The recent decision by the Trump administration to lift the federal ban on forced reset triggers has reignited fierce debate over gun control in the United States. These devices, which can make semiautomatic firearms fire at a rate similar to fully automatic weapons, were previously restricted under federal law. However, following a legal settlement between the Department of Justice and gun rights advocates, the devices are now permitted for public sale, a move many experts say could redefine firearm regulation and public safety.
What Are Forced Reset Triggers?
Forced reset triggers (FRTs) are aftermarket gun components designed to speed up the firing rate of semiautomatic rifles. Once installed, these devices reset the trigger more quickly than traditional mechanisms, allowing the shooter to fire multiple rounds in rapid succession with sustained pressure. According to court filings, rifles fitted with FRTs can achieve firing speeds comparable to the military-grade M16 in automatic mode.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) had previously categorized FRTs as machine gun conversion devices, thereby banning them under the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act. But a series of lawsuits, primarily championed by Rare Breed Triggers and backed by influential gun rights organizations like the National Association for Gun Rights, challenged this classification.
The Legal Settlement That Changed Everything
The catalyst for this policy reversal was a legal settlement between the DOJ and Rare Breed Triggers. The agreement not only permits the continued sale of FRTs but also requires the federal government to return thousands of seized devices to owners and vendors. Critics argue that the settlement undermines decades of bipartisan consensus on restricting access to automatic weapons.
According to a DOJ statement, the agency “will bind itself, in perpetuity, not to enforce the machine gun ban against any device that functions like forced reset triggers.” The company behind the devices, Rare Breed Triggers, has agreed not to develop FRTs for handguns and has committed to promoting safe usage.
Outcry From Gun Safety Advocates
The response from gun control groups has been swift and sharply critical. Gabrielle Giffords, a former congresswoman and survivor of gun violence, issued a strong rebuke through her organization, GIFFORDS, calling the move “a dangerous backroom deal.” Vanessa Gonzalez, the group’s vice president, warned that the decision would “effectively legalize machine guns” and expose communities to increased risk.
Brady United, the nation’s oldest gun violence prevention group, echoed the sentiment. President Kris Brown criticized the influence of David Warrington, Trump’s White House counsel and a co-founder of the National Association for Gun Rights, calling the settlement “an abuse of power.”
A Dangerous Precedent or a Victory for Second Amendment Rights?
This development marks a stark contrast to previous gun control actions. During his first term, Trump endorsed the bump stock ban after the 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting, which left 58 dead. But with courts like the 5th Circuit now siding more frequently with gun rights advocates, policy shifts like this settlement may signal a broader rollback of federal firearms restrictions.
Gun rights supporters view the settlement as a defence of the Second Amendment. Lawrence DeMonico of Rare Breed Triggers hailed the legal victory as protection against “unchecked government overreach.”
As FRTs enter the market once again, the implications for public safety, law enforcement, and national policy remain uncertain. While proponents hail it as a restoration of constitutional rights, gun safety advocates warn that it is a grave misstep. The coming months may witness further legal challenges and public outcry as America grapples with where to draw the line between individual rights and collective security.
Also read: Karoline Leavitt’s Smokey Eye Fuels Speculation During Political Upheaval
