National So ATF won't come knocking on our doors?

[CamoDeafie]

From this they will go on to the competition triggers like Geiselle, et. al. because those triggers allow fast reset and fast shooting.

When bump stocks became illegal (with the blessing of the SCOTUS), the next step was FRTs and binary triggers. Then it will be adjustable competition triggers and SRTs. After that they will have regs for trigger pull weight and set triggers.

Cargill is the case that may or may not result in the bump stock ban being overturned. The suits relating to Rare Breed Triggers and others are still in progress? There is a good chance that the DOJ would be told bluntly by the SCOTUS to strictly follow the definitions given by Congress, and thus setting the stage for Congress to debate about "updating" the NFA and GC A to include what they (DOJ) tried to do.

 

[eustace_stelio]

Will you guys just stop responding to this dude? He is clearly just trolling threads. Literally never adds anything and just argues everything.

 

[msgriff]

From this they will go on to the competition triggers like Geiselle, et. al. because those triggers allow fast reset and fast shooting.

When bump stocks became illegal (with the blessing of the SCOTUS), the next step was FRTs and binary triggers. Then it will be adjustable competition triggers and SRTs. After that they will have regs for trigger pull weight and set triggers.

I do agree that the neo-liberals and ultra-Marxist will go after comp triggers, along with everything else firearm related, but bump firing has been around long before bump stocks. Here's a garbage can Colt Expanse with a stock trigger.

 

[RX-79G]

Wow! 2A rights are nothing more than NRA propaganda, hu? You sure chugged that kool-aid and went back for seconds, didn't ya!

Troll on.

Quote where I said 2A rights are just propaganda.

 

[RX-79G]

"a single function of the trigger." Again, from the ATF definition of a "Machine Gun".

what precisely is a "single function"?

This is how the Binary trigger design came to be. It fires once per function. Once on the pull, once on the push.

Now; Forced Reset.

Once per complete pull and forced reset.

Seems all it does is push the trigger back forward to reset and that's it. If you can hold the trigger and not allow it to reset; and it doesn't fire anymore? Just a "light" trigger is basically what it becomes, IE a hair trigger.

Nowhere in the ATF definition does it include "through the action of any external(bump stocks) or internal accessory (forced reset triggers or binary triggers) to increase the rate of fire to on par with other machine guns"

I am very aware of why FRTs and binary meet the legal definition of semi-auto. And my hat is off to the inventors.

The problem is that the legal definition of "full auto" was created in the first place because of a spate of crimes involving 500rpm Tommy guns, and a binary trigger will do 800rpm. If the Tommy gun had come with binary trigger in 1934, that's what the NFA would have been written to control.

So we have a regulation written a certain way to prevent a certain kind of gun being common, and care was used in the definition to make sure that Jerry Miculek doesn't get arrested for the way he shoots a revolver. But if it becomes clear that the point of the NFA has been superseded through technology, the regulations will just be updated to preserve the central idea - to keep guns that act like machineguns out of crimes.

I saw a really nifty pistol caliber carbine action recently that loads, ejects and fires from a magazine completely powered by a double action style trigger. It is a weapon designed to be a "CA legal assault weapon". Amazing design. But also asking to be banned by a modification to the law if it becomes popular. Why? Because the law wasn't written to combat a machine, but to combat mass shootings (regardless of whether that works). Does a 'double action' that fires the same rate as a semiauto actually a downgrade in performance? Is a binary trigger a downgrade in performance compared to full auto?


Ultimately, the gun laws exist to limit what people do with guns. If people find new ways to do the same old things, the laws and regulations will change. It is crazy to not expect them to.

 

[Nosferatu]

DO
NOT
ENGAGE
THE
MAZDAMUPPET*

*TM @Flopsweat

 

[RX-79G]

I do agree that the neo-liberals and ultra-Marxist will go after comp triggers, along with everything else firearm related, but bump firing has been around long before bump stocks. Here's a garbage can Colt Expanse with a stock trigger.

And the ATF doesn't care about that because you can't do it accurately enough to fire at a crowd in Las Vegas 450 yards away.

 

[CamoDeafie]

There was not many crimes committed using machine guns before the NFA, it was only a few highly publicized events that had everything to do with Prohibition and gang violence... and to this day, the FBI reports points out that the vast majority of firearms homicides or even gun crimes; involved handguns.

Now, I know there's the talk about the Glock Switch being pretty much everywhere, what with the 3d printed and illegally acquired devices being out there... and the common thread once again.. gang violence and the DOJ "cracking down" on such enterprises but.. really, I would think that if technology has progressed to the point that a semiautomatic is capable of the same ROF as a machine gun, perhaps the Prohibition on Machine Guns and particularly the 1986 ban on unlicensed ownership of newer MGs... that law is now.. obsolete and should be done away with?

 

[American123]

I've clocked myself pulling the AR trigger and squeezing off 5 rounds a second.

