Democrat Attorneys General Just Lost The Argument About DOJ Deal on Forced Reset Triggers

On Monday, New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin and fifteen other Democrat attorneys general announced a lawsuit against the Trump administration, Rare Breed Triggers, National Association for Gun Rights, and others involved in the recent settlement of a legal fight over the ATF’s classification of forced reset triggers as machine guns. 

The attorneys general histrionically contended that the settlement would send tens of thousands of machine guns into their communities, based on one of the terms in the settlement: the ATF would return seized FRTs to their rightful owners “whenever practicable.” 

As I mentioned in our coverage on Monday, while Platkin and his anti-gun colleagues alleged in their complaint that “the Agreement includes no carve outs on its face that would exclude returns to individuals or entities located in States that bar the possession of FRTs or FRT-equipped firearms” nor “include a carve out excluding returns to individuals who are barred from possessing firearms by federal law pursuant to 18 U.S.C § 922(g), such as convicted felons,” there was nothing in the agreement suggesting that ATF would return those devices to those ineligible to possess them under state or federal law. 

Now the ATF has released details on how the return process will work, and the Democrat AGs might as well throw in the towel because they just lost their main argument. 

The ATF just announced the process for returning seized Forced Reset Triggers pursuant to our settlement. They will be mailing FRT owners a notice by June 30 with instructions for reclaiming through their local field office. pic.twitter.com/LXe6g7wiXd

— Hannah Hill (@hannahhill_sc) June 9, 2025

The ATF’s guidance makes it clear that, despite the claims of Platkin and his co-plaintiffs, FRTs are not going to be shipped to states where they’re illegal… nor will they be returned to anyone ineligible to possess a firearm. 

Some states independently prohibit the possession of forced reset triggers or trigger activating devices.  If you live in a jurisdiction in which the possession of a forced reset trigger is prohibited by law, ATF will work with you to return the device in a place where it may be lawfully possessed, or upon request, will transfer the device to a third party who may lawfully receive it.

FRTs will not be returned to individuals who are prohibited by law from possessing firearms.

That satisfies most of what Platkin and the other AGs were asking a federal judge to impose on the parties to the settlement, though their lawsuit also sought to “preliminarily and permanently enjoin the Government Defendants from implementing or enforcing… to any distributor, dealer, seller, or other entity that sells, resells, or otherwise distributes FRTs into Plaintiff States, either directly or indirectly.” 

In other words, they don’t want FRTs returned to any retailer or distributor, regardless of whether they offer forced reset triggers to residents of states where they’re prohibited by law, since they might “indirectly” lead to an FRT entering the state. Even if the plaintiffs manage to convince a friendly judge to agree to that, there’s no chance that provision would be upheld by the Supreme Court. These are legal products being returned to entities that are legally allowed to sell them, at least at the federal level. there’s no justification whatsoever to block these FRTs from being returned to these companies and FFLs. 

The Justice Department was never going to send FRTs to states where they’re banned, or hand them over to prohibited persons. The lawsuit filed by Platkin and the other attorneys general is nothing more than an act of political grandstanding, and thanks to the ATF’s clarification it will likely be thrown out of court at the earliest opportunity.