
Trump admin permits sale of device that allows standard firearms to fire like machine guns
The Trump Administration has decided to permit the sale of devices that enable standard firearms to fire like machine guns, a move that one person familiar with the matter said was 'by far the most dangerous thing this administration has done' on gun policy.
The Justice Department on Friday announced a settlement in a lawsuit brought by the National Association for Gun Rights. The lawsuit challenged an ATF rule banning 'forced reset triggers' –- devices that allow semi-automatic weapons to fire rapid burst of bullets.
'This Department of Justice believes that the 2nd Amendment is not a second-class right,' said Attorney General Pamela Bondi. 'And we are glad to end a needless cycle of litigation with a settlement that will enhance public safety.'
Vanessa Gonzales, a spokeswoman for GIFFORDS, the national gun violence prevention group led by former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, condemned the move.
'The Trump administration has just effectively legalized machine guns. Lives will be lost because of his actions,' said Gonzalez. 'This is an incredibly dangerous move that will enable shooters to inflict horrific damage. The only people who benefit from these being on the market are the people who will make money from selling them, everyone else will suffer the consequences.'
Ongoing court battles
The move comes after a majority of judges on the conservative Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals appeared to side with the gun rights group during oral arguments on the case in December. The judges cited a Supreme Court decision last year that another rapid-fire device, called a bump stock, did not convert firearms into illegal machine guns.
Since the forced reset trigger devices will not be considered firearms, they can be purchased anonymously, without a background or age check. Machine guns have been illegal in the United States since 1986, a notion that even gun rights groups have come to accept.
There have been several lawsuits over the forced reset triggers ban, and lower court judges had issued rulings that came down on both sides of the question. Assuming the Fifth Circuit ruled against the ban, the issue likely would have ended up in front of the Supreme Court.
But now the Trump administration is abandoning the effort to restrict the devices. A former senior ATF official criticized the move and predicted that the courts would have upheld a ban on reset trigger devices.
'We were going to win this,' said the former senior ATF official. 'These things are not like bump stocks.'
President Trump's White House counsel, David Warrington, is a co- founder of the National Association for Gun Rights and was counsel of record the lawsuit until he left to join the Trump Administration. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment about his role, if any, in the settlement discussions.
Brady United, the country's oldest gun violence prevention group, condiment Warrington's role.
'This dangerous backroom deal spearheaded by Trump's general counsel — the co-founder of one of the biggest gun rights groups in the country — is not only an incredible abuse of power, but undermines decades of sensible gun safety policy and puts communities at immediate risk,' Kris Brown, the group's president, said in a statement to NBC News.
A settlement 'in perpetuity'
Under the settlement, the Justice Department 'will bind itself, in perpetuity, not to enforce the machinegun ban against any device that functions like forced reset triggers,' one person familiar with the settlement told NBC News. 'ATF must also return thousands of seized forced reset triggers to their previous owners. In other words, machine guns will soon become legal to possess and purchase, and the federal government will flood the market with these devices.'
Some of the most popular versions of forced reset triggers are made by a company called Rare Breed Triggers, which was sued by the ATF in a separate case. That case will have to be dropped as part of the settlement, one of the people familiar with it said.
The Justice Department news release said the settlement 'includes agreed-upon conditions that significantly advance public safety with respect to FRTs, including that Rare Breed will not develop or design FRTs for use in any pistol and will enforce its patents to prevent infringement that could threaten public safety. Rare Breed also agrees to promote the safe and responsible use of its products.'
Proponents of the devices dispute that forced reset triggers turn standard guns into machine guns. But the ATF determined that the devices allow a semi-automatic AR-15 rifle to fire as fast as a military M-16 in automatic mode, according to court records.
The effort to ban forced reset triggers originated in the first Trump Administration, at the same time that the ATF also banned bump stocks, another device that enabled rapid trigger pulls that mimic the firing rate of a machine gun. The gunman in the 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting killed 58 people while firing from his hotel room window using bump stocks.
Brady United, the country's oldest gun violence prevention group, condiment Warrington's role.
'This dangerous backroom deal spearheaded by Trump's general counsel — the co-founder of one of the biggest gun rights groups in the country — is not only an incredible abuse of power, but undermines decades of sensible gun safety policy and puts communities at immediate risk,' Kris Brown, the group's president, said in a statement to NBC News.
A settlement 'in perpetuity'
Under the settlement, the Justice Department 'will bind itself, in perpetuity, not to enforce the machinegun ban against any device that functions like forced reset triggers,' one person familiar with the settlement told NBC News. 'ATF must also return thousands of seized forced reset triggers to their previous owners. In other words, machine guns will soon become legal to possess and purchase, and the federal government will flood the market with these devices.'
