Are frt's for pistols legal?
Posted by RemarkableFill5532@reddit | Firearms | View on Reddit | 62 comments
I've seen a lot of contradictory stuff online. If they are legal they would be legal in my state. Are forced reset triggers federally legal to have installed in pistols like glocks?
ZeroPointSpecter@reddit
Depends on the State. There are at least a dozen different states that list them as 'rate-of-fire enhancing devices' and ban them.
Federally, they are not illegal.
Complete_Excuse8469@reddit
you giving incorrect legal advice is so dangerous. Please read the Rare Breed Settlement Federal lawsuits agreement. It states that pistol FRTs are not protected and may be classified as a machine gun.
ZeroPointSpecter@reddit
I didn't give any legal advice at all. And what I said is 100% accurate.
But if you want to be accurate,.. The Rare Breed settlement states that the rifle FRTs at issue are not classified as machine guns under federal law, and that Rare Breed agreed not to design FRTs for pistols. It does NOT say pistol FRTs are machine guns, and they are not classified as a machine gun at the federal level.
If you feel that's incorrect, I suggest you make a specific claim and back it up with a source.
Complete_Excuse8469@reddit
The settlement agreement expressly excludes handgun FRTs from its non-enforcement protection. The agreement says the U.S. will not enforce § 922 and related machinegun provisions against covered FRTs only if the FRTs are “not designed for use in and used in handguns.”
Which means that there is absolutely nothing stopping the government from prosecuting you for using a handgun FRT if they wanted to. I didn't say that the agreement states pistol FRTs= machine guns. Just that there is nothing from the gov from classifying them as such and prosecuting you. As for sources, here's the agreement language:
“The United States agrees not to enforce 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) and the requirements of the National Firearms Act, Gun Control Act of 1968 as amended by the Hughes Amendment to the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act, or any similar statute or agency interpretation of 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b) under which an FRT is contended to be a ‘machinegun’ or otherwise unlawful against any person or organization for possessing or transferring FRTs under the following two conditions:
ZeroPointSpecter@reddit
You’re still mixing things up a bit.
The 2025 settlement says rifle FRTs aren’t machine guns under federal law, and Rare Breed agreed not to make pistol FRTs.
It does not say pistol FRTs are machine guns or federally illegal. Those are two different things.
“Not allowed to manufacture” ≠ “classified as a machine gun”
State laws are a separate issue, and some states do treat them as machine guns. But there’s no documented federal position that pistol FRTs = machine guns.
Complete_Excuse8469@reddit
Again, I addressed this point already. I agree with you that the Federal Gov, in that settlement, didn't say that pistol FRTs=machine guns.
My point is that they have explicitly carved out handguns FRTs from federal protection, which means they are actively reserving the right to prosecute you for having them, if they so choose. There is nothing stopping them from taking that position, and if they go after you for it, there's nothing in that rare breed settlement agreement that will help you.
If you choose to own a handgun FRT, there's a chance nothing happens and you'll be ok. But you're not protected, and you're taking a risk.
Before that Rare breed settlement, the ATF classified all FRTs as machine guns. The Rare Breed Settlement was basically the gov saying"Fine, we'll agree to let you have your FRTs and we won't consider them machine guns. ONLY IF they're not on handguns! no promises on handguns."
ZeroPointSpecter@reddit
You're arguing 'what if' scenarios. Nothing that you're providing contradicts my original comment.
It's all speculation, not what the settlement actually says.
Nothing in it “carves out” pistol FRTs as machine guns or even suggests they will be treated that way. It just says Rare Breed won’t make them, that’s a manufacturing limitation, not a legal classification.
The legal basis the feds agreed to is about how the trigger functions (one shot per trigger action), not whether it’s in a rifle or pistol.
So no, the government didn’t say “rifles are fine, but pistols might be machine guns.” They just never litigated pistol versions at all. It wasn't part of that case.
Could they try something later? Sure. But there’s nothing in the settlement backing that claim; that’s just a hypothetical, not an actual federal position.
