Rapid-Fire Triggers Test Limits of Federal and State Laws

A small device, known as a forced reset trigger (FRT), has ignited a fierce national debate. This firearm accessory, which allows faster semiautomatic firing, sits at the heart of a legal and cultural clash. On July 8, 2025, California Attorney General Rob Bonta joined 16 other state attorneys general in a lawsuit against the Trump Administration's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). The coalition aims to block a settlement that would return thousands of seized FRTs to owners, arguing it threatens public safety.

FRTs work by mechanically resetting the trigger after each shot, enabling a shooter to fire rapidly while technically complying with semiautomatic restrictions. The ATF once classified these devices as illegal machine guns, but a May 2025 settlement reversed that stance. Now, states like California argue that reintroducing FRTs could escalate gun violence, while firearm advocates see the settlement as a win for individual rights.

This dispute reflects a broader tension: how to balance the constitutional protections of gun ownership with the urgent need to address rising firearm-related deaths. Both sides draw on evidence, from crime statistics to technical analyses, to justify their positions. The outcome of this legal battle could reshape how the nation regulates firearm enhancements.

FRTs are firearm accessories that amplify a weapon's firing speed to rival automatic firearms. Firearm engineers note that these devices can achieve rates of six to eight rounds per second, a pace that alarms public safety advocates. Research shows that higher rates of fire often lead to greater lethality in shootings, a concern echoed by pediatric mortality data citing firearms as a leading cause of death for children and teens.

The ATF estimates that over 100,000 FRTs have circulated in recent years, with some appearing at crime scenes. From 2019 to 2021, the agency reported a 1,400 percent increase in recoveries of machine gun conversion devices, including FRTs. This trend has fueled arguments for stricter regulations, particularly in states with robust gun safety laws like California.

Not all agree on the scope of the problem. Some criminologists point out that handguns drive most gun crimes, more so than rifles or accessories like FRTs. The $85 million trigger accessory market also supports jobs, and outright bans could push these devices into unregulated black markets, complicating enforcement efforts.

The legal status of FRTs remains murky. Federal law, under the 1934 National Firearms Act, bans civilian ownership of machine guns, defined as weapons firing multiple rounds with a single trigger pull. A New York federal court ruled that FRTs meet this definition, but a Texas court disagreed, arguing each shot requires a new trigger function. These conflicting rulings have left the ATF's authority in question.

The Trump Administration's settlement, announced in May 2025, directed the ATF to stop enforcing FRT bans and return seized devices. California and its allies argue this move violates federal law and undermines state prohibitions, such as California's Penal Code, which labels FRTs as illegal multiburst trigger activators. The lawsuit filed in Maryland's federal court seeks to halt the settlement, citing risks to public safety.

Legal scholars note that the Supreme Court's upcoming review of agency powers could tip the scales. If courts limit the ATF's ability to classify devices like FRTs, states may face new hurdles in enforcing their own bans, creating a patchwork of regulations.

Firearm owners and advocacy groups, including the National Association for Gun Rights, celebrate the ATF's settlement as a correction of overreach. They argue that FRTs are lawful enhancements for sport shooting and self-defense, requiring skill to operate. Technical analyses support their claim that each shot involves a distinct trigger reset, aligning with semiautomatic definitions.

In contrast, groups like Everytown for Gun Safety warn that FRTs blur the line between semi- and fully automatic weapons. They point to ATF records showing these devices in the hands of prohibited individuals, raising fears of increased violence. State attorneys general, including Bonta, emphasize the strain on law enforcement, tasked with distinguishing legal from illegal devices in high-pressure situations.

Both perspectives highlight valid concerns: the right to personal freedom versus the collective need for safety. The challenge lies in reconciling these priorities without dismissing either side's evidence or lived experiences.

Amid the legal volleys, some propose practical solutions. One idea is a federal standard based on firing rate thresholds, which would move beyond mechanical definitions. Devices exceeding a certain speed would require registration under the National Firearms Act, complete with background checks and a tax stamp. This approach would allow lawful use while addressing safety concerns.

Another option involves federal grants to states for advanced enforcement tools, like trigger identification technology, in exchange for agreeing to honor registered devices. Manufacturers might also adopt serial numbers and sales tracking, giving authorities data to monitor misuse while preserving market access. These steps aim to bridge the gap between individual rights and community well-being.

Such compromises face hurdles, including distrust between stakeholders and the high cost of implementation. They offer a path to reduce conflict, provided all parties prioritize evidence over ideology.

The FRT controversy underscores a persistent challenge: regulating rapidly evolving firearm technology in a divided nation. As courts weigh the Maryland lawsuit, the outcome will likely influence how states and the federal government address similar devices in the future. A ruling will either reinforce state autonomy or solidify federal oversight, with ripple effects for gun owners and safety advocates alike.

Beyond the courtroom, the debate calls for honest dialogue. Public health researchers, law enforcement, and firearm communities each bring critical insights. By focusing on shared goals, like reducing violence while respecting rights, stakeholders can move beyond entrenched positions.

For now, the nation watches as FRTs test the limits of law, technology, and trust. The resolution of this issue will likely not satisfy everyone, but it will set a precedent for tackling the complex intersection of freedom and safety in years to come.