The Trump administration has eased gun regulations, now allowing devices that enable semiautomatic rifles to fire like machine guns, fulfilling a promise to gun rights advocates while drawing fierce criticism from gun control supporters.

At a Glance

• Trump administration has reversed a previous ATF ban on “forced reset triggers” that allow standard firearms to fire like machine guns
• The Justice Department settled a lawsuit with the National Association for Gun Rights, which challenged the ban
• Attorney General Pamela Bondi stated the settlement supports the 2nd Amendment and enhances public safety
• Forced reset triggers will not be classified as firearms, allowing purchases without background checks
• Gun control advocates warn the decision could increase public safety risks

Second Amendment Victory for Gun Rights Supporters

In a significant policy shift, the Trump administration has permitted the sale of devices that enable standard firearms to fire like machine guns. The Department of Justice reached a settlement with the National Association for Gun Rights regarding “forced reset triggers,” which allow semiautomatic rifles to mimic the rapid-firing capabilities of fully automatic weapons. This reversal of a previous Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) ban represents a substantial win for gun rights advocates who have long challenged such restrictions as unconstitutional infringements on Second Amendment rights.

The settlement comes after the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals had shown support for the gun rights group’s position, citing a recent Supreme Court decision on bump stocks. Under the agreement, forced reset triggers will not be classified as firearms, meaning they can be purchased anonymously without background checks. Additionally, the ATF will be required to return any previously seized forced reset triggers to their owners, demonstrating a complete reversal of the agency’s previous stance.

Legal Background and Implications

Machine guns have been largely illegal for civilian ownership in the United States since 1986 under the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act. However, this settlement effectively prevents enforcement of restrictions on these particular devices that can provide similar firing capabilities. The effort to ban forced reset triggers actually began during the first Trump administration alongside the ban on bump stocks, which was later overturned by the Supreme Court in a separate decision that likely influenced this settlement.

The ATF had previously determined through technical analysis that forced reset triggers allow semiautomatic rifles to fire at rates comparable to automatic military rifles. This settlement specifically prohibits Rare Breed Triggers, one manufacturer of these devices, from developing versions for pistols, suggesting some limitations remain in place. The legal framework around these accessories has been contentious, with gun rights advocates arguing that such restrictions violate constitutional rights while opponents cite public safety concerns.

Critics Voice Safety Concerns

The decision has drawn sharp criticism from gun control advocacy groups who warn about potential public safety implications. Representatives from organizations dedicated to reducing gun violence have expressed serious concerns that the availability of these devices could increase the lethality of mass shooting incidents and undermine decades of established gun safety policies. They argue that allowing devices that effectively convert semiautomatic weapons into rapidfire arms serves no legitimate sporting or self-defense purpose.

Kris Brown, president of Brady United, characterized the settlement as a “dangerous backroom deal” that puts communities at risk. However, supporters of the decision maintain that the settlement simply corrects an overreach by federal agencies and restores rights protected by the Constitution. The contrasting reactions highlight the deeply divided perspectives on firearms regulation that continue to define the national debate on gun ownership rights versus public safety considerations.