State Legality Matrix / Binary Triggers / District of Columbia
Statute-cited, last verified 2026-07-10
Restricted. No District statute names binary triggers, but the registration and assault-weapon regime leaves no clear lawful path; treat as unsettled.
Controlling law: D.C. Code §§ 7-2501.01 & 7-2502.02
The District's machine-gun definition (§ 7-2501.01(10)) was narrowed to automatic-only in 2008 and does not reach a one-round-per-function binary trigger, and no District statute names binary triggers. Device-level legality is unsettled; the host firearm must still clear the District's registration and assault-weapon rules, which most binary-capable rifles do not. Makers do not ship to the District.
Binary triggers are legal under federal law and are not machine guns under 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b); ATF treats the trigger pull and the trigger release as two separate functions of the trigger, so one round is fired per function. Cargill v. Garland (2024) concerned bump stocks, not binary triggers, and does not change this.
Scope: Binary triggers (Franklin Armory BFSIII and similar): fire one round on trigger pull and one on release. Forced reset triggers are a separate class.
Restricted. No District statute names binary triggers, but the registration and assault-weapon regime leaves no clear lawful path; treat as unsettled. Controlling law: D.C. Code §§ 7-2501.01 & 7-2502.02.
The controlling law is D.C. Code §§ 7-2501.01 & 7-2502.02. No District statute names binary triggers, but the registration and assault-weapon regime leaves no clear lawful path; treat as unsettled.
Binary triggers are legal under federal law and are not machine guns under 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b); ATF treats the trigger pull and the trigger release as two separate functions of the trigger, so one round is fired per function. Cargill v. Garland (2024) concerned bump stocks, not binary triggers, and does not change this.