Where do I register my finger as a machine gun?

Also: Hello ladies!

 

[CamoDeafie]

And repeating.. it's not up to ATF to "update" the NFA and GCA laws' definitions. It's up to Congress to do so.

 

[Kruel J]

I've clocked myself pulling the AR trigger and squeezing off 5 rounds a second.

Where do I register my finger as a machine gun?

Also: Hello ladies!

You sir are a god among men.

 

[Yarome]

I've clocked myself pulling the AR trigger and squeezing off 5 rounds a second.

The fine muscle tone in that hand is well developed, is it?

 

[American123]

You sir are a god among men.

Funny story. I hate jewelry; don't even like wearing a wedding ring. That's been fine for a few years, but my wife recently pointed out. "Well fine, don't wear it at home, but at least wear it out and about when not with the family so you don't break all those ladies hearts and let them down when they think you're available, but you're not."

Not wanting to leave a trail of sobbing women in my wake, I agreed. It was one of the few times she's logic'd her way through something and I couldn't disagree.

 

[RX-79G]

There was not many crimes committed using machine guns before the NFA, it was only a few highly publicized events that had everything to do with Prohibition and gang violence... and to this day, the FBI reports points out that the vast majority of firearms homicides or even gun crimes; involved handguns.

Now, I know there's the talk about the Glock Switch being pretty much everywhere, what with the 3d printed and illegally acquired devices being out there... and the common thread once again.. gang violence and the DOJ "cracking down" on such enterprises but.. really, I would think that if technology has progressed to the point that a semiautomatic is capable of the same ROF as a machine gun, perhaps the Prohibition on Machine Guns and particularly the 1986 ban on unlicensed ownership of newer MGs... that law is now.. obsolete and should be done away with?

I think machineguns should be more legal. But a spate of violence is not going to lead to loosening of regulations.

 

[American123]

I think machineguns should be more legal. But a spate of violence is not going to lead to loosening of regulations.

The issue being argued here is primarily that laws are not intended to be so subjectively applied that the exact same law one year can be applied completely differently another year without a vote of the legislature, as intended by the constitution.

The ATF is not the legislature, and regardless of the "shall not be infringed" complaints, the very legitimate issue is that laws are written such that they are applied as they are written. The government does not get to (according to the constitution) modify the laws without a vote, which is what the ATF has done.

 

[RX-79G]

And repeating.. it's not up to ATF to "update" the NFA and GCA laws' definitions. It's up to Congress to do so.

Didn't the ATF "update" the definition of "a single movement of the trigger" to allow a binary in the first place?

Not on purpose, but I think that happened because they were asked to approve a 'fires on release' type target trigger. So they adjusted what "single movement" meant. Binaries capitalized on that.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Didn't the ATF "update" the definition of "a single movement of the trigger" to allow a binary in the first place?

Not on purpose, but I think that happened because they were asked to approve a 'fires on release' type target trigger. So they adjusted what "single movement" meant. Binaries capitalized on that.

Nope, not as far as I know, not according to the GCA pdf and the NFA definitions. May have to use the "Way Back Machine" Internet Archive thing but... pretty sure it was always "a single function" in the NFA and not "a single pull"

 

[RX-79G]

The issue being argued here is primarily that laws are not intended to be so subjectively applied that the exact same law one year can be applied completely differently another year without a vote of the legislature, as intended by the constitution.

The ATF is not the legislature, and regardless of the "shall not be infringed" complaints, the very legitimate issue is that laws are written such that they are applied as they are written. The government does not get to (according to the constitution) modify the laws without a vote, which is what the ATF has done.

I get it. But Congress has essentially decided to use government agencies to 'regulate' the specifics of the more general wording of law. And I don't know if that is such a bad thing, considering not just partisanship but the fact that Congress does not work full time.

The ATF has not banned any kind of gun. They have banned accessories that turn one kind of gun into another. Congress banned certain guns and mags by law.

 

[American123]

I get it. But Congress has essentially decided to use government agencies to 'regulate' the specifics of the more general wording of law. And I don't know if that is such a bad thing, considering not just partisanship but the fact that Congress does not work full time.

The ATF has not banned any kind of gun. They have banned accessories that turn one kind of gun into another. Congress banned certain guns and mags by law.

It's an issue. Unelected government agencies were not intended to wield such power. The whole point of the elected legislature was that their constituents could hold them accountable. When the American people are discontent with ATF leadership, can they recall them from office like their regular elected representatives? No… that's the point.

 

[RX-79G]

Nope, not as far as I know, not according to the GCA pdf and the NFA definitions. May have to use the "Way Back Machine" Internet Archive thing but... pretty sure it was always "a single function" in the NFA and not "a single pull"

Just saying that dividing pull and release into separate functions probably didn't occur to the original bill writer. That is likely a way of looking at the wording that came later.