User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/17/2021 3:17:26 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: To clarify, redesign it so you have to push on the back of the trigger with the flat part of your fingernail, the reset pushes the trigger back into your fingernail moving the entire finger, and then push the back of the trigger with the flat of your fingernail to repeat the sequence. /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/Dumber-626396-187.jpg It's an aft thread, what else would you expect? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/17/2021 3:20:05 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Kevin you based madlad https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/457118/Screenshot_2021-08-17_144511_png-2056215.JPG That's awesome. ?? I hope he said it like this.... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/17/2021 3:27:07 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So is the argument the CFR is incorrect, their interpretation of pull is incorrect using the CFR, they don't have the authority under law to enforce it, or something else? Really trying to understand how they are going to get any traction with this or any court to disagree with what the ATF is saying. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Because "function" and "pull" are different words, and only one of them is in the law that Congress passed. "Function" refers to something the trigger does, and "pull" is something the shooter does. Under this definition by the ATF, bumpfiring a gun using my belt loop constitutes manufacturing a machine gun. It's absurd and ridiculous. ATF doesn't get to change what words mean in the law because they don't like it when people innovate around their restrictions. So is the argument the CFR is incorrect, their interpretation of pull is incorrect using the CFR, they don't have the authority under law to enforce it, or something else? Really trying to understand how they are going to get any traction with this or any court to disagree with what the ATF is saying. The CFR is illegitimate since it expands the definition of a "machine gun" farther than what Congress defined it as in the NFA and GCA. The CFR shoehorns "pull" into the definition, but the actual legal definition is "function". This is what the 6th circuit court of appeals just decided re: bumpstocks. The ATF can't rewrite the law and expand it once people figure out ways around it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/17/2021 3:52:13 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Kevin you based madlad https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/457118/Screenshot_2021-08-17_144511_png-2056215.JPG That's awesome... If the ATF comes knocking I guess that can be my reply. "No" and shut the door.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/17/2021 3:52:41 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: *cringes in G SD3G* Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: aft really just wants to rule guns are machineguns if ammunition is expelled too quickly. They also want to be able to decide what too quickly is depending on whether or not they have changed their tampons This really is the crux of the matter. If your split time goes too low, then you've made a machine gun. Exactly. There’s video out there of someone doing ~450 RPM with the SD3G trigger in. That a machine gun? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/17/2021 3:54:16 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Is there cad available on these? https://chat.deterrencedispensed.com/channel/beta.NTTH_AssaultDolphin9 Close approximation. Designed for 3d printing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/17/2021 4:01:12 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why do are people saying redefined? . That is out of the section of the CFR they mentioned. Because they changed the wording? If the law says "you can't have sex with anyone under 18" and I quote it as saying "you can't have sex with anyone under 21" those are different. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/17/2021 4:07:03 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The CFR is illegitimate since it expands the definition of a "machine gun" farther than what Congress defined it as in the NFA and GCA. The CFR shoehorns "pull" into the definition, but the actual legal definition is "function". This is what the 6th circuit court of appeals just decided re: bumpstocks. The ATF can't rewrite the law and expand it once people figure out ways around it. Yup, the law is the law. Chevron deference wasn’t supposed to be a blank check for executive agencies to reinterpret laws at their convenience. The ambiguous portions were left up for reasonable interpretation, but these bureaucrats think they can just wordsmith their way to making the law say whatever they want. The ATF is clearly rewriting the law by saying single function of the trigger means single act of the shooter to initiate the firing sequence. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/17/2021 4:16:45 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Because they changed the wording? If the law says "you can't have sex with anyone under 18" and I quote it as saying "you can't have sex with anyone under 21" those are different. "Function" is not defined anywhere I can find other than the broad definition in Webster. Isn't what they did by defining its meaning and application in the CFR allowed within established law? Is the argument that because "function" is exclusive to the "machinegun" definition and the word "pull" is used in Federal laws for other firearm related definitions that it can't be used in part in defining the word "function". |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/17/2021 4:26:46 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: "Function" is not defined anywhere I can find other than the broad definition in Webster. Isn't what they did by defining its meaning and application in the CFR allowed within established law? Is the argument that because "function" is exclusive to the "machinegun" definition and the word "pull" is used in Federal laws for other firearm related definitions that it can't be used in part in defining the word "function". Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Because they changed the wording? If the law says "you can't have sex with anyone under 18" and I quote it as saying "you can't have sex with anyone under 21" those are different. "Function" is not defined anywhere I can find other than the broad definition in Webster. Isn't what they did by defining its meaning and application in the CFR allowed within established law? Is the argument that because "function" is exclusive to the "machinegun" definition and the word "pull" is used in Federal laws for other firearm related definitions that it can't be used in part in defining the word "function". "Pull" is not defined anywhere in federal law with respect to machine guns. The word is "function". This is important, because otherwise certain shotguns would be machine guns, and so would binary triggers, all of which have explicit ATF approval, so for them to about-face now and claim that really the meaning of "function" is "pull", they are changing the law to suit their needs. Even if it was "pull", which it isn't, the FRT still falls under the legal definition of a semi-automatic trigger. If the ATF wants to classify these as machine guns, they have to use the existing definition of a machine gun as defined in federal law, NOT the CFR which they wrote which expands the definition. That is a clear and obvious overstepping of their authority. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/17/2021 4:29:54 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: "Function" is not defined anywhere I can find other than the broad definition in Webster. Isn't what they did by defining its meaning and application in the CFR allowed within established law? Is the argument that because "function" is exclusive to the "machinegun" definition and the word "pull" is used in Federal laws for other firearm related definitions that it can't be used in part in defining the word "function". Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Because they changed the wording? If the law says "you can't have sex with anyone under 18" and I quote it as saying "you can't have sex with anyone under 21" those are different. "Function" is not defined anywhere I can find other than the broad definition in Webster. Isn't what they did by defining its meaning and application in the CFR allowed within established law? Is the argument that because "function" is exclusive to the "machinegun" definition and the word "pull" is used in Federal laws for other firearm related definitions that it can't be used in part in defining the word "function". Even if you define it as pull, the FRT-15 isn’t a machine gun. The shooter has to pull the trigger for every round fired. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/17/2021 4:32:58 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: "Pull" is not defined anywhere in federal law with respect to machine guns. The word is "function". This is important, because otherwise certain shotguns would be machine guns, and so would binary triggers, all of which have explicit ATF approval, so for them to about-face now and claim that really the meaning of "function" is "pull", they are changing the law to suit their needs. Even if it was "pull", which it isn't, the FRT still falls under the legal definition of a semi-automatic trigger. If the ATF wants to classify these as machine guns, they have to use the existing definition of a machine gun as defined in federal law, NOT the CFR which they wrote which expands the definition. That is a clear and obvious overstepping of their authority. Almost makes me wonder when they write laws if they leave out definitions and leave things three words short of what they should say just so they can regulate things later any way they want. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/17/2021 4:41:29 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's awesome. ?? I hope he said it like this.... https://en.meming.world/images/en/1/1d/Creating_Bugs_Bunny's_%22No%22.jpg  Attached FileThere, fixed it 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/17/2021 4:42:08 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Almost makes me wonder when they write laws if they leave out definitions and leave things three words short of what they should say just so they can regulate things later any way they want. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: "Pull" is not defined anywhere in federal law with respect to machine guns. The word is "function". This is important, because otherwise certain shotguns would be machine guns, and so would binary triggers, all of which have explicit ATF approval, so for them to about-face now and claim that really the meaning of "function" is "pull", they are changing the law to suit their needs. Even if it was "pull", which it isn't, the FRT still falls under the legal definition of a semi-automatic trigger. If the ATF wants to classify these as machine guns, they have to use the existing definition of a machine gun as defined in federal law, NOT the CFR which they wrote which expands the definition. That is a clear and obvious overstepping of their authority. Almost makes me wonder when they write laws if they leave out definitions and leave things three words short of what they should say just so they can regulate things later any way they want. If I recall correctly, the term "function" was specifically chosen for the machine gun definition because a bunch of rich congressmen didn't want to pay the huge tax to register their fancy shotguns that had pull-release triggers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/17/2021 4:44:26 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Even if you define it as pull, the FRT-15 isn't a machine gun. The shooter has to pull the trigger for every round fired. