Judge Curbs ATF Rule Classifying Specialty Trigger Kits as Machine Guns

A Springfield Armory SAINT M-LoK AR-15 semi-automatic rifle is displayed on a presentation wall during the National Rifle Association (NRA) annual meeting at the George R. Brown Convention Center in Houston, Texas, on May 28, 2022. Patrick T. Fallon/AFP via Getty Images

A federal judge has issued a preliminary injunction that blocks the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) from criminally prosecuting or taking civil action against owners of specialty firearm trigger devices, known as forced-reset triggers (FRTs), that allows them to fire their weapons more rapidly.

In a March 2022 letter, the ATF announced its determination that some FRT devices could be considered to be illegal machine gun parts. In August, plaintiffs Patrick Carey, Travis Speegle, and James “J.R.” Wheeler, along with the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) and Texas Gun Rights, Inc. (TGR), filed a lawsuit in Texas’ northern federal court district that sought to reverse the ATF’s legal determination.

U.S. law defines a machine gun as “any weapon that shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.” Machine guns are regulated under the National Firearms Act (NFA) and Gun Control Act (GCA), and unlawful possession of a machine gun or a machine gun part is punishable by fines of up to $250,000, ten years in prison, and a felony conviction that would disqualify an individual from future firearm ownership.

The March 2022 ATF letter states that “some FRT devices” satisfy the definition of a “machine gun” under existing federal law, raising the risk of felony prosecution for individuals continuing to possess such devices.

U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor granted a preliminary injunction on Saturday, holding off the ATF’s efforts to enforce its FRT ruling against the named plaintiffs and members of either the NAGR or TGR. The injunction means the ATF can bring neither criminal nor civil proceedings against the specified plaintiffs. The ATF also cannot send any communications to FRT owners requesting that those owners surrender these devices under the justification that they are “machine gun” parts.

The injunction also prevents the ATF from interfering in the sale or transfer of FRT devices or from destroying any previously seized or surrendered FRTs.

The plaintiffs are seeking to overrule the ATF’s determination that FRTs can be considered machine gun components. The plaintiffs are also requesting that the federal court compel the ATF to return any FRT devices that were surrendered to the federal gun control agency, or compensate FRT owners for the value of their surrendered or seized property.

FRT’s Aren’t Machine Gun Parts: Plaintiffs

The plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit have insisted that while FRT devices may allow a user to fire their weapons more rapidly, the devices themselves do not meet the legal definition that would classify them as machine guns.

With many semi-automatic firearms, the user must pull or depress the trigger to fire a round. The trigger is then reset with a “trigger-return spring” after the user releases the pressure from the trigger. The plaintiffs in the case argued that while the law defines a machine gun as a firearm with the ability to continuously fire multiple rounds when a user pulls the trigger once, an FRT still requires the trigger to reset before its user can fire the next round.

“An FRT is a semi-automatic trigger assembly that allows the trigger to ’reset' quicker than it would using a traditional trigger-return spring, in turn allowing the user to fire the firearm quicker than with a traditional trigger,” the plaintiffs stated in their initial complaint.

The plaintiffs argue that the March 2022 ATF letter claiming that “some FRT devices” could be considered machine guns was so vaguely worded that it “creates a chilling effect in which purchasers do not know whether the forced reset trigger they may possess has been condemned by ATF.”

In his ruling on Saturday, Judge O'Connor agreed with the plaintiffs’ characterization about their FRT devices and noted that attempting to use an FRT-equipped gun like a machine gun will actually cause the device to malfunction.

“Because the operative mechanical function of the trigger is to release the hammer, that the trigger of an FRT-equipped firearm functions for each shot fired disqualifies it as a machinegun under the current statutory definition,” Judge O'Connor wrote. “Moreover, if all the shooter does is initially pull the trigger, the FRT-equipped firearm will only fire one round. And if the shooter attempts to reset and hold the trigger in a fully depressed position so that the trigger cannot reset, the weapon will malfunction.”

Conflicting Machine Gun Rulings

FRTs are not the first firearm devices to come under scrutiny for how they enable their users to rapidly fire their weapons.

In 2018, the ATF issued a ruling that classified a different type of firearm device, known as a bump stock, as a machine gun component. Bump stocks are devices that, when attached to a typical semi-automatic rifle, allow a user to fire more rapidly by maintaining constant forward pressure on the forward end of their rifle, using the recoil energy of the firearm to press the trigger back into the user’s finger for rapid follow-up shots.

Bump stocks are accessories that, when attached to a weapon, let a shooter speed up the firing mechanism of a semi-automatic weapon, enabling a quicker discharge of bullets. But it does not change the mechanics of a semi-automatic weapon, or the crucial aspect of needing to re-engage the trigger to fire an additional bullet, U.S. Circuit Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod, a George W. Bush appointee writing for the majority, wrote.

In January, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court—which covers Louisiana, Missouri, and Texas—struck down the ATF’s 2018 bump stock ruling. The U.S. Sixth Circuit Court similarly ruled against the ATF’s bump stock decision in April.

The Tenth Circuit Court and the D.C. Circuit have, by contrast, ruled in favor of the ATF’s bump stock ban.

The Tenth Circuit Court majority determined that a bump stock is “self-acting under conditions fixed for it” because the “shooter’s positioning of the trigger finger on the extension ledge and application of forward pressure on the front of the gun provide the conditions necessary for the bump stock to repeatedly perform its purpose: to eliminate the need for the shooter to manually capture the recoil energy to fire additional rounds.”

Judge O‘Connor cited the Fifth Circuit Court’s decision against the ATF’s bump stock rule in his own ruling on Saturday, to enjoin the ATF’s enforcement of its FRT trigger device rule. Judge O’Connor determined the Fifth Circuit Court’s interpretation in the bump stock case is binding in his own determination in the FRT trigger device case.

In January, a judge in New York’s eastern federal court district granted a request from the U.S. Department of Justice to block two FRT device manufacturers—Rare Breed Triggers, LLC and Rare Breed Firearms, LLC—from continuing to sell their FRT trigger devices.

Lawrence DeMonico, the president of Rare Breed Firearms, celebrated Judge O‘Connor’s ruling on Saturday. While Judge O’Connor’s decision does not specifically apply to his own company, Mr. DeMonico interpreted the ruling as a positive development for FRT users overall.

“We just secured a major victory in federal court against the ATF and their executive overreach,” Mr. DeMonico said.

The Rare Breed Firearms president also encouraged his followers to become NAGR members to gain the injunctive protections afforded by Judge O'Connor’s latest ruling.

NTD News reached out to the Department of Justice for comment about the latest FRT ruling, but did not receive a response by the time this article was published.

From NTD News