Bump Stocks and Forced Reset Triggers After Cargill: What's Actually Legal in 2026

This article reflects federal and state law on bump stocks and forced reset triggers as of publication in September 2026. Federal law on these products has settled significantly since 2024, but state law continues to shift. Verify state law with your state's Attorney General or a firearms attorney before purchasing.

For four years the legality of bump stocks and forced reset triggers was one of the most confused topics in firearms law. The ATF classified both as machine guns under the National Firearms Act. Federal district courts split. Circuit courts split. The Supreme Court took up the bump stock question and reversed the ATF. A separate district court ruling reached the same result for forced reset triggers, and the government settled rather than appeal. In 2026 the ATF formally revised its own bump stock rule to conform to the Supreme Court's ruling.

The federal picture is now largely settled. What is not settled is the state picture. This article walks through where the federal rules landed, what the ATF actually did in May 2026, what remains ambiguous, and which state bans continue to apply regardless of the federal outcome.

Cargill: what the Supreme Court actually held

On June 14, 2024, the Supreme Court decided Garland v. Cargill, 144 S.Ct. 222 (2024), by a 6-3 vote. The Court held that a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock does not meet the definition of "machinegun" under 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b) of the National Firearms Act. Justice Thomas wrote for the majority.

The statutory definition of machine gun requires that the firearm fire "automatically more than one shot ... by a single function of the trigger." The Court parsed each of those elements. A "single function of the trigger" refers to the mechanical act of the trigger itself — not what the shooter's finger does. A semiautomatic rifle with a bump stock still requires a separate function of the trigger for each shot. The stock accelerates the shooter's ability to trigger the firearm rapidly, but it does not change what the trigger itself does. And even if it did, the Court said, a bump stock does not cause the firearm to fire "automatically" in the statutory sense — the shooter is still doing the work of maintaining forward pressure and each shot requires a distinct action.

The Court's reasoning matters more than the specific bump stock holding, because the same logic applies to any device whose effect on rate of fire operates through the shooter's action rather than through changing what the trigger mechanically does. That is exactly the argument that had been made for forced reset triggers, and it is exactly the argument that succeeded shortly after.

The FRT chain: from ATF classification to DOJ settlement

Forced reset triggers replace a firearm's standard trigger with an aftermarket component that uses the energy of the bolt carrier group to mechanically reset the trigger after each shot. The trigger still requires a separate pull for each round fired. The pull is faster because the reset is mechanical rather than requiring the shooter to release the trigger past a spring, but each round is a separate function of the trigger.

March 2022: ATF published an Open Letter to all Federal Firearms Licensees officially reclassifying forced reset triggers as machine guns under the NFA. Under the ATF's reading, an FRT allowed a firearm to expel more than one shot with a single, continuous pull of the trigger. Possession became a federal felony on paper overnight.

2023: DOJ obtained a preliminary injunction against Rare Breed Triggers, the largest FRT manufacturer, temporarily halting sales. Multiple parallel lawsuits proceeded across different federal circuits.

January 2023: The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, ruled in Cargill v. United States that bump stocks are not machine guns. The reasoning was that a bump stock does not cause the weapon to fire more than one shot "by a single function of the trigger." This was a bump stock case, but the logic transferred directly to FRTs.

June 14, 2024: The Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit's Cargill reasoning, establishing that "single function of the trigger" refers to the mechanical act of the trigger itself.

July 24, 2024: Judge Reed O'Connor of the Northern District of Texas vacated the ATF's FRT classification, applying Cargill's reasoning to the FRT context. That district court ruling is the one that actually dealt with FRTs. (You will occasionally see articles claiming that a federal appellate court ruled on forced reset triggers. It did not — the Fifth Circuit appeal, docket 24-10707, was never decided because the government settled first.)

May 2025: The Department of Justice formally settled with Rare Breed Triggers and other claimants. Under the settlement, DOJ conceded that FRTs are not machine guns under federal law, dismissed pending enforcement actions, and returned seized FRTs to owners in states where they remain legal. The settlement includes one operational limit — Rare Breed will not produce or market FRTs for any handgun where the magazine loads into the trigger-hand grip. For rifle-platform FRTs (the vast majority of the market), federal legality is now confirmed.

May 6, 2026: ATF published a formal revision to its machine gun rule in the Federal Register, effective the same day. The rule removes the two sentences added by the 2018 bump stock rule that had classified bump stocks as machine guns. This is the ATF's formal implementation of the Cargill decision — nearly two years after the Court ruled, and about a year after the FRT settlement, the agency's own regulations now conform.

