A coalition of 16 Democrat-controlled states and the District of Columbia has filed a lawsuit to stop the ATF from returning forced reset triggers (FRTs) that were previously confiscated from gun owners. This legal attack comes after a court ruled those seizures were illegal, and the ATF entered a settlement to return the devices.
The states—including New Jersey, Maryland, California, Illinois, and others—are now asking a federal court in Maryland to overturn that settlement and block the ATF from fulfilling its agreement.
The case, filed June 9, 2025, targets the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR), Rare Breed Triggers, and the U.S. Department of Justice. It seeks to halt what the states call an “imminent redistribution” of what they misleadingly label as “machinegun conversion devices.”
NAGR Blasts the Lawsuit: “Reckless Political Lawfare”
The National Association for Gun Rights responded with sharp condemnation.
“A federal court already ruled the government unlawfully seized thousands of legal triggers from law-abiding Americans — a decision that the ATF now acknowledges and accepts,” said NAGR Vice President Hannah Hill. “These states lack standing to file this lawsuit, and they know it. This suit is just reckless political lawfare.”
NAGR had previously teamed up with Rare Breed Triggers to sue the ATF in federal court, where they won a major victory. The judge ruled that FRTs do NOT meet the legal definition of a machinegun, and ordered the government to return all confiscated triggers.
That ruling led to a settlement signed in May 2025, in which the DOJ agreed to stop enforcement against FRTs and return the seized property. Rare Breed Triggers is now back in business, and the ATF—under President Trump’s February 7 Executive Order “Protecting Second Amendment Rights”—agreed not to classify the devices as machineguns moving forward.
Freedom-Hating Blue States Call the Settlement “Dangerous”
The lawsuit filed by the states claims that returning FRTs to gun owners would “aid and abet violations of state law” and accuses the federal government of acting “ultra vires,” or beyond its legal authority.
Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown and New Jersey AG Matthew Platkin led a press conference where they blamed FRTs for violent crime, claimed they turn guns into “battlefield weapons,” and warned that returning them would make communities less safe.
But the Maryland AG’s office was quickly embarrassed when it had to issue a correction notice for falsely linking an AK-47 mass shooting to a Glock switch. The corrected complaint now admits that a modified firearm was merely recovered after the incident, not used in the crime itself.
Critics say this kind of sloppy, fear-driven messaging only proves how desperate the anti-gun side has become.
The Legal Stakes
The states are asking the court to:
- Vacate the ATF’s agreement to return the triggers.
- Block returns to individuals or dealers in states where FRTs are banned.
- Prevent any future enforcement rollback under the settlement.
- Force ATF to resume its confiscation operations, even in defiance of federal court rulings.
However, the judge in NAGR v. Garland has already made clear that the ATF’s actions violated the law, and the DOJ has dropped its appeals.
NAGR’s Hannah Hill concluded, “We remain confident that the settlement agreement will be upheld and remind all parties in the meantime that the orders from Judge Reed O’Conner’s ruling in the Northern District of Texas remains binding. We expect parties to comply in good faith.”
Bottom Line
This lawsuit is shaping up to be a major battle between anti-gun state governments and federal agencies that were finally held accountable for years of overreach. If these states succeed, it could upend hard-won victories for lawful gun owners and set a dangerous precedent where court rulings get tossed aside when politicians don’t like the outcome.
AmmoLand News will continue to monitor this case and provide updates as it develops.
