Legal Battle Over Forced Reset Triggers Intensifies as States Intervene

A coalition of 16 states, led by New Jersey, has launched a formal objection to the anticipated return of confiscated forced reset triggers (FRTs) to their owners. This legal move follows a Texas court’s issuance of a permanent injunction against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), which prohibited them from taking further enforcement actions related to FRTs.

In a recent development, the ATF began returning previously seized FRTs as mandated by the court’s ruling, which also required the agency to relinquish all confiscated devices. Despite the court’s decision, the intervening states assert that the reintroduction of these firearm components poses significant risks to public safety.

States’ Concerns and Legal Context

The states, despite not being direct parties in the ongoing lawsuit, have submitted a letter to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, expressing their concerns. They argue that the return of FRTs could lead to irreparable harm to public safety. The letter specifically notes the urgency for a ruling from the court to reverse the district court’s prior decision.

The letter states: “Amici States write to notify the Court that Appellants have begun the process of returning confiscated force reset triggers (“FRTs”) in light of the February 22, 2025 return deadline imposed by the district court in the order on appeal… The return of these weapons presents a significant and irreparable danger to public safety…”

Interestingly, proponents of FRTs point out that no documented crimes have been directly linked to their use. The states’ intervention appears to advocate for the application of intermediate scrutiny, a legal standard that weighs state interests against individual rights. However, recent legal precedents, particularly the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, limit courts’ abilities to use this standard in gun regulation cases, emphasizing a return to historical interpretations of the Second Amendment.

Legal Implications and Past Rulings

It’s important to note that the ongoing case, dubbed NAGR v. Bondi, is primarily framed around the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) rather than the Second Amendment directly. Plaintiffs argue that the ATF exceeded its authority when categorizing FRTs as machinegun conversion devices, a designation they assert does not align with the statutory definitions outlined in the National Firearms Act of 1934.

A pivotal case in this context is Cargill v. Garland, where the Fifth Circuit previously ruled against the ATF’s classification of bump stocks as machineguns. The court determined that the ATF had overstepped its jurisdiction, a decision later upheld by the Supreme Court. Given this history, experts believe the Fifth Circuit may lean towards a similar conclusion in the FRT case, potentially complicating the states’ attempts to hinder ownership through new legislative measures.

Expert Insight

John Crump, an NRA instructor and constitutional activist, who has reported extensively on firearms issues, summarizes the complex nature of this legal debate. He emphasizes the lack of a constitutional basis for the states’ arguments concerning public health, safety, and welfare, noting that similar claims have previously failed in court settings.

For more updates and insights on firearms legislation and legal battles across the United States, follow John Crump on X at @crumpyss or visit his website at www.crumpy.com.