The question of who handed an AS Designs ARHK prototype to Rare Breed Triggers (RBT) appears to be answered. In a video posted to YouTube, firearms content creator Steve_MP5 says he gave the trigger to Rare Breed, but attorney James Reeves, who runs the TFBTV YouTube channel, doesn’t buy the explanation.
Earlier this month, AmmoLand News reported that Rare Breed Triggers and ABC IP renewed their push for a temporary restraining order to stop AS Designs from releasing the ARHK, a forced reset trigger (FRT) built for Heckler & Koch roller-delayed guns like the MP5. A judge in the Eastern District of Texas had denied the first TRO request, citing insufficient evidence. At that point, RBT and ABC IP did not have an ARHK to compare with their own design.
That changed after AS Designs sent five prototype triggers to four firearms influencers for review. One of those triggers ended up with RBT and ABC IP’s lawyers, and the TRO motion was reopened. At the time, PrintShootReport had named Steve_MP5 as the source, but AmmoLand News had not found 100% irrefutable evidence of his involvement. AmmoLand News reached out to Steve_MP5 on Instagram for comment. He did not respond, and his Instagram account was later deleted.
The explanation in the video
In the video, which runs a little over five minutes and has been circulating on X, the speaker addresses the controversy head-on. “I provided the product to Rare Breed, but not out of maliciousness,” he says. He also says it was “not because I’m against the 2A community.”
He disputes the idea that he broke any agreement. “There was no contract between me and AS Designs,” he says, adding, “There was no NDA.” He says AS Designs did not pay him and that Rare Breed did not pay him or offer to pay him. He describes the arrangement as a product sent “in exchange for an unpaid review,” a commitment he says he fulfilled.
According to the speaker, after he posted his review, he was contacted about the patent dispute between the two companies and warned about potential legal consequences for himself. He says he then read the federal patent infringement statute, 35 U.S.C. 271, and that one word stood out to him: “Use.” In his words, “if I use an infringing item in a video, I could be liable for patent infringement.”
Steve says he had no prior knowledge of the dispute and decided to “protect myself and my family from a lawsuit.” He also says that, knowing what he knows now, he would ask about intellectual property concerns before agreeing to review unreleased products and would require an indemnification agreement if patent disputes were disclosed. He says he lost sponsorships over the situation and took time away from social media because of the response.
AmmoLand News did not independently confirm who contacted the speaker, what that person told him, or whether any formal legal threat was made. Those details come only from his own account in the video.
A lawyer’s take
James Reeves, whose X bio lists him as an attorney licensed in Louisiana, Florida, Mississippi, and Alabama, posted the video on X on November 12 with a pointed response. He opened by writing, “I have several issues with this explanation, in descending order of relevance.”
His first point goes straight to the legal core of the video’s defense. Reeves agrees that patent infringement, even for use, is a strict liability claim. But he says that without knowledge, recovering money damages from a reviewer would be extremely difficult.
“while patent infringement, even for use, is a strict liability claim that can be proven without proving knowledge, the lack of knowledge makes recovery of monetary damages extremely difficult,” Reeves wrote. “In lay terms, if this dude didn’t know he was using a potentially violative device, it’s almost certain that he would simply be ordered to stop using it.”
Reeves went further, writing, “I would say with 90% certainty that the remedy would be removal of the video (that he also embarrassingly bragged about being the first to make).”
His second point asks why, if the fear was legal liability, anyone would hand the device to the company making the claim.
“…if he was truly afraid of liability, then the reasonable thing to do would be to stop using the device, and possibly consult a lawyer,” Reeves wrote. “It’s extremely suspect to think that the rational thing to do would be to send the allegedly infringing device to the claimant. In other words, I’m calling BS on this explanation.”
His third point was aimed at the video itself. Reeves criticized what he called “the AI written and badly read script, jump cuts, and weird used car salesman text graphics and sound effects.” He closed with a blunt, very James Reeves, legal summary: “TLDR in my legal opinion, this is aggravated turbocuckery.”
The post drew more than 800 likes and tens of thousands of views within hours, according to X’s public metrics.
I have several issues with this explanation, in descending order of relevance:
1) while patent infringement, even for use, is a strict liability claim that can be proven without proving knowledge, the lack of knowledge makes recovery of monetary damages extremely difficult. In lay terms, if this dude didn’t know he was using a potentially violative device, it’s almost certain that he would simply be ordered to stop using it. I would say with 90% certainty that the remedy would be removal of the video (that he also embarrassingly bragged about being the first to make).
2) relatedly, if he was truly afraid of liability, then the reasonable thing to do would be to stop using the device, and possibly consult a lawyer. It’s extremely suspect to think that the rational thing to do would be to send the allegedly infringing device to the claimant. In other words, I’m calling BS on this explanation.
3) the AI written and badly read script, jump cuts, and weird used car salesman text graphics and sound effects made me cringe so hard that I think I have an actionable herniaTLDR in my legal opinion this is aggravated turbocuckery
— James Reeves (@jjreeves) November 13, 2026
Why this matters
This is bigger than one YouTuber and one trigger. As AmmoLand News reported, RBT entered into a settlement with the ATF that includes a commitment to aggressively enforce its patents, and the ATF’s stated goal is to prevent the dissemination of FRTs. RBT and ABC IP were suing other FRT makers long before that deal, but the settlement gave them another reason to keep going.
That puts small manufacturers in a tough spot. Sending pre-production samples to reviewers is normal in this industry. If a sample can end up in an opposing party’s hands and get used as evidence, companies will have to rethink how and to whom they send prototypes.
It also puts reviewers on notice. The speaker told his peers they “should be very careful moving forward.” Reeves’ point is that the reasonable move, if a creator fears liability, is to “stop using the device, and possibly consult a lawyer,” not to ship it to the other side.
For gun owners, the stakes have not changed. Fewer companies making forced reset triggers means fewer choices and higher prices. As of AmmoLand News’ Nov. 2 report, the court had not ruled on the renewed TRO motion, and AmmoLand News could not confirm a ruling since.
AmmoLand News will continue to follow the case and report on any rulings.
Legal Disclaimer: This article is provided for news reporting and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The opinions attributed to attorney James Reeves are his own and should not be construed as legal conclusions by AmmoLand News. Allegations of patent infringement remain subject to judicial determination, and no finding of infringement should be inferred from the claims or statements discussed in this article. Readers facing potential legal liability should consult a qualified attorney.
About John Crump
Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and constitutional activist with more than 26 years of experience in networking and cybersecurity for major Fortune 100 companies. John has written about firearms, the Constitution, and cybersecurity, and has interviewed people from all walks of life. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons. Follow him on X at @right2bear, or at www.crumpy.com.