What is federally legal in 2026

Under federal law as it stands in September 2026:

Bump stocks are not machine guns under the NFA. Cargill remains binding Supreme Court precedent. The 2018 ATF rule that had classified them as machine guns is no longer in effect after the May 6, 2026 formal revision. Manufacture, sale, purchase, and possession of bump stocks are federally legal.

Forced reset triggers are not machine guns under federal law. The DOJ settlement in May 2025 concedes the point. The one limitation is that Rare Breed will not produce FRTs designed for handguns with magazine-in-grip designs. Rifle-platform FRTs are legal to manufacture, sell, purchase, and possess federally.

Binary triggers — which fire one round on trigger pull and one round on trigger release — occupy a similar space. Each function of the trigger produces a single shot, which satisfies the Cargill standard for not being a machine gun. The ATF has not formally acted against binary triggers post-Cargill; they have long been treated as legal at the federal level and remain so.

Machine gun conversion devices — auto sears, "Glock switches," and similar devices that actually cause a firearm to fire multiple rounds per single function of the trigger — remain illegal machine guns under federal law. Cargill did not touch these. Possession without proper NFA registration is a federal felony, and enforcement against these devices has intensified as they have been linked to a rising share of violent crimes.

State bans that still apply

Federal legality does not mean 50-state legality. Several states have enacted bans that apply regardless of the federal outcome. As of 2026, the states with laws specifically banning or restricting FRTs, bump stocks, or "multi-burst trigger activator" devices include:

California bans bump stocks and any "multiburst trigger activator" under state law, which reaches FRTs, binary triggers, and similar devices.

New York bans bump stocks under the SAFE Act framework and has expanded restrictions on rapid-fire devices.

New Jersey bans bump stocks and similar rapid-fire devices.

Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia all have some form of bump stock or rapid-fire device ban that survived the Cargill decision, because state authority over firearms accessories is separate from federal NFA authority.

Colorado bans "multi-burst trigger activators" — a category that catches FRTs, binary triggers, and bump stocks in a single statutory definition.

If you live in one of these states, or you are traveling through with a firearm equipped with any of these devices, the federal legality does not protect you. State law enforcement can and does prosecute under state statute regardless of whether the ATF has withdrawn its federal classification.

The practical question: can I buy one, and where can I use it?

For most of the country, the answer is yes. In the roughly 38 to 40 states without a specific ban on these devices, FRTs and bump stocks are federally legal and state legal. You can purchase from a manufacturer or dealer, install on your firearm, and use the firearm at ranges that permit rapid fire. Note that many public ranges have their own rules against rapid-fire devices, independent of state law.

In the 10 to 12 states with bans, the answer is no. State law overrides the federal legality for possession within the state, and the ban typically covers manufacture, sale, transport, and use as well as simple possession.

Interstate travel with these devices is where the picture gets complicated. If you own an FRT legally in Texas and drive through New Mexico, you are fine — New Mexico does not ban FRTs. If you drive through Colorado, you have committed a state offense the moment you cross the state line. The Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 provides some interstate transport protection for firearms lawfully possessed at the origin and destination, but the protection is narrow and does not universally extend to accessories that are contraband in the transit state.

Before traveling with a firearm equipped with an FRT, binary trigger, or bump stock, check each state you will physically enter. This is the same class of research required for high-capacity magazines and certain semi-automatic rifle features — the state-by-state variance is real and the consequences of a mistake are criminal.

What to expect going forward

Federal enforcement against these devices is unlikely to resume in the near term. The DOJ settlement and the formal ATF rule revision represent institutional acceptance of the Cargill framework. Absent a new Supreme Court case, a statutory amendment by Congress, or a substantial change in DOJ position, the federal picture is stable.

State law is where the action continues. Some states with existing bans have considered strengthening penalties or expanding definitions. Some states without bans have introduced legislation to add them. The overall trajectory in state law tracks the broader partisan and geographic pattern of firearm regulation — states inclined toward stricter firearm laws are the states most likely to enact or expand these device restrictions.

For an owner in a state without a ban, the practical position is straightforward: these devices are federally legal, state legal, and can be purchased, owned, and used within your state. The main constraints are range rules, safety practice, and the interstate travel considerations noted above.

Looking to purchase an FRT, binary trigger, or similar device? Browse our dealer directory to find dealers near you.