of winning a hearing on the question before the Supreme Court. Three conservatives — Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito and Neil M. Gorsuch — voted to hear the 2nd Amendment challenge. But Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh refused for now to cast the key fourth vote. He called the lower court ruling upholding Maryland's ban "questionable," but agreed with the majority in turning down the appeal for now. "In my view, this court should and presumably will address the AR–15 issue soon, in the next Term or two," Kavanaugh said. The closely watched appeal had been pending since December, and the outcome suggests that the majority, including Chief Justice John G. Roberts, is not ready to strike down state laws that restrict semi-automatic guns. Monday's no-comment orders let stands law in Maryland and Rhode Island that forbid the sale or possession of "assault weapons" and large-capacity magazines. California adopted the nation's first ban on assault weapons in 1989. Since then, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Washington have enacted similar laws, all of which would have been struck down if Maryland's law were ruled unconstitutional. Lawmakers in California and nine other Democratic-led states say these rapid-fire weapons are especially dangerous and not needed for self-defense. Read more: Supreme Court rejects gun rights for people accused of domestic violence Maryland said its ban applies to "certain highly dangerous, military-style assault weapons of the sort used in a series of highly publicized mass shootings." The case tested the reach of the 2nd Amendment and its "right to keep and bear arms." For more than a decade, the justices have turned away gun-rights appeals that challenged local or state bans on assault weapons. In 2008, the court ruled for the first time that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to self-defense, but its constitutional rulings since then have been modest in their impact. The justices struck down city ordinances in Washington and Chicago laws that prohibited private possession of handguns, and they ruled states may not deny law-abiding citizens a permit to carry a concealed weapon. In opinion polls, most Americans are opposed to a ban on handgun possession but they support a ban on semi-automatic assault rifles. Maryland passed its ban on "assault weapons" after the mass shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, where 20 children and six school employees were killed. The law was upheld last year in an opinion written by a prominent conservative judge. Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, a Reagan appointee who was a finalist for a Supreme Court nomination in 2005, said the AR-15, AK-47 and similar rapid-fire rifles are not protected by the 2nd Amendment. "They are military-style weapons designed for sustained combat operations that are ill-suited and disproportionate to the need for self-defense," he wrote in a 9-5 decision by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. "We decline to wield the Constitution to declare that military-style armaments which have become primary instruments of mass killing and terrorist attacks in the United States are beyond the reach of our nation's democratic processes." Read more: Gun control laws in California may be challenged as Supreme Court expands the 2nd Amendment The dissenters said the 2nd Amendment protects the right to the "arms" that are in common use. "Today, the AR-15 and its variants are one of the most popular and widely owned firearms in the Nation," wrote Judge Julius Richardson, a Trump appointee. "As of 2021, there are at least 28 million AR-style semiautomatic rifles in circulation. For context, this means that there are more AR-style rifles in the civilian market than there are Ford F-Series pickup trucks on the road — the most popular truck in America." Three years ago, the court said in an opinion by Thomas that the 2nd Amendment should be interpreted based on the nation's history and tradition of gun regulations. However, the two sides in the Maryland case differed on what to glean from that history. Gun-rights advocates said there was no early history of laws banning common firearms. But some judges and state lawyers said the history shows that when new dangers arose—including stored gun powder, dynamite and machine guns—new restrictions were written into law. If so, that would support new laws adopted in response to the danger posed by rapid-fire weapons. The justices denied review in the case of Snope vs. Brown in the fall. Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter. Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond, in your inbox twice per week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
02-06-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Supreme Court turns away a 2nd Amendment challenge to blue-state bans on assault weapons
WASHINGTON — A closely divided Supreme Court refused Monday to hear a 2nd Amendment challenge to the bans on semi-automatic rifles in Maryland, California and eight other blue states. Gun rights advocates say these AR-15s are owned by millions of Americans, and they argue the 2nd Amendment protects weapons that are 'in common use by law-abiding citizens.' But they fell one vote short of winning a hearing on the question before the Supreme Court. Three conservatives — Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito and Neil M. Gorsuch — voted to hear the 2nd Amendment challenge. But Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh refused for now to cast the key fourth vote. He called the lower court ruling upholding Maryland's ban 'questionable,' but agreed with the majority in turning down the appeal for now. 'In my view, this court should and presumably will address the AR–15 issue soon, in the next Term or two,' Kavanaugh said. The closely watched appeal had been pending since December, and the outcome suggests that the majority, including Chief Justice John G. Roberts, is not ready to strike down state laws that restrict semi-automatic guns. Monday's no-comment orders let stands law in Maryland and Rhode Island that forbid the sale or possession of 'assault weapons' and large-capacity magazines. California adopted the nation's first ban on assault weapons in 1989. Since then, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Washington have enacted similar laws, all of which would have been struck down if Maryland's law were ruled unconstitutional. Lawmakers in California and nine other Democratic-led states say these rapid-fire weapons are especially dangerous and not needed for self-defense. Maryland said its ban applies to 'certain highly dangerous, military-style assault weapons of the sort used in a series of highly publicized mass shootings.' The case tested the reach of the 2nd Amendment and its 'right to keep and bear arms.' For more than a decade, the justices have turned away gun-rights appeals that challenged local or state bans on assault weapons. In 2008, the court ruled for the first time that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to self-defense, but its constitutional rulings since then have been modest in their impact. The justices struck down city ordinances in Washington and Chicago laws that prohibited private possession of handguns, and they ruled states may not deny law-abiding citizens a permit to carry a concealed weapon. In opinion polls, most Americans are opposed to a ban on handgun possession but they support a ban on semi-automatic assault rifles. Maryland passed its ban on 'assault weapons' after the mass shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, where 20 children and six school employees were killed. The law was upheld last year in an opinion written by a prominent conservative judge. Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, a Reagan appointee who was a finalist for a Supreme Court nomination in 2005, said the AR-15, AK-47 and similar rapid-fire rifles are not protected by the 2nd Amendment. 'They are military-style weapons designed for sustained combat operations that are ill-suited and disproportionate to the need for self-defense,' he wrote in a 9-5 decision by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. 'We decline to wield the Constitution to declare that military-style armaments which have become primary instruments of mass killing and terrorist attacks in the United States are beyond the reach of our nation's democratic processes.' The dissenters said the 2nd Amendment protects the right to the 'arms' that are in common use. 'Today, the AR-15 and its variants are one of the most popular and widely owned firearms in the Nation,' wrote Judge Julius Richardson, a Trump appointee. 'As of 2021, there are at least 28 million AR-style semiautomatic rifles in circulation. For context, this means that there are more AR-style rifles in the civilian market than there are Ford F-Series pickup trucks on the road — the most popular truck in America.' Three years ago, the court said in an opinion by Thomas that the 2nd Amendment should be interpreted based on the nation's history and tradition of gun regulations. However, the two sides in the Maryland case differed on what to glean from that history. Gun-rights advocates said there was no early history of laws banning common firearms. But some judges and state lawyers said the history shows that when new dangers arose—including stored gun powder, dynamite and machine guns—new restrictions were written into law. If so, that would support new laws adopted in response to the danger posed by rapid-fire weapons. The justices denied review in the case of Snope vs. Brown in the fall.