As of today... Right now... This moment... Pistol FRTs are not illegal and are not classified as machine guns by the federal government.
Complete_Excuse8469@reddit
The settlement explicitly carved out an exception for handguns. it LITERALLY says "We agree that these FRTs aren't machine guns... as long as they aren't handgun FRTs."
the agreement quite LITERALLY RESERVES the right to enforce section 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) on you for a handgun FRT.
That means no promises you won't get arrested for it. You can then argue in court" hey, handgun FRTs aren't machine guns because its one shot per trigger pull" blah blah blah. And you might win. You might not. But they can arrest you for it.
The agreement says "We agree not to prosecute you for having a machine gun... as long as your FRT is not a handgun FRT."
There is no way you can read that to mean it's perfectly legal to have a glock FRT.
It’s like the government saying, “We won’t enforce this weapons law against Device X if it meets Conditions A, B, and C,” and Condition C says, “not for handgun use.”
If your device is for handgun use, you are outside the promise. You can still argue the law does not cover your device. But you cannot say the non-enforcement agreement protects you.
You are risking it. You are at the mercy of your respective federal prosecutor.
ZeroPointSpecter@reddit
You’re reading language into the settlement that isn’t there.
The agreement does not say “handgun FRTs might be machine guns” or “we reserve the right to treat them as machine guns.” It simply says Rare Breed won’t design them for pistols. That’s it. There is no separate federal classification created for pistol FRTs at all.
You’re also mixing up two completely different things:
The legal reasoning the government agreed to is based on how the trigger functions (one shot per trigger pull), not on the firearm’s form factor.
Everything else you’re describing is hypothetical. There is zero federal source backing the claim that pistol FRTs are classified as machine guns or singled out for prosecution.
Complete_Excuse8469@reddit
It seems you haven’t actually read the settlement agreement, even though I quoted the relevant part for you. The settlement agreement specifically carves out an exception saying “we agree not to enforce the law classifying FRTs as machine guns on these FRTs, as long as the FRTs are not used in handguns.” That’s reservation. Also, the ATF has said in the past (right before this settlement) that ALL FRTs are machine guns. This agreement limited the scope of that.
You can act like this language doesn’t exist, but don’t act like you’re actually reading the agreement. I’m being respectful but it seems like you’re legitimately avoiding reading the agreement and continue to mischaracterize it.
Also, if the legal reason was solely based on how the trigger operates, the settlement agreement wouldn’t have carved out a handgun exception. But it did.
ZeroPointSpecter@reddit
I’m not ignoring the words... I’m saying they don’t mean what you’re saying they mean.
Complete_Excuse8469@reddit
The Government's position in all FRT litigation, has always been that ALL FRTs are machine guns because even though there is a forced reset, they are "functionally" the same as machine guns because the shooter must simply maintain pressure on the trigger and the reset occurs automatically. That may be an incorrect reading, but Federal courts have agreed with it(See US v. Rare Breed Eastern District of NY, 23-cv-369 ). The government has never backed down from that position, until the settlement (where they simply agreed not to enforce the position against AR FRTs)
The settlement consolidated all the FRT litigation(including the case I just cited) into one agreement. The agreement says: "We agree not to enforce the law against machine guns against FRTs, as long as the FRTs aren't in handguns."
The agreement doesn't say FRTs aren't machine guns. Again, the government has always taken the position that FRTs are machine guns. This settlement is just them agreeing not to punish people for violating that position, as long as those FRTs aren't on handguns.
The government can arrest you and prosecute you for having an FRT on a glock. And you will have to argue in court.
That's why telling someone its "legal" or allowed federally is dangerous.
As an example, if someone asked me if its legal to conceal carry without a license in Texas, I'd say yeah, it's completely allowed and you can't get arrested for it assuming you're not violating any other law.
If they asked me if they could put a forced reset trigger on a glock, I can't make any promises they won't get arrested, because the government has always argued that FRTs are a machine gun, and never made any concessions to that position as to handguns.
