ATF Sees Rare Breed Patent Injunctions as a Tool to Limit Sales of FRT Triggers

Earlier this month, an analysis published by the Texas Gun Rights Foundation warned that Rare Breed Triggers’ sweeping patent campaign could become useful to the same federal agency that once tried to drive forced reset triggers from the marketplace. Now ATF has put that position before a Texas federal court.

On August 31, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a Statement of Interest on behalf of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in the consolidated Rare Breed Triggers Patent Litigation pending in the Eastern District of Texas. ATF says it has an interest in “limiting the sale and distribution of FRTs.”

The agency further argues that Rare Breed’s patent-enforcement actions would support ATF’s public-safety efforts if they successfully result in injunctions restricting FRT activity by third parties.

Different motives. Same injunctions.

DOJ Takes ATF’s Position Into the Consolidated Case

ATF’s position isn’t entirely new. In January, the federal government filed a similar Statement of Interest in Rare Breed and ABC IP’s patent litigation against Hoffman Tactical. Those patent cases have since been consolidated into multi-district litigation in the Eastern District of Texas. Now DOJ has returned.

The government expressly describes its August 31 filing as “substantively parallel” to its January position and says it filed again to ensure ATF’s interests are represented in the consolidated proceedings.

DOJ goes further. It tells the court that the absence of a government filing in any individual case — whether consolidated into the litigation or not — should not be interpreted to mean those same public interests are absent. In other words, ATF isn’t backing away from the position that raised alarms earlier this year. It’s carrying that position into the broader Rare Breed patent fight.

ATF Wants the Public Interest Weighed in Rare Breed’s Favor

To be precise, DOJ isn’t asking the court in this filing to declare forced reset triggers machineguns. The government also says it’s not taking a position on the other factors required for a preliminary injunction or on the ultimate question of whether the court should issue one.

But on the public-interest factor, ATF is making its position clear. Rare Breed and ABC IP are seeking preliminary injunctions against third parties they accuse of infringing their patents. ATF points to Rare Breed’s 2025 settlement with the federal government and notes that other potential FRT manufacturers are not bound by the same restrictions.

The agency then makes the connection explicit: If Rare Breed’s patent-enforcement actions successfully enjoin third parties, those lawsuits would support ATF’s public safety efforts. DOJ therefore tells the court that the public interest factor should be weighed “heavily in Plaintiffs’ favor.”

That is significant.

The federal firearms regulator has entered Rare Breed’s private patent litigation and is urging a Texas federal court to weigh a key injunction factor heavily in Rare Breed’s favor because the resulting restrictions could advance ATF’s own interest in limiting FRT distribution.

That’s not just speculation from ATF’s critics now that it’s on the federal court record.

Different Motives, Same Injunctions

The filing lands in the middle of Rare Breed and ABC IP’s sweeping patent-enforcement campaign. By July, Bloomberg Law had identified at least 131 patent lawsuits filed by Rare Breed and ABC IP since the May 2025 federal settlement.

Some of those cases may involve genuine infringement. Others involve technologies where infringement, patent validity, or enforceability remain seriously disputed. And when litigation spreads across an industry before disputed patent boundaries are resolved, the lawsuits themselves can impose enormous pressure on manufacturers, sellers, business owners, and others long before a court ever reaches final judgment.

Now ATF sees something useful in those same injunctions. Rare Breed wants court orders restricting products it contends infringe its patents. ATF says those court orders could support its interest in limiting the manufacture, sale, and distribution of FRTs by third parties.

ATF doesn’t need Rare Breed to share its gun control motives. Rare Breed doesn’t need ATF to share its commercial motives. They only need the same injunctions to advance both interests.

When Patent Litigation Becomes Useful to Gun Control

Legitimate patent rights don’t disappear because the products involved are firearms. Actual infringement should be proven and valid patents should be protected.

But gun owners should pay close attention when the federal firearms regulator begins advocating for the restrictive effects of private litigation because those effects advance an agency policy objective.

Rare Breed is responsible for the litigation campaign it chooses to wage. ATF is responsible for trying to turn the restrictive effects of that litigation into federal firearms policy. Gun owners don’t have to choose which one deserves scrutiny.

The arrangement is straightforward. A private litigant seeks an injunction. The federal firearms regulator tells the court that the injunction would serve the public interest because restricting third-party FRT activity would support the agency’s own efforts.

The same court order can advance two very different objectives. That’s exactly why this is no longer just another patent dispute. Private patent law shouldn’t become a substitute mechanism for federal gun control.

The Mechanism Changed, The Objective Didn’t

ATF spent years attempting to restrict forced reset triggers by treating them as machineguns under federal law. Texas Gun Rights fought back. In July 2024, the Northern District of Texas rejected ATF’s position as to the FRTs before it, and the federal government later settled the broader litigation.

But ATF’s interest in limiting forced reset triggers did not disappear. Its August 31 filing says so explicitly. Now the agency sees private patent injunctions restricting third-party FRT activity as potentially advancing that same interest.

The mechanism changed. The objective did not.

“The ATF lost the direct fight over Forced Reset Triggers, but this filing shows the federal gun control machine is still looking for ways to limit what peaceable Americans can own,” said Chris McNutt, President of Texas Gun Rights. “This is exactly why reform is not enough. The ATF must be abolished, the NFA must be repealed, and the federal war on gun owners must end.”

That’s why Texas Gun Rights rejects Washington’s endless promises to “reform” the ATF. An agency that continually searches for another rule, another interpretation, or another legal lever to restrict the Second Amendment doesn’t need better management. It needs to be abolished.

Congress must abolish the ATF, repeal the National Firearms Act, and end the federal government’s ability to weaponize bureaucracy against peaceable gun owners.

ATF couldn’t preserve its preferred result through its machinegun interpretation. Now it’s telling a Texas federal court that private injunctions restricting third-party FRTs could advance its interests. The federal gun-control machine may change tactics, but gun owners cannot afford to ignore the result.