It’s just changed battlefields.
After years of federal persecution, ATF raids, seizures, and courtroom battles that nearly crushed Rare Breed Triggers and its founder Lawrence DeMonico, a new front has opened — this time inside the firearms industry itself.
Atrius Development Group has publicly vowed to support distributors and retailers facing patent infringement lawsuits from Rare Breed over forced reset trigger technology, calling the legal threats “false,” “frivolous,” and harmful to the broader Second Amendment community.
What began as a united front against the Biden DOJ is now a civil war over patents.
What Is a Forced Reset Trigger?
A forced reset trigger (FRT) is a semi-automatic trigger system that mechanically forces the trigger to reset after each shot, allowing for a faster rate of fire while still firing only one round per trigger pull.
Despite political hysteria, forced reset triggers are not machine guns. They do not allow a firearm to fire more than one round per function of the trigger — the statutory definition of a machine gun under federal law.
That distinction became the center of one of the most high-profile Second Amendment legal battles in recent memory.
The Lawsuit That Changed Everything
When the ATF attempted to reclassify forced reset triggers as machine guns and began seizing products, Texas Gun Rights, the National Association for Gun Rights, and Rare Breed fought back.
They sued the Department of Justice.
And they won.
The settlement terms were historic:
- The ATF agreed to return previously seized forced reset triggers.
- The federal government acknowledged that FRTs do not meet the statutory definition of a machine gun.
- The enforcement campaign was halted.
- Law-abiding Americans could once again legally own forced reset triggers.
It was a major victory for gun owners nationwide.
But that victory came at a price.
Rare Breed Fought Alone — And Paid the Price
During the federal court battle, Rare Breed received virtually no outside support from the broader firearms industry.
No coordinated defense effort.
No industry war chest.
No flood of corporate backing.
Founder Lawrence DeMonico reportedly spent millions out of pocket to fight the federal government — nearly bankrupting both himself and the company in the process.
And even after injunctions were granted stopping the ATF’s ban during litigation, Rare Breed still faced separate litigation out of New York that prevented the company from selling triggers.
While Rare Breed was locked in courtrooms fighting for survival, other companies were free to enter the market.
They sold products.
They made millions.
Rare Breed was left bleeding cash.
Now Rare Breed Is Fighting Back — In Court
Fast forward to today.
Rare Breed has begun aggressively pursuing patent infringement claims against companies selling forced reset trigger-related products.
And that’s where Atrius Development Group enters the picture.
Atrius says Rare Breed is going after companies for selling entirely different technology — products that Atrius maintains do not infringe on Rare Breed’s patents.
In a public statement, Atrius said it obtained legal opinions from multiple patent firms confirming its products are not infringing.
The company has pledged to support distributors and retailers who receive legal threats from Rare Breed.
What Is Atrius’ “Forced Reset Selector”?
Atrius argues its product is not a traditional forced reset trigger at all — but a selector-based mechanism that interacts differently with a firearm’s internal components.
While Rare Breed’s FRT design centers on a trigger housing system that forces mechanical reset through internal spring tension and bolt carrier interaction, Atrius says its Forced Reset Selector uses a different engineering approach — altering selector geometry and reset timing rather than duplicating Rare Breed’s patented configuration.
Atrius contends that Rare Breed is attempting to assert broad ownership over an entire category of reset-enhancing technology — not just a specific patented design.
Rare Breed, for its part, appears to believe its patents cover critical functional elements of forced reset systems and is now moving to enforce those rights after years of defending its technology against the federal government.
At the heart of the dispute is not just competition — but the scope and validity of patent claims.
A Patent War After a Constitutional Victory
Reports indicate Atrius has also taken proactive legal steps, including seeking review of key patent claims through federal administrative channels.
Such proceedings — known as Inter Partes Review petitions — ask the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to re-evaluate whether patent claims are truly novel or whether prior art renders them invalid.
If successful, those challenges could significantly narrow or eliminate the legal basis for infringement claims.
In other words, this is no longer simply about who sells more triggers.
It’s about who owns the intellectual property rights to forced reset-style technology.
Competition, Innovation, and the Second Amendment
Atrius describes itself as a “Second Amendment absolutist” company and says it wants more innovation — and more products — available to every American.
Rare Breed appears equally committed to defending what it sees as its hard-earned intellectual property after nearly being destroyed fighting the federal government alone.
Both companies emerged from the same constitutional battlefield.
Now they are facing off in a patent courtroom.
The conflict is no longer ATF versus industry.
It’s industry versus industry.
And the ripple effects could shape the future of firearm accessory innovation for years to come.
As forced reset triggers return to the market, tensions over patents, profits, and principle are boiling over.
But one thing remains certain: the federal government’s attempt to criminalize lawful semi-automatic technology lit a fuse that is still burning.
Chip in to Texas Gun Rights today to keep defending the Second Amendment — without compromise.