ZeroPointSpecter@reddit
> " telling someone its "legal" or allowed federally is dangerous."
AGAIN... I'm speaking about federal laws and classification. The federal picture has changed a lot over the last couple years.
The ATF did previously argue FRTs were “machineguns,” but that position fell apart after court rulings applying Cargill v. Garland, which emphasized that a machine gun requires multiple shots from a single trigger function.
In 2025, DOJ settled all major FRT cases (including U.S. v. Rare Breed) and dropped its lawsuits. As part of that, the government agreed to return seized FRTs and stop enforcing the prior classification.
As things stand RIGHT NOW, FRTs are not treated as machine guns under federal law, because each shot still involves a separate trigger action.
TLDR: At the federal level (FEDERAL LEVEL), FRTs (including pistol versions) are not currently treated as machine guns.
Complete_Excuse8469@reddit
Cargill involved bump stocks, not FRTs. While you could apply Cargill by analogy (if you're ever in court) it's not settled law that it applies to FRTs. If it did, there'd be no need for a 2025 settlement and handgun carve out. You said that "As things stand RIGHT NOW, FRTs are not treated as machine guns under federal law, because each shot still involves a separate trigger action." The supreme court has never said this, and the settlement agreement doesn't say this at all. The settlement agreement deliberately AVOIDS saying this actually. If what you were saying were true, the agreement would say "FRTs are not machine guns" but rather, it says "We agree not to enforce the machine gun law against FRTs against a specific FRT, as long as that FRT isn't used in a handgun." That means you have no bearing to suggest the ATF/DOJ position is that FRTs=/ machine guns.
ZeroPointSpecter@reddit
You’re focusing on the absence of a magic sentence (“FRTs are not machine guns”), but ignoring the legal reality:
If the government dismisses every case, returns the seized property, and stops asserting the theory in court, then, functionally and legally, it is no longer treating those FRTs as machine guns.
That’s the current federal posture. Nothing you have provided counters that.
Complete_Excuse8469@reddit
And since you don't wanna actually read my replies, here's some 2A Attorneys epxlcitly saying that FRTS that aren't covered in that settlement agreement(ie, handgun FRTs) are not protected and may get you in trouble. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wldup8MNPEU
ZeroPointSpecter@reddit
I'm not replying with anything other than this till you answer them:
Complete_Excuse8469@reddit
Again, it seems you haven't read the settlement agreement, which carves out an exception for FRTs that are on handguns. You've deliberately ignored that carve out in every response to me, which is fascinating.
The government didn't agree to any of that. The government only agreed not to enforce the machine gun law to those specific FRT 15s AS LONG AS THOSE FRTS AREN'T USED IN PISTOLS.
The government's position has ALWAYS been that FRT 15s are machine guns. and they have never retracted that position. the settlement simply says they agree not to enforce the machine gun law certain FRTs when not used in a handgun. What part of "when not used in a handgun" don't you understand?
I encourage you to prove me wrong. But none of your points actually address the relevant issues. Cargill doesn't apply to FRTs, and the settlement agreement doesn't retract any of the government's prior arguments on FRTs. The settlement agreement never said they'd agree to "stop asserting the theory in court." That statement is so vague I have no idea what you mean either. Again, The government only "agreed not to enforce the machine gun law on certain FRTs when not used in a handgun." The agreement doesn't even say they think FRTs aren't machine guns.
I understand this argument seems emotionally charged for you, but facts are facts.
ZeroPointSpecter@reddit
> "Again, it seems you haven't read the settlement agreement"
I can't seem to get this through your thick skull... You're the one who isn't reading.
*** THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW FRTs ARE CLASSIFIED... ***
Look, this is simple. Try this:
1) Show me where the Federal Government defines a Machine Gun
2) Show me where the Government classifies FRTs as a Machine Gun
The Settlement is not part of it.
ZeroPointSpecter@reddit
> "The Government's position in all FRT litigation, has always been that ALL FRTs are machine guns"
This is just false.
