National ATF is going after FRT

[wired]

Neither the GCA nor the NFA were amended to include pistol braces. The ATF made a mistake when they allowed pistol braces and caved to political pressure when they continued to allow them . With their current ruling set they are returning to the letter of the law.

 

[CamoDeafie]

allowed pistol braces and caved to political pressure when they continued to allow them .

The problem is of course... the very fundamental question of "what makes a stock, a "stock"? "

Plainly spoken, it is the rearmost part of a gun, either the handle for a pistol/handgun , or the object that gets shouldered on a rifle and shotgun; usually termed a "butt" or "butt stock".

With the Olympic Arms AR pistol when it first came out... the company wrangled with the ATF over it I believe.. and the ATF basically told them "as long as it cannot accept a shoulder stock, its good to go" and thats how we got the pistol buffer tube. For the AK pistols, it was even simpler, the rear trunnion had to be incapable of accepting the stocks available, usually by welding or putting in a solid trunnion (correct me if I'm wrong on this part of the AK pistols?)

Since the Olympic Arms AR pistol got accepted.... it wasn't long before people put foam pads on it for better cheek weld. Nothing else happened until 2012 when SB Tactical came out with the Sig Brace thing. Of course there was ATF wrangling and then the letters. 9 years later we have this issue brought up because simply put... "too many people bought braced pistols" in essence.


Because the brace is not a shoulder stock by design it has always been okay if a little in the gray area. If Congress had amended the NFA and GCA laws to add brace definitions and other things, then the ATF would be within their scope to rule on things like that.


It is much the same situation with the trigger. The letter of the law states "more than one bullet per pull= machine gun". Semiautomatics are 1 bullet per pull.
Gatling guns of the old West type/Civil War style with the hand crank.. is not considered a machine gun class due to the crank and firing mechanism setup. Adding an electric motor to one would make it a machine gun due to the automatic rotation from the motor.

The FRT trigger.... from what I can read about it; it functions very similarly to the Tippmann Response Trigger system in that the trigger is forcefully reset at a faster rate than normal triggers, and the trigger being much more sensitive (hair trigger basically) would use very light pressure to trigger things. But it is entirely possible to reduce rate of fire to a semiauto rate by overcoming the reset rate and holding the trigger back after one shot. The potential problem is that of the strength of the reset mechanism.

 

[wired]

The problem is of course... the very fundamental question of "what makes a stock, a "stock"? "

Plainly spoken, it is the rearmost part of a gun, either the handle for a pistol/handgun , or the object that gets shouldered on a rifle and shotgun; usually termed a "butt" or "butt stock".

With the Olympic Arms AR pistol when it first came out... the company wrangled with the ATF over it I believe.. and the ATF basically told them "as long as it cannot accept a shoulder stock, its good to go" and thats how we got the pistol buffer tube. For the AK pistols, it was even simpler, the rear trunnion had to be incapable of accepting the stocks available, usually by welding or putting in a solid trunnion (correct me if I'm wrong on this part of the AK pistols?)

Since the Olympic Arms AR pistol got accepted.... it wasn't long before people put foam pads on it for better cheek weld. Nothing else happened until 2012 when SB Tactical came out with the Sig Brace thing. Of course there was ATF wrangling and then the letters. 9 years later we have this issue brought up because simply put... "too many people bought braced pistols" in essence.


Because the brace is not a shoulder stock by design it has always been okay if a little in the gray area. If Congress had amended the NFA and GCA laws to add brace definitions and other things, then the ATF would be within their scope to rule on things like that.


It is much the same situation with the trigger. The letter of the law states "more than one bullet per pull= machine gun". Semiautomatics are 1 bullet per pull.
Gatling guns of the old West type/Civil War style with the hand crank.. is not considered a machine gun class due to the crank and firing mechanism setup. Adding an electric motor to one would make it a machine gun due to the automatic rotation from the motor.

The FRT trigger.... from what I can read about it; it functions very similarly to the Tippmann Response Trigger system in that the trigger is forcefully reset at a faster rate than normal triggers, and the trigger being much more sensitive (hair trigger basically) would use very light pressure to trigger things. But it is entirely possible to reduce rate of fire to a semiauto rate by overcoming the reset rate and holding the trigger back after one shot. The potential problem is that of the strength of the reset mechanism.

The issue with the FRT is that the carrier releases the trigger. The trigger gets pulled and continues to be pulled. From the perspective of the shooter he pulls the trigger once and the machine does the work until he releases. It moves a bit on its own but the shooter never releases the trigger I have a hard time seeing a federal judge seeing otherwise and I own several. . Owned that is. You know, the boating accident.

