User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/22/2021 10:42:25 AM EDT
[#1]
Somewhat laughing at an ad in the EE:
The FRT-15 rigger was bought prior to any of the ATF crapola. Ollie-ollie oxen-free!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2021 10:53:40 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That hasn’t been decided yet. The ATF wants that, but the judge has to decide that on the 4th. Hopefully the judge doesn’t enable his court to become a kangaroo court. I assume that the judge doesn't want his decision reversed. Not allowing RB expert testimony is just asking for a future reversal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2021 10:58:17 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I assume that the judge doesn't want his decision reversed. Not allowing RB expert testimony is just asking for a future reversal. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: That hasn’t been decided yet. The ATF wants that, but the judge has to decide that on the 4th. Hopefully the judge doesn’t enable his court to become a kangaroo court. I assume that the judge doesn't want his decision reversed. Not allowing RB expert testimony is just asking for a future reversal. What a bunch of turds!!! I mean what's the rationale for not allowing someone to speak in court? How much more damning can you get? "We don't want our own experts testifying against us.....no your honor, don't let them speak! Silence will allow for justice! " What in the actual fuck?? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2021 11:04:01 AM EDT
[#4]
I can't see how a case over whether a device functions within the letter of the law or not, how a judge would grant a motion of in limine against expert testimony from either side, particularly when the expert's credentials for both sides are essentially identical. If they wanted to call ME as an "expert witness" sure, that I could see happen because I have no credentials or experience in the subject matter, just my opinion, which may be considered prejudiced against the state's opinion and tarnish a jury's deliberation. But ex-ATF expert vs current ATF expert? That seems a stretch.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2021 11:08:18 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What a bunch of turds!!! I mean what's the rationale for not allowing someone to speak in court? How much more damning can you get? "We don't want our own experts testifying against us.....no your honor, don't let them speak! Silence will allow for justice! " What in the actual fuck?? This case it makes no sense. But it's still something the attorney is going to try. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2021 11:10:09 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What a bunch of turds!!! I mean what's the rationale for not allowing someone to speak in court? How much more damning can you get? "We don't want our own experts testifying against us.....no your honor, don't let them speak! Silence will allow for justice! " What in the actual fuck?? There is no rationale-they are the ATF so when they can't win they change the rules to suit them. Just like how they run up people's legal bills with a BS charge and then drop charges because they know they can't win. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2021 11:34:29 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: when the expert's credentials for both sides are essentially identical. This has been my concern with RBT using the former ATF people to consult with from the start, there's no strength there... ATF can just promote some new anti-FRT people to those expert positions, establish them as the trainers in the agency, replace all the expert talking points. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2021 11:40:30 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This has been my concern with RBT using the former ATF people to consult with from the start, there's no strength there... ATF can just promote some new anti-FRT people to those expert positions, establish them as the trainers in the agency, replace all the expert talking points. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: when the expert's credentials for both sides are essentially identical. This has been my concern with RBT using the former ATF people to consult with from the start, there's no strength there... ATF can just promote some new anti-FRT people to those expert positions, establish them as the trainers in the agency, replace all the expert talking points. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2021 11:48:57 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well, here's a good example. Kyle Rittenhouse is on video saying "I wish I had my gun I'd start loosing rounds" or something to that effect, while he was witnessing an alleged crime occur sometime prior to his defensive shooting in Kenosha. He didn't actually start loosing rounds, instead he called 911 to report what he thought was a crime, just like he was supposed to. The prosecution wants to enter that video as evidence of his character, to paint him like some violence thirsty vigilante. The defense makes a motion in limine to prevent that, because whether or not Kyle really meant what he said or was just puffing his chest is irrelevant to whether or not he was justified in using deadly force later, but hearing that video might prejudice juror's against him unfairly. This case it makes no sense. But it's still something the attorney is going to try. While the example makes sense because Kyle's vid would most likely paint him in a negative light. The FRT case is more about information/facts rather than emotion or good/evil as might be considered with a criminal trial. So saying "we don't want to let the cards read" seems pretty stupid, possibly evil, and at the very least....telling of their fear of the truth. Just gotta hope a judge sees through the bullshit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2021 11:52:42 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: While the example makes sense because Kyle's vid would most likely paint him in a negative light. The FRT case is more about information/facts rather than emotion or good/evil as might be considered with a criminal trial. So saying "we don't want to let the cards read" seems pretty stupid, possibly evil, and at the very least....telling of their fear of the truth. Just gotta hope a judge sees through the bullshit. