The legal status of FRT triggers under federal law is settled: forced reset triggers are legal to own, sell, and manufacture in the United States following a May 2025 Department of Justice settlement that ended all pending federal litigation against Rare Breed Triggers and required the ATF to return seized devices. State law is a different matter. A number of states still ban FRTs outright, and the settlement expressly leaves that authority intact.
What an FRT Is and Why Its Legality Was Contested
A forced reset trigger uses the rearward energy of a rifle’s bolt carrier group to mechanically push the trigger back to its forward position after each shot. The shooter still has to pull the trigger to fire each round. That mechanical detail is the whole legal argument: because every shot requires a separate trigger pull, the device does not fire more than one round with a single function of the trigger, which is the statutory definition of a machine gun under the National Firearms Act.1Rare Breed Triggers, FRT-15 product description
The tradeoff is speed. Because the reset happens faster than a finger can voluntarily release and re-pull a standard trigger, the practical rate of fire rises well above what a shooter can achieve on their own. On Rare Breed’s FRT-15, the pull weight in forced-reset mode runs roughly 6.5 to 7 pounds, heavier than the 4.5 to 5 pounds in standard semi-auto mode, because engaging the mechanism adds resistance from a disconnector spring.
How the Federal Ban Was Lifted
The ATF classified the FRT-15 as a machine gun in a July 27, 2021 cease-and-desist letter to Rare Breed Triggers, and followed up on March 22, 2022 with an open letter to federal firearms licensees warning of penalties up to $250,000 and ten years in prison for anyone possessing certain forced reset triggers. Owners were told to “divest possession,” and the agency began seizing devices and pursuing forfeitures. The classification was issued outside the standard rulemaking process, with no public comment period.
The federal government’s legal footing collapsed in stages. In June 2024, the Supreme Court decided Garland v. Cargill, holding that the ATF had exceeded its authority in classifying bump stocks as machine guns. The majority read “single function of the trigger” mechanically: because the trigger releases and resets between every shot, a bump-stock rifle does not fire more than one round per trigger function.
A month later, on July 23, 2024, Judge Reed O’Connor of the Northern District of Texas applied that reasoning to FRTs in NAGR v. Garland. He ruled that a forced reset trigger resets the trigger but does not independently force a subsequent pull, so it does not fire multiple rounds by a single function of the trigger. He vacated the ATF’s classification, issued a permanent injunction against enforcement, and ordered the government to return seized FRTs within 30 days and to notify people who had received warning letters that those letters were unlawful.
On May 16, 2025, the DOJ announced a settlement resolving all three pending federal cases: the New York fraud action, the Texas classification challenge, and a Utah forfeiture proceeding. The government dropped the cases, withdrew its pending appeals in the Second and Fifth Circuits, and rendered the Texas ruling final. The United States agreed not to enforce 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) or related NFA and GCA provisions against anyone for possessing or transferring FRTs that operate as described in the Texas decision.2DOJ settlement announcement, May 16, 2025
Getting a Seized FRT Back from the ATF
Under the settlement, the ATF agreed to return seized or voluntarily surrendered triggers to individual owners on request. Requests had to be submitted through the ATF website by September 30, 2025. Rare Breed’s president estimated the ATF was holding at least $2.5 million worth of the company’s products at the time of the settlement.
The return process was modified for owners in states where FRTs remain illegal. After a challenge from a 16-state coalition, the ATF agreed not to ship triggers directly back to owners in banned states. Owners in those states are notified that they can request transfer to a state where the device is legal, designate a third party in a legal state to receive it, or abandon it for destruction.
Where FRTs Are Still Illegal
The settlement does not override state law, and several states prohibit forced reset triggers or functionally equivalent devices.
California classifies FRTs as “multiburst trigger activators” under Penal Code Section 16930, and Section 32900 makes it illegal to possess, sell, manufacture, or import them. On June 2, 2025, California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued a law enforcement bulletin confirming that FRTs remain illegal in California regardless of the federal settlement and advising residents not to request the return of previously seized devices.
Minnesota’s trigger activator statute, Minn. Stat. § 609.67, covers devices that use the recoil or energy of a semiautomatic firearm to reset the trigger and continue firing, a definition state gun rights groups read as covering FRTs.
In June 2025, Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown led a 16-state coalition in filing NJ v. Bondi in the U.S. District Court for Maryland to block the ATF from returning nearly 12,000 confiscated FRTs to owners in states where the devices are illegal. As part of the resulting arrangement, Rare Breed Triggers committed in court filings not to sell or ship its products into Maryland, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Oregon, or Washington, D.C. The coalition withdrew its request for a preliminary injunction on July 11, 2025, citing the federal government’s commitments.
What the Settlement Does Not Cover
Several boundaries are worth knowing before assuming the settlement solves every FRT question.
State enforcement is preserved. The agreement explicitly does not stop state regulators from enforcing their own laws, and a device that is federally legal can still trigger state charges.
Handgun FRTs are restricted. Rare Breed agreed not to develop or market FRTs for any handgun where the magazine loads into the trigger-hand grip. FRTs for AR- and AK-style pistols, where the magazine inserts ahead of the grip, are still permitted.
Other manufacturers are not covered. The federal non-enforcement pledge covers FRTs that operate as described in the Texas court’s decision. The settlement does not prevent the federal government from pursuing other manufacturers whose devices work differently, and it does not resolve civil disputes between Rare Breed and its competitors.
Buying an FRT Today
Rare Breed Triggers resumed sales of the FRT-15 in May 2025 and reported a sales surge by mid-June. On August 13, 2025, the company launched the FRT-15L3, described as its first new forced reset trigger released since the legal wins. The company has announced plans to develop FRTs for additional firearm platforms.
Competing products are a more complicated purchase. Rare Breed and its affiliate ABC IP, LLC have filed patent infringement suits alleging violations of four U.S. patents (Nos. 10,514,223; 11,724,003; 12,036,336; and 12,274,807) against numerous companies, including Peak Tactical, Firearm Systems, SGC, Hawkphin Sales, Cloak Industries, Canuck Tactical, Webcorp, AR-TT, and Optics Planet. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated the cases as MDL No. 3176, In re: Rare Breed Triggers Patent Litigation, before Judge Amos L. Mazzant III in the Eastern District of Texas. As part of the DOJ settlement, Rare Breed committed to enforcing its patents against infringement that could “threaten public safety,” so buyers of non-Rare Breed FRTs may find their supplier under active litigation.