Washington AG sues Trump over gun modifications—and a pro-gun bishop backs the fight

By Morgen White | FāVS News Reporter

In a press release on June 9 from the office of Attorney General Nick Brown, Washington joined 15 other states in suing the Trump Administration and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). 

But for one Eastern Oregon bishop who grew up in Washington’s gun culture, this legal battle represents something deeper than Second Amendment politics.

Bishop Pat Bell oversees the Episcopal Diocese of Eastern Oregon, which encompasses 69,000 square miles. He’s one of over 100 bishops who are a part of Bishops Against Gun Violence — a coalition that supports common sense gun safety measures that enjoy the support of gun owners and non-gun owners alike.

Bell grew up near Rockford, Washington, on a farm, and he has been in and around the gun community his whole life.

“I grew up shooting, hunting and plinking. It was just a normal habit if us farm boys ever had a weekend off in the spring that we could go out,” Bell said.

Bell is still a gun owner today with a number of rifles, and while he did own handguns in the past, he doesn’t now.

“It’s part of our culture. But the issue is not around gun ownership. It might be around the types of guns. I think the distinction for us as bishops against gun violence is reducing both the weaponry that really inflicts the greatest harm and the use of those weapons,” Bell said.

Bell’s high school back in the day was Freeman High School. The school had a shooting in 2017 resulting in the death of a student. He points to that as part of his motivation to join Bishops Against Gun Violence.

Bell has been ordained for 51 years and believes what we are witnessing in America is an epidemic of gun violence.

“My faith has matured, deepened, become enriched, to recognize that I see Jesus as a pacifist, and even stepping into his life where he knew there was going to be violence. He preached restraint, he preached peace, he preached reconciliation, he preached turning the other cheek, even when you are challenged,” Bell said. “Certainly some people might call him meek. I would call him much stronger because of that. And if we are to call ourselves followers of Jesus, then I think we need to adopt that same attitude of reverence for all life, whether it’s human life or animal life or plant life, insect life, whatever life.”

This legal struggle dates back to the Biden Administration when the ATF formally determined forced reset triggers (FRTs), like those sold by Rare Breed Triggers, can change certain firearms from semi-automatic rifles to nearly automatic rifles. In July 2021, the ATF stated that Rare Breed Triggers must stop the sale of those triggers. When they did not comply, in 2022, the ATF began seizing them. 

Soon after he took office, Trump signed an executive order titled “Protecting Second Amendment Rights.” Then, on May 16 the Department of Justice announced that three court cases were settled under a related agreement, which included the return of all seized devices. 

“Our intention is to make the administration follow the rule of law and reverse this reckless decision to make these mass-shooting devices more available. FRT-enabled firearms are virtually indistinguishable from fully-automatic firearms because by holding the trigger back in a firing position, a gun with an FRT continuously fires at fully automatic speed. The argument that FRT-enabled guns are not ‘automatic’ because the internal workings between an AR-15 with an FRT and an M16 with an auto-sear are slightly different ignores the functional equivalence between these firearms,” Brown’s office said. 

Gun community pushback

Jeremy Ball, president and owner at Sharp Shooting Indoor Range & Gun Shop in Spokane considers the Washington AG’s office to be dishonest and uneducated in their claims and believes that their intent is to stoke fear in their voters. He says that FRT triggers do not make guns fully-automatic as those weapons shoot more than one round for every trigger press. 

“All an FRT trigger does is what it says. Forced reset of the trigger. It uses a mechanism to push the trigger back to reset so it can be pulled again. Every semi-auto firearm on earth will automatically reset the trigger as part of the function of the firearm. When the AG’s office uses the term ’functional equivalence’ they are acknowledging that they are in fact different from machine guns, but they realize that they are still not satisfied with the restrictions that they have already passed,” Ball said. 

Dave Workman — editor-in-chief for the Gunmag, a publication from Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) — agrees that FRTs are being inaccurately labeled in the suit.

“I consider there to be a fairly good deal of misinformation floating around out there, but I’m a certified firearms instructor. When I’m not pounding the keyboard, I like to hunt. Been a competitive shooter, off and on for years, and I know the gun community. I understand that they’re a diverse community, but they have a connection with their Second Amendment rights. And Washington State’s Constitution has a right to bear arms provision that is even stronger than the Second Amendment language,” Workman said. 

Workman is a fourth generation Washington resident and has worked over 50 years in journalism, focusing on the firearm industry and gun rights. Workman began working for SAF around 25 years ago as their senior editor for what was then called Gun Week. 

“Over time as a journalist, I’ve come to recognize the utter bullshit that is being spread by the other side about guns and gun owners and the right to keep and bear arms. There are just a handful of guys like me, around the country, who are what we call firearms journalists.There are gun writers, and that’s a different thing altogether. But firearms journalists, we looked into the political side of things,” Workman said. 

Workman particularly takes issue with terminology used by the media such as gun violence and assault weapons because of its inflammatory and sometimes inaccurate language. He says that the phrase gun violence demonizes the firearm rather than the person committing the crime behind it.  

“Despite an advisory from the Associated Press back in 2023 to stop using the term assault weapon, they’ve continued to use the term. The guns that they’re talking about are semi-automatics. They are not assault weapons. They are not military grade firearms. They are civilian versions,” Workman said. 

Workman said that despite the evolution of technology for the First Amendment individuals still have that right. Yet, for the Second Amendment, regulations and restrictions have been added with technology advancements. 

“The advanced technology still deserves protection by the Constitution because the Constitution says your right to bear arms. It doesn’t say your right to bear a muzzle loader, or your right to bear a lever action rifle, or your right to just bear a shotgun — it’s the right to bear arms. And that’s pretty broad, with a lot of wiggle room in there. And there ought to be,” Workman said.

Brown’s office disagrees and said that under this argument there is no limit to what guns civilians could own. 

“The Second Amendment does not, and never has, prevented the implementation of common-sense gun laws like restrictions on fully-automatic weapons. And guns with FRTs are fully-automatic weapons. Machine gun conversion devices, including FRTs and a host of other modifications that enable fully-automatic fire, are already illegal in Washington (and federal law) and have been for decades. This lawsuit is about the Trump administration’s attempt to unilaterally make these devices legal in the United States and ship devices that are illegal under Washington and federal law to Washington residents,” Brown’s office said. 

Workman said that instead of infringing on the rights of law-abiding gun owners we should be focusing on punishing criminals. 

At this time, SAF has not made an official statement on the lawsuit.

Finding common ground

Back in Eastern Oregon, Bell says he knows the arguments of gun advocates well.

“I live with all those people who would argue that if we give up anything, they could take it all. I’m in my 70s. I’ve never heard a push to simply ban firearms across the board. It doesn’t stipulate in the Constitution, certainly, type. But the mindset of our coalition would go look at the same constitutional amendment and say, well, yes, it doesn’t stipulate what kind, but it also doesn’t stipulate you have to have them all. We can look at the same words, and frankly, look at it with a slightly different perspective,” Bell said. 

He said those advocating for gun rights are probably the people that we never have to worry about, “But what are they doing about those people who purposely are able to secure those weapons with the firm intent to use it for aggressive, assaulting purposes?”