Not alone. In conjunction with the fact the user does not actually release the trigger tension you end up with what the ATF has already declared to be a machinegun. With a binary the trigger most certainly is released. I hope the ATF loses their case against the FRT trigger. I doubt they will though.
I think they will give them a hell of a fight. Florida courts are still pretty conservative as is their district.
theinfidel.co
SAF - the organization that punches way over its budget and regularly reveals the charlatans at the NRA.In the spirit of the ATF's BS rule change with out dew proccess. Here is a bit about the up coming Arm Brace ruling..........It sounds just like what Rarebreed is currently going through.
This quote is from Ammo Land Shooting Sports News.
SAF has already submitted its 14-page detailed perspective on the proposal, and it pulls no punches. Right up front, the gun rights organization tells the ATF Office of Regulatory Affairs, "ATF does not have the authority to impose NFA control on stabilizing braces and its proposed rule will threaten millions of citizens with prison, harsh fines, forfeiture of firearms, and the loss of the right to own or possess firearms should they fail to comply with ATF's policy change. The NFA was not amended for these changes. No new laws were passed. Instead, ATF decided to change the scope of the NFA on its own, imposing significant burdens on core constitutional rights of over a million law abiding citizens."
Here is the entire article.......
SAF Advises Strategy as ATF Deadline Looms for Comment on Stabilizer Braces
“Time is running out and we want to provide millions of targeted gun owners the means to weigh in on this alarming proposal.”--Alan Gottlieb, SAFwww.ammoland.com
in your opinion, back it up with facts and links
What's the money they both take in compared to what cases they pursue and win in the defense of the "shall not be infringed" right of the people?
I don't need any records of anything. This is not about me. It's about you backing up your opinion with facts. Show me the links to back up your statements.
Pretty sure I just did.
where did you get the info you typed?
Generally speaking in academia, facts don't need sources cited, but of course my assumptions would have to be verified, for example that the NRA likely spends more on advertising then the SAF takes in donations annually.
It's not up to me to prove you right, that's your job.
I can lead you to the water, but as the saying goes, I can't make you drink.
But if I don't need water, you have to convince me to drink.........
No sir, that's your choice, I can present it to you, as I already have metaphorically speaking.
Not how it works, if you state it, prove it or it's a lie.
That's bad logic, and I'm not sure beyond what I have already shared what would be necessary for you to feel convinced, but that sounds like a personal challenge more so than anything.
simply asking for documented proof to back up your statements, nothing more.
