- Thread starter cattleman99
- Start date
- Nov 3, 2010
- 8,632
- 17,474
I just saw that email in my inbox. Buncha shit 
"the subject FRTs do not require shooters to pull and subsequently release the trigger to fire a second shot"
Is anyone surprised that something that works that way is a machine gun according to the law?
I don't see this letter as controversial in any way.
Note, I'm not offering my opinion of the constitutionality of the NFA and GCA.
BTW the thread title is misleading. This letter doesn't refer to all FRTs.
Is anyone surprised that something that works that way is a machine gun according to the law?
I don't see this letter as controversial in any way.
Note, I'm not offering my opinion of the constitutionality of the NFA and GCA.
BTW the thread title is misleading. This letter doesn't refer to all FRTs.
They can't just say which ones are ok. You have to leave that shit vague.
The one you have - when they come knocking at 4:00 AM - is the one you can't have.
Also pet your dog before you go to bed - every night - because you don't know what will happen before morning.
They will clearly explain that to you after they mirandize and cuff you……..
My interpretation of the letter is that some FRTs will allow more than one shot to be fired per actuation. Since the letter doesn't say which ones those are, here we are.
Hard to arrest you if you know you have one and get rid of it
"Our present Government can be best described as Monkeys Covered in Gasoline Playing with Matches"
Love the sig line!
- Nov 3, 2010
- 8,632
- 17,474
My interpretation is that ultimately, anything that “mimics” full auto will not be left alone until they have all like items banned. Simpler way to put it is follow the money. They ain’t getting any for these items, and that makes them angry. God knows we can’t have the gubment running around making angry poor noises.
What happens to each trigger when you cut the zip tie?
Does it matter? That’s a separate action…..
Booo.
The fun police roll in and pee in our cheerios again.
The fun police roll in and pee in our cheerios again.
Help me out a bit, guys...these type of triggers and guns are not something I know much about.
I thought the definition of an FTR trigger was that it forced the trigger back to the unfired position and thus require a second actuation in order to fire. The referenced "zip tied trigger will only fire once"
My understanding is that any trigger that would allow one to pull and hold the trigger for automatic fire is not allowed but this is not an FTR.
So, WTF are these assholes really talking about?
I thought the definition of an FTR trigger was that it forced the trigger back to the unfired position and thus require a second actuation in order to fire. The referenced "zip tied trigger will only fire once"
My understanding is that any trigger that would allow one to pull and hold the trigger for automatic fire is not allowed but this is not an FTR.
So, WTF are these assholes really talking about?
This attempt will fail. It's not the ATF's job to interpret the law. But fear not, our nutless congressman will be more than happy to sneak a new law into some bullshit bill and pass it in the middle of the night.
..... and claim it's for the children....
The children of Waco.
I don't know, does it? I was just curious if the FRT fired a round when the trigger reset when released.
So to be legal what steps would one need to take. Is there a route over confiscation if someone already ownes one but doesn’t have it registered.
- Nov 3, 2010
- 8,632
- 17,474
No, there is no route other than you are out all your money.
You can't have it without paying a tax and registering it.
But they won't let you pay the tax and register it so...
Thank our vile DemonRat congress critters.
They'll bring their own evidence if they want you bad enough. The USA we grew up in no longer exists.
- Nov 3, 2010
- 8,632
- 17,474
You should feel lucky they let you have cheerios
Yeah you're not wrong..
- Nov 3, 2010
- 8,632
- 17,474
Wait until we start getting our allowance from daddy again 
Good news is the guys making these aren't going to roll over like the bump stock guys. I remember my dad and grandpa griping 15 years ago about something (EPA related I think) and it boiled down to "they are a bunch of unelected bureaucrats that we can't do anything about." I didn't understand what those words meant back then but here we are...
Bumpstocks were banned by executive order by Trump, but thanks for playing.
- Nov 3, 2010
- 8,632
- 17,474
He actually signed a memorandum for the AG to effectively destroy them with any means necessary. That looked like the AFT redefining a machine gun wording. With that, they were given free reign to “redefine” anytime they felt the need too. More of this fuckery will continue until they have change every definition we know and all is illegal or so hard to get, common folk will not possess them. That is the end state.
- Nov 3, 2010
- 8,632
- 17,474
Here is the working directly from the DOJ They are continuing the witch hunt because this is an open ended order to them to eliminate anything that speeds up the rate of fire
"The National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. 5845(b) defines “machine gun” to include any combination of
parts designed and intended for use in converting a weapon to shoot automatically more than one shot,
without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger."