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Well, here's a good example. Kyle Rittenhouse is on video saying "I wish I had my gun I'd start loosing rounds" or something to that effect, while he was witnessing an alleged crime occur sometime prior to his defensive shooting in Kenosha. He didn't actually start loosing rounds, instead he called 911 to report what he thought was a crime, just like he was supposed to. The prosecution wants to enter that video as evidence of his character, to paint him like some violence thirsty vigilante. The defense makes a motion in limine to prevent that, because whether or not Kyle really meant what he said or was just puffing his chest is irrelevant to whether or not he was justified in using deadly force later, but hearing that video might prejudice juror's against him unfairly. This case it makes no sense. But it's still something the attorney is going to try. While the example makes sense because Kyle's vid would most likely paint him in a negative light. The FRT case is more about information/facts rather than emotion or good/evil as might be considered with a criminal trial. So saying "we don't want to let the cards read" seems pretty stupid, possibly evil, and at the very least....telling of their fear of the truth. Just gotta hope a judge sees through the bullshit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2021 3:34:12 AM EDT
[#11]
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. Hey, I'll definitely remind people, but not because I give a shit. I just don't want anyone getting in trouble over dumb shit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2021 3:40:45 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Noble and Brave but no one is coming to help us. We're the minority and we're on our own. Unfortunately I have to agree with that. I mean - let me preface, I wouldn't hurt anyone ever unless i needed to, but if we were to stand up against a tyrannical government, it would probably be 2% of the population and that number would be halved by infighting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2021 4:01:14 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Pretty funny to see you in this thread with you supporting the NRA in your signature... You realize they are FOR the regulation of suppressors, MGs, and bump stocks, right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2021 4:08:09 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: ProTip: This thread is about FRT Triggers and the AFT. Thank you. You sound like the kind of guy that 'reminds' people that the law enforcement office is just a quick call and 'reminds' people that if they have an NFA item the have to carry their paperwork with them everywhere. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2021 4:35:43 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Cool, but part of me wishes they'd waited to bring them to market if they are close enough to the FRT's design that it makes RBT sue them. Divides their attention and war chest at a time where they are the biggest kid on the playground fighting the bully for us. These guys AND big daddy unlimited are both fucking RBT right now by making knockoffs. Reducing how much money RBT is getting while RBT takes the blows from the ATF. Dickheads imo. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2021 4:37:14 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Especially since, according to the reports I've read here, they do not accept returns or apparently offer warranty work. Why would they need to keep such sales records? HAH! Warranty work? They don't even respond to any of my emails over the last 8-10 months! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2021 4:41:31 AM EDT
[#17]
C-C-C-C-C-C-C-OMBO
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2021 4:46:32 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That video pulled at my strings. RB is putting an assumed large amount of money and time into the fight AGAINST the AFT, which is understandable considering their revenue source. Heck, they could be spending a majority of profits for this. I understand that the fight is not for us as consumers...they know the patent is worth gobs of money. Here comes other companies that try to step in and take a portion of the market. BDU releases a product that is a near exact copy, although less robust and finished, in an attempt to rip them off. They obviously had help from those inside the AR15 community, taking advice given here in our threads...as we know, because they set up shill accounts and even replied in threads. So RB is now forced to divide the front in an attempt to keep a fight up against the big man, and then another suit to keep an obviously shitty company from stealing their profits. I cancelled my BDU membership. I know that plenty on here have as well. Hopefully this scares other shilly companies from taking money away from the fight against the AFT. BDU overall had a lot of good ideas, but this pisses me off. Not only is rare breed taking the blows from the ATF but rare breed and BDU were previously partnered. Plus BDU's customer support for years there was worse than if I called Cox and got some dumbass who was obviously stoned. Here's a list of issues with them from one of my reviews: Click To View Spoiler |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2021 4:51:53 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: C-C-C-C-C-C-C-OMBO Sounds like a subtle way of telling me to shut up. Can you multiple quote on here?? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2021 4:53:25 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sounds like a subtle way of telling me to shut up. Can you multiple quote on here?? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2021 5:04:10 AM EDT
[#21]
Quoted: What a bunch of turds!!! I mean what's the rationale for not allowing someone to speak in court? How much more damning can you get? "We don't want our own experts testifying against us.....no your honor, don't let them speak! Silence will allow for justice! " What in the actual fuck?? Easy, because they know they are full of shit and are going to lose in any fair court. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2021 5:37:46 AM EDT
[#22]
 Judas Priest - Breaking The Law (Official Music Video) |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2021 8:36:03 PM EDT
[#23]
Any updates on this?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2021 12:10:43 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Any updates on this? October 4th hasn’t happened yet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2021 12:33:27 AM EDT
[#25]
Courtlistner shows a couple of things one I think on 9/30 and the other on 10/1. No idea what the say or mean.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2021 8:57:08 AM EDT
[#26]
I’m hoping for RBT to catch a break today.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2021 9:05:58 AM EDT
[#27]
I thought it was moved to the 6th? Maybe I'm thinking of something else?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2021 8:44:52 AM EDT
[#28]
I have a feeling that no updates is a bad sign...
