Citing President Trump’s Executive Order to protect the Second Amendment, the Justice Department under Pam Bondi settled its litigation against Rare Breed Triggers in an announcement on May 15.
“This Department of Justice believes that the Second Amendment is not a second-class right,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi. “And we are glad to end a needless cycle of litigation with a settlement that will enhance public safety.”
“This is one of the most stunning victories in the history of the gun rights movement. We didn’t just beat the ATF — we put them in a submission hold, and they tapped out,” said Dudley Brown, President of the National Association for Gun Rights, in a statement on their website. “This decision marks a new era of holding the DOJ and ATF accountable when they trample the rights of law-abiding gun owners. We made them give back what they took, and that’s a precedent they’ll never forget.”
The Rare Breed forced reset trigger was a legal, novel mechanical invention that allowed a faster rate of fire while still requiring a single trigger pull for each round expelled. The Biden Justice Department targeted this manufacturer, and others like it, with aggressive litigation, after it changed many firearms definitions, including classifying bump stocks as machine guns.
SCOTUS struck down the bump stock ban in June of 2024 writing:
A bump stock does not convert a semi-automatic rifle into a machine gun any more than a shooter with a lightning-fast trigger finger does
The Bondi Justice Department says the ATF, “…exceeded its statutory authority by issuing a rule classifying a bump stock as a ‘machinegun.'”
In July 2024, the Northern District of Texas applied Garland v. Cargill to the novel “forced-reset trigger” (FRT) and concluded that FRTs also cannot be classified as a “machinegun.”
Chris McNutt, President of the Texas Gun Rights Foundation, made the following statement in an email:
“This lawsuit — NAGR v. Bondi — wasn’t just about one trigger. It was about stopping the rogue ATF from re-writing law by bureaucratic fiat. If they succeeded in banning FRTs — your AR-15 would’ve been next. And they knew it. That’s why they hit Rare Breed Triggers with everything they had. That’s why they tried to make an example out of people like Lawrence DeMonico… and gun owners across America.”
The National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) was critical in this fight defending basic Constitutional rights, fighting against government overreach, and protecting the company involved: Rare Breed Triggers. Not only another reason to support gun rights groups, but a critical example of how, without legal engagement, the government would have run roughshod over legitimate companies and individuals.
This video below, from Lawrence DeMonico, President of Rare Breed Triggers, documents some of the additional abuses of authority the government levied against him personally during this litigation. The actions are extra-Constitutional and evidence of a tyrannical government weaponized against citizens at an extreme level.
While the announcement from the Justice Department is couched in the framework of preserving the Second Amendment, it also includes message points and language frequently employed by the anti-gun left in public discourse, perhaps in an attempt to assuage public opinion. “The settlement includes agreed-upon conditions that significantly advance public safety with respect to FRTs…” The press release includes the phrase “public safety” three times, which is notable.
The 14-page agreement outlines the following conditions:
- Rare Breed will not develop or design FRTs for use in any handgun
- Rare Breed will enforce its patents to prevent infringement that could threaten public safety
- Rare Breed also agrees to promote the safe and responsible use of its products
Under the settlement terms, the ATF will return all FRTs that were seized or surrendered, regardless of whether they belong to NAGR members or not. Dates and instructions will be published on the ATF’s website.
The cases that will be resolved under the settlement agreement are:
- NAGR v. Garland, 23-cv-830-O (N.D. Tex.), on appeal 24-10707 (5th Cir.)
- United States v. Rare Breed Triggers LLC, No. 23-cv-369 (E.D.N.Y), on appeal 23-7276 (2d Cir.)
- United States v. Miscellaneous Firearms and Related Parts and Equipment Listed in Exhibit A, 23-cv-17 (D. Utah)
On May 16, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York published the stipulation of dismissal with prejudice, or the agreement that both parties have moved to resolve the case.
The decision is widely considered a victory in that it did not require a court decision but was an elective move by the Justice Department to end litigation. However, the stipulations for Rare Breed and the language engaged in the announcement have left some in the Second Amendment community asserting this was not a complete and total victory.
