Earlier this year, Oregon joined other states in a handful of lawsuits that seek to defend Biden-era gun control actions undertaken by the ATF.
That’s not overly surprising because, well, it’s Oregon. This is a state where someone actually thought they could limit handguns to just five rounds and it would fly. The idea that they’d bad Biden’s play is about as shocking as David Hogg saying something stupid.
But when you look at the lawsuits, it’s fun to realize how Oregon taxpayer money is going down the toilet on doomed lawsuits.
One of the lawsuits Oregon joined as a defendant concerns the classification of forced reset triggers as machine guns under federal law. A forced reset trigger is a modification that increases the rate of fire in semi-automatic firearms.
In 2021, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives under the Biden administration classified forced reset triggers as machine guns. This effectively banned the use of the triggers under federal law until a federal judge ruled in July 2024 that forced reset triggers do not qualify as machine guns, denying the Biden administration’s request for a summary judgment. The Biden administration later appealed that decision.
In court filings, the states argue that forced reset triggers should be classified as machine guns because the device allows a person to automatically shoot more than one shot without manually reloading. The states also argue the decision by a federal judge not to classify forced reset triggers as machine guns threatens public safety. They say that without federal law enforcement enforcing the ban, the states would incur higher costs to enforce and implement state laws.
The problem with this argument is that “without manual reloading” is basically any semi-automatic firearm in the world. That’s kind of the definition.
The National Firearms Act, on the other hand, defines a machine gun as any firearm capable of firing more than one round with a single pull of the trigger. This is why the bump stock ban was overturned. The bump stocks didn’t facilitate that kind of shooting, it just made it possible to pull that trigger faster.
Forced reset triggers do basically the same thing. They just make it possible to pull the trigger faster. Only one round is fired with each pull.
The Supreme Court basically already ruled on this is Cargill, so I don’t see how this one will pan out any better, even if the device in question does it in a different way.
The second case that Oregon joined as a defendant centers around another rule enacted during the Biden administration that requires anyone selling firearms to undergo background checks. The ATF enacted the rule following the passage of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act in 2022. The rule aims to close the “gun show loophole” by requiring private sellers to perform background checks, ensuring that every firearm transaction is subject to the same background process performed by licensed firearm dealers.
Except that this move was by redefining “engaged in the business” to mean something so vague that people will conduct firearm sales through an FFL just to avoid being prosecuted for nothing.
That’s an overstep that will likely be overturned by the courts or, at the very least, be reversed by the new ATF director or attorney general. This isn’t popular with the current administration, after all, which means that it’s entirely likely the ATF will step in and go, “Yep. This is an overreach. It should totally be overturned,” which will make it harder for states like Oregon to justify a restriction that the restricting agency says is unconstitutional.
The fact that this story popped up now is simply because the reporter just wanted to make lawmakers look good for trying to get into this on the national stage. Most journalists hate gun rights and they’ll do anything they can to try and make gun control look good. They’ll celebrate those pushing to restrict our rights.
But I want the people of Oregon to understand just how little their tax dollars are accomplishing.
Read the full article here
