In layman’s terms: district judge throws out the ATF’s redefinition of new, novel triggers as “machine guns.”
Drawing upon precedent in numerous other concurrent Second Amendment cases, yesterday the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas enjoined the ATF’s redefinition of Forced Reset Triggers as “machine guns.”
The case, known as NAGR Inc., et al., v. Garland challenged the federal government’s re-definition of “machine gun” (defined under the National Firearms Act of 1934) to include novel inventions such as the “forced reset trigger” (FRT).
An FRT is an assembly that allows the trigger of a semi-automatic weapon to reset quicker than it otherwise would using the standard trigger-return spring. Due to the swift trigger reset, a firearm equipped with an FRT enables the user to fire at a faster rate than with a traditional trigger.
On March 22, 2022, the ATF’s Firearms Technology Criminal Branch (FTCB) issued an open letter to all FFLs advising that the ATF “recently examined devices commonly known as ‘forced reset triggers’ and determined that some of them are ‘firearms’ and ‘machineguns’ as defined in the [GCA].”
The Open Letter further explained that “ATF’s examination found that some FRT devices allow a firearm to automatically expel more than one shot with a single, continuous pull of the trigger and that any FRT that allows a firearm to expel automatically more than one shot with a single, continuous pull of the trigger is a ‘machine gun’.”
Similar to the ATF’s redefinition of ‘frames and receivers’, this agency overstep in redefining ‘machine gun’ is what was challenged in this case.
Under this new definition the ATF pursued Criminal prosecution against individuals for possessing FRTs.
In the decision, Judge Reed O’Connor states:
It is emblematic of a devastating problem that increasingly rears its head in federal courts: rampant evasion of the democratic process. Few issues more acutely underscore this problem than the present case. Our nation would do well to remember the very reasons and spirit that inspired our democratic system of governance in the first place.
Additionally, he notes:
Each time an agency circumvents the legislative process it chips away at the most prudent reason for the separation of powers that is, ensuring unelected and unaccountable individuals do not make the law. This reason alone compels the Court’s decision today.
The decision effectively does the following:
- Vacates (renders null) the ATF’s classification of FRTs as ‘machine guns’
- Vacates (renders null) the ATF’s determination that FRTs are ‘machine guns’
- Stops the ATF from enforcing the expanded definition of ‘machine gun’ against certain parties, including plaintiffs, their families, NAGR members
- Stops the ATF from pursuing criminal proceedings against the plaintiffs
- Orders the ATF to return all confiscated components
- Orders the ATF to mail a letter correcting their previous letter that ‘warned’ suspected FRT holders that they possessed a ‘machine gun’
Notable here is the fact that the injunction applies only to those who are part of NAGR (National Association of Gun Rights) and underscores why it’s important to be a part of these Second Amendment Groups.
In his closing remarks, Judge O’Connor warns against tyranny:
Every year, our country commemorates the revolution waged against a tyrannical executive. To safeguard against future tyranny, our founding documents designed a system that prevents undue concentrations of power in order to protect important rights and to ensure that a legislative consensus is reached before enacting laws on the most important issues in society.
So, this is good news, but where does it leave us in NJ?