Forced Reset Triggers (FRTs) are one of the most symbolic icons in the fight against gun control at the federal level, in that they prove that innovation and clever design can circumvent gun control efforts, working against the government’s own definitions designed to infringe upon Second Amendment rights.
Yet, despite the fact that in 2024 a federal judge enjoined the ATF’s redefinition of Forced Reset Triggers as “machine guns,” and that in 2025 the Bondi Justice Department ended its litigation against Rare Breed Triggers, the DOJ is still actively fighting against them, according to a recent court filing.
On January 26, the United States Justice Department, under Brett A. Shumate, Assistant Attorney General, submitted a “Statement of Interest of the United States of America” in a case known as ABC IP, LLC et al. v. Timothy Hoffman et al. (also sometimes referred to as Rare Breed v. Hoffman Tactical).
As we recently reported, a Tennessee district court granted a temporary restraining order on January 14 in an ongoing patent infringement challenge regarding FRTs.
The Justice Department’s Statement of Interest is characterized in its own words and needs no interpretation:
The ATF has an interest in limiting the sale and distribution of FRTs.
Despite the fact that they are NOT machine guns (as determined by a federal court), and the ATF can no longer enforce its rule, the ATF is still publicly making efforts to limit the possession and distribution of FRTs by attempting to influence court decisions.
The letter cleverly attempts to undermine court rulings by suggesting that firearms equipped with FRTs are machineguns, and they are somehow acting in favor of public safety:
ATF serves as the primary federal regulator of the firearms industry. As part of its mission, ATF seeks to enhance public safety by enforcing laws and regulations related to firearms. Transfer or possession of a machinegun is illegal under federal law. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(o); see also 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b) (defining a machinegun as a weapon that automatically fires more than one shot by a single function of the trigger). Some entities have created and sold mechanical devices that provide semiautomatic firearms with the capability to fire at a near-automatic rate.
The ATF further admits that it is using the Rare Breed court settlement (linked above) as a means to limit distribution of FRTs, writing, “Thus, plaintiffs’ patent enforcement actions would support ATF’s public safety efforts, if successful in enjoining use of FRTs by third parties.”
The ATF’s posture here is adamantly anti-Second Amendment, and continues to illustrate not only the general anti-gun posture of the Bondi Justice Department, but a vast internal divide between some anti-gun elements and the newly created Second Amendment Section under Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon.
