By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New—Smith & Wesson v. Mexico: Case 22-1823: To be decided soon; Wolford v. Lopez: scheduled for conference on June 4; “BREAKING: Trump Administration: FRT Settlement – Triggers to be Returned!”; NRA seeks certiorari in NRA v. Glass (previously NRA v. Bondi); “BREAKING: Trump Administration: FRT Settlement – Triggers to be Returned!”; The Question of Nationwide Injunctions; State Court: Escher v. Massachusetts: Case 1:25-cv-10389; 18-to 20-year-old Second Amendment rights.
“BREAKING: Trump Administration: FRT Settlement – Triggers to be Returned!”
A significant legal development has occurred regarding forced reset triggers (FRTs) in the United States. The National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) has secured a settlement in all ongoing federal litigation concerning FRTs. This settlement is significant for gun owners and supporters of the Second Amendment.
Key Points:
- Settlement Scope: The settlement resolves three major lawsuits:
- NAGR v. Bondi (Northern District of Texas)
- United States v. Rare Breed Triggers LLC (Eastern District of New York)
- United States v. Miscellaneous Firearms and Related Parts and Equipment
- Return of Seized FRTs: The U.S. government has agreed, “to the extent practicable,” to return FRTs that were seized or voluntarily surrendered. Individual owners must request the return of their triggers by September 30, 2025, following instructions that will be published on the ATF website. This opportunity is not limited to just the named plaintiffs but is broadly available to affected owners, except for triggers that are evidence in criminal cases or subject to forfeiture.
- Concessions by Rare Breed and Government:
- Rare Breed Triggers agrees not to design or market FRTs for handguns and will enforce its patents to prevent unauthorized manufacture or sale of FRTs during the patent’s life.
- The ATF and Department of Justice agree not to enforce prior interpretations that classified FRTs as machine guns, provided the triggers meet certain operational conditions and are not used in handguns.
- Federal Firearms License (FFL): The ATF will process Rare Breed’s FFL application without denying it based on FRT-related issues.
- • Waiver of Claims: Owners who recover their triggers must waive any further claims against the government related to the seizure.
- Next Steps: The ATF will soon publish detailed instructions on how to request the return of FRTs.
- Significance: The settlement is a significant victory for gun rights advocates. This is due to the change of administration from Biden to Trump, marking a rare instance where the federal government has agreed to return items previously seized from lawful gun owners.
Conclusion: This settlement ends all major federal litigation over FRTs, allows most owners to reclaim their property, and represents a notable win for NAGR, owners of FRTs, and Second Amendment supporters.
SCOTUS
Conferences through the end of the term
For the rest of the 2024-2025 term, the scheduled conference dates are May 21, 28, and June 4, 11, 18, and 25. Several Second Amendment cases involving felon-in-possession charges are before the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) for certiorari.
Snope v. Brown and Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island were rescheduled for the conference on May 15, 2025, and have not been resolved as of this date.
Wolford v. Lopez: Case No: 24-1046: Scheduled for June 4 conference:Second Amendment challenge to Hawaii’s ban on carrying guns on private property open to the public without express permission. See Dave Workman’s article concerning the State Attorney General’s signing an amicus brief.
NRA v. Glass (previously NRA v. Bondi): The National Rifle Association (NRA) has filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court in the case. This case challenges Florida’s law that prohibits 18- to 20-year-olds from purchasing firearms, questioning whether such restrictions violate the Second Amendment rights of young Adults and pointing out the split between the circuits. I have summarized attorney and legal scholar Mark W. Smith’s YouTube analysis:
Background and legal context The Florida law in question was enacted after the Parkland school shooting, barring adults aged 18 to 20 from buying firearms. The law has been upheld by lower courts, most notably by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in a decision authored by Judge William Pryor, a former NRA award-winning attorney. Smith criticizes this decision, arguing that it misapplies the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment jurisprudence, particularly the “text, history, and tradition” test established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. I have summarized Mark W. Smith, constitutional attorney and host of the Four Boxes Diner on YouTube analysis.
Circuit Split and Supreme Court Review A central argument for Supreme Court review is the existence of a “circuit split”-different federal appellate courts have reached conflicting decisions on whether 18- to 20-year-olds are fully protected by the Second Amendment. The Eighth Circuit, in the Worth case, ruled that young adults have full rights, allowing them to carry firearms in Minnesota, whereas the Tenth and Eleventh Circuits have upheld restrictions, such as Florida’s. The Supreme Court recently denied certiorari in Worth, but Smith suggests the Glass case is distinct because it concerns the right to purchase, not just to carry, firearms.
Key Legal Questions The petition asks the Supreme Court to resolve two main issues:
- Whether the Second Amendment fully protects the rights of 18- to 20-year-old adults, who are otherwise considered legal adults for voting, marriage, contracts, and military service.
- Whether the right to “keep and bear arms” necessarily includes the right to acquire or purchase firearms, even though the words “purchase” or “acquire” do not appear in the constitutional text.
Broader Implications Smith argues that Supreme Court intervention is necessary to clarify these important constitutional questions and prevent lower courts from undermining Second Amendment rights through interest-balancing or public policy arguments, which the Bruen decision rejected. He emphasizes the need for consistent application of the Bruen methodology, focusing on constitutional text and historical tradition rather than modern policy debates.
Conclusion If the Supreme Court grants certiorari, Smith predicts a favorable outcome for young adults and gun rights advocates, with the potential to establish that the right to purchase firearms is inherent to the Second Amendment. He underscores the urgency for the Court to resolve the circuit split and reaffirm its commitment to the constitutional framework established in recent precedents.
The Question of Nationwide Injunctions
In a recent YouTube video on his channel, “The Four Boxes Diner,” Attorney Mark W. Smith discusses how the Trump Administration is fighting the rash of nationwide injunctions against his Executive Orders. The case involves birthright citizenship but also has implications for Second Amendment cases. Smith explains that the Supreme Court is focusing on the broader legal question of whether federal district courts have the authority to issue nationwide injunctions that impact parties not directly involved in the lawsuit.
Lately, especially in the second Trump administration, Smith notes that a handful of judges in jurisdictions he describes as “anti-Trump” and “anti-gun” have issued broad injunctions that prevent the federal government from enforcing laws or policies not just against the plaintiffs but against everyone in the United States. This practice has created significant constitutional problems by allowing a single judge to effectively set national policy when only a few plaintiffs are involved.
He concludes that the Supreme Court appears poised to rein in the use of nationwide injunctions, insisting that constitutional and procedural safeguards already exist to protect rights without undermining the federal judiciary’s structure or overburdening the Supreme Court. We hope he is right, as nationwide injunctions against Second Amendment rights, such as owning and carrying firearms, would be a disaster.
District Court
Massachusetts: First Circuit
Escher v. Massachusetts: Case 1:25-cv-10389:
This is another case contesting H.B. 4885, a Massachusetts law denying 18- to 20-year-olds their Second Amendment rights. The Firearms Policy Coalition filed the case on February 14, 2024, and is currently in the preliminary stages of discovery.
