National ATF is going after FRT

[ilikegunspdx]

Bear has no right to bite. That's the problem, quit giving them power.

That's one of the most interesting things (to me) about this FRT stuff. Congress passed a law which defines a machine gun. Frt people create a product that does not meet that defintion of a machine gun. ATF says it is a machine gun, basically "because we said so". I haven't been following it lately though cuz it's so convoluted it's hard to track without watching closely.

Seems like the bump stock case that SCOTUS has just decided to hear (Garland v. Cargill) is that same basic question, "does atf have the authority to define/redefine a machine gun beyond that original 'one pull of the trigger' defintion that was made by congress?"

 

[Andy54Hawken]

What people need are more unfortunate "boating accidents."

It was supposed to be a three hour tour....
These folks might have benefited from a few firearms...well 'cept for that Gilligan guy...
Andy

 

[Yarome]

A quick look at YouTube shows I may have listened to that wa gun law guy who said rifleremedy2000 was an agent of the atf. I do recall that was also being said in other places too fwiw. In this video he says he was wrong about that.

Yeah... he recanted after speaking to the actual account owner. One of the few YT'ers that did.

I don't know if the alphabet was running it afterward, but the original owner did state that as part of some type of agreement he did at one time turn over his GB account access info. It was noted much later that the account was still actively selling on GB but I never heard any credible follow up as to who is running it. Rumor Mill says the alphabet, but nothing credible to back up that claim.

As of today it's still an active seller account.

 

[223to45]

That's one of the most interesting things (to me) about this FRT stuff. Congress passed a law which defines a machine gun. Frt people create a product that does not meet that defintion of a machine gun. ATF says it is a machine gun, basically "because we said so". I haven't been following it lately though cuz it's so convoluted it's hard to track without watching closely.

Seems like the bump stock case that SCOTUS has just decided to hear (Garland v. Cargill) is that same basic question, "does atf have the authority to define/redefine a machine gun beyond that original 'one pull of the trigger' defintion that was made by congress?"

I don't believe it said " one pull of the trigger" , I believe it says " One Function of the Trigger"

 

[Alexx1401]

Bear has no right to bite. That's the problem, quit giving them power.

That "sounds" great. Would make a great bumper sticker. Meanwhile in the real world where we all have to live the bear does not care when it bites that the person bit said no. Only one thing will ever change this. More people voting better.

 

[wired]

26 U.S.C. § 5845(b) For the purposes of the National Firearms Act the term Machinegun means: Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The frame or receiver of any such weapon.

The FRT clearly is not one of those Not only does the FRT not fit in the single function category, it is not a firearm nor is it a frame or a receiver. Its a trigger. M16 trigger's are not "banned" M16 carriers are not "banned" Now, why are DIAS's considered MG's by law according to the letter of the law?

 

[Flopsweat]

I don't believe it said " one pull of the trigger" , I believe it says " One Function of the Trigger"

Same thing in the case of the FRT. One shot, trigger resets, finger pulls trigger, one more shot. One function, one shot.

 

[Caveman Jim]

So are we able to run out and buy one of these at present time?
Asking for a friend.

 

[3MTA3]

So are we able to run out and buy one of these at present time?
Asking for a friend.

Here is one place: https://ammodepotid.com/product/rare-breed-trigger/

$350

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Here is one place: https://ammodepotid.com/product/rare-breed-trigger/

$350

That's sounds like a continuation of the ammodepot scam site. Maybe ammodepot.com got shut down due to being a known scam and they made a new website and added "id" onto it?

 

[CamoDeafie]

That "sounds" great. Would make a great bumper sticker. Meanwhile in the real world where we all have to live the bear does not care when it bites that the person bit said no. Only one thing will ever change this. More people voting better.

Or.. how about.. shoot the bear, instead of poking it? By "shoot", I mean recall/repeal/abolish/change government agencies, by any legal means necessary even if government claims that some means are "illegal"...

 

[Jcon268]

That's one of the most interesting things (to me) about this FRT stuff. Congress passed a law which defines a machine gun. Frt people create a product that does not meet that defintion of a machine gun. ATF says it is a machine gun, basically "because we said so". I haven't been following it lately though cuz it's so convoluted it's hard to track without watching closely.

Seems like the bump stock case that SCOTUS has just decided to hear (Garland v. Cargill) is that same basic question, "does atf have the authority to define/redefine a machine gun beyond that original 'one pull of the trigger' defintion that was made by congress?"

Congress was pretty specific when they made the definition of a machine gun. If their intention was to limit rate of fire, they could have easily worded it that way. It seems they're now focused on how fast something can fire a follow up round. FRTs temporarily took the focus away from both bump stocks and binary triggers because it was the low hanging fruit (fired fastest with the least mechanical input). But I'm pretty sure if they had their way they'd ban them all.

