A newly uncovered Department of Justice filing has ignited outrage among gun owners after revealing an aggressive new strategy to restrict forced reset triggers (FRTs)—not through legislation, but through civil patent litigation. Buried inside a private lawsuit between Rare Breed Triggers and Hoffman Tactical, the DOJ openly stated its interest in limiting the sale and distribution of FRTs, despite Congress never banning them.

The filing is especially troubling in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Garland v. Cargill, which ruled that the ATF exceeded its authority by classifying bump stocks as machine guns. Forced reset triggers operate on similar mechanical principles, yet the DOJ appears to be seeking indirect control by encouraging patent enforcement to eliminate competitors and dry up supply.

Gun rights advocates argue this approach amounts to regulation without legislation and enforcement without due process. Rather than relying on historical precedent or statutory authority—as required under the Bruen standard—the DOJ leans on vague “public safety” interests, a rationale the Supreme Court has already rejected.

Critics warn that if this tactic succeeds, it could set a dangerous precedent allowing the government to suppress lawful firearm components through proxy actions instead of constitutional processes. For many in the Second Amendment community, this filing signals a deeper concern: when agencies lose in court, they may simply change tactics rather than respect constitutional limits.