National ATF is going after FRT

[TTSX]

Too many companies pushing the envelope too far, too often, simultaneously. Capitalistic greed and nanny nanny foofoo'ing got the ATF's attention. Should have kept it fight club and everything would have been just fine

 

[American123]

simply asking for documented proof to back up your statements, nothing more.

Can you please specify 1 statement that you would like documented proof about so I know what I am supposed to be documenting, because I thought I already had provided sufficient material to base my claims.

 

[wired]

First rule of the Forced Reset Trigger. Don't talk about the forced reset trigger.

Guilty .

 

[rdb241]

Can you please specify 1 statement that you would like documented proof about so I know what I am supposed to be documenting, because I thought I already had provided sufficient material to base my claims.

it's getting very old playing the I can't figure it out game and the I'm better than you attitude.......I'm done. Have a fantastic day.

 

[CountryGent]

The NRA assisted Roosevelt in drafting the 1934 National Firearms Act and the 1938 Gun Control Act, the first federal gun control laws.

There was the 1938 Federal Firearms Act and the 1968 Gun Control Act. Out of curiosity, which one I you referencing? (GCA68 superseded FFA38, though some things, like FFLs, carried over.)

Just wondering. Sorry for the tangent.

 

[American123]

Too many companies pushing the envelope too far, too often, simultaneously. Capitalistic greed and nanny nanny foofoo'ing got the ATF's attention. Should have kept it fight club and everything would have been just fine

I disagree. If we police ourselves based on what the government might not like but is by the letter of the law still legal, that's a noose that only gets tighter.

Rights must be flexed for them to remain relevant and in public view, otherwise, they are easily stripped away because they aren't commonly known or understood anyway so "why would we need those rights."

I like all the NFA 'envelope pushing' - it questions the very premises for which those laws exist and helps bring greater awareness to the fact that they shouldn't and should be considered unconstitutional.

 

[TTSX]

I disagree. If we police ourselves based on what the government might not like but is by the letter of the law still legal, that's a noose that only gets tighter.

Rights must be flexed for them to remain relevant and in public view, otherwise, they are easily stripped away because they aren't commonly known or understood anyway so "why would we need those rights."

I like all the NFA 'envelope pushing' - it questions the very premises for which those laws exist and helps bring greater awareness to the fact that they shouldn't and should be considered unconstitutional.

That's fair and I don't disagree with you. I do see things a certain way, of course and I think these products could have been brought to market with a little less farting in a general direction.

 

[American123]

it's getting very old playing the I can't figure it out game and the I'm better than you attitude.......I'm done. Have a fantastic day.

I view this as a intellectually cowardly move. You've been very vague and elusive in what satisfies your point of view for "evidence," to which I have tried to provide you with what is considered very valid research criteria (a web search and the results of any of the web pages that explain NRA backed gun control) and then when I offer you to very specifically point out which claim you would like me to give you specific web pages for, you back out. You took the time to read and respond to about 4 previous posts, but the one that would theoretically end it all is sidestepped. Makes me think you didn't want an answer that would disrupt your point of view.

 

[American123]

That's fair and I don't disagree with you. I do see things a certain way, of course and I think these products could have been brought to market with a little less farting in a general direction.

I can understand that, however, I don't perceive there is a way to effectively market any product to the general public without getting the government's attention if they frown upon the idea you are marketing to begin with.

This company at least seemed to be well prepared for the inevitable and rather than shrink away, dug in harder. That's very, American, of them.

 

[wired]

I can understand that, however, I don't perceive there is a way to effectively market any product to the general public without getting the government's attention if they frown upon the idea you are marketing to begin with.

This company at least seemed to be well prepared for the inevitable and rather than shrink away, dug in harder. That's very, American, of them.

It is and I salute them. Figure 10,000 of these devices have been sold. Probable cost to manufacture in the $70 range. Maybe less. In any case at a sale price of $380 thats a cool $3 mil in profit . One of the founders is the lawyer they often bring out as their" legal expert" so I assume their billing rate is reasonable. Theyre in it for the long haul. Spikes is behind all this.

 

[rdb241]

I view this as a intellectually cowardly move. You've been very vague and elusive in what satisfies your point of view for "evidence," to which I have tried to provide you with what is considered very valid research criteria (a web search and the results of any of the web pages that explain NRA backed gun control) and then when I offer you to very specifically point out which claim you would like me to give you specific web pages for, you back out. You took the time to read and respond to about 4 previous posts, but the one that would theoretically end it all is sidestepped. Makes me think you didn't want an answer that would disrupt your point of view.

BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.............................................

 

[CamoDeafie]

I can understand that, however, I don't perceive there is a way to effectively market any product to the general public without getting the government's attention if they frown upon the idea you are marketing to begin with.

This company at least seemed to be well prepared for the inevitable and rather than shrink away, dug in harder. That's very, American, of them.

Thing is.. they didn't get ATF approval before this. Then again, the majority of pistol brace makers did get their ATF Approval letters

Edit 2. Looks like Rare Breed did not submit their stuff to the ATF Tech Branch... although some here have said it's not required hm. This is interesting.

