National ATF is going after FRT

[wired]

From what I gather, the ATF is posing as buyers on those sights and then nailing the seller(s) who are most likely selling them to avoided trouble with the ATF in the first place and getting some of their money back, it selling for a profit to take advantage of the situation, only to get nailed for it!
For anyone worried about a visit from the Feds, it is strongly advised that you destroy the device and take photos and NOT share anything with anyone except your attorney!

I'm not sure how nailed they're getting for it other than losing out on what the triggers cost. To date I haven't heard of any prosecutions. They take mine I'm going to figure out a way to adjust my taxes to make up for the loss.

 

[fstdraw]

"The hills are alive with the sound of FRT fire"

 

[v0lcom13sn0w]

From what I gather, the ATF is posing as buyers on those sights and then nailing the seller(s) who are most likely selling them to avoided trouble with the ATF in the first place and getting some of their money back, it selling for a profit to take advantage of the situation, only to get nailed for it!
For anyone worried about a visit from the Feds, it is strongly advised that you destroy the device and take photos and NOT share anything with anyone except your attorney!

i heard a guy in my town is meeting with them to give his up today. hopefully since he decided to hand it over thats it and nothing more about it.

 

[sobo]

My thing is with this is, if you willingly give up an FRT to the AFT when they come a-knockin', then the AFT now has proof positive that you possessed an NFA-regulated item without the NFA-associated tax stamp. And now you're screwed if they decide to prosecute you in the future...

 

[Yarome]

My thing is with this is, if you willingly give up an FRT to the AFT when they come a-knockin', then the AFT now has proof positive that you possessed an NFA-regulated item without the NFA-associated tax stamp. And now you're screwed if they decide to prosecute you in the future...

Makes you think. I'm not suggesting anything but there seems to be several different approaches people are taking when they come knocking. Cooperating and surrendering theirs. Already destroyed theirs and providing photo proof. And others are choosing to not answer any questions and referring them to their attorney. If they have a warrant, that's one thing, but it doesn't seem that the folks reporting visits so far have been served any warrants.

Have the lawsuits against the rule been decided yet? I haven't kept up close enough.

It seems like the attorney option is more just delaying any action until congress rules on it and it either gets tossed out or changing the law so the ATF would then have the ability to obtain warrants? Supposedly, they can't at the moment and just relying on voluntary compliance, intimidation and threats?

My other question. If the ATF accepts photo proof of destruction... how long will it be before they start to figure out people are submitting the same photo as 100's of other people??

Asking for a friend....

 

[wired]

My thing is with this is, if you willingly give up an FRT to the AFT when they come a-knockin', then the AFT now has proof positive that you possessed an NFA-regulated item without the NFA-associated tax stamp. And now you're screwed if they decide to prosecute you in the future...

Not sure that's a real issue

 

[Yarome]

Not sure that's a real issue

Said many people on most every issue before yet another 2A infringment proved them wrong.

 

[Flopsweat]

Makes you think. I'm not suggesting anything but there seems to be several different approaches people are taking when they come knocking. Cooperating and surrendering theirs. Already destroyed theirs and providing photo proof. And others are choosing to not answer any questions and referring them to their attorney. If they have a warrant, that's one thing, but it doesn't seem that the folks reporting visits so far have been served any warrants.

Have the lawsuits against the rule been decided yet? I haven't kept up close enough.

It seems like the attorney option is more just delaying any action until congress rules on it and it either gets tossed out or changing the law so the ATF would then have the ability to obtain warrants? Supposedly, they can't at the moment and just relying on voluntary compliance, intimidation and threats?

My other question. If the ATF accepts photo proof of destruction... how long will it be before they start to figure out people are submitting the same photo as 100's of other people??

Asking for a friend....

Image search is a real thing.

See it, search it | Bing Visual Search

Search the web using an image instead of text. Reverse image search engine. Search by image: Take a picture or upload one to find similar images and products. Identify landmarks, animals, even celebrities in a photo.

www.bing.com

TinEye Reverse Image Search

tineye.com

Not sure that's a real issue

Not at all sure it won't be later. They are not to be trusted.

 

[Yarome]

Image search is a real thing.

Ah! So you would need to snap a photo, rearrange the parts, snap another, rinse and repeat. Gotcha!

 

[Yarome]

It wouldn't be suspicious at all if a guy asked to see a photo of someone's that already destroyed theirs, right? Just to make sure he's breaking his apart correctly, too, of course.

