Trump administration soundly defeats Biden-era bureaucratic overreach, allowing Americans to once again own and use Forced Reset Triggers without fear of prosecution, despite desperate objections from gun control advocates seeking to restrict Second Amendment rights.
Key Takeaways
- The Trump administration has settled with Rare Breed Triggers to overturn Biden’s classification of Forced Reset Triggers (FRTs) as “machine guns,” allowing legal sales to resume.
- The settlement requires the return of previously seized FRTs to their rightful owners and resolves multiple lawsuits against the government.
- Supreme Court’s 2024 Cargill v. Garland ruling set the precedent by rejecting the classification of bump stocks as machine guns, influencing this FRT decision.
- The case highlights the ongoing battle between constitutional gun rights and administrative attempts to restrict firearm accessories through regulatory definitions.
- Future administrations could still attempt to reclassify these devices, as the settlement doesn’t permanently codify protections into law.
Trump Administration Restores Gun Rights
In a significant victory for Second Amendment supporters, the Department of Justice under President Trump has reached a settlement with Rare Breed Triggers that overturns the Biden administration’s controversial classification of Forced Reset Triggers as “machine guns.” The settlement resolves multiple lawsuits, returns previously seized FRTs to their rightful owners, and allows for the legal sale of these devices to resume. This reversal represents a major shift in federal policy and aligns with Trump’s consistent defense of constitutional gun rights against bureaucratic overreach.
“This agreement aligns with President Trump’s executive order rejecting Second Amendment erosion,” stated Attorney General Pamela Bondi in a Justice Department release. “The 2nd Amendment is not a second-class right.”
Legal Foundation and Court Precedent
The settlement drew significant legal support from the Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling in Cargill v. Garland, which rejected the ATF’s classification of bump stocks as machine guns. This landmark decision established important limitations on federal agencies’ ability to unilaterally expand definitions of regulated firearms. A federal judge had previously ruled that the ATF overstepped its authority by attempting to broaden the definition of “machine gun” beyond what Congress had intended, creating a clear judicial precedent against such regulatory overreach.
“The ATF tried to bootstrap its own overreaching interpretation onto the NFA,” said Judge Reed O’Connor wrote, noting Congress limited machine gun definitions to fully automatic systems.”
The central dispute revolved around whether FRTs cause a firearm to fire more than one round per trigger pull. The ATF claimed they did, while manufacturers and Second Amendment advocates firmly maintained they do not. The court ultimately sided with the latter position, confirming that FRTs maintain the semi-automatic nature of firearms by requiring a separate trigger pull for each round fired – thereby not meeting the legal definition of a machine gun under federal law.
Technical Details and Settlement Terms
Forced Reset Triggers work by using the bolt carrier’s rearward motion to reset the trigger rapidly, allowing for faster firing rates while still requiring a separate trigger pull for each shot fired. Unlike automatic weapons, which continue firing with a single trigger pull, FRTs maintain the fundamental semi-automatic operation of a firearm. Under the settlement terms, the government will return all seized FRTs to their owners, and Rare Breed Triggers has agreed to promote responsible use while refraining from designing FRTs for pistols.
“They were determined to criminalize law-abiding citizens for products that don’t violate the law,” said Lawrence DeMonico. “This wasn’t about public safety — it was control.”
The settlement voids pending appeals and aligns perfectly with Trump’s Second Amendment Enforcement Task Force, which was established to protect Americans’ constitutional right to keep and bear arms. However, it’s important to note that the settlement does not codify permanent protections into law, potentially leaving the door open for future administrations to revisit the issue with different interpretations or enforcement strategies.
Broader Implications for Gun Rights
This case exemplifies a growing pushback against executive overreach in the realm of firearm regulation. Under the Biden administration, federal agencies attempted to expand gun control through administrative actions rather than through proper legislative channels. The Trump administration’s reversal signals a return to strict constitutional interpretation and respect for the separation of powers. It also highlights the stark partisan divide over gun policy, with conservatives championing individual rights while progressives continue to advocate for greater restrictions.
“The court found that forced-reset triggers do not meet the legal definition of a machine gun, striking a major blow to the ATF’s efforts to restrict the devices.” said U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
Gun control advocates have expressed concern about the settlement, fearing it sets a precedent for easier access to firearm efficiency devices. However, Second Amendment supporters celebrate the decision as a necessary correction to regulatory overreach and a reaffirmation of constitutional rights. This settlement reinforces the principle that significant changes to gun laws must come through Congress, not through agency reinterpretation of existing statutes – a win for constitutional governance and individual liberty in America.