Some of the most popular versions of forced reset triggers are made by a company called Rare Breed Triggers, which was sued by the ATF in a separate case. That case will have to be dropped as part of the settlement, one of the people familiar with it said.
The Justice Department news release said the settlement 'includes agreed-upon conditions that significantly advance public safety with respect to FRTs, including that Rare Breed will not develop or design FRTs for use in any pistol and will enforce its patents to prevent infringement that could threaten public safety. Rare Breed also agrees to promote the safe and responsible use of its products.'
Proponents of the devices dispute that forced reset triggers turn standard guns into machine guns. But the ATF determined that the devices allow a semi-automatic AR-15 rifle to fire as fast as a military M-16 in automatic mode, according to court records.
The effort to ban forced reset triggers originated in the first Trump Administration, at the same time that the ATF also banned bump stocks, another device that enabled rapid trigger pulls that mimic the firing rate of a machine gun. The gunman in the 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting killed 58 people while firing from his hotel room window using bump stocks.
The Supreme Court ruled by a 6-3 margin last year that the bump stock ban was unlawful. The majority concluded the devices did not meet the definition of a machine gun because they didn't allow for automatic fire with the single pull of a trigger.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Rhyl Journal
16 minutes ago
- Rhyl Journal
Plaid to PM: 'Don't follow Trump into Middle East conflict'
Rhun ap Iorwerth, MS for Ynys Môn, and Liz Saville Roberts, MP for Dwyfor Meirionnydd, welcomed Prime Minister Keir Starmer's calls for diplomacy and de-escalation, but voiced concerns that he had fallen short of roundly condemning President Trump's authorisation of US strikes against Iran overnight. The Plaid Cymru politicians said that the pursuit of peace should take priority over any UK loyalty to the US and warned against repeating history where the UK entered a regional conflict in the Middle East as 'America's puppet.' In a joint statement, Mr ap Iorwerth and Ms Saville Roberts said: 'President Trump's decision to launch US strikes against Iran is potentially catastrophic for an already destabilised region. 'Whilst Prime Minister Keir Starmer's calls for diplomacy and de-escalation are to be welcomed, it is concerning that he has fallen short of roundly condemning President Trump's actions. 'The pursuit of peace should take priority over any UK loyalty to the US. We all remember the disastrous consequences of being dragged into a regional conflict in the Middle East as America's puppet. 'It is essential therefore that Parliament has the opportunity to veto any UK military involvement in the Israel-Iran conflict should Keir Starmer yield to any pressure from President Trump and propose some form of intervention. 'In the same way the US Democrats are divided on the issue, Keir Starmer may well face pressure from Labour hawks to follow President Trump's lead. 'Air strikes were launched against Syria in 2018 without granting Parliament an opportunity to vote on military action. At the time Plaid Cymru accused then-Prime Minister Theresa May of showing complete disregard towards democracy. 'We stand firmly by that view and reiterate our calls for restraint before more innocent civilian lives are lost.' The US strike on Iran has fuelled fears that Israel's war with Tehran could escalate to a wider regional conflict. World leaders have reacted with calls for diplomacy and words of caution. US President Donald Trump had said on Thursday that he would decide within two weeks whether to get involved. In the end, it took just days, and Washington inserted itself into Israel's campaign with its early attack early on Sunday, reports the Press Association (PA).

Rhyl Journal
17 minutes ago
- Rhyl Journal
Starmer warns of ‘risk of escalation' following US strikes against Iran
The Prime Minister urged all sides to return to negotiations but said he had taken 'all necessary measures' to protect British interests in the region if the conflict escalates. There was no British involvement in the action but the Government was informed before the US strikes. Tehran has threatened to retaliate and Mr Trump has warned of further US action if necessary, saying: 'There will either be peace or there will be tragedy for Iran.' Speaking at his Chequers country retreat, the Prime Minister said there was a 'risk of escalation' adding: 'That's a risk to the region. It's a risk beyond the region, and that's why all our focus has been on de-escalating, getting people back around to negotiate what is a very real threat in relation to the nuclear programme. 'In relation to the UK, we were not involved in the attack. We were given due notice, as we would expect, as close allies to the US, and we have been moving assets to the region to make sure we're in a position to protect our own interests, our personnel and our assets, and, of course, those of our allies.'


