Understanding the status of forced reset triggers in Virginia

UPDATE:  I have been receiving questions and comments from concerned gun owners, and I have added additional analysis below based upon their questions and feedback.

In an agreement between the government and Rare Breed Triggers, announced Friday May 16th, 2025, the Department of Justice agreed that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives overstepped its authority in reclassifying forced reset triggers (FRTs) as machine guns and will return any such items seized or surrendered to them.

While this is great news for gun owners at the federal level, it doesn’t necessarily solve the issue for those in Virginia.  In fact, it potentially sets a legal trap for the unwary.

Please note that I am NOT making a definitive statement that FRTs are covered under Virginia’s ‘trigger activator’ statute but rather pointing out that the statute is vague enough, and inadequately describes complex mechanical processes, such that it could subject owners to legal issues.

In the 2020 session, the General Assembly added section 18.2-308.5:1 to the Code of Virginia, which made it unlawful for any person to ‘manufacture, import, sell, offer for sale, possess, transfer, or transport an auto sear or a trigger activator in the Commonwealth.‘

In this code section, “trigger activator” is defined as “a device designed to allow a semi-automatic firearm to shoot more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of any semi-automatic firearm to which it is affixed so that the trigger resets and continues firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter.”  This definition can be interpreted broadly and presents significant potential legal threats to those who might own FRTs.

The most common question I have received is whether FRTs are even covered by this statute since they do not operate via ‘recoil energy’.   Let’s look at that question:

1. Is there a definition of ‘recoil energy’ in this code section?  No
2. Is there a definition of ‘recoil energy’ in the Code of Virginia? No.
3. Is there a definition of ‘recoil energy’ in the VA Administrative Code? No
4. Is there a definition of ‘recoil energy’ in Virginia case law? No
5. Is there a definition of ‘recoil energy’ in Federal case law? No
6. Is there a definition of ‘recoil energy’ in Black’s Law Dictionary? No

Therefore, under the rules of statutory construction, we will look to the standard definition of the term which is the backward force generated when a firearm is fired, equal to the force generated by the powder charge that propels the bullet forward.

So do FRTs use this ‘backward force’?  In a 2022 Open Letter to All Federal Firearms Licensees, the BATFE stated this about how FRTs function:

“Unlike traditional triggers and binary triggers … FRTs do not require shooters to pull and then subsequently release the trigger to fire a second shot. Instead, these FRTs utilize the firing cycle to eliminate the need for the shooter to release the trigger before a second shot is fired. By contrast, some after-market triggers have similar components but also incorporate a disconnector or similar feature to ensure that the trigger must be released before a second shot may be fired.”

The key question then is whether a prosecutor, judge, or jury, many of whom might not be familiar with firearms, would find that the ‘firing cycle’ is a part of, or analogous to, the ‘recoil energy’ of the shot.

THIS is the legal risk that I am warning my clients about with this article.

And while those who own registered pre-ban auto sears are protected by a clause in the new law that exempts those items owned “in compliance with the National Firearms Act”, I believe that there are statutory construction issues where FRTs are concerned since they are not regulated under the NFA, as recognized in the aforementioned settlement.

The second most common question I have been asked is whether subsection D of the law, exempting those items owned in compliance with the National Firearms Act (NFA) would apply, since FRTs are no longer considered machineguns in violation of the NFA and are therefore not subject to any requirements of the NFA.

My answer is that it opens yet another door where a prosecutor could argue that being ‘in compliance’ with [X] means the item must be subject to AND compliant with [X].

See this video for a discussion of this specific issue and the competing arguments a prosecutor and defense attorney might make when facing such language in a state law.

This then sets the stage for law-abiding Virginia residents, hearing of the settlement with the DOJ, who attempt to have their seized or surrendered items returned to them, or who purchase such items from out of state vendors and bring them into the Commonwealth, being potentially prosecuted under the new law.

And the penalty for violation of this statute is prosecuted as a Class 6 Felony.

If you are a Virginia resident who had your forced reset trigger seized or voluntarily surrendered a forced reset trigger to the BATFE, and they contact you about returning said item, you should seek counsel before taking any action.

If you have questions or would like assistance with the forced reset trigger issue, then feel free to contact me for a consultation.