Edit. The main thing is... none of the laws governing such technical aspects such as "machine gun" definitions and "SBR/AOW" definitions have changed between the first ATF decision and the current decision/court suit.

 

[CountryGent]

Thing is.. they did get ATF approval before this. Then again, so did the majority of pistol brace makers

Out of curiosity, link to the approval document? I've seen at least one video in which they stated they did not submit the design to the tech branch. Though, granted, I have not been following this closely, so reading the actual letter would be interesting.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Thing is.. they did get ATF approval before this. Then again, so did the majority of pistol brace makers

Edit. The main thing is... none of the laws governing such technical aspects such as "machine gun" definitions and "SBR/AOW" definitions have changed between the first ATF decision and the current decision/court suit.

Out of curiosity, link to the approval document? I've seen at least one video in which they stated they did not submit the design to the tech branch. Though, granted, I have not been following this closely, so reading the actual letter would be interesting.

My mistake. I cannot seem to find the first approvals, and it does look like Rare Breed did not submit their trigger to Tech Branch. I shall edit my post now.

 

[CountryGent]

My mistake. I cannot seem to find the first approvals, and it does look like Rare Breed did not submit their trigger to Tech Branch. I shall edit my post now.

Roger that and thank you. It was entirely possible I simply missed it in all the stuff going on with this case. Appreciate the info.

 

[rdb241]

Thing is.. they didn't get ATF approval before this. Then again, the majority of pistol brace makers did get their ATF Approval letters

Edit 2. Looks like Rare Breed did not submit their stuff to the ATF Tech Branch... although some here have said it's not required hm. This is interesting.

Edit. The main thing is... none of the laws governing such technical aspects such as "machine gun" definitions and "SBR/AOW" definitions have changed between the first ATF decision and the current decision/court suit.

Like the CEO of Rarebreed says, they did not need an approval letter because they designed it within the boundries of the ATF's own deffinition of what makes a MG. It was manufactured to stay within the rules and now ATF wants to change the rules. So honestly why would they need an approval letter? It is not a designed and manfactured NFA item. If it was, then yes it would need an approval letter. But it is not so it does not require one.

 

[American123]

Thing is.. they didn't get ATF approval before this. Then again, the majority of pistol brace makers did get their ATF Approval letters

Edit 2. Looks like Rare Breed did not submit their stuff to the ATF Tech Branch... although some here have said it's not required hm. This is interesting.

Edit. The main thing is... none of the laws governing such technical aspects such as "machine gun" definitions and "SBR/AOW" definitions have changed between the first ATF decision and the current decision/court suit.

The thing is, American and English common law generally works such that everything that is not expressly written and described as "against the law" is inherently legal, so it is unnecessary to ask the ATF for approval to begin with because you don't have to be 2 standard deviations above the norm in intelligence to understand what is described as illegal regarding the definition of a machine gun, or a stock, or an arm brace, and then not do things that are expressly written to be illegal.

 

[CamoDeafie]

From the ATF NFA PDF.. for those who doesn't bother reading the actual text of the law
"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." (emphasis added by me)

The underlined part and the part in italics.. that's probably where lawyers in black robes are gonna argue the most with regards to the trigger itself.

What is a "single function"? One pull? Or as in the case of the animation, one cycle of trigger? (Pull, fire, lock, reset?)

Where does the Binary triggers fall in this? Again, the law does not say a single pull. It says "a single function".

 

[American123]

From the ATF NFA PDF.. for those who doesn't bother reading the actual text of the law
"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." (emphasis added by me)

The underlined part and the part in italics.. that's probably where lawyers in black robes are gonna argue the most with regards to the trigger itself.

What is a "single function"? One pull? Or as in the case of the animation, one cycle of trigger? (Pull, fire, lock, reset?)

Where does the Binary triggers fall in this? Again, the law does not say a single pull. It says "a single function".

This "non lawyer" says that the trigger "breaks" each shot, remaining semi auto, as opposed to full auto, where the trigger does not break each shot because if the trigger is held down, the trigger mechanism is never engaged again with the sear until the trigger is released, as opposed to the rare breed, where the trigger and sear are engaged and disengaged with each shot determined by the finger applying sufficient force to "break" the shot.

 

[CamoDeafie]

This "non lawyer" says that the trigger "breaks" each shot, remaining semi auto, as opposed to full auto, where the trigger does not break each shot because if the trigger is held down, the trigger mechanism is never engaged again with the sear until the trigger is released, as opposed to the rare breed, where the trigger and sear are engaged and disengaged with each shot determined by the finger applying sufficient force to "break" the shot.

And that is exactly my argument as well. A "single function" is what lawyers are gonna pounce on, because it could be argued that the whole cycle is a "single function", thereby excusing the FRT15 trigger but setting Binary triggers in the crosshair due to the "shoot on pull, shoot on release" mode whereas a "single function" might be defined further as "a single pull and reset/release" of the trigger.