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Because they changed the wording? If the law says "you can't have sex with anyone under 18" and I quote it as saying "you can't have sex with anyone under 21" those are different. "Function" is not defined anywhere I can find other than the broad definition in Webster. Isn't what they did by defining its meaning and application in the CFR allowed within established law? Is the argument that because "function" is exclusive to the "machinegun" definition and the word "pull" is used in Federal laws for other firearm related definitions that it can't be used in part in defining the word "function". Even if you define it as pull, the FRT-15 isn't a machine gun. The shooter has to pull the trigger for every round fired. but the shooter is not releasing the trigger, allowing it to reset, therefore it's one "(continuous) trigger pull". AFT BS |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/17/2021 4:47:29 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: but the shooter is not releasing the trigger, allowing it to reset, therefore it's one "(continuous) trigger pull". Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Because they changed the wording? If the law says "you can't have sex with anyone under 18" and I quote it as saying "you can't have sex with anyone under 21" those are different. "Function" is not defined anywhere I can find other than the broad definition in Webster. Isn't what they did by defining its meaning and application in the CFR allowed within established law? Is the argument that because "function" is exclusive to the "machinegun" definition and the word "pull" is used in Federal laws for other firearm related definitions that it can't be used in part in defining the word "function". Even if you define it as pull, the FRT-15 isn't a machine gun. The shooter has to pull the trigger for every round fired. but the shooter is not releasing the trigger, allowing it to reset, therefore it's one "(continuous) trigger pull". Again, remember the definition for machine gun IS NOT "single PULL", it's single function. Just because the shooter is not consciously pulling the trigger each time does NOT make it a machine gun, because the trigger is still only firing each shot per one FUNCTION of the trigger. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/17/2021 4:47:44 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: but the shooter is not releasing the trigger, allowing it to reset, therefore it's one "(continuous) trigger pull". Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Because they changed the wording? If the law says "you can't have sex with anyone under 18" and I quote it as saying "you can't have sex with anyone under 21" those are different. "Function" is not defined anywhere I can find other than the broad definition in Webster. Isn't what they did by defining its meaning and application in the CFR allowed within established law? Is the argument that because "function" is exclusive to the "machinegun" definition and the word "pull" is used in Federal laws for other firearm related definitions that it can't be used in part in defining the word "function". Even if you define it as pull, the FRT-15 isn't a machine gun. The shooter has to pull the trigger for every round fired. but the shooter is not releasing the trigger, allowing it to reset, therefore it's one "(continuous) trigger pull". If the shooter didn’t release the trigger, it wouldn’t reset. You squeeze the trigger hard enough, and it won’t reset. You can do the same thing with a rubber band or a belt loop. Words have meanings. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/17/2021 4:49:59 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: but the shooter is not releasing the trigger, allowing it to reset, therefore it's one "(continuous) trigger pull". AFT BS Wait....what does human behavior have to do with anything regarding the function of a mechanism/machine as it relates to defining a machine gun? And yes, the FATF, GCA, and NFA are all complete and utter bullshit!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/17/2021 4:53:03 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Again, remember the definition for machine gun IS NOT "single PULL", it's single function. Just because the shooter is not consciously pulling the trigger each time does NOT make it a machine gun, because the trigger is still only firing each shot per one FUNCTION of the trigger. That is the word the AFT is reading into even the CFR. If I get drunk and accidentally triple tap my G SD3G trigger, does that make my bourbon a machine gun? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/17/2021 4:58:43 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That is the word the AFT is reading into even the CFR. If I get drunk and accidentally triple tap my G SD3G trigger, does that make my bourbon a machine gun? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Again, remember the definition for machine gun IS NOT "single PULL", it's single function. Just because the shooter is not consciously pulling the trigger each time does NOT make it a machine gun, because the trigger is still only firing each shot per one FUNCTION of the trigger. That is the word the AFT is reading into even the CFR. If I get drunk and accidentally triple tap my G SD3G trigger, does that make my bourbon a machine gun? Exactly. If I hold my CZ scorpion by my waist and bump fire into trash, have I manufactured a machine gun? It's lunacy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/17/2021 7:10:27 PM EDT
[#21]
Plain English isn't all that plain anymore, I see.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/17/2021 7:37:31 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Plain English isn't all that plain anymore, I see. Goes back to Slick Willie and "What is the definition of the word is?" 'I did NOT have sex with that woman b.s.'. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/17/2021 8:26:58 PM EDT
[#23]
After 7 seconds of searching “FRT-15 STL” on Google....
