Here’s the AI slop version: The legal debate surrounding Forced Reset Triggers (FRTs) in Washington centers on how the state’s definitions of "machine gun" and "bump stock" are interpreted by the Attorney General’s (AG) office, even if the literal text of the law doesn't use the specific term "FRT." The friction usually comes down to three main legal arguments: 1. The Definition of a "Machine Gun" Under RCW 9.41.010, Washington defines a machine gun as any weapon which allows for the discharge of more than one shot with a "single function of the trigger." The manufacturers of FRTs argue that the trigger must technically reset and be pulled again for every shot, meaning it is legally semi-automatic. However, the AG’s office typically argues that because the reset is "forced" by the mechanical action of the firearm, the shooter only needs to apply continuous pressure to achieve a high rate of fire. They view this as effectively a "single function" from the perspective of the operator’s intent and physical action. 2. The "Bump Stock" Expansion In 2018, Washington passed RCW 9.41.190, which prohibited bump stocks. The state’s definition of a bump stock is broader than many realize. It includes any device that: • Attaches to a firearm. • Increases the rate of fire of a semi-automatic firearm by utilizing the recoil energy of the firearm. Because FRTs use the cycling of the bolt (driven by recoil or gas energy) to force the trigger forward against the finger, the AG’s position is that these triggers utilize the firearm's energy to increase the rate of fire, thereby fitting the state's legal definition of a "bump stock" or "rate-of-fire enhancement." 3. Federal Influence (The ATF Rule) Washington’s AG often aligns their interpretations with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). The ATF issued a ruling (2022-1) stating that FRTs are "machineguns" under the National Firearms Act. While state and federal laws are separate, Washington’s statutes are often interpreted in a way that mirrors federal classifications. If the federal government considers a device a machine gun, the state AG generally maintains that it falls under the state’s existing prohibitions on machine gun parts and "conversion kits." The "Gray Area" The reason you might feel the law doesn't apply is that FRTs operate differently than traditional "auto sears." They do not technically bypass the "one shot per cycle" mechanics—they simply accelerate the cycle of the trigger itself. • Pro-FRT Argument: It is a semi-automatic part because the sear must re-engage and the trigger must move for every round fired. • AG Argument: It is a prohibited device because it uses the gun's energy to automate a rapid-fire sequence that is indistinguishable from fully automatic fire in practice. In Washington, the AG's guidance effectively acts as a warning: they intend to prosecute the sale or possession of these items under existing "machine gun" and "bump stock" statutes, leaving it to the courts to decide if that interpretation is a stretch of the law's original intent.