Sixteen states, led by New Jersey, have sent a letter to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit objecting to the return of forced reset triggers (FRTs) to their owners.
As reported by AmmoLand News, last year, a permanent injunction was issued in a Texas court preventing the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) from taking enforcement actions against the owners and companies that sell and produce FRTs. The court also ordered the ATF to return all confiscated triggers. As AmmoLand News first reported, those returns started last month.
The states, who are not a part of the suit, are now trying to intervene, claiming that the return of the triggers presents a significant and irreparable danger to the public. AmmoLand News hasn’t been able to determine a single crime committed with an FRT. The states acknowledge they are not a party in the case, meaning that their letter might fall on deaf ears since the court is under no obligation to consider the states’ arguments.
A group of anti-gun states led by New Jersey are not happy that the federal government is returning some confiscated FRTs to their owners: pic.twitter.com/TAs13YmN4X
— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) March 5, 2025
The letter reads: “Amici States write to notify the Court that Appellants have begun the process of returning confiscated force reset triggers (“FRTs”) in light of the February 22, 2025 return deadline imposed by the district court in the order on appeal. See ECF No. 126, National Association for Gun Rights v. Bondi, No. 23-830 (N.D. Tex.) (Feb 19, 2025) (“Notice of Compliance”) (attached hereto as Exhibit A). The return of these weapons presents a significant and irreparable danger to public safety and underscores the need for a prompt ruling from the Court reversing the district court’s final judgment and order. Although Amici States are mindful that they lack party status in this case, they are writing to apprise the Court of this notable development.”
To many it seems like the states are asking the Fifth Circuit Court to use intermediate scrutiny to stop the triggers return. Intermediate scrutiny weighs the rights of the people against the interests of the state. This legal term was used to uphold gun laws across the country until the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision. In Bruen SCOTUS said that only the original text, history, and tradition from the founding of the Second Amendment could be used to determine if a law is constitutional. Since Bruen the courts are no longer allowed to use intermediate scrutiny to justify upholding gun laws.
The states also used the excuse of “health, safety, and welfare” to justify their letter. These excuses have been tried in other cases dealing with firearms. In all those cases the move failed. The law doesn’t have a “public health” exception for guns. The states complained that they are at the “mercy of the Federal Government’s interpretation of their own state laws.”
The NAGR v. Bondi case is not a Second Amendment case. It is an Administrative Procedures Act (APA) case. The plaintiffs claim that the ATF exceeded its statutory power when it designated FRTs to be Machinegun conversion devices (MCDs). An FRT doesn’t operate like an MCD described in the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). The ATF forced a square peg into a round hole to reach its determination.
The Fifth Circuit has already ruled in a case that made similar arguments. That case was Cargill v. Garland. It deals with devices known as bump stocks that the ATF concluded were MCDs, even though it did not meet the statutory definition of a machinegun. The Appeals Court ruled that the ATF exceeded its power and knocked down the rule. The ATF appealed to the Supreme Court, which affirmed the lower court’s decision. There is no reason to believe the Circuit Court will come up with a different conclusion in this case. The states might be trying to buy time to amend their laws to block ownership of FRTs.
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.