https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:4844275 Maaaan, that was so difficult. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/17/2021 8:27:11 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Goes back to Slick Willie and "What is the definition of the word is?" 'I did NOT have sex with that woman b.s.'. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Plain English isn't all that plain anymore, I see. Goes back to Slick Willie and "What is the definition of the word is?" 'I did NOT have sex with that woman b.s.'. In all fairness, lawyers/politicians have been doing that since they existed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/17/2021 8:33:03 PM EDT
[#25]
Very True Bravo_Six.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/17/2021 8:54:14 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Exactly. If I hold my CZ scorpion by my waist and bump fire into trash, have I manufactured a machine gun? It's lunacy. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Again, remember the definition for machine gun IS NOT "single PULL", it's single function. Just because the shooter is not consciously pulling the trigger each time does NOT make it a machine gun, because the trigger is still only firing each shot per one FUNCTION of the trigger. That is the word the AFT is reading into even the CFR. If I get drunk and accidentally triple tap my G SD3G trigger, does that make my bourbon a machine gun? Exactly. If I hold my CZ scorpion by my waist and bump fire into trash, have I manufactured a machine gun? It's lunacy. If you want to take it a step further, let's look at handguns, which are by definition designed to be held and shot with one hand. Based on all of these new "reinterpretations", wouldn't using a two-handed grip immediately turn any handgun into an illegal AOW? Imagine being legally restricted to using a Bullseye shooting stance only. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/17/2021 9:53:18 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If you want to take it a step further, let's look at handguns, which are by definition designed to be held and shot with one hand. Based on all of these new "reinterpretations", wouldn't using a two-handed grip immediately turn any handgun into an illegal AOW? Imagine being legally restricted to using a Bullseye shooting stance only. Just as stupid as the AFT saying you remanufactured a braced pistol into an SBR by shouldering it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/17/2021 10:41:58 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Just as stupid as the AFT saying you remanufactured a braced pistol into an SBR by shouldering it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: If you want to take it a step further, let's look at handguns, which are by definition designed to be held and shot with one hand. Based on all of these new "reinterpretations", wouldn't using a two-handed grip immediately turn any handgun into an illegal AOW? Imagine being legally restricted to using a Bullseye shooting stance only. Just as stupid as the AFT saying you remanufactured a braced pistol into an SBR by shouldering it. Exactly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/17/2021 11:16:09 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If you could, put a little more meat on the bone with specifics as to WHY and HOW this will make their job immensely harder and protect you. Personally, I can see lack of dialogue/compliance after a knock at the door with a follow-up visit that lacks one shortly after. Again, just looking to see your thoughts on why/how directing them to a lawyer goes a different direction than I'm imagining in the pursuit of their goal. Thanks Dialogue is great. I investigate a very different sort of subject matter, but I can tell you it is pretty universally appreciated by criminal investigators when you share dialogue willingly without an attorney present. If I am investigating you, I'll just let you talk, and talk, and talk...and unlike you I probably have a lot of experience in carefully directing the conversation so gently that you'll hardly notice. Then you'll say something contradictory, or eventually give me something else I wanted. Ultimately, I now have you on perjury as well as the original issue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/17/2021 11:25:26 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Dialogue is great. I investigate a very different sort of subject matter, but I can tell you it is pretty universally appreciated by criminal investigators when you share dialogue willingly without an attorney present. If I am investigating you, I'll just let you talk, and talk, and talk...and unlike you I probably have a lot of experience in carefully directing the conversation so gently that you'll hardly notice. Then you'll say something contradictory, or eventually give me something else I wanted. Ultimately, I now have you on perjury as well as the original issue. I converse for a living and direct conversation to get people to change their behavior....sometimes gentle, sometimes not. I have around 20 years experience doing it. That being said, I see your point. But you still didn't comment on the rest of the thinking. Lawyering up may get the questions to stop, but will it prevent subsequent attempts, detainment, arrest, raid, etc.? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/17/2021 11:33:24 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I converse for a living and direct conversation to get people to change their behavior....sometimes gentle, sometimes not. I have around 20 years experience doing it. That being said, I see your point. But you still didn't comment on the rest of the thinking. Lawyering up may get the questions to stop, but will it prevent subsequent attempts, detainment, arrest, raid, etc.? Not necessarily. But neither will feeding an investigator a line of BS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/18/2021 6:05:55 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Slow motion operation right around the 2 minute mark.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDQEdQLxBn8Good video. Informative and interesting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/18/2021 6:22:06 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: while this is true, I think when they start showing clips of machineguns, and bump firing, FRT-15's, binaries, hair triggers, jerry miculek - fear is going to push them towards all semi autos should be registered before saying "ok boys, have fun" I hope I'm wrong. They don't want you to have a single shot and ultimately want you dead. I hope I'm wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/18/2021 6:22:45 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's cool the AFT is down with making policy after the fact and reclassifying items without legislation. Asking for a friend. If I take a screwdriver and stick it in my ass, is it still a screwdriver or reclassified as a pleasure toy? What if I drive it through a person's chest, is it a assault weapon after the fact or was it before? No end in site. It was a screwdriver until you used it as a weapon. No one cares how you fuck yourself. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/18/2021 6:27:53 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I am betting they made it like they did for a reason. What I mean from what I under stand is if you pull the trigger real hard it fires one shot and does not allow the bolt to fully cycle. That is a simple way of showing its is a separate trigger pull for each shot and would not be easily argued otherwise. Also having the safety thing in the back that blocks the trigger from being pulled again until the bolt closes is also showing it is a separate pull for each shot. They have a chance by the above to win, but the courts may decide against them on the actual function/effect the trigger has. And that would not surprise me one bit. Yep, I don't see how the rare breed trigger isn't legal. It forces a separate trigger pull for each cycling of the action and mechanically forces trigger reset with each cycle. If the RB trigger can be determined to be an MG then they can just decide that anything they don't like is an MG. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/18/2021 6:33:50 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If the RB trigger can be determined to be an MG then they FIFY |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/18/2021 6:34:52 AM EDT
[#37]
We’ve got to start ignoring the ATF and fight them at the state level just like the pot push in the 90s and early 2000s did with the DEA. Make them unimportant. Stop letting the ATF a law enforcement agency decide what the laws are and creating the definition on a case by case basis.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/18/2021 7:00:50 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We’ve got to start ignoring the ATF and fight them at the state level just like the pot push in the 90s and early 2000s did with the DEA. Make them unimportant. Stop letting the ATF a law enforcement agency decide what the laws are and creating the definition on a case by case basis. This honestly is the answer. But first, you're going to have to get "fellow second amendment enthusiasts" to stop tattling on each other. Gun owners, older ones especially, love to police other gun owners and remind them of small infractions like VFGs on pistols, etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/18/2021 7:08:01 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This honestly is the answer. But first, you're going to have to get "fellow second amendment enthusiasts" to stop tattling on each other. Gun owners, older ones especially, love to police other gun owners and remind them of small infractions like VFGs on pistols, etc. This is the way |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/18/2021 7:22:55 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: FIFY Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: If the RB trigger can be determined to be an MG then they FIFY  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/18/2021 7:43:09 AM EDT
[#41]
https://i.ibb.co/b76XQpV/CAses.png
Can someone with some legalese knowledge explain how this isn't really bad news for Rare Breed? The way I'm reading this is that there was already court rulings stating "a firearm is a machinegun when an internal mechanism or operation automatically forces the individual's finger forward instead of requiring that the shooter release the trigger." That would appear to be game over just based on case law.. until appeals are made to higher courts no? ...of course by this asinine definition, they could just as well say bump firing any rifle turns it into a MG. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/18/2021 7:43:27 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This honestly is the answer. But first, you're going to have to get "fellow second amendment enthusiasts" to stop tattling on each other. Gun owners, older ones especially, love to police other gun owners and remind them of small infractions like VFGs on pistols, etc. