Gun Owners Challenge DOJ Rule Expanding ‘Machinegun’ Definition

The US Department of Justice policy to classify firearms with added forced reset triggers as “machineguns” faces a legal challenge from Texas gun owners and sellers.

The National Association for Gun Rights, Texas Gun Rights, Inc., and several individual plaintiffs sued Justice Department officials in the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas on Wednesday, accusing the department of making arbitrary and unlawful efforts to misclassify firearms with forced reset triggers under the 1934 National Firearms Act.

The plaintiffs alleged the department’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives relied on a misinterpreted definition of a machine gun as the basis for their forced reset trigger rule.

They are seeking an injunction to stop the ATF from enforcing the rule, as well as an order requiring the department to compensate owners for the seized devices.

The NFA regulates machine guns, and components designed to convert other firearms into machine guns. The law was amended in 1986 to prohibit the transfer of or possession of machine guns in most circumstances. The ATF expanded the statutory definition of “machinegun” in 2018, but the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit struck down the expanded definition earlier this year, overturning the Trump administration’s bump-stock ban and ruling the ATF overstepped its statutory authority.

The ATF issued an open letter, quoted in the complaint, concerning forced reset triggers in March 2022, before the Fifth Circuit’s ruling. The plaintiffs claim the department still relies on its old rationale when regulating forced reset triggers.

Competing Definitions

Forced reset triggers eliminate the need for users to release their gun’s trigger before a second shot is fired, according to ATF’s letter. That functionality fits the statutory definition of a “machinegun,” and stands in contrast to other after-market triggers, which preserve the need to release the trigger for a subsequent shot, the letter said.

The plaintiffs claim the department’s interpretation of the NFA’s definition of “machinegun” is incorrect because the ATF’s letter examines how often a shooter’s trigger finger is used, rather than the reset mechanism of the trigger, as the statute allegedly requires.

“The statute uses single function of the trigger, not single function of the shooter’s trigger finger,” the complaint said, citing the Fifth Circuit’s 2023 decision. “Had Congress wanted to use the phrase ‘by a single pull of the trigger’ for machine guns, it could have. But it did not.”

The Department of Justice didn’t immediately respond to an emailed request for comment.

Eggleston King Davis LLP, Dhillon Law Group Inc., and Wood Herron & Evans LLP represent the plaintiffs.

The case is Nat’l Ass’n for Gun Rights v. Garland, N.D. Tex., No. 23-cv-830, complaint filed 8/9/23.