Sixteen Democrat-led states, along with the District of Columbia, have launched a legal attack on the recent ATF settlement that returned thousands of Forced Reset Triggers (FRTs) to American gun owners. Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, the lawsuit targets a wide range of defendants, including the Department of Justice, ATF, and several Texas-based gun rights organizations. The plaintiff states claim the federal government has “reversed course” and is now violating federal and state laws by redistributing FRTs that had previously been seized.
Complaint Frames FRTs as Machineguns
The complaint, submitted by the states of New Jersey, Maryland, Illinois, Colorado, and others, argues that FRTs fall under the federal definition of “machinegun” under 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b). According to the filing, over 100,000 of these triggers have been sold across the country. The states insist these devices enable firearms to fire automatically with a single pull of the trigger and therefore should be treated the same as fully automatic weapons. The complaint paints a bleak picture, stating FRTs are fueling an “epidemic” of gun violence and mass shootings.
Armed Attorneys Call It Lawfare
Attorneys Emily Taylor and Richard Hayes from the YouTube channel Armed Attorneys called the lawsuit a “flavor of lawfare” and said it represents a coordinated legal attack on gun rights, especially in red states like Texas. “We don’t like Texans getting sued in other jurisdictions,” Hayes said. Taylor pointed out that the lawsuit is packed with “boohooing” and lacks strong legal footing. She noted that the complaint attempts to blur the line between FRTs and actual machinegun conversion devices like Glock switches, even though the two operate very differently.
Lawsuit Claims DOJ Broke Federal Law
The complaint accuses Attorney General Pamela Bondi and the DOJ of unlawfully allowing the redistribution of FRTs. According to the states, this violates federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), which prohibits the possession and transfer of machineguns. The plaintiff states also say this action will overwhelm their law enforcement agencies and result in increased public safety risks, higher healthcare costs, and added burdens on local governments. They want the court to block the settlement and halt the return of the triggers.
Guns & Gadgets: “Crybaby States” Upset They Lost
Jared Yanis, host of the gun rights channel Guns & Gadgets, blasted the lawsuit as an emotional overreaction by “15 crybaby states.” According to Yanis, “They’re mad that the ATF admitted it was wrong and is now fixing it.” He pointed out that FRTs don’t meet the legal definition of a machinegun because they fire one round per trigger pull. Yanis added that these states are using skewed statistics and anti-gun rhetoric to stir panic. “They want to stop Americans from getting back what was wrongfully taken,” he said.
FRTs vs. Glock Switches: Big Legal Difference
One key issue raised by all three sources is the attempt to lump FRTs together with Glock switches. Taylor explained that Glock switches are true machinegun conversion devices because they allow a firearm to fire continuously with one trigger pull. FRTs, on the other hand, simply speed up the trigger reset. “It still resets – it’s in the name,” she said. According to both Armed Attorneys and Guns & Gadgets, this difference is crucial and undermines the states’ entire legal argument.
Is This a Backdoor Ban on Gun Rights?
The inclusion of organizations like the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) and Texas Gun Rights (TGR) in the lawsuit has drawn serious criticism. As Hayes noted, “They’re getting sued for winning.” These groups had previously challenged the ATF’s classification of FRTs and won favorable court rulings. Now, they’re being dragged back into court, not for breaking any law, but for settling a lawsuit in their favor. “This smells like retaliation,” Taylor added.
Standing and Strategy: Will This Case Even Survive?
Both Armed Attorneys and Guns & Gadgets predicted that the case might not survive judicial scrutiny. Taylor said the case leans heavily on the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), but the Supreme Court has ruled in Heckler v. Cheney that federal agencies cannot be forced to take specific enforcement actions. “Can you imagine if you could sue the government every time they didn’t enforce a law?” she asked. Hayes believes the case could get tossed on standing grounds before it ever reaches the merits.
Texas Gets Pulled Into Blue State Courtroom
What especially bothers the gun rights community is the fact that this case is being tried in Maryland, a state with very different views on gun rights than Texas. “Texans are being sued in a court that has no business touching this,” Hayes said. Even more frustrating is that Texas Gun Rights reportedly only found out they were being sued through social media. The jurisdictional overreach is hard to ignore.
ATF’s Policy Shift and Trump’s Executive Order
The backdrop of this legal fight includes an executive order from President Trump directing the DOJ and ATF to review previous firearm policies. That led to the May 2025 settlement, in which the government agreed to stop treating FRTs as machineguns and return them to lawful owners. According to the complaint, over 11,000 FRTs are scheduled to be returned. The states argue this will result in a flood of illegal devices into their jurisdictions.
A Transparent Political Ploy
It’s hard not to see this lawsuit as politically motivated. The states filing it have some of the strictest gun laws in the country. Their own complaint admits they’ll have a hard time enforcing those laws if FRTs are returned. Rather than challenging the ruling directly through normal appeals, they’ve filed a sprawling lawsuit against multiple unrelated parties, seemingly to intimidate gun rights organizations. This isn’t about public safety – it’s about control.
The Bigger Picture: Courts, Rights, and Retaliation
This case is about more than just a trigger device. It’s about the balance between state and federal power, the role of the courts, and whether citizens can trust that victories in court will actually mean something. As Richard Hayes put it, “They’re trying to make an example out of people who did the right thing and won in court.” That should concern everyone, regardless of political leanings.
What Happens Next?
The lawsuit is now in motion in the District of Maryland. It’s unclear whether it will be dismissed early or go all the way to trial. But one thing is certain: this is not just a legal battle over obscure trigger parts. It’s a larger fight over how far some states are willing to go to prevent gun rights from being restored. As Emily Taylor noted, “This case is weak, but it’s also dangerous.”
A former park ranger and wildlife conservationist, Lisa’s passion for survival started with her deep connection to nature. Raised on a small farm in northern Wisconsin, she learned how to grow her own food, raise livestock, and live off the land. Lisa is our dedicated Second Amendment news writer and also focuses on homesteading, natural remedies, and survival strategies. Lisa aims to help others live more sustainably and prepare for the unexpected.