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: We’ve got to start ignoring the ATF and fight them at the state level just like the pot push in the 90s and early 2000s did with the DEA. Make them unimportant. Stop letting the ATF a law enforcement agency decide what the laws are and creating the definition on a case by case basis. This honestly is the answer. But first, you're going to have to get "fellow second amendment enthusiasts" to stop tattling on each other. Gun owners, older ones especially, love to police other gun owners and remind them of small infractions like VFGs on pistols, etc. BINGO! |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/18/2021 7:47:52 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Can someone with some legalese knowledge explain how this isn't really bad news for Rare Breed? The way I'm reading this is that there was already court rulings stating "a firearm is a machinegun when an internal mechanism or operation automatically forces the individual's finger forward instead of requiring that the shooter release the trigger." That would appear to be game over just based on case law.. until appeals are made to higher courts no? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Can someone with some legalese knowledge explain how this isn't really bad news for Rare Breed? The way I'm reading this is that there was already court rulings stating "a firearm is a machinegun when an internal mechanism or operation automatically forces the individual's finger forward instead of requiring that the shooter release the trigger." That would appear to be game over just based on case law.. until appeals are made to higher courts no? The ATF expanded federal law without Congress when they changed the definition of a machine gun in the code of federal regulations to be a single "pull" and not a single "function". "Pull" is made up by the ATF in order to ban bumpstocks, "function" is the actual law. The 6th circuit court just struck down the bumpstock ban for this very purpose. ATF would be wise to let the FRT go, because if this case makes it up high enough, you could end up with a high court decision that revokes Chevron deference for criminal law, which is the sole source of ATF's power. tl;dr if ATF pushes the envelope on this one they could lose most of their regulatory power because they've been abusing the power they do have. At least one circuit court has already agreed with this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/18/2021 7:54:48 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Can someone with some legalese knowledge explain how this isn't really bad news for Rare Breed? The way I'm reading this is that there was already court rulings stating "a firearm is a machinegun when an internal mechanism or operation automatically forces the individual's finger forward instead of requiring that the shooter release the trigger." That would appear to be game over just based on case law.. until appeals are made to higher courts no? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Can someone with some legalese knowledge explain how this isn't really bad news for Rare Breed? The way I'm reading this is that there was already court rulings stating "a firearm is a machinegun when an internal mechanism or operation automatically forces the individual's finger forward instead of requiring that the shooter release the trigger." That would appear to be game over just based on case law.. until appeals are made to higher courts no? 2. The ruling relies on accepting ATF interpretations of the statute as binding rather than applying the actual language of the statute. 3. It is a very open question whether regulatory interpretations of criminal statutes have any weight at all. Chevron deference is on very shaky ground overall, but with regards to criminal law, it is even more so. There is a circuit split (unless the en banc appeal goes the wrong way in the bump stock case) as to whether or not Chevron applies at all to criminal law. The opinion holding that it doesn't cites a case written by Gorsuch when he was on the 10th Cir. This issue is 100% headed to the Supreme Court, not just in part because Gorsuch and Kavanaugh both have a boner to chip away at Chevron if they can't overrule it entirely. 4. Without Chevron deference, the common law "rule of lenity" applies which says ambiguities in criminal laws should be read in favor of the defendant. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/18/2021 7:58:50 AM EDT
[#45]
Watch rare breed win and next year RINOS and Leftists join a bipartisan law change that just states “shoots fast” and ch ages the law lol.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/18/2021 8:01:38 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 1. District court opinions aren't really "precedent" until confirmed by an appeals court, and then the reach of that precedent is limited to the circuit until it is confirmed by the Supreme Court. 2. The ruling relies on accepting ATF interpretations of the statute as binding rather than applying the actual language of the statute. 3. It is a very open question whether regulatory interpretations of criminal statutes have any weight at all. Chevron deference is on very shaky ground overall, but with regards to criminal law, it is even more so. There is a circuit split (unless the en banc appeal goes the wrong way in the bump stock case) as to whether or not Chevron applies at all to criminal law. The opinion holding that it doesn't cites a case written by Gorsuch when he was on the 10th Cir. This issue is 100% headed to the Supreme Court, not just in part because Gorsuch and Kavanaugh both have a boner to chip away at Chevron if they can't overrule it entirely. 