National FRT trigger legality

[ilikegunspdx]

Looks like Atius Developement has shut down orders. I wonder if this means they got a cease and desist letter from rare breed and are complying?

Atrius Forced Reset Selector

The Atrius Forced Reset Selector is the robust solution on the market that enables the user to have 3 positions; SAFE, SEMI, and FULL or SUPER-SEMI.

atrius.dev

 

[wired]

Looks like Atius Developement has shut down orders. I wonder if this means they got a cease and desist letter from rare breed and are complying?

Atrius Forced Reset Selector

The Atrius Forced Reset Selector is the robust solution on the market that enables the user to have 3 positions; SAFE, SEMI, and FULL or SUPER-SEMI.

atrius.dev

I dont see anything on their website suggesting that they shut down. Like RB used to do theyre just out of stock and they shut down ordering.

 

[ridnourpat]

I dont see anything on their website suggesting that they shut down. Like RB used to do theyre just out of stock and they shut down ordering.

Been like that for at least a week

 

[wired]

Been like that for at least a week

They just ran out. Rare breed used to do that all the time.

 

[Catbox]

It is hurry up and wait.
It has been a month and 4 days so far.
No communication from them.
I have checked and they did take the money.

Just this on the web page...
ORDERS ARE BEING SHIPPED OUT DAILY. ALL ORDERS WILL BE FULFILLED WITHIN 1-4 WEEKS DEPENDING ON WHERE YOUR ORDER IS IN THE QUEUE.
We understand everyone's excitement and anticipation for this product. If for any reason you are unhappy with your order please reach out to us via [email protected] for immediate assistance.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Was just thinking that it seems to me this is the timeline for good gun inventions, at least in the leftist run states. Seems like the ideal time to buy most things is just before or at the yellow arrow.

But rare breed completely destroyed this rule (with the help of a R administration ATF) successfully in the courts for FRTs. FRTs went backwards from banned to public acceptance via the settlement agreement with ATF.

WA is at the red already for FRTs and OR is at the Orange with red pending (blame the bubbleguming commie sunsabubblegumin' legislator bubblegumity bubblegum bubblegums).

 

[Will_White]

Was just thinking that it seems to me this is the timeline for good gun inventions, at least in the leftist run states. Seems like the ideal time to buy most things is just before or at the yellow arrow.

But rare breed completely destroyed this rule (with the help of a R administration ATF) successfully in the courts for FRTs. FRTs went backwards from banned to public acceptance via the settlement agreement with ATF.

WA is at the red already for FRTs and OR is at the Orange with red pending (blame the bubbleguming commie sunsabubblegumin' legislator bubblegumity bubblegum bubblegums).
View attachment 2118386

Triggers that force the reset of the trigger were commonly accepted before the settlement they just weren't Rare Breed Forced Reset Triggers, they were Hoffman Tactical Super Safeties.

 

[wired]

Triggers that force the reset of the trigger were commonly accepted before the settlement they just weren't Rare Breed Forced Reset Triggers, they were Hoffman Tactical Super Safeties.

Super safeties were never put to any court test nor where they ruled on as being any different than any other forced reset trigger. They ARE forced reset triggers.

 

[Will_White]

Super safeties were never put to any court test nor where they ruled on as being any different than any other forced reset trigger. They ARE forced reset triggers.

They are forced reset triggers, they are not Forced Reset Triggers. They aren't different in what they do, they are different in how they do it. The lawsuits are already filed so we will see soon(ish)

 

[wired]

They are forced reset triggers, they are not Forced Reset Triggers. They aren't different in what they do, they are different in how they do it. The lawsuits are already filed so we will see soon(ish)

They arent really different in how they do it either. Get it out of your head that the safety aspect has anything to do with what is making the apparatus function.

 

[Will_White]

They arent really different in how they do it either. Get it out of your head that the safety aspect has anything to do with what is making the apparatus function.

We're going to have to agree to disagree, The "223" patent, the one the settlement was about, is clear that it is the hammer that resets the trigger and its the combination of the hammer reset and the cassette type drop in that makes it unique.

