A federal judge has struck down another of the Biden administration’s ATF’s (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives) arbitrary rules – this time one that prohibited the use of forced reset triggers (FRT), arguing that they effectively turned firearms equipped with them into machineguns or fully automatic firearms.
The 64-page ruling of U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor effectively vacated the ATF rule, which was issued in 2022, much to the chagrin of gun rights activists around the country. The rule expanded the definition of “machinegun” and fully-automatic firing weapons – which are illegal for civilians to own – to include firearms that have FRTs installed.
As a result, multiple lawsuits were filed against the ATF, the Department of Justice, and the U.S. Attorney General, both from concerned individuals as well as by gun rights activist organizations. O’Connor’s ruling was in response to a suit filed by the Texas Gun Rights, Inc., and the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR), which argue that the expansion of what federal law designates as “machineguns” is arbitrary, and that the ATF had a flawed understanding of the principles by which an FRT functions.
A forced reset trigger resets a firearm’s trigger mechanically, which allows for a faster rate of fire. However, the plaintiffs argue that an FRT still resets the trigger every single time a round is fired, and is thus still within the definition of semi-automatic firing. In contrast, a machine gun or fully-automatic weapon allows the firing of multiple rounds with a single depression of the trigger, without the need to reset the trigger mechanism.
The ruling now prohibits the ATF to take action against gun owners who have or use FRTs. The ATF has also been directed to return within a 30-day period, any FRTs it has seized from individual owners, manufacturers, or retailers. The agency is also barred from issuing warning notices against FRTs, and has instead been ordered to issue remedial letters that revises an earlier campaign from the agency that claimed that possession and use of FRTs were illegal.
