With a conventional semiautomatic trigger, the user must manually release and allow it to reach its reset point before the trigger may be pulled again. An FRT forces the trigger to reset quicker, permitting faster follow-up shots by the shooter.
The important detail, however, is that the trigger still must be manually pulled after each round. This clearly differentiates the weapons from machine guns, which face far stricter regulations.
The case was brought by the National Association of Gun Rights (NAGR) and Rare Breed Triggers.
Plaintiffs alleged the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) reached beyond its authority with the rule. Specifically, the agency is accused of exercising congressional powers it does not possess through redefining weapons equipped with FRTs as machine guns.
The preliminary injunction was requested to safeguard those who manufacture and own these devices until the court is able to hear arguments and reach a decision.
Judge O’Connor wrote in his ruling, “Without immediate relief, Plaintiffs fear civil and criminal prosecution.” He noted that the litigants contended that “the ATF’s regulation broadening the machine gun definition is an arbitrary and capricious expansion of the agency’s authority. Plaintiffs are likely correct.”
He then granted the preliminary injunction. It covers NAGR and its members along with its members along with Rare Breed Triggers and its customers.
There is a clear judicial pattern in which judges see the expansive overreach of the ATF into constitutional rights. The agency many times strays far from its legitimate duties and attempts to rewrite legislation — and it invariably works against the rights of lawful gun owners.