 

[wired]

We're going to have to agree to disagree, The "223" patent, the one the settlement was about, is clear that it is the hammer that resets the trigger and its the combination of the hammer reset and the cassette type drop in that makes it unique.

The hammer reset happens in both . The hammer is locked in both as the carrier travels back. The carrier activates lever that unlocks a hammer as the bolt closes. The fulcrum point is different. That is the extent of the difference. Being a cassette versus using native parts doesn't change that.

 

[Will_White]

The hammer reset happens in both . The hammer is locked in both as the carrier travels back. The carrier activates lever that unlocks a hammer as the bolt closes. The fulcrum point is different. That is the extent of the difference. Being a cassette versus using native parts doesn't change that.

SUMMARY OF INVENTION
The present invention provides a semiautomatic trigger mechanism for increasing rate of fire that can be retrofitted into popular existing firearm platforms. In particular, this invention provides a trigger mechanism that can be used in AR-pattern firearms with an otherwise standard M16-pattern bolt carrier assembly. The present invention is particularly adaptable for construction as a "drop-in" replacement trigger module that only requires insertion of two assembly pins and the safety selector. In the disclosed embodiments, the normal resetting of the hammer, as the bolt or bolt carrier is cycled, causes the trigger to be forcibly reset by contact between the hammer and a surface of the trigger member. Once reset, movement of the trigger is blocked by a locking bar and cannot be pulled until the bolt has returned to battery, thus preventing "hammer follow" behind the bolt or bolt carrier.
Other aspects, features, benefits, and advantages of the present invention will become apparent to a person of skill in the art from the detailed description of various embodiments with reference to the accompanying drawing figures, all of which comprise part of the disclosure.

We're going to have to agree to disagree, we'll see what happens in court.

 

[MichaelH]

https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2025R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB0243/Enrolled

Read before you buy in Oregon though. Possession illegal with no mention of prior ownership as an exception.

 

[Will_White]

 

[MrJoshuaYoder]

https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2025R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB0243/Enrolled

Read before you buy in Oregon though. Possession illegal with no mention of prior ownership as an exception.

Until a lawsuit comes along and shuts it down. That may take quite some time though. One of many reasons I'm deeply considering leaving Oregon.

 

[MichaelH]

Yeah, that's not one a law I see getting overturned anytime soon. The reason the ATF loses in these forced reset trigger battles is that the definition of machine gun the NFA applies to doesn't match what an FRT, bump stock or super safety does. In this case the Oregon legislature defined what it wanted to regulate fairly well.

 

[MrJoshuaYoder]

Yeah, that's not one law I see getting overturned anytime soon. The reason the ATF loses in these forced reset trigger battles is that the definition of machine gun the NFA applies to doesn't match what an FRT, bump stock or super safety does. In this case the Oregon legislature defined what it wanted to regulate fairly well.

Yes but just because they articulated it well doesn't make it constitutional. Unfortunately it will take climbing to the Oregon Supreme Court, and if fought in federal court it's in the hostile ninth circuit.

 

[MichaelH]

Yes but just because they articulated it well doesn't make it constitutional. Unfortunately it will take climbing to the Oregon Supreme Court, and if fought in federal court it's in the hostile ninth circuit.

I would love to stick one of those super safeties in my 9 mm AR PCC, but is my right to bear arms infringed by not being able to add the upgrade? Probably not. Every right that's guaranteed in the Bill of Rights has limits and exceptions where government can regulate. if the NFA itself gets overturned, then I think the entire landscape changes, but my guess is this particular Oregon law is gonna be here forever

 

[Will_White]

I would love to stick one of those super safeties in my 9 mm AR PCC, but is my right to bear arms infringed by not being able to add the upgrade? Probably not. Every right that's guaranteed in the Bill of Rights has limits and exceptions where government can regulate. if the NFA itself gets overturned, then I think the entire landscape changes, but my guess is this particular Oregon law is gonna be here forever

These could be used to overturn the NFA, but the Second Amendment at a minimum gives The People the right to whatever an infantry squad can have, and given the attitude at the founding we should be able to have a fully loaded aircraft carrier because the US Navy was made up of privately owned ships.