The legal battle over gun attachments is heating up on the East Coast as Maryland has taken the lead in a multistate lawsuit against the Trump administration. The primary contention centers on the legality of Forced Reset Triggers (FRTs), devices that can convert semi-automatic firearms into nearly automatic function. Attorney General Anthony Brown of Maryland is joined by New Jersey, Delaware, and a coalition of 16 other Democratic-led states, as they seek to challenge a settlement agreement that would allow the distribution of these devices, considered by many as a catalyst for increased gun violence.
Under the Biden administration, FRTs were considered a no-go, with owners of these devices facing confiscation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). Still, the tune has changed since the arrival of the Trump administration, the ATF agreed to stop enforcing FRT laws and even planned to return some of the FRTs seized, as reported by WMAR2 News. A settlement with Rare Breed Triggers spurred this change, the company responsible for manufacturing the controversial devices. The Department of Justice defended the agreement with Rare Breed Triggers as a move to avoid continued litigation and appeals on the matter.
On the local level, the fallout from these devices is seen in financial and human terms. Attorney General Brown argues that the redistribution of such triggers could inflate the state's costs related to gun-related injuries and deaths, citing a staggering $60.3 million spent on treating firearm injuries in 2024. The case built by the Maryland leadership is reinforced by incidents such as the Loch Raven Boulevard shooting in Baltimore County, which saw one person killed and nine others injured.
In a seemingly unending echo, the debates reverberate within the highest levels of judicial review, leading up to the Supreme Court, which recently ruled on related firearm matters but has not directly addressed the FRT issue, according to details from CBS News. Across the intervening states, similar local laws have banned rapid-fire devices, and the move to pursue legal action against FRTs finds itself in a chorus of legislative attempts to quell the dissemination of mechanisms that amplify fire rates and, potentially, harm.
