Florida v. Skyeler Jackson: Forced Reset Triggers, State Bans, and the Federal-State Divide
In February 2026, Palm Beach County authorities arrested Skyeler Bleau Jackson on charges under Florida Statute § 790.222 for the import, sale, distribution, or possession of a “bump-fire stock,” along with a related weapons offense. Public booking records from the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office list the primary charge as a third-degree felony tied to that statute. The case quickly drew attention in firearms communities because the devices involved appear connected to forced reset triggers (FRTs) rather than traditional bump stocks. Jackson’s prosecution highlights a growing conflict: federally, certain FRTs are no longer treated as machine guns following a 2025 Department of Justice settlement, yet Florida’s broad state prohibition continues to expose owners and sellers to felony charges.
This article examines the Jackson case as a concrete illustration of how Florida applies its 2018 bump-fire stock ban to FRTs, the mechanical and legal distinctions between these devices, the federal legal landscape after Garland v. Cargill and the Rare Breed settlement, and the practical consequences of divergent state and federal rules for law-abiding gun owners.
The Arrest and Charges
Public records indicate that Skyeler Bleau Jackson was booked into the Palm Beach County jail on February 15, 2026, following an arrest by the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office. The primary charge cited is a violation of Florida Statute § 790.222: importing, selling, distributing, or possessing a bump-fire stock. A secondary charge involves the use or display of a weapon during a felony under indictment. Bond amounts and further case details remain limited in publicly available booking summaries, and Jackson is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
The timing and nature of the charge align with reports of enforcement actions against vendors and individuals possessing or selling FRTs at Florida gun shows and elsewhere. Firearm retailers and online sellers have increasingly refused to ship FRTs to Florida addresses, citing the risk that state prosecutors will treat the devices as prohibited “bump-fire stocks.” The Jackson arrest provides a visible example of that enforcement posture in a major Florida county.
What Forced Reset Triggers Are
A forced reset trigger is a drop-in or modified trigger assembly designed primarily for AR-platform rifles. Unlike a standard semi-automatic trigger, which relies on the shooter’s finger to release pressure so the trigger spring can reset it, an FRT uses the rearward and forward movement of the bolt carrier group to mechanically force the trigger forward into its reset position after each shot. A locking bar or similar feature typically holds the trigger forward until the action has cycled sufficiently for safe firing. The shooter must still pull the trigger for every round; the device simply eliminates the need to manually release finger pressure between shots.
This produces a higher practical rate of fire than a conventional semi-automatic trigger while remaining mechanically distinct from a machine gun. A true machine gun, under the National Firearms Act and Gun Control Act, fires more than one shot by a single function of the trigger without manual resetting. FRTs require a separate trigger function for each round. Binary triggers, by contrast, fire on both the pull and the release and are a different category of device with their own legal considerations.
Popular commercial examples include Rare Breed Triggers’ FRT-15 series and various “super safety” or forced-reset selector designs. These devices became commercially significant in the early 2020s and prompted ATF scrutiny beginning around 2021.
Federal Law After Cargill and the 2025 Settlement
Federal treatment of FRTs shifted dramatically between 2021 and 2025. The ATF initially classified certain FRTs as machine guns, leading to cease-and-desist letters, seizures, and civil and criminal litigation. Rare Breed Triggers and advocacy groups such as the National Association for Gun Rights challenged the classification in multiple courts.
In June 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Garland v. Cargill, holding that the ATF had exceeded its statutory authority by classifying bump stocks as machine guns via rulemaking. The Court focused on the statutory definition requiring more than one shot by a single function of the trigger. In July 2024, a federal district court in the Northern District of Texas applied similar reasoning to FRTs and concluded they are not machine guns.
On May 16, 2025, the Department of Justice announced a settlement resolving the major outstanding cases, including NAGR v. Garland (later NAGR v. Bondi) and United States v. Rare Breed Triggers. Under the agreement, the United States agreed not to enforce federal machine-gun prohibitions (including 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) and related NFA provisions) against persons possessing or transferring FRTs that operate according to the criteria upheld by the Texas court: the trigger must reset after every round, the hammer must be released from the sear for every round, a separate function of the trigger is required for each shot, and blocking the reset causes the firearm to malfunction. The government also agreed to return previously seized FRTs upon timely request. Rare Breed accepted certain limitations, including restrictions on developing FRTs for handguns whose magazines load into the trigger-hand grip and commitments regarding patent enforcement and safe-use messaging.
