The Trump administration has reversed a previous ban on forced-reset triggers, devices that enable semiautomatic rifles to fire at rates comparable to machine guns. This decision follows a Department of Justice (DOJ) settlement concluding litigation related to the ban, which had been enforced during President Biden’s tenure due to concerns over mass shootings involving AR-15-style weapons.
Under the Biden administration, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) classified these devices as illegal machine guns, leading to enforcement actions, including a lawsuit against Rare Breed Triggers. In response, the National Association for Gun Rights challenged the ban in Texas, resulting in a ruling that deemed the prohibition unlawful.
The Trump administration’s settlement stipulates that forced-reset triggers will be returned to their owners and not regulated as machine guns, provided they are not designed for handguns. Attorney General Pamela Bondi framed the move as a defense of Second Amendment rights, while gun control advocates, including the Giffords group, warn it could increase gun violence.
The reversal of the ban on forced-reset triggers is part of a broader pattern of federal rulings and administrative actions that have reshaped the landscape of Second Amendment rights and gun access in recent years. Notably, the Supreme Court has issued several decisions that have significant implications for firearm regulations.
In June 2024, the Supreme Court upheld a federal law that prohibits individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms. The 8-1 decision affirmed that such restrictions are consistent with the Second Amendment, emphasizing that individuals found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of others may be temporarily disarmed.
Additionally, in June 2024, the Supreme Court ruled in Garland v. Cargill that the ATF exceeded its authority by classifying bump stocks as machine guns. The 6-3 decision, authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, stated that under the National Firearms Act, bump stock attachments did not qualify as machine guns since they did not enable a firearm to fire more than one round per trigger pull automatically.
These decisions reflect a judicial trend toward scrutinizing and, in some cases, limiting the scope of federal firearm regulations. The reversal of the forced-reset trigger ban aligns with this trend, indicating a shift in the federal government’s approach to gun control measures.
The practical implications of these rulings are multifaceted. On one hand, they reinforce the constitutional protections afforded to firearm owners, ensuring that regulatory agencies do not overstep their statutory authority. On the other hand, they may lead to increased availability of devices that enhance the firing capabilities of semiautomatic weapons, raising concerns among gun control advocates about potential increases in gun violence.
The reversal of the forced-reset trigger ban also underscores the complexities involved in balancing Second Amendment rights with public safety considerations. While the decision affirms the right of individuals to possess certain firearm accessories, it also highlights the challenges faced by law enforcement agencies in regulating devices that can significantly alter the functionality of firearms.
In conclusion, the Trump administration’s decision to reverse the ban on forced-reset triggers is a significant development in the ongoing discourse surrounding Second Amendment rights and firearm regulations. This action, coupled with recent Supreme Court rulings, indicates a judicial and administrative shift toward a more expansive interpretation of gun rights. As these legal landscapes continue to evolve, ongoing oversight and analysis will be essential to navigate the complexities inherent in balancing constitutional rights with public safety concerns.
—
Mark Davis writes on constitutional rights, firearms legislation, and state-level legal trends. A graduate of Liberty University with a background in legal research, he has reported on gun rights cases from state courts to the Supreme Court. Before journalism, he worked with a constitutional law nonprofit focused on Second Amendment litigation.