 

[wired]

Congress was pretty specific when they made the definition of a machine gun. If their intention was to limit rate of fire, they could have easily worded it that way. It seems they're now focused on how fast something can fire a follow up round. FRTs temporarily took the focus away from both bump stocks and binary triggers because it was the low hanging fruit (fired fastest with the least mechanical input). But I'm pretty sure if they had their way they'd ban them all.

When congress defined a full auto machinegun and how it worked their definition was the only way that machineguns worked. They didn't have a crystal ball to work with or you bet your flapper hat they would have enumerated every possible possible contraption they could have envisioned..

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

When congress defined a full auto machinegun and how it worked their definition was the only way that machineguns worked. They didn't have a crystal ball to work with or you bet your flapper hat they would have enumerated every possible possible contraption they could have envisioned..

They tried as hard as they could to limit it to rich white guys without actually saying "For rich white guys only"

 

[Yarome]

When congress defined a full auto machinegun and how it worked their definition was the only way that machineguns worked. They didn't have a crystal ball to work with or you bet your flapper hat they would have enumerated every possible possible contraption they could have envisioned..

I dunno about that. To believe that you would have to believe the rhetoric that our forefathers were simpletons. Oblivious to the fact that continuous advances in firearm tech had occurred prior to that point and time in history and was likely to continue.

The same fallacy is used by anti-2A folk ad nauseum. "They couldn't possibly predict technology would continue to advance." And yet... that same argument is rarely used to infringe other constitutional rights. IE., Free speech... and the advent of the globally interconnected palm sized "super computer".

As @Jcon268 stated... to encapsulate regulation of any and all future innovations, simply regulating rate of fire would have been the obvious route to take... if that had in fact been their intended purpose.

 

[CamoDeafie]

26 U.S.C. § 5845(b) For the purposes of the National Firearms Act the term Machinegun means: Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The frame or receiver of any such weapon.

The FRT clearly is not one of those Not only does the FRT not fit in the single function category, it is not a firearm nor is it a frame or a receiver. Its a trigger. M16 trigger's are not "banned" M16 carriers are not "banned" Now, why are DIAS's considered MG's by law according to the letter of the law?

Congress was pretty specific when they made the definition of a machine gun. If their intention was to limit rate of fire, they could have easily worded it that way. It seems they're now focused on how fast something can fire a follow up round. FRTs temporarily took the focus away from both bump stocks and binary triggers because it was the low hanging fruit (fired fastest with the least mechanical input). But I'm pretty sure if they had their way they'd ban them all.

Don't forget the 1968 GCA which added "parts, or any combination of parts that can readily convert a firearm to a machine gun" and also for suppressors.

Edit. That little phrase was very likely what was used against the bumpstocks and FRTs, the main issue being what exactly is "a single function of trigger"

 

[Yarome]

They tried as hard as they could to limit it to rich white guys without actually saying "For rich white guys only"

....which if anything... the "rules for thee, but not for me" political ideology has become even more prevalent in our modern times that it even was back then. Sadly.....

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

....which if anything... the "rules for thee, but not for me" political ideology has become even more prevalent in our modern times that it even was back then. Sadly.....

lolz, just kidding.

That argument would go nowhere, change no ones mind and run afoul of most of our rules

 

[wired]

I dunno about that. To believe that you would have to believe the rhetoric that our forefathers were simpletons. Oblivious to the fact that continuous advances in firearm tech had occurred prior to that point and time in history and was likely to continue.

The same fallacy is used by anti-2A folk ad nauseum. "They couldn't possibly predict technology would continue to advance." And yet... that same argument is rarely used to infringe other constitutional rights. IE., Free speech... and the advent of the globally interconnected palm sized "super computer".

As @Jcon268 stated... to encapsulate regulation of any and all future innovations, simply regulating rate of fire would have been the obvious route to take... if that had in fact been their intended purpose.

The NFA was drafted by the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration. Machineguns operated in a very specific way . You pull the trigger once and the gun kept firing until it ran out of ammo or you released the trigger. Whichever came first. The concept of a gun that fired in a manner similar to the way machineguns fire in rate without actually being a machinegun was at least 70 years away. If the dictator Roosevelt and his little buddy in the closet at the FBI had 70 years of precognition, they would have expanded their definition.

And back then it wasn't Congress that wrote laws. Roosevelt told them what to do and they did it.

Rate of fire can be easily manipulated and wasnt a concern . The definition covered function as known in the 1930's. A machine gun can be made to fire at whatever rate the designer wants.

 

[Yarome]

View attachment 1766614


lolz, just kidding.

That argument would go nowhere, change no ones mind and run afoul of most of our rules

Are you stuck in "confrontation mode"? Agreeing with you is a "trigger"??