Pistol braces are just ADA compliant buttstocks.

 

[CamoDeafie]

But... from the animation of the trigger function on Vimeo; it looks like it is still "1 bullet per pull". Let me tell you, its rather easy on the old Tippmann RT paintball guns to do a stupid fast rate of fire while still being technically semiauto only.. and thats without electronics like solenoids and circuits. The hair trigger portion might be what causes the judges to decide against Rare Breed. On the other hand.... Jerry Miculek and his hair trigger revolvers?

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Neither the GCA nor the NFA were amended to include pistol braces. The ATF made a mistake when they allowed pistol braces and caved to political pressure when they continued to allow them . With their current ruling set they are returning to the letter of the law.

Disagree. Atf is proposing to change the definition of a rifle by saying attaching an accessory to a pistol, where the pistol meets a certain number of scorecard (atf worksheet 4999) points, will be defined as a nfa regulated short barrel rifle.

The scorecard gives points for any number of items, many of which have nothing to do with the brace (such as a red dot scope). Some may remember a similar approach in the 1994 assault weapons ban where if it had a flash hider or other items attached, it would be illegal.

Under this ruling you could duct tape a toothpick to a pistol and have it fail the scorecard fairly easily if other attachments were present such as a red dot etc. (ie it could be ruled illegal via the brace ban even though no functional brace was present).

Both the scorecard approach and saying they can redefine what is an nfa item sets the precedents needed to ban assault rifles.

If this brace ban goes through, Atf could create a similar scorecard, plus another redefinition of what is an nfa item is, for assault rifles where certain parts make it illegal. Again, as in 1994 where an extended mag, etc would make it an illegal assault rifle.

The key difference between this and the 1994 ban is the 1994 ban was passed by Congress and signed by Clinton. It became law. Which is how our country works. It was not just made up by ATF.

In contrast to a law created by the legislative branch, this sets a precedent for atf to reclassify currently legal guns as illegal, without going through the legislative branch. If this precedent is set, Atf could simply create an assault weapons ban (and more) on their own without any say of the people (the legislative branch) because they can create new scorecards and new definitions of the law. And yes U could say the bump stock thing allowed them to attempt this power grab but that's losing the critical point a bit which is atf is expanding their power to redefine things on their own, which must be set by law not by atf.

 

[wired]

But... from the animation of the trigger function on Vimeo; it looks like it is still "1 bullet per pull". Let me tell you, its rather easy on the old Tippmann RT paintball guns to do a stupid fast rate of fire while still being technically semiauto only.. and thats without electronics like solenoids and circuits. The hair trigger portion might be what causes the judges to decide against Rare Breed. On the other hand.... Jerry Miculek and his hair trigger revolvers?

You never released YOUR pull. The bolt carrier releases the trigger after the bolt carrier resets the trigger. YOU are still pulling. When a full auto trigger group is firing the bolt carrier releases the hammer . YOU are still pulling the trigger. The only difference being the FRT trigger oscillates a bit while firing but YOU never actually release YOUR pull.

Pull the carrier back and lock the bolt lock . Put a rubber band on that trigger so its pulled. and release the bolt carrier. What happens?

It runs until the mag is empty. Submit into evidence.

 

[CountryGent]

I wish them well and hope they prevail, but I too am not overly optimistic FRT wins this one. There is a long track record of the agency pointing to an object and saying "that's a machine-gun" and it, generally, sticks. In some cases the rulings involved some serious mental gymnastics.

I do recall in the early 2000s a company put out a $1,000+ 10/22 stock with a spring between the receiver and said. When the shooter pulled the trigger, the receiver bounced between the two, hitting the finger, and essentially full-auto fire was achieved until the shooter got his/her finger away from the trigger. Their view was the trigger was being "pulled" each time, so not an MG. BATFE disagreed, it was ruled a machine-gun, and the company and owners of the devices were pretty much screwed. Could this happen to FRT? No idea, and granted the two devices are different, but it is at least possible.

 

[Alexx1401]

The way so many guns owners are all in on more "control" I would bet a pay check the trigger will be done away with. Law only means what a black robe tells you it means. There is a slew of black robes who just need to see a video of a gun fired with one of these and the black robe will say no. Braces are the same. Too many gun owners do not care and refuse to vote. So we will lose these too. This is elections have consequences.

 

[CamoDeafie]

More technical here,.and probably why FRT got the okay the first time around...

A fully automatic firing mechanism, or 3 round burst or what not.. requires that the trigger itself be not reset until released by the finger.
With the Forced Reset Trigger mechanism.. it is still one bullet per trigger pull, unlike the binary triggers which fires one on the pull and one on the return (another very gray area here...)