I don't see the word "release" mentioned anywhere.
parts designed and intended for use in converting a weapon to shoot automatically more than one shot,
without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger."
I don't see the word "release" mentioned anywhere.
- Nov 3, 2010
- 8,632
- 17,474
Once labeled machine gun, if they have a sales receipt they will come after the end user for constructive intent. I put my money on that being the catch all warranty and some liberal judge will say, “sounds good to me”
- Nov 3, 2010
- 8,632
- 17,474
Baby steps, NFA in 42, 1986 cease production for “transferable”, and the big step of the AWB. Thank one had an end date. We won’t be so lucky with this in the future if they keep inching away like they are
What they are doing is going after every modification that looks like it’s trying to skate around the current laws.
Think about it, rarely are crimes committed with any of the items they’re trying to ban. However every person who owns one feels the need to go on YouTube and wave it in the face of the ATF
They watch a video where it appears the gun fires in full auto….then go after said product that accomplished this
They see someone doing a review on a solvent trap. Where after they form 1 it make it very clear what the intentions were when purchased
Hey look at my AR pistol, it goes from “can I touch to my shoulder” to guys doing mag dumps from the shoulder and making videos on it
They’ll pursue everything that
- looks like a suppressor (goodbye solvent trap)
- looks like an SBR (goodbye pistol brace)
- sounds like full auto (goodbye FRT/Binary)
Anyone who’s paid attention in the last 10 years can’t truly be surprised that the ATF is doing this
Think about it, rarely are crimes committed with any of the items they’re trying to ban. However every person who owns one feels the need to go on YouTube and wave it in the face of the ATF
They watch a video where it appears the gun fires in full auto….then go after said product that accomplished this
They see someone doing a review on a solvent trap. Where after they form 1 it make it very clear what the intentions were when purchased
Hey look at my AR pistol, it goes from “can I touch to my shoulder” to guys doing mag dumps from the shoulder and making videos on it
They’ll pursue everything that
- looks like a suppressor (goodbye solvent trap)
- looks like an SBR (goodbye pistol brace)
- sounds like full auto (goodbye FRT/Binary)
Anyone who’s paid attention in the last 10 years can’t truly be surprised that the ATF is doing this
I think that’s a stretch. I’ve sworn out search warrants before and I wouldn’t dare try to put some thin shit like that in an affidavit. But, that’s just me.
Oh they will come back with a warrant. A no knock warrant at 4am. Like Gun Nut said up above pet your dog goodbye because the atf will gleefully murder you and your little dog too.
Congress has to expressly give consent to them for them to retroactively charge an end user with constructive intent.
This is kind of a hot legal issue. The "bump stock case," where the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals said that the ATF's interpretation governs unless it is "arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute" is currently pending docketing by the US Supreme Court. In the event anyone has the inclination to read the Court of Appeals' analysis of these exact issues (i.e. interpreting "single function of the trigger," etc.), here is the opinion. The first 10 pages is the majority opinion. The rest is the dissent and footnotes.
I absolutely agree that this pain is self inflicted. Not only do the products in question try to skirt the law, they are blatantly marketed as such attempts with mag dump videos showing the potential customer how well the objective of circumventing the law has been achieved.
The higher barrier of ownership for machineguns since 1986 is most likely the chief reason that we have not seen more crimes committed with them. Registration requirements and prices simply kept the riff-raff out. Now, the manufacturers of these asinine machinegun substitutes use the fact that the few registered machineguns owned by people passing higher muster were seldom used in crimes as a justification for every Dick, Harry, and gang banger running around with something that functions just the same for pennies on the dollar. What could possibly go wrong there?
And, thanks to the idiots (P80, etc.) who think that manufacturing a firearm should be easily achievable by any underage pimple-faced basement dweller, prohibited person, or general moron, we will in the near future have to have anything serialized and registered that we mill out of a solid billet, using specific knowledge, machinery, and hours of hard-earned skills.
My stance on the triggers, "solvent traps", etc. is the same as on Russia: "Stop poking the bear in the eye, if you know exactly how the bear has to respond"
PS: The above is not an endorsement of ATF's enforcement actions that made quite gruesome examples of selected violators to scare off potential followers. If they know that 200,000 Dick's and Harry's are in violation of the law, then they should get 200,000 warrants and 200,000 convictions within the generally accepted confines of these procedures instead of going rogue on some random individuals to make a point.
Last edited:
