Maryland, New Jersey, Delaware AGs to share update on federal firearm cases
The attorneys general for Maryland, New Jersey and Delaware will share an update Monday morning on federal firearm cases.
The updates come after a June 6 Supreme Court decision that upheld a Maryland law prohibiting convicted felons from purchasing firearms.
In applauding the law, Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown committed to upholding laws that protect the safety of residents.
"The decision by Maryland's highest court keeps our communities safe," Brown said in a statement. "It makes clear that Maryland can continue to keep firearms out of the hands of individuals with serious criminal records - a policy consistent with common sense, our Constitution, and our commitment to reducing gun violence."
Supreme Court upholds Maryland assault weapons ban
On June 2, the Supreme Court declined a challenge to Maryland's ban on assault weapons.
The Supreme Court rejected the challenge in 2024, as a federal appeals court had yet to rule on it. However, an appeals court found that assault weapons should be banned as they are not protected under the Second Amendment.
Though the high court has yet to decide if some assault weapons are protected under the Second Amendment, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said the issue is being deliberated by other federal appeals courts.
According to Kavanaugh, the federal rulings should help the Supreme Court in its decision.
Supreme Court blocks Mexico firearm lawsuit
On June 5, the Supreme Court blocked a lawsuit from Mexico against major gun manufacturers in the U.S.
The unanimous decision prevented the Mexican government's effort to hold gun makers accountable for violence from drug cartels.
In its argument, the Mexican government said gun makers are aiding in the unlawful sale of firearms to traffickers who take them across the border.
In a similar move, Maryland and Baltimore sued gun manufacturer Glock in February, alleging the company violated the state's Gun Industry Accountability Act.
The lawsuit alleged that Glock contributed to the gun violence crisis by promoting the use of switches, a device that converts a pistol into a machine gun.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
15 minutes ago
- CBS News
Maryland, New Jersey, Delaware, Colorado sue Trump administration over plan to distribute machine gun converters
Maryland, New Jersey and Delaware joined a multi-state lawsuit against the Trump administration to prevent it from distributing devices that allow semi-automatic weapons to be converted into machine guns. The lawsuit stems from a May 16 settlement agreement between the Trump administration and Rare Breed Triggers, a company that manufactures devices known as forced reset triggers. The lawsuit also includes Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Washington, D.C. What are forced reset triggers? Forced Reset Triggers, or FRTs, are aftermarket triggers that enable semi-automatic guns to fire as fast as fully automatic weapons. In 2022, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) ordered the company to halt sales and declared that FRTs would be considered machine guns under federal law, which consequently made them subject to tighter restrictions. Rare Breed Triggers disputed the ATF's stance and continued selling its FRTs, leading the federal government to file a lawsuit against the company in 2023. At the same time, the National Association for Gun Rights sued the ATF in federal court in Texas, challenging its classification of the FRT-15 as a machine gun. The May 16 settlement ended the litigation between the U.S. government and Rare Breed Triggers. "The Department's agreement with Rare Breed Triggers avoids the need for continued appeals in United States v. Rare Breed Triggers and continued litigation in other, related cases concerning the same issue," an announcement by the Department of Justice read. Under the lawsuit, ATF can stop enforcing the law against FRTs and can redistribute the devices previously seized by the agency. "Forced reset triggers turn semi-automatic firearms into weapons of war capable of inflicting devastating impacts on Maryland communities," said AG Brown. "The Trump administration's decision to send these previously seized firearms back to Maryland, where they are illegal, makes our neighbors and children more vulnerable to mass shootings." Suing over forced reset triggers With the lawsuit announced Monday, the states hope to prevent FRTs from being redistributed. "We're seeking a preliminary injunction to block the redistribution of forced reset triggers into our states," New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin said Monday morning. "This is just part of what we're doing in New Jersey and in the states we're representing to reduce gun violence." Delaware Attorney General Kathy Jennings said the state banned rapid-fire devices in 2022. Maryland criminal law also bans rapid-fire activators. "These devices enable firearms to fire up to 900 bullets per minute," Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown said. "The increased rate of fire allows carnage and chaos to reign on the streets. Everyone nearby becomes vulnerable to serious injury or death." Maryland sues gun manufacturer over machine gun converter In a similar move, Maryland and Baltimore sued gun manufacturer Glock in February, alleging the company violated the state's Gun Industry Accountability Act. The lawsuit alleged that Glock contributed to the gun violence crisis by promoting the use of switches, a device that converts a pistol into a machine gun. During the Maryland General Assembly, lawmakers proposed a bill banning a list of weapons that can be converted from semi-automatic weapons to fully automatic using an attachment referred to as an auto-sear, or "switch." Just last week, Baltimore Police arrested a group of teens who they said had multiple guns and ammunition, along with an auto-sear attachment.
