Trump administration’s landmark settlement overturns Biden-era gun regulations, forcing the federal government to return previously confiscated Forced Reset Triggers and allow their legal sales to resume nationwide.
Key Takeaways
- The Trump DOJ settlement with Rare Breed Triggers invalidates the Biden administration’s classification of Forced Reset Triggers (FRTs) as “machine guns”
- Previously seized FRTs must be returned to owners, and legal sales of these devices can now resume across the country
- The settlement aligns with the Supreme Court’s 2024 Cargill v. Garland decision, which limits federal agencies’ authority to reinterpret gun classifications
- FRTs maintain their legal status as semi-automatic mechanisms since they fire one round per trigger pull, despite enabling rapid fire
- The case highlights the stark contrast between Republican support for Second Amendment rights and Democrat attempts to restrict gun accessories through regulation
Trump Administration Restores Gun Rights with Landmark FRT Settlement
In a decisive victory for Second Amendment supporters, the Trump administration’s Department of Justice has reached a settlement with Rare Breed Triggers that effectively ends the Biden-era ban on Forced Reset Triggers (FRTs). The May 16 agreement invalidates the previous administration’s controversial classification of these devices as “machine guns” and mandates the return of all seized triggers to their rightful owners. This settlement represents a significant shift in federal gun policy, prioritizing constitutional rights over administrative regulation and addressing what many gun owners viewed as flagrant government overreach by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).
The settlement resolves multiple lawsuits that challenged the ATF’s 2022 determination that FRTs were illegal machine guns. Central to the legal dispute was whether these triggers cause firearms to fire more than one round with a single function of the trigger – the legal definition of a machine gun. Gun rights advocates maintained that FRTs still require one trigger pull per shot, despite enabling faster firing rates through an innovative reset mechanism that utilizes the rifle’s bolt carrier motion. The agreement eliminates pending appeals and directly aligns with President Trump’s Second Amendment Enforcement Task Force initiatives.
Legal Foundation for the Settlement
The Trump administration’s settlement builds upon the Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling in Cargill v. Garland, which rejected the classification of bump stocks as machine guns. This pivotal decision established a precedent limiting federal agencies’ ability to reinterpret longstanding firearms definitions without congressional approval. Similarly, U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor had previously ruled against the ATF’s FRT classification, noting that the agency had improperly expanded the legal definition of machine guns beyond what Congress intended.
“The ATF tried to bootstrap its own overreaching interpretation onto the NFA,” O’Connor wrote, noting Congress limited machine gun definitions to fully automatic systems,” stated Judge Reed O’Connor in his ruling that significantly influenced the settlement outcome.
The settlement terms specify that the government will return all seized FRTs to their owners while Rare Breed commits to promoting responsible use. Additionally, the company agreed not to design FRTs for pistols, maintaining focus on rifle applications only. This balanced approach demonstrates the Trump administration’s commitment to protecting Second Amendment rights while maintaining reasonable safety considerations. The settlement doesn’t codify permanent protections, however, leaving the possibility that future administrations could attempt to revisit the issue.
Contrasting Approaches to Gun Rights
The stark contrast between the Biden and Trump administrations’ approaches to firearms regulation could not be more evident than in this case. Where the Biden administration aggressively pursued expanded definitions and enforcement actions against gun accessories, the Trump Justice Department has demonstrated greater deference to constitutional rights and legislative intent. This philosophical difference reflects broader partisan divides on gun policy that continue to define American politics and governance approaches.
“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.”
Lawrence DeMonico, president of Rare Breed Triggers, expressed frustration with the previous administration’s approach, highlighting what many Second Amendment advocates view as regulatory overreach motivated by political ideology rather than public safety considerations. “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.”
Implications for Gun Owners and Future Regulations
For gun owners across America, the settlement represents a meaningful vindication of both their rights and the proper functioning of constitutional constraints on government power. The FRT case exemplifies a growing legal and political consensus challenging federal agencies’ efforts to expand gun control through administrative fiat rather than legislative channels. While FRTs remain legal under federal law following this settlement, gun owners should remain aware that state regulations vary considerably, with some jurisdictions maintaining stricter controls on these devices regardless of federal policy.
The settlement also signals that the courts and the Trump administration are increasingly willing to rein in what many conservatives view as executive branch overreach in firearms regulation. This judicial pushback against agency interpretations that exceed statutory authority represents a significant development in Second Amendment jurisprudence. Gun rights advocates hope this settlement establishes a precedent that will protect other firearm accessories and technologies from similar regulatory threats in the future, securing Americans’ constitutional rights against administrative erosion.
