ATF Proposes 2021R-05 Must Read

[308]

Welcome to clown world

 

[The Heretic]

 

[Rkangel]

Explain what you mean.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Because if a person understands the historical context of the word "regulated," it would mean "uniform, in proper working order, efficient and capable of performing its duties."

What they were saying was to the effect in laymen's terms, "How can we have a proper working militia if the right of the people to keep and bear arms can be infringed upon by the government, therefore, the government can't do that."

A person would either have to be agenda driven and bias, or not thoroughly adept in English, or history to make the argument that the founding fathers who literally just fought a war for independence from a tyrannical government, would say in the bill of rights that a government has the right to dictate how Americans can keep and bear arms.

The dumbing down of society and PC redefinition of words in action. This is why they have gone so hard after public education. This is why governor Brown-stain has passed laws that competency testing is no longer required for graduation. If people don't understand anything, they will fall for everything. We have gone from a rich and complete understanding of the English language, to a two-word vocabulary: "Hulk. Smash!"

 

[American123]

The verbiage of the 2nd amendment was developed by the anti federalists and was interpreted by the supreme courts until relatively recently to the extent that it guarantees the right of "the people" to raise and equip and deploy militias based upon the first clause both to protect themselves from outside invasion and as a means of protection from their own government. The founding fathers were very sensitive to standing armies and felt citizen militias were more inline with their philosophy of how the citizenry would protect their own lands and themselves from a central government. The "individual right" to self defense concept didnt come about until much later some would argue it didnt really get ensconced into law until this century. I feel they ( the government) would MUCH rather have the concentration upon an individual right than on the right of the citizens to regulate their own militia.

That's all well and good except for the concept of possessing the means and the ability and right to defend oneself was considered a right well before the American bill of rights.

The concentration is on the individual already, because individual Americans make up "the people." You can't have a people apart from many individuals.

 

[The Resister]

The verbiage of the 2nd amendment was developed by the anti federalists and was interpreted by the supreme courts until relatively recently to the extent that it guarantees the right of "the people" to raise and equip and deploy militias based upon the first clause both to protect themselves from outside invasion and as a means of protection from their own government. The founding fathers were very sensitive to standing armies and felt citizen militias were more inline with their philosophy of how the citizenry would protect their own lands and themselves from a central government. The "individual right" to self defense concept didnt come about until much later some would argue it didnt really get ensconced into law until this century. I feel they ( the government) would MUCH rather have the concentration upon an individual right than on the right of the citizens to regulate their own militia.

This is incorrect. As most people know, the challenges come at the lower levels and that is the law unless and until the United States Supreme Court weighs in. Let's examine the facts:

According to Wikipedia:

"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms_in_the_United_States

In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:

"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!" Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:

"The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.

..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)

So, once again, The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right, but it was not granted by the Constitution, neither is it dependent upon the Constitution for its existence. It is above the law and the lawmaking power and it is absolute. By any and all definitions, the Right to keep and bear Arms is a personal Liberty and it is an extension of your Right to Life. That is another way of saying that the Right is an unalienable Right.

The Heller decision reversed all of that, claiming that the Right is not absolute and the government is the benefactor of all your "rights" by way of the illegally ratified 14th Amendment (which was used to nullify the Bill of Rights and specifically the concept of unalienable Rights). Your best option:

Charter | US Resisters

www.usresisters.com

 

[American123]

error

 

[Lennie]

This reg would ensnare drop in trigger groups used in most semi auto 22s, Sig pistols and nearly every shotgun

 

[wired]

This reg would ensnare drop in trigger groups used in most semi auto 22s, Sig pistols and nearly every shotgun

No, It wouldnt. Thats a serious reach. Its up there with handing your gun to someone at the range is a transfer. Its not. The trigger parts may be in a drop in pack but that pack is contained in the lower . .

 

[Lennie]

No, It wouldnt. Thats a serious reach. Its up there with handing your gun to someone at the range is a transfer. Its not. The trigger parts may be in a drop in pack but that pack is contained in the lower . .

So a custom trigger pack for a 10-22 wouldn't fall in the definition? I feel the way this ATF proposal is going, it will be an easy regulatory jump for Ruger 10-22s.

A sig 320 custom trigger pack will most definitely be included. The custom trigger packs assemblies drop into lower frame. This proposal would require SNs on both the slide and frame on Semi Auto handguns.

 

[wired]

So a custom trigger pack for a 10-22 wouldn't fall in the definition? I feel the way this ATF proposal is going, it will be an easy regulatory jump for Ruger 10-22s.