Asking for a different friend......

 

[sobo]

My thing is with this is, if you willingly give up an FRT to the AFT when they come a-knockin', then the AFT now has proof positive that you possessed an NFA-regulated item without the NFA-associated tax stamp. And now you're screwed if they decide to prosecute you in the future...

Not sure that's a real issue

Said many people on most every issue before yet another 2A infringment proved them wrong.

Not at all sure it won't be later. They are not to be trusted.

There are two reasons right there why I think it's a real issue. YMMV...

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Re destroy vs turn it over: I'm no lawyer but it seems to me the reason wa gun law guy is saying destroy is because this is all about possession. Having documentation of a destroyed part means one doesn't possess the functioning part, they possess/possessed the destroyed part. I think ATF said on the bumpstock ban you can either turn it in or destroy it (as I recall).

At the time they bought the functioning part it was legal (assuming it was before atf made their ruling). Note that I'm not getting into "is it legal" argument here, I'm ignoring that part. Just speculating on why wa gun law guy says destroy and document.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Also re so Sobo's point above, I think it is right on personally. The guy in wa gun law video said atf guys were nice etc. But how does one know that a supervisor or some other employee with a quota to fill, a crusade to pursue, or who wants to make a name for themselves can't go back and say, "here is the evidence of possession".

Apparently the whole rare breed thing started because of one agent in wa DC who kept pursuing and pursuing it (from what I understand).

 

[Ura-Ki]

Re destroy vs turn it over: I'm no lawyer but it seems to me the reason wa gun law guy is saying destroy is because this is all about possession. Having documentation of a destroyed part means one doesn't possess the functioning part, they possess/possessed the destroyed part. I think ATF said on the bumpstock ban you can either turn it in or destroy it (as I recall).

At the time they bought the functioning part it was legal (assuming it was before atf made their ruling). Note that I'm getting into "is it legal" argument here, I'm ignoring that part. Just speculating on why wa gun law guy says destroy and document.

This mirrors what The Armed Attorneys channel posted as well! I would make two cuts in a "X" so that there is no question what so ever that it's completely destroyed! I would also take photos that include a personal item that you can show as proof that it's all yours and not a faked or swiped interwebs image! A wedding ring or wrist watch in the photo along with the company logo on the part when you start the process so you can prove everything!

 

[Yarome]

...because this is all about possession. Having documentation of a destroyed part means one doesn't possess the functioning part

That could be true. Could be just demonstrating full compliance to ease their attentions. I dunno.

I did hear an argument for keeping it intact, though. If the suit is successful or the rule otherwise made moot, the ATF would be required to return any confiscated property. IOW, a slight chance of getting it back or receiving reimbursement for the documented purchase price.

Personally, I can be a jerk. I would leave it intact and make them go get a warrant. They wanna be jackholes, they better be willing to put in the effort.

 

[Flopsweat]

This mirrors what The Armed Attorneys channel posted as well! I would make two cuts in a "X" so that there is no question what so ever that it's completely destroyed! I would also take photos that include a personal item that you can show as proof that it's all yours and not a faked or swiped interwebs image! A wedding ring or wrist watch in the photo along with the company logo on the part when you start the process so you can prove everything!

Or an appendage...

 

[Ura-Ki]

Or an appendage...

If you got unique tats or other distinguished features that identify you as you!

 

[Flopsweat]

If you got unique tats or other distinguished features that identify you as you!

Forget it. I'm not about to describe it for you.

 

[Yarome]

I understand they want to make it a prohibited item, but to be clear, the trigger itself, outside of a firearm is NOT a machine gun in and of itself or subject to a tax stamp. It's only when you put it in a firearm that they will class the "firearm" as a machine gun. The worst they can charge you with is possession of a prohibited item, right?

IMHO, I've satisfied the machine guns not allowed law simply by removing the FRT from all firearms. But I could be wrong.

 

[Flopsweat]

I understand they want to make it a prohibited item, but to be clear, the trigger itself, outside of a firearm is NOT a machine gun in and of itself or subject to a tax stamp. It's only when you put it in a firearm that they will class the "firearm" as a machine gun. The worst they can charge you with is possession of a prohibited item, right?

IMHO, I've satisfied the machine guns not allowed law simply by removing the FRT from all firearms. But I could be wrong.

Remember these are the guys who claimed that a string can be a machine gun. SCOTUS just ruled that they can't do that.