The government argued that certain FRTs were machine guns, not that all FRTs always were. Even later descriptions note the government’s position focused on particular models, like the FRT‑15... Classification is tied to how a specific device functions. Not what platform they are in.
Complete_Excuse8469@reddit
Actually, in the Rare Breed lawsuit itself, the ATF argued that the nature of FRTs themselves constitutes a machine gun, because even though its technically "one shot per trigger" the user simply needs to apply constant force and its effectively the same thing as a machine gun. I have access to Lexis to see court records(which I don't expect others to have, in fairness) but here's an excerpt from the rare breed 2023 eastern district case, in whihc the court granted the government's injunction against rare breed:
"Defendants have also, at points in this litigation, conceded that, in light of Supreme Court caselaw, the word "function" in § 5845(b), as the Government contends, is synonymous with the word "pull," and that a weapon is therefore a machinegun as long as it fires multiple rounds with a single "pull" of the trigger. O.A. Tr. 20:17-24, 21:6-20. But Defendants argue that the FRT-15 nonetheless satisfies that definition. They argue that even though a shooter need only consciously pull the trigger shoe once and maintain constant pressure on the trigger with her finger in order for a weapon equipped with an FRT-15 to fire repeatedly, the trigger is in fact being "pulled" repeatedly and rapidly throughout that process. O.A. Tr. 20:9-16, 22:8-23:3. These "pulls" of the shooter's finger are imperceptible to someone watching an FRT-15 in action. However, at the preliminary injunction hearing, Defendants played a video of an FRT-15 at a rate approximately sixty-one times slower than real-time speed; in extreme slow motion, a viewer can see that the trigger [**53] shoe does move slightly back and forth against the shooter's finger with each shot in the firing cycle.15 Defendants thus argue that, in the mechanical sense, when the shooter pulls the trigger and then simply maintains pressure on the trigger shoe, the trigger is "pulled" with each additional shot as it resets and re-engages with the hammer inside the weapon—even though the shooter consciously does no additional "pulling" and is instead maintaining pressure on the trigger shoe. O.A. Tr. 19:19-23, 23:4-11.
The Court concludes that the Government, and not the Defendants, provides the correct interpretation of § 5845(b) as applied to the FRT-15."
United States v. Rare Breed Triggers, LLC, 690 F. Supp. 3d 51, 77, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156379, *52-53
ZeroPointSpecter@reddit
That excerpt actually proves my point, not yours.
It shows the government’s argued interpretation in that specific case about the FRT‑15. That’s not a universal claim about all FRTs; it’s a case-specific argument about one design under one theory.
And more importantly, that argument didn’t stick long-term. The government dropped this case and the others in 2025 rather than continue defending that interpretation.
Complete_Excuse8469@reddit
Youre really not reading my responses anymore it seems. again, my point was that my argument applies to the FRTs at issue here.(which I clarified in my last response) The government never agreed to drop this interpretation. In fact, if you read the settlement agreement(that you claim to have read) they deliberately go out of their way NOT to drop that argument. The settlement agreement explicitly provides no protection to pistol FRTs.
ZeroPointSpecter@reddit
> "Youre really not reading my responses"
How am I replying to them point by point without reading them?
Complete_Excuse8469@reddit
It seems you haven’t actually read the settlement agreement, even though I quoted the relevant part for you. The settlement agreement specifically carves out an exception saying “we agree not to enforce the law classifying FRTs as machine guns on these FRTs, as long as the FRTs are not used in handguns.” That’s reservation. Also, the ATF has said in the past (right before this settlement) that ALL FRTs are machine guns. This agreement limited the scope of that.
You can act like this language doesn’t exist, but don’t act like you’re actually reading the agreement. I’m being respectful but it seems like you’re legitimately avoiding reading the agreement and continue to mischaracterize it.
ZeroPointSpecter@reddit
I can't make this any clearer for you. This is the last comment I'll make on it.
Under the NFA, a “machine gun” is defined solely by function... i.e., firing more than one round per single trigger action, and the statute makes no distinction whatsoever between rifles, pistols, or platforms, nor does it define or classify “pistol FRTs” as machine guns.
