16 States Suffer Major Anti-Gun Defeat in Fifth Circuit Court

In a major Second Amendment victory, 16 anti-gun states were just dealt a decisive legal defeat by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, according to attorney Mark W. Smith, host of the YouTube channel The Four Boxes Diner. The states had attempted to intervene in a lawsuit involving forced reset triggers (FRTs) – a gun component they sought to classify as illegal machine gun conversion devices. But the court didn’t just say no. It completely ignored their 100+ page submission and dismissed the case altogether.

Background: The Rare Breed Trigger Fight

This all started with a case involving Rare Breed Triggers and the forced reset trigger issue. As Smith explains, the Trump-era Department of Justice settled the case between the National Association for Gun Rights and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). The case revolved around whether forced reset triggers qualify as machine guns under federal law. A Texas federal court had already ruled they do not. This outcome was a significant win for gun owners – and a major setback for ATF overreach.

Who Tried to Intervene – and Why

That’s when 16 states rushed in, trying to block the settlement. According to Smith, these states included New Jersey, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. Their goal? To step into the shoes of the DOJ and keep the case alive, essentially continuing the legal attack against forced reset triggers.

The Court’s Response: Total Rejection

Mark W. Smith reports that the Fifth Circuit didn’t just deny their motion – it ignored it completely. Despite submitting over 100 pages of arguments, affidavits, and legal theories, the court declined to even respond to the states’ request to intervene. The case was dismissed as requested by both the DOJ and the National Association for Gun Rights, over the states’ objections. In Smith’s words, “They got the back of the hand.”

The Arguments That Went Nowhere

One affidavit submitted came from a Vermont official who admitted that Vermont doesn’t even ban forced reset triggers. Still, the official argued that the absence of federal regulation undermines state bump stock bans and would require Vermont to spend money educating the public. Smith found the argument absurd, saying that if Vermont wants to pass its own ban, it can – but that doesn’t justify hijacking a federal case.

Anti-Gun States’ Logic Falls Flat

The 16 states also argued that FRTs are “machine gun conversion devices” and posed a “serious threat to public safety.” They claimed these devices enable firearms to fire at 20 rounds per second – a number Smith openly questioned. “Twenty rounds in one second? Count me skeptical,” he said. These states tried to present themselves as protectors of public safety, but Smith made it clear they were really just pushing a narrative to expand gun control under the guise of technical classifications.

A Desperate Power Grab

It’s hard not to see this intervention attempt for what it was – a power grab, plain and simple. As Smith put it, the states acted like they knew more than the DOJ, the ATF, or the Trump administration’s legal team. “They pretended they actually ran the Trump Department of Justice,” he said. The real motive wasn’t about safety or law. It was about trying to create federal gun control by proxy, without having to go through Congress or even their own legislatures.

Trump Administration’s Role in the Win

Smith repeatedly emphasized the Trump administration’s willingness to settle this issue as a key factor in the outcome. Instead of endlessly litigating over controversial definitions, they cut a deal. Smith praised this pragmatic approach, comparing it to how business deals are handled in the real world. “Trump’s legal background in New York real estate seems to have influenced a more practical DOJ,” he noted. That practicality may be the exact reason the case closed so cleanly and quickly.

What This Means Moving Forward

With this dismissal, the 16 states have almost no options left. Their only theoretical path would be to petition the U.S. Supreme Court – a move Smith said would be a waste of time and unlikely to go anywhere. “They are dead in the water,” he said. This sets a precedent that states cannot simply jump into federal lawsuits to enforce interpretations of gun law that the federal government no longer supports.

A Legal Trend Worth Watching

There’s a larger story here. As Smith sees it, the courts are slowly shifting in favor of gun rights. The Overton window is moving, and cases like this one show that the tide may be turning against regulatory overreach. While the anti-gun states may try again using different cases and angles, their loss here is more than a one-time event – it reflects a pattern of resistance to backdoor gun control tactics.

The Media Spin Is Coming

Smith warned viewers to expect media outlets to spin the issue with emotional language like “gun violence,” “assault weapons,” and “machine gun conversion devices.” These terms, he argued, are political propaganda, not legal definitions. He urged gun rights supporters to stay vigilant and understand the real legal principles at play, not just the headlines written to stoke fear.

A Rare Legal Shutdown

This case is unique not just because the court ruled in favor of the Second Amendment, but because it refused to entertain the usual gun control arguments. That kind of silence from a federal appeals court speaks volumes. When a coalition of 16 state governments can’t even get a reply, it’s a sign their argument wasn’t even worth debating. That’s a rare win in a legal system where cases often drag out for years.