On Jan. 16, Oregon joined more than a dozen other states in defending two lawsuits against the federal government that seek to overturn gun regulations implemented during the Biden administration.
The move preceded Donald J. Trump’s inauguration as President on Jan. 20. During his campaign, Trump vowed to undo all federal gun regulations enacted during the Biden administration.
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 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.
Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield said the actions taken by Oregon and other states are proactive steps that aim to protect the federal gun regulations if the Trump administration abandons the defense of the two lawsuits.
“I am proud to join (the effort) to defend the modest gains our federal government has made on gun safety,” Rayfield said in a statement. “Community safety is one of my top priorities, and I will continue to do everything in my power as Attorney General to protect Oregonians from gun violence.”
The two federal lawsuits unfold as Measure 114, an Oregon gun control measure, remains stalled in court. The measure, which voters narrowly passed in 2022, would require a firearm safety course and a permit to purchase a firearm in Oregon. It also would ban the sale or transfer of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds and end the “Charleston Loophole,” which allows firearm dealers to release a firearm to a buyer after three days if their background check has not cleared.
“We applaud the Oregon Attorney General in defending policies that can save lives and keep our communities safe,” Alliance for a Safe Oregon Executive Director Jess Marks said.
Oregon Firearms Federation Director Kevin Starrett called the three lawsuits Oregon is defending in court a waste of taxpayer money.
“(Rayfield) has no idea what he is up against and will continue to spend millions of Oregonian’s dollars to promote an agenda,” Starrett said.
Dr. Kathleen Carlson is the director of Oregon Health and Sciences University’s Gun Violence Prevention Research Center. She studies the epidemiology of gun violence.
“The more prevention mechanisms we have in place, the fewer deaths we see. Science supports that,” Carlson said.
The lawsuits follow a recent federal court case that saw 40-year-old Springfield resident Andrew Rogers sentenced to six years in federal prison for illegally manufacturing more than 100 semi-automatic firearms and silencers. Prosecutors said that investigators found a 3D printer with a partially printed part for an AR-15 rifle in Roger’s possession.
“In 2023, the Oregon Legislature passed House Bill 2005, which prohibits the sale, manufacture and possession of unserialized guns or gun parts … (Prior) cases like Andrew Rogers’ motivated this change and show how important meaningful gun violence prevention laws are,” Marks said.
Marks said that the law has helped law enforcement keep ghost guns off the streets but stressed the need for more work to stop illegal firearms from entering communities.
Oregon State Shooting Association President Kerry Spurgin commented on the issue of background checks in relation to the two federal lawsuits, stressing that responsible gun owners back background checks.
“I don’t have a problem with background checks,” Spurgin said. “Background checks were bought by responsible gun owners.”
Spurgin also addressed the Roger case, emphasizing the importance of legal compliance among responsible gun owners.
“As responsible gun owners, we follow the law. In the Springfield case, laws were broken, and the ATF caught and prosecuted (Rogers),” Spurgin said.
On Feb. 7, Trump issued an executive order that aims to protect Second Amendment rights. As part of the order, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi was directed to review all federal agency actions that may infringe on Second Amendment rights and present a proposed plan of action to Trump within 30 days.
It is not clear yet whether the federal government will stop defending the two federal lawsuits as part of Bondi’s plan of action. Court records still list the ATF as a defendant in both cases.
