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