Second Amendment Foundation Challenges ATF Involvement in Forced Reset Trigger Patent Case

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) is questioning the ATF’s involvement in private patent litigation involving Rare Breed Triggers and competing forced reset trigger (FRT) products. SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche asking the Justice Department to explain the legal and factual basis for the agency’s position.

The controversy stems from a DOJ statement of interest filed on behalf of the ATF in patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas. The underlying lawsuit involves allegations that competing products infringe patents held by Rare Breed Triggers and related intellectual property owners.

SAF says it is not taking a position on the patent dispute itself. Instead, its concern centers on the federal government’s justification for becoming involved. According to the letter, the ATF stated that it has an “interest in limiting the sale and distribution of FRTs” while arguing that the public-interest factor in the patent case weighs heavily in Rare Breed’s favor.

That statement prompted SAF to ask why the ATF wants to limit FRT distribution, why the agency appears to be supporting one marketplace competitor over others, how Rare Breed’s products differ mechanically from competing triggers and what authority supports the government’s position.

The issue is particularly significant because the federal government previously settled major litigation involving forced reset triggers in May 2025. SAF argues that the government’s current position appears inconsistent with a settlement allowing Rare Breed products to be sold while simultaneously claiming a public-policy interest in limiting competing products with allegedly similar functionality.

SAF also points to the Supreme Court’s decision in Garland v. Cargill, where the Court held that the ATF exceeded its statutory authority by classifying bump stocks as machine guns under the existing federal definition. SAF argues that the statutory definition focuses on whether a firearm fires more than one shot automatically through a single function of the trigger—not whether a device produces what the ATF describes as a “near automatic rate.”

The dispute could ultimately have implications beyond forced reset triggers. SAF warns that federal agencies intervening in private intellectual property disputes to advance separate regulatory objectives could influence competition, product availability and consumer choice without going through traditional rulemaking or enforcement processes.

SAF is now asking Attorney General Blanche to review the ATF’s involvement and clarify the authority behind its position. The central question remains: If forced reset triggers are lawful under the federal statutory definition, what authority gives the ATF an interest in limiting their sale and distribution?