Yesterday was the court hearing, right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2021 11:45:18 AM EDT
[#29]
Courtlistener pretty much tells what happened. If I interpreted it correctly went with the ATF and nothing allowed but the administrative record, no to three other items identified by the numbers given which they were, and kicked to 10/19? But I am just guessing that is what it means.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2021 1:34:03 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Courtlistener pretty much tells what happened. If I interpreted it correctly went with the ATF and nothing allowed but the administrative record, no to three other items identified by the numbers given which they were, and kicked to 10/19? But I am just guessing that is what it means. Fuck, that doesn't sound good. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2021 1:37:23 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Fuck, that doesn't sound good. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Courtlistener pretty much tells what happened. If I interpreted it correctly went with the ATF and nothing allowed but the administrative record, no to three other items identified by the numbers given which they were, and kicked to 10/19? But I am just guessing that is what it means. Fuck, that doesn't sound good. No, it doesn’t. Sounds like RBT was denied due process and they weren’t allowed to present evidence. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2021 1:39:43 PM EDT
[#32]
Wish someone with more knowledge would look at it and say exactly what it means and how it will proceed. I am just guessing what it says.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2021 3:02:04 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wish someone with more knowledge would look at it and say exactly what it means and how it will proceed. I am just guessing what it says. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2021 3:20:12 PM EDT
[#34]
I just searched rare breed trigger court date and went to the courtlistener site that popped up. Read the Oct. 4th stuff and the numbered items it referenced that were avaiable.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60104408/rare-breed-triggers-llc-v-garland/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte= |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2021 4:25:00 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I just searched rare breed trigger court date and went to the courtlistener site that popped up. Read the Oct. 4th stuff and the numbered items it referenced that were avaiable. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60104408/rare-breed-triggers-llc-v-garland/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte= Quote HistoryQuoted: I just searched rare breed trigger court date and went to the courtlistener site that popped up. Read the Oct. 4th stuff and the numbered items it referenced that were avaiable. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60104408/rare-breed-triggers-llc-v-garland/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte= ENDORSED ORDER granting 45 Defendants' Opposed Time-Sensitive Motion in Limine; denying 46 Defendants' Opposed Time-Sensitive Motion to Appear Virtually; denying 50 Plaintiffs' Opposed Time-Sensitive Motion in Limine; and denying as moot 55 Individual Defendants' Opposed Time-Sensitive Motion to Join the Official-Capacity Defendants' Motion in Limine and Request a Protective Order for the reasons stated on the record at the 59 October 4, 2021 hearing. Signed by Judge Carlos E. Mendoza on 10/4/2021.(VLC) (Entered: 10/04/2021) ETA: scratch that I can't actually figure out what that means. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2021 4:30:53 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ok, without a Pacer subscription for the transcript, just reading the summary here: ETA: scratch that I can't actually figure out what that means. Granted ATF's motion in limine?! FFS. The judge okayed the ATF's argument of "we really shouldn't bring experts into this - you can trust our word alone." 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2021 4:37:03 PM EDT
[#37]
Crazy how in all of these cases, the atf automatically defaults to the anti gun mentality. The gov should exist to PROTECT the 2a, as well as all other rights. Not directly attack them.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2021 4:41:15 PM EDT
[#38]
I am so sick of this crap.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2021 4:54:49 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ok, without a Pacer subscription for the transcript, just reading the summary here: ETA: scratch that I can't actually figure out what that means. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I just searched rare breed trigger court date and went to the courtlistener site that popped up. Read the Oct. 4th stuff and the numbered items it referenced that were avaiable. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60104408/rare-breed-triggers-llc-v-garland/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte= ENDORSED ORDER granting 45 Defendants' Opposed Time-Sensitive Motion in Limine; denying 46 Defendants' Opposed Time-Sensitive Motion to Appear Virtually; denying 50 Plaintiffs' Opposed Time-Sensitive Motion in Limine; and denying as moot 55 Individual Defendants' Opposed Time-Sensitive Motion to Join the Official-Capacity Defendants' Motion in Limine and Request a Protective Order for the reasons stated on the record at the 59 October 4, 2021 hearing. Signed by Judge Carlos E. Mendoza on 10/4/2021.