The settlement is an enforcement agreement rather than a statutory amendment. It binds the federal government regarding covered devices and makes the Texas court’s favorable ruling effectively final for practical purposes by withdrawing appeals. It does not create a private right of action for third parties, nor does it override state law. Federal policy remains subject to future administrative or legislative change, but as of late 2026 the practical result is that qualifying FRTs are treated as legal semi-automatic accessories under federal law and do not require NFA registration or tax stamps.
Florida Statute § 790.222 and Its Application to FRTs
Florida enacted § 790.222 in 2018 as part of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act. The statute prohibits importing, transferring, distributing, selling, keeping for sale, offering for sale, possessing, or giving a “bump-fire stock.” Violation is a third-degree felony. The definition is expansive:
“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.”
Unlike the federal machine-gun definition, Florida’s language does not require that the device fire more than one round per single function of the trigger. It focuses on the effect of increasing rate of fire or mimicking automatic fire. Traditional bump stocks, which allow the shooter to harness recoil to bump the trigger finger repeatedly, clearly fall within the statute. FRTs, which force a mechanical reset and enable faster follow-up shots while still demanding one trigger pull per round, present a closer question of statutory interpretation. No Florida appellate court has issued a definitive published ruling specifically applying § 790.222 to FRTs as of the available record. Prosecutors and some local agencies have nonetheless treated the broad wording as reaching FRTs, producing arrests such as Jackson’s and prompting widespread commercial caution.
Attempts to repeal the statute, including House Bill 6021 in the 2026 legislative session, have failed to advance. The ban therefore remains in force.
Federal-State Differences and Practical Consequences
The divergence is straightforward but consequential. Federally, an FRT that meets the settlement’s functional criteria is not a machine gun. Possession and interstate transfer of such a device are lawful under federal firearms statutes (subject to ordinary background-check rules when the host firearm is transferred). Florida’s criminal prohibition operates independently of federal classification. A device can be fully legal under federal law yet a third-degree felony to possess or sell inside Florida.
This creates several practical problems. Retailers and manufacturers risk state-level liability for shipping or selling into Florida even when the product is federally compliant. Individual owners who acquired FRTs lawfully under federal rules face potential felony exposure if they bring the devices into the state or already reside there. The broad statutory language also raises vagueness and overbreadth concerns under the Second Amendment and due-process principles, particularly after New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022) and subsequent circuit-level decisions emphasizing historical tradition for arms regulations. Rate-of-fire enhancements that preserve one-round-per-trigger-function operation have long been available in various forms; a sweeping ban on any device that merely accelerates semi-automatic fire invites challenge on both textual and historical grounds.
Enforcement also appears uneven. Some ranges and dealers continue limited activity, while others refuse FRTs entirely. The result is a de facto ban enforced through a combination of prosecutorial discretion, commercial risk aversion, and the absence of clear judicial guidance.
Implications for the Second Amendment and Path Forward
The Jackson case and similar enforcement actions illustrate how state legislatures can maintain restrictions that federal authorities have abandoned. For Second Amendment advocates, the episode underscores two recurring issues: the dangers of vague statutory language that sweeps beyond its original target, and the persistent ability of states to impose more restrictive regimes even when federal law treats a device as lawful. Florida’s statute was written in the immediate aftermath of a high-profile mass shooting and cast a wide net; years later it is being applied to technology whose mechanical operation differs from the bump stocks that motivated the law.
Clearer legislative drafting, a formal opinion from the Florida Attorney General, or a well-developed judicial challenge could resolve the ambiguity. Until then, Florida gun owners and the industry face continued uncertainty. The federal settlement has restored predictability at the national level for qualifying FRTs. State law in Florida has not followed suit, leaving cases such as Florida v. Skyeler Jackson as flashpoints in the ongoing debate over where legitimate regulation ends and overbroad criminalization begins.