RemarkableFill5532@reddit (OP)
Thank you. My state does not have a rate of fire enhancing tool ban. Neither do they consider an frt a machine gun. Looks like I'm in the clear!!
Complete_Excuse8469@reddit
They are not federally legal. Everyone telling you otherwise is incorrect. The federal lawsuits involving FRTs reached a settlement agreement. In that agreement, the Federal government agreed not to prosecute FRTs AS LONG AS the FRTs are NOT used in a pistol. Read the settlement agreement itself. If you put an FRT in a pistol, there is nothing proetecting you from the government prosecuting you for owning a machine gun.
RemarkableFill5532@reddit (OP)
You really must not see the YouTube videos of countless people using Glock frt's from company that make and sell them legally
Complete_Excuse8469@reddit
Oh I see them. And what's insane is no one actually reads the settlement.
The settlement agreement expressly excludes handgun FRTs from its non-enforcement protection. The agreement says the U.S. will not enforce § 922 and related machinegun provisions against covered FRTs only if the FRTs are “not designed for use in and used in handguns.”
All it says it that the government agrees not to prosecute rare-breed type FRTs, AS LONG AS the FRTs aren't handgun FRTs.
That means that there's NOTHING stopping the government from saying pistol FRTs are machine guns, and prosecuting you for having them.
The gov made no promises to any type of pistol FRT. Whether they choose to enforce it is entirely up to them, and if they decide to get your ass for it, nothing in that rare breed settlement is gonna help you in court.
RemarkableFill5532@reddit (OP)
I see where your coming from but that is for rare breed triggers specifically, otherwise companies like advanced reset tech would be able to produce and market their products either
Complete_Excuse8469@reddit
The settlement only protects Rare Breed type Triggers made for AR style rifles. which means it leaves all other triggers, specifically handgun FRTs, unprotected. The settlement is the government saying "fine, we'll let you have rare breed-style FRTs, but no promises on handgun FRTs!"
Making rare-breed style FRTs for rifles is 100% legal. That's what the settlement says, but it explicitly leaves room fro them to go after you for handgun FRTs.
The gun community can read it however they want. Doesn't make them right. Read the agreement in full and it's very clear.
ottermupps@reddit
If your state has not banned them, yes. Forced Reset Triggers are not by any definition full auto, it's just very efficient semi auto. Everyone knows that's legal semantics, but they're not machineguns.
Now, whether it's a good idea is a different story. In a rifle, FRTs are pretty cool and possibly useful. In a pistol, they're a good way to dump ammo into a berm ( if you have strong wrists) or two counties over.
Complete_Excuse8469@reddit
you giving incorrect legal advice is so dangerous. Please read the Rare Breed Settlement Federal lawsuits agreement. It states that pistol FRTs are not protected and may be classified as a machine gun.
RemarkableFill5532@reddit (OP)
I think an frt in a Glock is just pretty badass lolz. If I were to use it at the range id most likely have a conversion kit to go with the frt Glock for better controllability
ChargerIIC@reddit
If you want to turn a Glock into a fun toy go for it. Just don't try it as your daily carry unless you want to nail the bad guy in the first three rounds, the person behind him in the fourth, the guy across the street with the fifth, and pigeons with the seventh, ninth, and thirteenth rounds.
Kascotron@reddit
imagine nd while appendix re- holstering with an frt... stuff of nightmares
RemarkableFill5532@reddit (OP)
Yeah that's common knowledge but thank you
Few-Entrepreneur-316@reddit
I think pistol FRT makes no sense, but PCC / Rifle FRT's are actually awesome.
raddu1012@reddit
Laws against them are illegal, but there may be some
Complete_Excuse8469@reddit
you're so incredibly wrong its not even funny
RemarkableFill5532@reddit (OP)
Good to know, somebody seems to be down voting everything I post including all my replies. feel free to up vote everything to even it out. It's honestly really annoying
OrganicColeslaw@reddit
I live in Arkansas so I know they are legal but pistol frts are in a kind of legal grey area right now. If I was to put one in a Draco would it be legal or does anyone think they could still say I put an frt in a pistol?