4. Without Chevron deference, the common law "rule of lenity" applies which says ambiguities in criminal laws should be read in favor of the defendant. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Can someone with some legalese knowledge explain how this isn't really bad news for Rare Breed? The way I'm reading this is that there was already court rulings stating "a firearm is a machinegun when an internal mechanism or operation automatically forces the individual's finger forward instead of requiring that the shooter release the trigger." That would appear to be game over just based on case law.. until appeals are made to higher courts no? 2. The ruling relies on accepting ATF interpretations of the statute as binding rather than applying the actual language of the statute. 3. It is a very open question whether regulatory interpretations of criminal statutes have any weight at all. Chevron deference is on very shaky ground overall, but with regards to criminal law, it is even more so. There is a circuit split (unless the en banc appeal goes the wrong way in the bump stock case) as to whether or not Chevron applies at all to criminal law. The opinion holding that it doesn't cites a case written by Gorsuch when he was on the 10th Cir. This issue is 100% headed to the Supreme Court, not just in part because Gorsuch and Kavanaugh both have a boner to chip away at Chevron if they can't overrule it entirely. 4. Without Chevron deference, the common law "rule of lenity" applies which says ambiguities in criminal laws should be read in favor of the defendant. Now is the time to push. President dementia is in no condition to rally the Democrats, VP heels up is universally disliked and a joke, the entire administration is getting hammered in the press for Afghanistan, China is going after Taiwan, it’s a free for all. Everyone smells weakness from this administration, and we have favorable SCOTUS chances. No better time than now to gut the AFT. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/18/2021 8:14:51 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Now is the time to push. President dementia is in no condition to rally the Democrats, VP heels up is universally disliked and a joke, the entire administration is getting hammered in the press for Afghanistan, China is going after Taiwan, it’s a free for all. Everyone smells weakness from this administration, and we have favorable SCOTUS chances. No better time than now to gut the AFT. I agree with this, they cannot effectively fight battles on too many fronts. Divide and conquer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/18/2021 8:23:55 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 1. District court opinions aren't really "precedent" until confirmed by an appeals court, and then the reach of that precedent is limited to the circuit until it is confirmed by the Supreme Court. 2. The ruling relies on accepting ATF interpretations of the statute as binding rather than applying the actual language of the statute. 3. It is a very open question whether regulatory interpretations of criminal statutes have any weight at all. Chevron deference is on very shaky ground overall, but with regards to criminal law, it is even more so. There is a circuit split (unless the en banc appeal goes the wrong way in the bump stock case) as to whether or not Chevron applies at all to criminal law. The opinion holding that it doesn't cites a case written by Gorsuch when he was on the 10th Cir. This issue is 100% headed to the Supreme Court, not just in part because Gorsuch and Kavanaugh both have a boner to chip away at Chevron if they can't overrule it entirely. 4. Without Chevron deference, the common law "rule of lenity" applies which says ambiguities in criminal laws should be read in favor of the defendant. Excellent and informative response. Thank you. Now to find a gun show or LGS that actually carry these. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/18/2021 8:29:42 AM EDT
[#49]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/18/2021 8:30:12 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Excellent and informative response. Thank you. Now to find a gun show or LGS that actually carry these. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 1. District court opinions aren't really "precedent" until confirmed by an appeals court, and then the reach of that precedent is limited to the circuit until it is confirmed by the Supreme Court. 2. The ruling relies on accepting ATF interpretations of the statute as binding rather than applying the actual language of the statute. 3. It is a very open question whether regulatory interpretations of criminal statutes have any weight at all. Chevron deference is on very shaky ground overall, but with regards to criminal law, it is even more so. There is a circuit split (unless the en banc appeal goes the wrong way in the bump stock case) as to whether or not Chevron applies at all to criminal law. The opinion holding that it doesn't cites a case written by Gorsuch when he was on the 10th Cir. This issue is 100% headed to the Supreme Court, not just in part because Gorsuch and Kavanaugh both have a boner to chip away at Chevron if they can't overrule it entirely. 4. Without Chevron deference, the common law "rule of lenity" applies which says ambiguities in criminal laws should be read in favor of the defendant. Excellent and informative response. Thank you. Now to find a gun show or LGS that actually carry these. I ordered one to my house, I relish the opportunity to talk to the ATF in person
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
Attached File