ATF Classification of Forced Reset Triggers as Machineguns Vacated by District Court

Posted on by Dillon Harris, Esq.

To quickly recap, in March of 2022, ATF sent an Open Letter to FFL’s stating that they had determined that some unidentified forced reset triggers are “machineguns” as that term is defined in the Gun Control Act and National Firearms Act, and that some unidentified forced reset triggers are not “machineguns.” Around the same time, ATF began pursuing manufacturers and sellers of forced reset triggers and eventually progressed to sending letters and making in-person visits to alleged purchasers, seeking to stop sales and transfers and secure the surrender of FRT’s.

Yesterday, Judge Reed O’Connor in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued a 63-page Memorandum Opinion and Order in National Association for Gun Rights, Inc., et al. v. Merrick Garland, et al., 4:23-cv-00830. The Memorandum is extremely thorough and rich with hundreds of citations to the relevant statues, case law, and the record and briefing in the case. To pull out some highlights, Judge O’Connor states that,

By continuing to characterize a “single function of the trigger” as a “single constant rearward pull of the trigger,” Defendants [ATF] transform the required statutory focus away from the objective trigger mechanics to the subjective actions of the gun user instead. Tis is incorrect and is the same rewriting of the statute Defendants already attempted – and failed – to do with bump stocks. p.42

Consistent with my prediction last month, the Judge unequivocally holds that,

Like bump stocks, FRTs do not enable a weapon to automatically fire multiple rounds with a single function of the trigger itself. To wit, even the name for the device makes this clear: a forced reset trigger rather that an automatic reset trigger. p. 44

Because the Cargill decisions from the en banc Fifth Circuit and the Supreme Court are squarely dispositive of the issue in this case, the Court concludes that ATF’s regulation is not in accord with the statutory definition of “machinegun.” By redefining the statutory definition, the ATF exceeded the scope of its authority. p. 47

So What did the court do and what Happens Now?

Having found ATF’s “rule” classifying FRTs as machineguns to exceed ATF’s authority, the Court, 1) Vacates that unlawful classification (p. 53); 2) Declares the classification unlawful (p. 54); and 3) Permanently enjoins ATF from certain activities relating to FRTs and the Plaintiffs in this action. (p. 54-60).

The first action, vacatur, or finding the rule to be unlawful and vacating it, has nationwide impact, while the latter two, declaratory relief and permanent injunction, apply only to the Plaintiffs in the case.

From my perspective, this is an extremely thorough an excellent decision, but my favorite part comes on page 63:

6. The Court ORDERS Defendants to return to all parties, including manufacturers, distributors, resellers, and individuals, all FRTs and FRT components confiscated or seized pursuant to their unlawful classification within thirty (30) days of this decision.

7. The Court ORDERS Defendants to mail remedial notices correcting their prior mailing campaign that “warned” suspected FRT owners that possession of FRTs and FRT components was purportedly illegal.

If you followed our recommendations to surrender your FRT under protest, this would mean that ATF is on the clock to get them back to you, and send letters to everyone they sent Warning Notices explaining that they were wrong from the start.

ATF will almost certainly appeal and seek a stay of the Order while the appeal progresses, so we’ll have to keep an eye on this case.

If your rights have been violated by ATF or another federal administrative agency, or you want to discuss your rights or obligations following this decision, contact Firearms Industry Consulting Group today to discuss YOUR rights and legal options.

Firearms Industry Consulting Group® (FICG®) is a registered trademark and division of Civil Rights Defense Firm, P.C., with rights and permissions granted to Prince Law Offices, P.C. to use in this article.

Unknown's avatar

Published by Dillon Harris, Esq.

Dillon grew up in Kingman, Arizona. During high school he got his first exposure to the legal system, spending a summer working in the Mohave County Attorney’s Office working with attorneys and office staff in various practice areas. Dillon attended Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff, Arizona and received a Bachelor of Science degree in Criminology and Criminal Justice with specializations in Legal and Criminal Investigation, Legal and Court Justice, and Justice in Politics, Media, and Popular Culture. Throughout and immediately after college he held positions in both the Court Administration and Clerk of Superior Court departments of the Superior Court of Arizona in Coconino County where he was part of a team that was awarded the 2016 Strategic Agenda Award by the Arizona State Judiciary and the 2016 Merit Award by the Arizona Association of Counties. Dillon graduated cum laude from Vermont Law School and passed the Uniform Bar Exam in 2020. He is licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania and Maryland and handles cases in both states dealing with firearms or general estate practice. He is also admitted to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and U.S. District Courts for the District of Maryland, the Middle District of Pennsylvania, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

One thought on “ATF Classification of Forced Reset Triggers as Machineguns Vacated by District Court”

Leave a comment