The Trump administration made a decisive move, agreeing to permit the sales and possession of devices that allow gun enthusiasts to modify semiautomatic rifles to fire at speeds akin to machine guns. This was captured in a settlement revealed by the Department of Justice that addressed lawsuits arising from what some might call an overreach by the administration led by Joe Biden, the Democrat predecessor of Donald Trump. Biden’s administration had prohibited certain ‘forced-reset triggers.’
‘The Department of Justice holds that the 2nd Amendment is not to be downplayed,’ said Attorney General Pamela Bondi, referencing the constitutionally protected right to bear arms. ‘We are pleased to put an end to an unnecessary, litigation-causing cycle with a settlement that actually strengthens public safety.’
One Vanessa Gonzalez, who is the vice president of government and political affairs at the Giffords – a control group – voiced her disapproval and conceded, ‘the Trump administration has actually made machine guns legal.’ She goes as far as to say, ‘Lives will be lost due to these actions.’
In 2022, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives announced to firearms licensees that, upon review, some devices fell under the category of illegal machine guns, as deemed by the National Firearms Act. This development saw the DOJ instigate a legal case against a New York company, Rare Breed Triggers, that was manufacturing and distributing these devices on a nationwide scale. This litigation subsequently led to a court order that barred the company from continuing their sales.
In an attempt to curb the sales of such devices, the Biden administration referenced the regularity of AR-15-style semiautomatic firearm usage in nationally occurring mass shootings. As this New York case was in progress, the National Association for Gun Rights challenged the ban imposed in the Biden era by filing a suit in Texas. This resulted in a judge ruling that the ban was illegitimate, leading to the ban’s enforcement being successfully suppressed.
The settlement agreed upon by the Trump administration conclusively settled these lawsuits, which were still in the stages of appeal. All suppressed forced-reset triggers that the government had seized or collected were agreed to be returned to the possession of their rightful owners. It was also determined that the Trump administration would not apply the machine gun ban to these devices, granted they are not designed for use with handguns.
Encapsulating the victory, Dudley Brown, who is the president of the National Association for Gun Rights, referenced a statement. He pointed out, ‘This decision indicates a fresh chapter of ensuring the DOJ and ATF are held accountable whenever they infringe on the rights of lawful gun owners.’
Given the Biden administration’s previous efforts to control these devices, the move by the Trump administration can only be seen as a much-needed win for advocates of the Second Amendment. They may perhaps see these steps as corrective measures against the intrusive bans put in place by Biden and his team.
In context, the Biden administration’s focused action on practices related to semiautomatic firearms comes across as a questionable policing of American constitutional rights. The administration’s citing of frequently occurring mass shootings as rationale for the ban seems to many as an undue generalization, particularly given the many law-abiding gun owners who responsibly exercise their Second Amendment rights daily.
On the other hand, it’s ironic that Biden, who serves a country under a Constitution that clearly supports the right to bear arms, would impose a ban that seems to contradict this very ethos. The court ruling in Texas that labelled the Biden-era ban as ‘unlawful’ not only punctuates this irony but also underscores the legal overreach attempted by his administration.
Furthermore, the sweeping assumptions made by the Biden administration in their unsuccessful attempts to ban these ‘forced-reset triggers’ seem dismissive of the numerous responsible gun owners nationwide. They appear to lump all owners and users of such firearms into a problematic category, ignoring the nuances and responsibilities that come with gun ownership.
Perspectives such as those voiced by Vanessa Gonzalez of Giffords demonstrate the rather negative and shortsighted view held by some. Their stance assumes the worst without considering the potential benefits and safety measures enhanced through legal ownership, responsible use of firearms, and efficient self-defence mechanisms.
Despite the opposition, the Trump administration’s decision to return seized ‘forced-reset triggers’ to their rightful owners represents a restoration of the faith that some American citizens hold in the justice system. It’s a clear motif that bureaucratic interference is unwelcome in cases where law-abiding citizens simply exercise their constitutional rights responsibly.
Bearing all these in mind, it becomes apparent that the Trump administration’s stance appears to be more balanced. Instead of completely banning these devices, the administration seeks to regulate, by not applying the machine gun law to the ‘forced-reset triggers’ as long as they aren’t designed for use with handguns. This strategic move ensures that the rights of responsible gun owners are respected, while potential misuse is restricted.
The comments by Dudley Brown, president of the National Association for Gun Rights, encapsulate the sentiment of many who feel their rights had been trampled by the Department of Justice and ATF under the Biden administration. Brown’s statement underscores the broader feeling of vindication and the belief that this victory marks the beginning of an era where excessive bureaucratic power is checked.
The post Biden’s Ineffective Ban on ‘Forced-Reset Triggers’ Overruled appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
