On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor ruled against another Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) regulation, vacating the agency’s rule that categorized forced reset triggers (FRTs) as “machineguns.” The ruling was met with approval by plaintiffs Texas Gun Rights, Inc., and the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR), alongside individual plaintiffs who had filed a lawsuit against the United States Attorney General, the ATF, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and others over the rule.
The crux of the lawsuit was the ATF’s expansion of the term “machinegun” to encompass FRTs, making it a criminal offense for individuals in possession of such triggers. An FRT is a type of trigger designed to mechanically reset a semiautomatic firearm’s trigger, allowing the gun to be fired at a faster pace than usual. However, it is essential to note that a semiautomatic action firearm’s mechanism remains unchanged with the installation of an FRT. The trigger must still be reset after each round is fired and manually moved far enough to rear in order to discharge the next round.
Upon analyzing various court rulings concerning the ATF’s bump stock rule, Judge O’Connor concluded that “FRTs do not fire multiple rounds with a single function of the trigger and, thus, do not qualify as machineguns.” This is the second time in 2024 that O’Connor has struck down an ATF rule. On June 13, 2024, Breitbart News reported that he vacated the ATF’s AR pistol brace rule, citing a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA.
The ongoing battle over firearms regulation and the interpretation of laws continues to evolve, with rulings such as this one offering clarity and guidance for both gun rights advocates and those seeking stricter control. As these discussions unfold, it is crucial to weigh the constitutional right to bear arms against the potential dangers posed by unregulated firearms usage, ensuring a balanced approach that protects public safety while upholding fundamental rights.