top of page

Federal Judge Questions Legality of ATF's Ban on Forced Reset Triggers

The debate surrounding gun control measures has taken a new turn, with a recent ruling by U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor in Fort Worth, Texas. The judge issued a temporary restraining order against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), stating that the agency's policy categorizing "forced reset triggers" as illegal machine guns is "likely unlawful." This ruling has garnered attention from gun rights advocates and raises critical questions about the regulation of gun accessories.

The Context

Starting in 2021, the ATF began classifying certain types of forced reset triggers as machine guns under the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968. This classification effectively made it illegal to possess these devices. The move was a continuation of a trend that began in 2018 when the ATF, under the Trump administration, expanded the definition of machine guns to include "bump stocks" following the mass shooting in Las Vegas in 2017.

The Case

In August, a lawsuit was filed against the ATF's policy by three individuals along with gun rights groups, including the National Association for Gun Rights. The plaintiffs argued that the ATF's broadened definition of machine guns was invalid under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Judge O'Connor's temporary restraining order prevents the ATF from enforcing its policy against these individuals. The restraining order will last until September 27 or until a longer-term preliminary injunction is issued.

Legal Grounds and Precedents

Judge O'Connor cited a 5th Circuit ruling on the bump stock ban as a controlling precedent because it involved the exact same statutory language. The Justice Department had previously argued that a restraining order was unnecessary as it had no plans to enforce the ATF's interpretation of the law against the three individuals involved in the lawsuit. However, Judge O'Connor found this stance to be "irreconcilable" with the view that anyone owning these devices posed a threat to public safety.

Implications for Gun Rights

Dudley Brown, the president of the National Association for Gun Rights, hailed the ruling as "another step in our fight to get the ATF's bogus redefining of 'machine gun' thrown out." The case, and Judge O'Connor's ruling in particular, could have far-reaching implications for how accessories like forced reset triggers and bump stocks are regulated and classified.

Conclusion: A Balancing Act

The case brings into sharp focus the ongoing tension between efforts to regulate firearms and accessories and the constitutional right to bear arms. While public safety remains a paramount concern, any regulations imposed should be clear, fair, and, above all, lawful. This case serves as an important reminder of the checks and balances in place to ensure that regulatory agencies do not overstep their boundaries.

If you have concerns about this issue, it may be a good time to contact your representatives to discuss the implications of such regulatory actions on your Second Amendment rights.

10 views0 comments


bottom of page