A Stark Policy Reversal: Trump DOJ Unwinds Ban on Forced-Reset Triggers
With a stroke of a pen and a contentious settlement, the Trump administration’s Department of Justice has upended a gun control measure many advocates called essential. The decision: permit the sale, possession, and return of forced-reset triggers—mechanisms that allow semi-automatic rifles to mimic automatic fire with alarming speed. Reversing the Biden-era ban, this move sharply divides those who champion gun rights and those who fear the consequences for public safety.
The rapid-fire policy shift wasn’t driven by legislative debate but rather legal maneuvering in response to lawsuits from gun rights groups. In particular, the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) targeted the ATF’s 2021 reclassification of forced-reset triggers as “machineguns,” which subjected the devices to a ban under the National Firearms Act. The resulting settlement not only compels the federal government to stop enforcing the previous ban—except for handgun modifications—but also mandates the return of thousands of seized triggers.
Attorney General Pam Bondi framed the move as a victory for constitutional freedoms, stating it would “end a needless cycle of litigation” and allegedly “enhance public safety.” Yet, such claims ring hollow for gun reform advocates who see the practical risks involved—especially at a time when AR-15-style weapons remain central to America’s tragic mass shooting epidemic. According to data from the Gun Violence Archive, there were over 600 mass shootings in the U.S. in 2023 alone, many involving semi-automatic rifles.
Conservative Legal Wins, Progressive Public Safety Risks
Gun rights organizations, buoyed by this legal triumph, are quick to herald the outcome as a major win. NAGR, emboldened by its successful challenge to what it calls “arbitrary regulatory overreach”, is already eyeing other battles against firearms regulations. Calls to defend the “plain language” of the Second Amendment resonate with right-wing legal circles, yet these victories are not without material cost—most acutely felt in American communities reeling from gun violence.
Let’s cut through the legalese: Forced-reset triggers aren’t your average aftermarket upgrade. They exploit technical loopholes to let shooters fire rounds at rates once reserved for military weaponry—all without the regulatory burdens placed on true machine guns. Conservative voices insist these are harmless modifications for hobbyists. But everytown.org and Giffords, prominent gun safety organizations, counter with somber warnings. “By effectively legalizing devices that turn semi-automatic rifles into rapid-fire weapons, the DOJ is making communities less safe,” Giffords’ policy director Vanessa Gonzalez warned in a CNN interview.
Why now, and at what cost? The Biden administration’s original ban was not arbitrary; it was a response to the growing use of AR-15s and similar rifles in high-profile mass shootings. Federal prosecutors and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) argued that these triggers functionally convert legal firearms into devices that can unleash torrents of bullets in seconds. Historical context shows how regulatory action—like the 1934 National Firearms Act or the 1986 ban on new machine gun sales—has periodically checked the spread of these deadly technologies. The lesson is clear: sensible limits work.
“We’re not just talking about technicalities—we’re talking about people’s lives. Every time a loophole gets pried open, we see the deadly consequences in American streets, schools, and houses of worship.” — Shannon Watts, founder, Moms Demand Action
The argument advanced by gun industry lobbyists—that the settlement “preserves our freedoms” and backs the Second Amendment—conveniently sidesteps the inconvenient reality that American gun deaths and injuries outpace those of every other developed nation. A Pew Research Center analysis found the U.S. gun death rate is over eight times higher than Canada’s and over one hundred times that of the United Kingdom. At what point does the alleged right to own dangerous modifications outweigh the right to public safety?
Navigating the New Normal: Policy Implications and the Battle Ahead
Where does this all leave us? The Trump DOJ’s settlement marks a significant step backward for those fighting gun violence. Mandating the return of seized triggers, it’s not just a bureaucratic maneuver—it’s a signal flare to a gun lobby that increasingly shapes federal policy from the outside in. While gun rights organizations celebrate their “victory,” communities must now contend with the fallout: more rapid-fire accessories on the streets and a retreat from common-sense regulation during a period of relentless mass shootings.
Expert voices in public health, including Dr. Sandro Galea of Boston University, underscore what’s at stake: “Easy access to rapid-fire capabilities increases not just the scale but also the lethality of mass shootings. Reducing these risks must be a top public health priority.” Harvard’s David Hemenway, a leading scholar on violence prevention, echoes this, noting that the U.S. consistently lags behind on gun reform measures proven effective elsewhere—like stringent accessory bans and buyback programs—which have dramatically reduced gun deaths in countries like Australia.
The settlement’s language is less than reassuring if you care about collective well-being. By tying the DOJ’s hands, it emboldens those eager to push the boundaries of firearm modification. The National Association for Gun Rights has already signaled it will “challenge other perceived infringements” on gun rights, raising the prospect of more lawsuits that chip away at regulatory safeguards. What does it say about the priorities of a government willing to elevate the most radical interpretations of the Second Amendment above the basic right to safety in schools, supermarkets, or houses of worship?
A closer look reveals an existential test for American democracy: Are we prepared to let a tiny fraction of the population—with the backing of well-funded lobbyists—dictate public policy on matters of life and death? Progressives must answer, not with resignation, but with determined advocacy for laws and regulations that reflect the will and well-being of the majority. This policy reversal should galvanize ordinary citizens, local lawmakers, and federal representatives alike to fight for comprehensive reforms, including rigorous regulation of firearm accessories, stronger background checks, and robust federal oversight.
The Trump DOJ’s settlement has set a troubling precedent: It prioritizes the interests of a vocal minority, disregarding the tragic realities endured by countless American families. If anything, this moment demands renewed commitment to sensible policies—rooted in evidence, compassion, and a vision for a safer, more just society.
