The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has filed its response to a claim by the plaintiffs in the National Association for Gun Rights, Inc. v. Bondi that the Bureau is not complying with the court order.
NAGR v. Bondi challenged the ATF’s determination that forced reset triggers (“FRTs”) are machinegun conversion devices (MCDs). NAGR teamed up with Rare Breed Triggers to sue the ATF to cover the classification after the ATF spent months seizing the triggers from owners. The case took place in a Federal District Court in Texas. The plaintiffs were able to secure summary judgment against the ATF.
The summary judgment blocked the ATF from taking enforcement action against Rare Breed Triggers, NAGR members, and anyone downstream from those entities. The ATF also had to return all seized triggers the Bureau took from owners. The deadline passed, and even though the ATF did send out letters to those who had their triggers seized, they missed the court-mandated deadline to return the triggers.
The plaintiffs accused the ATF of violating the court order. The defendants said they were doing the best they could do. One issue of contention is the ATF requiring owners to go through a background check to get back their triggers. No other unregistered gun part requires a background check, leading to the question as to why the ATF feels it is necessary to run background checks on triggers. The ATF claims that since the order says the trigger needs to be returned to anyone who isn’t prohibited, it needs to run background checks on the owners to ensure that no one who is prohibited gets their trigger back.
The defendants also claim that NAGR is unwilling to share its membership roles with the ATF. Since the order applies to members, the Bureau says it is having problems returning the triggers. Sharing the membership roster with the ATF would be a non-starter for any gun rights groups.
The ATF has also refused to return triggers to anyone who lives in a state that might ban them. The plaintiffs argue that the ATF is interpreting state law, which isn’t its job. The Bureau referenced a letter sent to the court from a handful of states, led by New Jersey, seeking to stop the return of the triggers. The letter was sent after the states were denied a motion to intervene in the case, meaning that the court could reject it wholesale.
The plaintiffs also pointed out that the ATF is not supposed to take enforcement action against anyone, and there have been at least two criminal cases surrounding forced reset triggers. The ATF claims that the summary judgment only applies to the WOT and FRT-15 triggers, and the criminal cases involve the Alamo-15 trigger. The Alamo-15 trigger has been found by a federal court to be a knockoff of the FRT-15. The motion for summary judgment also only mentions force reset triggers. It does not call out the FRT-15 or WOT by name. It is unclear why the ATF claims that only the FRT-15 and WOT triggers are covered.
The brief reads: “Fifth, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants must return all seized forced-reset triggers, not merely seized FRT-15s and WOTs. Pls.’ Notice at 6. But this Court’s ruling considered only FRT-15s and WOTs, see, e.g., Order at 5, ECF No. 100 (“Both the WOT and the FRT-15 operate on the same mechanical principles”), as those devices were the focus of Plaintiffs’ complaint, see id. at 22 n.74 (“The Complaint is also full of references to the FRT-15 manufactured and sold by Rare Breed Triggers.”). And as this Court emphasized, the statutory “definition [of a machinegun] is solely concerned with the mechanical operation of the trigger.” Order at 38. Accordingly, because different types of forced-reset triggers may mechanically operate in a different way, and because there are no standards for the designation of a device as a forced reset trigger, this Court only had occasion to consider the mechanics and rule on the legality of FRT-15s and WOTs.”
The judge must decide if the ATF is violating the court order. The new ATF is supposed to be less hostile to the gun community, but if this case is any sign, it is business as usual for the ATF.
About John Crump
Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.
