ATF Moves to Halt Forced Reset Trigger Ruling, Appeals Decision

The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) is arguing in a new filing that it cannot meet a federal court’s order to return the forced reset triggers (FRTs) they collected when they effectively banned the devices last year.

Last month, U.S. Federal Judge Reed O’Connor ordered the vacatur of an ATF rule classifying FRTs—a rapid-fire trigger device—as regulated machinegun parts. O’Connor further ordered the ATF to return, within 30 days, any FRTs it seized from manufacturers, resellers, or individual owners while its rule was in effect.

The ATF has since filed motions challenging O’Connor’s ruling, including appealing the ruling up to the U.S. Fifth Circuit of Appeals and requesting a stay of the lower court’s decision.

Arguing their motion to stay O’Connor’s ruling, the ATF said it would be difficult to meet the requirement to turn over any seized FRTs within 30 days.

“ATF does not know the identities of the Organizational Plaintiffs’ claimed members,” the federal agency wrote in its Aug. 1 filing, referring to the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) and Texas Gun Rights.

“Thus, ATF has no ability to determine who must be returned devices under the Order,” the ATF’s legal filing continues. “And even if an individual approaches ATF and self-identifies as an Organizational-Plaintiff member, ATF does not have the means to verify the accuracy of that representation, or whether they were, in fact, a member at the time the complaint was filed, as is necessary to receive relief.”

O’Connor’s order for the ATF to return seized FRT’s didn’t stipulate that the agency should only return the devices to the organizational plaintiffs. Rather, his ordered simply directed all of the seized devices be returned.

“The Court ORDERS Defendants to return to all parties, including manufacturers, distributors, resellers, and individuals, all FRTs and FRT components confiscated or seized pursuant to their unlawful classification within thirty (30) days of this decision,” O’Connor’s July 23 instruction states.

The ATF disclosed, in the filing, that they had collected 11,884 FRT-style devices while its FRT ban was in effect. The agency did not specify whether it kept ownership records corresponding to each of the seized devices.

The ATF postulated it will be difficult to find some of the rightful FRT owners as they will likely have moved without providing forwarding information, or will reject the agency’s outreach efforts.

“It is not clear what ATF is to do in such circumstances to avoid non-compliance,” the agency continued.

The ATF further insisted that they’re likely to succeed on appeal because FRTs fit the definition of a machinegun under federal law.

Federal law states a machinegun is, “any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.”

The U.S. Supreme Court recently overturned the ATF’s ban on another type of rapid-fire device, known as a bump stock, in the case of Garland v Cargill.

In Cargill, the court’s majority wrote “a shooter must release and reset the trigger between every shot” for it not to be considered an automatic-firing trigger. The FRT works by mechanically resetting the trigger from the fired to the unfired position, allowing an operator to make follow-up shots more rapidly.