Spectator
23 minutes ago
- Spectator
Iran is isolated against the US and Israel
America's entry into the war against Iran is the latest step up an escalation spiral that began in October 2023. What started with an attack by a Palestinian Islamist organisation on a poorly defended Israeli border, and then became a fight between Israel and a series of Iran-supported Islamist paramilitary groups by the end of 2023, and then extended to limited exchanges between Israel and Iran itself in April 2024, and then turned into war between Iran and Israel, has now become a confrontation pitting the US and Israel against their longest standing and most powerful adversary in the Islamic world. Now at war with both Israel and the US, it has no major power interested in fighting alongside it. So what are the implications of this latest turn, and what may happen next? While prediction remains unwise regarding the current US president, the notion that the Trump administration will be dominated by isolationism can be laid to rest. In Washington a few weeks ago, I found that much of the talk behind the scenes was worried assessments concerning the rise of isolationism and of individuals professing such views at the top reaches of the administration. People with past associations with hawkish or pro-Israel circles were having trouble getting confirmed for posts. Vice President J.D. Vance and Donald Trump Jr, I heard, were the most senior and influential members of the rising camp. An old friend of mine who has interviewed the President on a number of occasions cautioned against despair. His advice: don't take too much notice of the people around Trump. Pay attention to Trump himself, and to what his track record suggests regarding his views on Israel. Possessing no special insights of my own, I hoped he was right. It appears he was. Over the last two years, much ink has been spilled regarding a supposedly emergent axis of anti-western states. This axis, as usually depicted, is headed by China, with Russia, Iran and North Korea as members. Cooperation between these countries has indeed measurably increased over the last half decade. Chinese purchase of Iranian oil to foil Trump's strategy of 'maximum pressure' on Tehran during his first term is one example of this growing operational closeness. Yearly joint naval exercises between the Chinese, Russian and Iranian navies, the role of Iranian Shahed 136 drones and North Korean ground troops in the Ukraine war, the provision of advanced air defence systems by Moscow to Tehran all support this view. But while the eventual emergence of such an axis may be likely, it is also the case that no such crystallised alliance currently exists. Russia is bogged down in its own forever war in Ukraine. There are no indications that Moscow supports Tehran's ambition for a nuclear weapon, and still less that Russia would jeopardise its own interests, security or relations with other states in support of this goal. Moscow is a rival but not an enemy to US-aligned Israel, and clearly prefers to maintain this ambiguous status, which brings some benefits. As for China, while rumours have abounded regarding mysterious Chinese cargo planes reaching Iran in recent days, Beijing's interest in the region and its growing influence depends on stability and relations with all sides. The mood music from China has shifted over the last two years, with increasingly harsh criticism of Israel. Beijing has strongly condemned Jerusalem's pre-emptive action against Iran. But China has also sought to build diplomatic leverage on the basis of strong commercial ties with all major regional powers. It has no interest in involving itself in conflicts. What all this means is that Iran currently finds itself isolated. Now at war with both Israel and the US, it has no major power interested in fighting alongside it. This is no doubt a matter for concern and consternation on the part of the mullahs. It's a blessing for the rest of us. So, isolated and faced with attacks by powers enjoying massive technical advantage, what are the options now available to Tehran? Tehran could, of course, agree to a new nuclear deal which sees the final abandonment of uranium enrichment on Iranian soil. This would represent a historic victory for the US and for Israel. As of now, Tehran may not yet feel that the regime faces existential danger. Short of this, surrender appears unlikely. If it wants to opt for defiance, Iran has a number of means of possible pressure. It will need to consider carefully, of course, if it wishes to use them, and thus invite further US retribution. Tehran still has its proxies, even in depleted form. The Houthis are likely to recommence attacks on US flagged vessels on the Gulf of Aden-Red Sea route now. The Iraqi Shia militias are relatively unscathed from the last 20 months of regional war. The US has bases in Iraq, at Erbil and ain al-Asad. Iran itself or its client militias might attempt missile or drone attacks on these facilities, or on the remaining US presence in northeast Syria. Theoretically, Tehran could order its once powerful Lebanese Hizballah proxy back into the fray. But to do so would be to risk the final decimation of an organisation that has already been battered by Israel. US bases throughout the region could potentially be targeted by Iranian missiles. Iran might also seek to hit at US allies in the Gulf, and their oil producing capacity as it did in 2019. But Israeli attacks on launch sites and supply chains throughout Iran in recent days have significantly reduced Iranian capacities in this regard. Iran could block the Strait of Hormuz, through which one fifth of global petroleum exports are shipped. This is a potent threat, which would cause oil prices to rise. But this would also almost certainly precipitate a full US entry into the war. Finally, of course, Tehran could accelerate efforts toward the testing of a nuclear weapon. All these potential courses of action bring with them the likelihood of increased global isolation, and increased US counter measures. These, in turn, would lead to deteriorating internal conditions in the country, which could hit at the regime's legitimacy and stability. Then again, acceptance of defeat, and surrender might have a similar effect. Supreme Leader Khamenei and his isolated regime have few good options at present. Whichever one they take, they are likely to be privately cursing the memory of their brother and comrade Yahya Sinwar, deceased former Hamas leader, whose decision to launch the massacres in October 2023 has led directly to Tehran's current predicament.