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
New Trump travel ban takes effect
President Trump's travel ban targeting a dozen countries went into effect on Monday, the latest step by the White House to crack down on the number of individuals entering the U.S. The new policy fully restricts the entry into the United States of nationals from Afghanistan, Chad, the Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Myanmar, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. It also partially restricts entry into the U.S. for nationals coming from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela. The policy makes exceptions for nationals from all 19 of those countries who are lawful permanent residents of the United States or existing visa holders and individuals 'whose entry serves U.S. national interests.' The travel ban is taking effect amid rising tensions in Los Angeles around immigration raids in the city. Trump and White House officials have argued the travel restrictions are based on national security concerns, specifically with vetting procedures involving the listed countries. Trump's attempts to restrict entry into the United States from certain Muslim-majority countries in his first term drew legal challenges and protests at airports across the country. This time around, experts have suggested he is likely on firmer legal footing in part because of a Supreme Court ruling that upheld the third version of his first-term ban and in part because the administration laid the groundwork with an executive order focused on enhanced vetting. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Rep. Mary Miller's complaints about a Sikh guest chaplain reveal a startling ignorance
Republican Rep. Mary Miller of Illinois has an unfortunate track record when it comes to respect for minority communities. At a rally for Donald Trump in 2020, for example, the GOP congresswoman credited the president for the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade, calling it a 'victory for white life.' Her team insisted that she'd simply misread a prepared text — Miller apparently meant to say 'right to life' instead of 'white life' — though the same Illinois Republican, a year later, was forced to apologize for approvingly quoting Adolf Hitler. Last week, the congresswoman added to her list of ugly and offensive comments. The Hill reported: Rep. Mary Miller (R-Ill.) said it was 'deeply disturbing' that a Sikh delivered a prayer in the House chamber on Friday — after apparently mistaking him for a Muslim man. The since-deleted post Friday morning sparked immediate bipartisan criticism. The trouble apparently began when Miller saw Giani Surinder Singh of the Gurdwara South Jersey Sikh Society serve as a guest chaplain on the U.S. House floor and deliver an invocation. For those unfamiliar with Capitol Hill, this is quite common: Faith leaders from different religious backgrounds and different parts of the country are routinely welcomed to serve as guest chaplains. Miller, however, apparently wasn't pleased. 'It's deeply troubling that a Muslim was allowed to lead prayer in the House of Representatives this morning. This should never have been allowed to happen,' the three-term GOP lawmaker wrote online. 'America was founded as a Christian nation, and I believe our government should reflect that truth, not drift further from it. May God have mercy!' It's not easy for a politician to squeeze so much ignorance into a single tweet, but Miller managed to pull it off. She then proceeded to delete her missive, not because it was offensive, but because she got the chaplain's faith tradition wrong. Miller then republished the same tweet, repeating the same complaint, this time swapping out the word 'Muslim' for 'Sikh.' When this generated bipartisan criticisms, she deleted the second tweet, too. At this point, I could spend several paragraphs explaining the differences between Muslims and Sikhs, followed by a few more paragraphs about how absurd it is to think that the secular U.S. Constitution, which guarantees religious freedom for all, created 'a Christian nation.' But as important as those details are, I was also struck by Miller's unexpected candor. Sometimes, conservatives suggest their religion should get preferential treatment over other faith traditions, First Amendment be damned. But Miller didn't bother with hints: She came right out and made this point explicitly. If Miller wants to argue that Congress shouldn't bring any religious leaders in for these official ceremonies, there would at least be room for that conversation as it relates to the separation of church and state. But that's clearly not what she argued in her since-deleted items: The Illinois Republican is fine with congressional invocations, so long religions she likes are favored over religions she dislikes. It is as antithetical to the principles of religious liberty in the United States as anything any member of Congress has said in quite a while. This article was originally published on
