In a major legal victory for Second Amendment advocates, Texas Gun Rights (TXGR) and the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) scored a decisive win against the Biden Administration’s ATF on July 23, 2024, when a federal judge ruled to dismantle the ATF’s ban on Forced Reset Triggers (FRTs) in the case NAGR v. Garland.

The ruling vacated the ATF’s attempt to classify FRTs as “machine guns,” effectively blocking the agency from enforcing their expanded definition against law-abiding citizens. The court’s mandate included:

• Requiring the return of all confiscated FRT components.
• Directing the ATF to issue correction letters to individuals previously warned about FRT possession.

This decision was widely seen as a victory for gun owners and a check on federal overreach.

ATF’s Response and Ongoing Dispute

Despite the ruling, the ATF has taken a controversial position regarding compliance. Earlier this week, NAGR Vice President and legal expert Hannah Hill received a notice from the ATF stating that only individuals who were members of NAGR or TXGR as of August 9, 2023 – the date the lawsuit was filed – would be eligible to have their seized FRTs returned.

This interpretation has sparked pushback from TXGR and NAGR, who argue that the court’s decision applies to all law-abiding gun owners, regardless of organizational membership.

“We filed this lawsuit to defend the rights of all gun owners targeted by the ATF’s overreach,” said a TXGR spokesperson. “The ATF’s refusal to return confiscated property to non-members contradicts the court’s ruling and undermines constitutional protections.”

Legal Standpoint and Implications

The dispute highlights an ongoing legal battle over the enforcement of federal firearm regulations and the limits of agency authority. TXGR and NAGR are challenging the ATF’s stance, emphasizing that the court’s ruling should apply broadly to ensure that wrongfully confiscated property is returned to its rightful owners.

As the case continues, it underscores the tension between federal agencies and gun rights organizations committed to defending constitutional freedoms. The outcome of this dispute could set an important precedent regarding the enforcement of firearm regulations and the rights of lawful gun owners across the country.