(VLC) (Entered: 10/04/2021) ETA: scratch that I can't actually figure out what that means. I'm not a lawyer, but it looks like the judge is just being a dick to both sides.... gives me the impression he hates having to preside over the case. Denied the defendant's AND plaintiff's witness requests and the defendants request for protective order from the plaintiff. Just that alone would seem like it's begging for an appeal and maybe the judge knows that's going to happen anyway so he's just trying to shortcut the process and/or be lazy?? I didn't read what was linked to, just the few sentences quoted above. I'd be curious to know what the judge has approved of at this point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2021 5:29:05 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm not a lawyer, but it looks like the judge is just being a dick to both sides.... gives me the impression he hates having to preside over the case. Denied the defendant's AND plaintiff's witness requests and the defendants request for protective order from the plaintiff. Just that alone would seem like it's begging for an appeal and maybe the judge knows that's going to happen anyway so he's just trying to shortcut the process and/or be lazy?? I didn't read what was linked to, just the few sentences quoted above. I'd be curious to know what the judge has approved of at this point. No. He granted ATFs request to exclude opposition witnesses, and denied Rarebreeds request to exclude questionable material provided by ATF. In short, 100% pro ATF. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2021 5:37:13 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No. He granted ATFs request to exclude opposition witnesses, and denied Rarebreeds request to exclude questionable material provided by ATF. In short, 100% pro ATF. If you are not allowed to call witnesses and give testimony, WTF good is a court? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2021 5:41:05 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How can that actually be legal???? If you are not allowed to call witnesses and give testimony, WTF good is a court? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: No. He granted ATFs request to exclude opposition witnesses, and denied Rarebreeds request to exclude questionable material provided by ATF. In short, 100% pro ATF. If you are not allowed to call witnesses and give testimony, WTF good is a court? Rarebreed made claims under the Administrative Procedures Act. The judge is saying "Well, claims of this nature can legally only include information that is part of the administrative record" while ignoring the fact that Rarebreed was not afforded an opportunity to have their data included in the record. In short, it is quite Soviet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2021 5:47:00 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Crazy how in all of these cases, the atf automatically defaults to the anti gun mentality. The gov should exist to PROTECT the 2a, as well as all other rights. Not directly attack them. Why not? Not like the pro gun Republican party does anything to hold them accountable/rein them in. They do whatever the hell they want with no accountability. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2021 5:52:28 PM EDT
[#44]
I would imagine this isn’t the last of this case. What a shit show Banana Republic courtroom.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2021 6:05:08 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I would imagine this isn’t the last of this case. What a shit show Banana Republic courtroom. Welcome to the new full blown USSA! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2021 6:23:04 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ok, without a Pacer subscription for the transcript, just reading the summary here: ETA: scratch that I can't actually figure out what that means. 45 was kind of the big one it looks like he okayed and you can click and read it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2021 6:27:59 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No. He granted ATFs request to exclude opposition witnesses, and denied Rarebreeds request to exclude questionable material provided by ATF. In short, 100% pro ATF. Wow, I was way off. Judge is still a dick.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2021 8:03:32 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How can that actually be legal???? If you are not allowed to call witnesses and give testimony, WTF good is a court? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: No. He granted ATFs request to exclude opposition witnesses, and denied Rarebreeds request to exclude questionable material provided by ATF. In short, 100% pro ATF. If you are not allowed to call witnesses and give testimony, WTF good is a court? Haha yeah. It's legal because the judge says so. What good is a court? That's an interesting question best left up to the individual. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2021 8:34:09 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What a bunch of turds!!! I mean what's the rationale for not allowing someone to speak in court? How much more damning can you get? "We don't want our own experts testifying against us.....no your honor, don't let them speak! Silence will allow for justice! " What in the actual fuck?? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2021 9:22:43 PM EDT
[#50]
Appeals are a thing.
IANAL Allowing evidence from one side and not the other opens things up to appeal. Based on the way RBT has "designed" their company and the people it employs, I would guess they are prepared for this sort of thing. You dont go hiring prior ATF Tech branch people because you expect things to be sunshine and roses. |
|
|
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.