If you can drum your finger faster than a normal rate of fire whatever that is.. then as a hair trigger mechanism, it certainly would sound like a machine gun.

Its very similar argument to the bumpstock, atkins accelerator, belt loop and the 14" shoe string thing. If it mechanicallys reset the trigger but releases it because the finger, belt loop, or shoestring doesn't let it fully return... it'll act like a machine gun but is still not a machine gun although the ATF has indeed ruled some of these as machine guns

 

[CountryGent]

Atkins accelerator .... that was the one I was thinking of. Thanks @CamoDeafie.

 

[Alexx1401]

More technical here,.and probably why FRT got the okay the first time around...

I you watch that video Forgotten Guns did its easy to see why. The trigger is according to the law fine. The rub is when you see it used. I knew as soon as I did that it was done for. When feds gave it the OK I am sure the ones who did did not see a video of how it worked.

 

[wired]

More technical here,.and probably why FRT got the okay the first time around...

A fully automatic firing mechanism, or 3 round burst or what not.. requires that the trigger itself be not reset until released by the finger.
With the Forced Reset Trigger mechanism.. it is still one bullet per trigger pull, unlike the binary triggers which fires one on the pull and one on the return (another very gray area here...)

If you can drum your finger faster than a normal rate of fire whatever that is.. then as a hair trigger mechanism, it certainly would sound like a machine gun.

Its very similar argument to the bumpstock, atkins accelerator, belt loop and the 14" shoe string thing. If it mechanicallys reset the trigger but releases it because the finger, belt loop, or shoestring doesn't let it fully return... it'll act like a machine gun but is still not a machine gun although the ATF has indeed ruled some of these as machine guns

The law doesnt say anything about resetting anything. It says single pull of the trigger. You pull the trigger and do not release it.

 

[wired]

I you watch that video Forgotten Guns did its easy to see why. The trigger is according to the law fine. The rub is when you see it used. I knew as soon as I did that it was done for. When feds gave it the OK I am sure the ones who did did not see a video of how it worked.

If I remember right when Akins submitted their sample for evaluation and approval they submitted it without the main spring. When they sold them they included the spring that made it run.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Go ask your wives/girlfriends/both how fast the human finger can diddle lol or.. how fast can you click on a mouse? Same idea. Maybe it looks like one single long "click" and the gun is going automatically but again.. Jerry Miculek and his revolvers. And these aren't automatics beyond being "double action". Thats why I referred to the "hair trigger", as opposed to the "gun-assisted automatic".

 

[wired]

The way so many guns owners are all in on more "control" I would bet a pay check the trigger will be done away with. Law only means what a black robe tells you it means. There is a slew of black robes who just need to see a video of a gun fired with one of these and the black robe will say no. Braces are the same. Too many gun owners do not care and refuse to vote. So we will lose these too. This is elections have consequences.

Like this video? I cant see how they could possibly think this is a machine gun.

 

[CountryGent]

If I remember right when Akins submitted their sample for evaluation and approval they submitted it without the main spring. When they sold them they included the spring that made it run.

That is my recollection too. I seem to recall the prototype they submitted to BATFE lacked the spring and it was for the SKS line. What they built and sold had a spring and was for the 10/22. So apples and oranges. (Again, going off memory.)

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Also regarding the brace ban, this little gem is buried in there which would set the precedent that if atf doesn't like the manufacturer's marketing, the gun can be called a short barreled rifle EVEN IF it passes their scorecard. So a manufacturer makes a gun that is perfectly legal and meets all the requirements of the scorecard but someone at atf doesn't like the marketing (Atf's interpretation of marketing messages is subjective) owners who bought the gun must now destroy them or register them as sbrs.

 

[wired]

Go ask your wives/girlfriends/both how fast the human finger can diddle lol or.. how fast can you click on a mouse? Same idea. Maybe it looks like one single long "click" and the gun is going automatically but again.. Jerry Miculek and his revolvers. And these aren't automatics beyond being "double action". Thats why I referred to the "hair trigger", as opposed to the "gun-assisted automatic".

The hair trigger idea is blown out of the water with the trigger locking bar. It releases the trigger, not you.

 

[rdb241]

Atkins accelerator .... that was the one I was thinking of. Thanks @CamoDeafie.

I posted the very same vid 2 days ago and mentioned that I saw them at a Portland gunshow back in the 90s and they were selling for $900.00 a piece. ATF out lawed these way back then. It is the Cadilac of bump stocks.

 

[rdb241]

The hair trigger idea is blown out of the water with the trigger locking bar. It releases the trigger, not you.

With all your previous posts on both threads on this subject. I almost think you are posting on behalf of the ATF.