A sig 320 custom trigger pack will most definitely be included. The custom trigger packs assemblies drop into lower frame. This proposal would require SNs on both the slide and frame on Semi Auto handguns.

No. The frame receives the trigger pack. The fact that the trigger is in a cartridge does not make it a frame or lower.

 

[The Resister]

No. The frame receives the trigger pack. The fact that the trigger is in a cartridge does not make it a frame or lower.

How do you explain Rare Breed Trigger and their current fight?

 

[OldTengu]

How do you explain Rare Breed Trigger and their current fight?

It's more about the mechanics of the trigger and less that it's a drop in trigger. Still an overreach.

Rare Breed Triggers & ATF Battle Over FRT-15 Trigger

The ATF recently classified Rare Breed Triggers' FRT-15 as a "machine gun" but the company fired back. Come get all the details on this trigger and the pending case.

www.pewpewtactical.com

 

[wired]

How do you explain Rare Breed Trigger and their current fight?

The ATF calls the trigger pack a machinegun conversion unit same as a drop in auto sear. It has nothing at all to do with the subject of this thread.

I dont know where they got that idea?

 

[RobMa]

 

[arakboss]

The ATF calls the trigger pack a machinegun conversion unit same as a drop in auto sear. It has nothing at all to do with the subject of this thread.

I dont know where they got that idea?

I saw him repeatedly pull the trigger really fast.

 

[The Resister]

It's more about the mechanics of the trigger and less that it's a drop in trigger. Still an overreach.

Rare Breed Triggers & ATF Battle Over FRT-15 Trigger

The ATF recently classified Rare Breed Triggers' FRT-15 as a "machine gun" but the company fired back. Come get all the details on this trigger and the pending case.

www.pewpewtactical.com

The OP was changed to a parts discussion. The attorney for Rare Breed explains on their website why the trigger complies with the law. It's not over-reach. It is is perversion of the law and an attempt to legislated from regulatory agencies. H.R. 3960 would stop that kind of crap.

 

[The Resister]

The ATF calls the trigger pack a machinegun conversion unit same as a drop in auto sear. It has nothing at all to do with the subject of this thread.

I dont know where they got that idea?

You inserted the parts discussion.

 

[arakboss]

This thread is about parts and how the ATF/DOJ wants to redefine what parts can be classified as a firearm. Essentially any part that houses a trigger, bolt, firing pin, etc, could be classfied as a firearm under the proposed definition. This could include cassette style drop in triggers as the trigger housing could be the firearm. The AR bolt carrier houses the bolt and firing pin so the carrier could be classfied as a firearm. It depends on how far the ATF wants to go with it. As always, I am happy to be wrong but the proposed definition seems pretty clear to me.


A part of a firearm that, when the complete weapon is assembled, is visible from the exterior and provides housing or a structure designed to hold or integrate one or more fire control components.... Any such part identified with a serial number shall be presumed, absent an official determination by the Director or other reliable evidence to the contrary, to be a frame or receiver. For purposes of this definition, the term "fire control component" means a component necessary for the firearm to initiate, complete, or continue the firing sequence, including any of the following: hammer, bolt, bolt carrier, breechblock, cylinder, trigger mechanism, firing pin, striker, or slide rails.

 

[wired]

This thread is about parts and how the ATF/DOJ wants to redefine what parts can be classified as a firearm. Essentially any part that houses a trigger, bolt, firing pin, etc, could be classfied as a firearm under the proposed definition. This could include cassette style drop in triggers as the trigger housing could be the firearm. The AR bolt carrier houses the bolt and firing pin so the carrier could be classfied as a firearm. It depends on how far the ATF wants to go with it. As always, I am happy to be wrong but the proposed definition seems pretty clear to me.

It seems far from clear if that's what you are presuming. . Clearly they are referencing the lower receiver as the part that holds the trigger not the cassette that drops into the lower receiver. That's such a reach its laughable.

 

[arakboss]

It seems far from clear if that's what you are presuming. . Clearly they are referencing the lower receiver as the part that holds the trigger not the cassette that drops into the lower receiver. That's such a reach its laughable.

The cassette provides housing or structure for the trigger. If the cassette is visible from the exterior of the complete assembled weapon it would meet the definition. The bolt carrier would also meet the definition. The upper receiver would also meet the definition. Maybe you will be right to assume they will only use this proposed definition to address 100% machined AR lower receivers but I believe they will take it much farther.