Spike’s Tactical Pushes Back: Motion to Dismiss in the Forced Reset Trigger Fight ~ VIDEO

For more in-depth legal analysis on the FRT fight and other Second Amendment cases, be sure to like, follow, and subscribe to Stephen Stamboulieh’s YouTube channel.

The legal fight over forced reset triggers (FRTs) just keeps heating up. Spike’s Tactical, along with Spiderhole and Michael Register, has filed a motion to dismiss in one of the Rare Breed/ABC IP lawsuits now pending in federal court in Texas.

While this move grabbed attention, it’s important to understand what it means—and what it doesn’t.

Background: The Rare Breed / ABC IP Lawsuits

The Rare Breed/ABC IP lawsuits are a tangle of legal battles that started when Rare Breed Triggers developed the FRT-15, a forced reset trigger for AR-style rifles. The trigger allows for faster follow-up shots but still fires only one round per pull—keeping it legally semi-automatic.

When the ATF tried to classify the FRT as a “machinegun conversion device,” Rare Breed fought back in court. At the same time, business disputes broke out between Rare Breed, its partners, and related entities like ABC Intellectual Property (ABC IP). ABC IP has claimed that some individuals—including companies like Spike’s Tactical—acted improperly when joining its board and misused their positions.

So while one set of lawsuits focused on the government crackdown on FRTs, another set—like the ABC IP vs. Spike’s Tactical case—centers on internal disputes over contracts, operating agreements, and corporate control tied to the FRT business.

In short, the Rare Breed/ABC IP lawsuits combine two fronts of the same war:

• Against the ATF and DOJ over whether FRTs are legal.
• Between business partners and rivals over who controls the rights, profits, and decisions around those triggers.

What the Motion Really Says

The defendants argue that the case shouldn’t even be heard in this court. Their motion raises three big points:

• No subject matter jurisdiction: The plaintiffs didn’t properly show that the federal court has authority to hear the case. Federal courts only have limited power, and if plaintiffs don’t spell out diversity of citizenship between all parties, the court can toss the case.
• No personal jurisdiction: Spike’s Tactical and Michael Register are Florida-based, and the plaintiffs haven’t shown they have enough connection to Texas to be dragged into court there.
• Improper venue: The plaintiffs are relying on an operating agreement to say Texas is the right place for the case—but not all defendants are even part of that agreement.

In plain English: Spike’s Tactical is telling the judge, “This case doesn’t belong here, and it doesn’t even meet the basic requirements.”

Why It Probably Won’t End Here

As attorney Stephen Stamboulieh explains in his video, this type of motion is pretty standard. Even if the judge agrees with some points, the plaintiffs can usually amend their complaint—basically rewriting it to fix the problems. That means the case won’t disappear; it will just restart in a slightly cleaner form.

In other words, the motion to dismiss is less about ending the case and more about forcing the other side to tighten up their arguments.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	Spikes Tactical Rifle-Length AR-15 Gas Tube Melonite, Black - SUGT0M4	Palmetto State Armory	$ 16.99 $ 14.99
	Spikes Tactical Rifle-Length AR-15 Gas Tube Melonite, Black - SUGT0M4	Palmetto State Armory	$ 20.99 $ 14.99
	Spikes Tactical Rifle Length Black Melonite Gas Tube	Ammunition Depot	$ 18.49
	Spikes Tactical Rifle Stock Buffer Spacer, Black	Palmetto State Armory	$ 33.99 $ 30.39

The Bigger Picture: The FRT War Isn’t Over

To really see why this matters, you’ve got to step back.

The ATF tried to crush forced reset triggers by calling them “machinegun conversion devices.” That claim fell apart in federal court earlier this year, with the DOJ agreeing to stop enforcement and return seized triggers. It was a massive win for gun owners. Rare Breed Triggers and the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) fought tooth and nail for years to get there.

But the fight didn’t stop. Sixteen anti-gun states, led by New Jersey and Maryland, are now suing to block that victory. They want to stop the ATF from returning FRTs to their rightful owners, calling them “dangerous machineguns.” Their arguments have been sloppy—confusing FRTs with illegal Glock switches and throwing around scare tactics. It’s pure lawfare: if they can’t win in Congress or in the ATF’s backrooms, they’ll try to bury us in lawsuits.

Why Gun Owners Should Pay Attention

This isn’t just about Spike’s Tactical or Rare Breed. It’s about whether the government—or anti-gun states—can rewrite the rules after the courts have already spoken. FRTs don’t meet the legal definition of machineguns. That’s settled. If the courts allow this kind of harassment to continue, it sets a dangerous precedent: they can keep suing until they find a judge willing to bend the law.

The Second Amendment isn’t a relic. It’s a living safeguard for freedom. And every one of these lawsuits is a reminder that the fight to keep it alive happens not only in Congress or the voting booth, but also in the courts.

Keep Fighting

Spike’s Tactical’s motion to dismiss probably won’t end the lawsuit. But it shows that companies aren’t just rolling over when dragged into politically motivated cases. Meanwhile, the bigger war over forced reset triggers continues. Pro-gun victories in Texas and at the DOJ level are being challenged by blue states determined to keep law-abiding gun owners under the boot.

Stay alert. Because while the other side hopes you’ll tune out, every motion, every filing, and every courtroom battle matters in the long game of defending the right to keep and bear arms.

We are in dangerous times! We have ONLY MET HALF of our funding goals! Will you help out?

Anti-gun States Sue to Block Return of Forced Reset Triggers

Government Admits Defeat in Forced Reset Trigger Battle