RemarkableFill5532@reddit (OP)
Frt's can be put in dracos and it's completely fine. same as putting one in an ar pistol
Own-Guitar-7794@reddit
Is Tennessee good?
RemarkableFill5532@reddit (OP)
I'm not sure tbh but a quick Google search could tell you
Own-Guitar-7794@reddit
I do but it keeps beating around the bush I don’t think they are banned but they’re definitely not going to look at if you go to defend yourself with one
RemarkableFill5532@reddit (OP)
I looked it up no Tennessee doesn't have a ban on forced reset triggers you can use them. Doesn't matter the state you will likely be in a bad spot using it for self defense no matter what. They courts see it as overkill and reckless. They will most definitely know you have one installed you could prolly get yourself in more trouble trying to hide that it has one. It's not for self defense so don't use it for that. Not even in your home. It's a range toy and that only if you decide to get one
marvinfuture@reddit
To my knowledge, all BUT the following states are legal to FRT: (verify before you do, this is not legal advice, but what I've gathered from FRT sellers)
CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, HI, IL, MA, MD, MN, NJ, NV, NY, OR, and RI
Electronic-Split-492@reddit
We're still good here in FL
Tekashi96@reddit
It’s very vague legalese. FL statute 790.222 considers them bump stocks: “the term “bump-fire stock” means a conversion kit, a tool, an accessory, or a device used to alter the rate of fire of a firearm to mimic automatic weapon fire or which is used to increase the rate of fire to a faster rate than is possible for a person to fire such semiautomatic firearm unassisted by a kit, a tool, an accessory, or a device.” FRT’s are not explicitly mentioned but they meet this description. Third degree felony for possession
Logizyme@reddit
So if a gun maker made a firearm from the factory with FRT, then it's ok?
Tekashi96@reddit
Good question, that would make sense as there is no “regular” configuration of the firearm. Only issue is this law makes NO sense and it would take a good lawyer to get such a ruling in court. Couple bills were introduced to revert 790.222 but all died without even making it to the senate floor. Case law is our only hope
marvinfuture@reddit
I believe it's due to the verbage towards the bump stock ban that certain manufacturers avoid selling in FL
RemarkableFill5532@reddit (OP)
Yessirrrr I'm all good
SayNoTo-Communism@reddit
Many states ban them that otherwise allow NFA registered full autos. The agreement with Rarebredd and the ATF only covered Rarebreed products with the stipulation they can only be made for rifles. There is still no clarification if this applies to AR pistols which don’t have their mag in the grip. However based on bronze 223 bullets being banned by ATF as armor piercing handgun ammo because it could be used in AR pistols I would assume FRTs in AR pistols are not covered by the agreement. Furthermore if you actually read the agreement the ATF still considers them MGs but has agreed to not prosecute Rarebreed FRTs being used in rifles.
“But but my lawyer in court can prove they aren’t machine guns” and my response is CRS firearms was sent to federal prison for a drawing of a lightning link. He is still appealing and the government won’t reverse the conviction despite him serving his whole sentence.
RemarkableFill5532@reddit (OP)
But you'd be able to legally purchase for example Advanced Reset Techs A.R.T trigger correct? My state doesn't have any bans against them
SayNoTo-Communism@reddit
You would probably be fine but the ATF agreement only protects RareBreed products so if they want the feds could bend you over
RemarkableFill5532@reddit (OP)
Oof, well they say the advanced reset trigger works different from a normal frt so hopefully it's fine bc they are so sick
AngryOneEyedGod@reddit
Federally, yes.
RemarkableFill5532@reddit (OP)
Thank you
ceapaire@reddit
They're as legal as they are for longarms.
Which is to say ATF isn't quite clear on where they sit on the "single function of the trigger" part. ATF has said they consider them machine guns, but then also settled the only related case I'm aware of and aren't threatening other manufacturers with legal action.