Posted: 5/16/2024 2:15:38 AM EDT
[Last Edit: AJ187][Edited]
|
Hopefully this is on everyones radar and we can take a second to use the action center. Session ends on Monday! https://gunowners.mn/take-action/action-center/stop-the-binary-trigger-ban/ Let’s do it! |
|
From what I read from MNGOC and what a friend sent me here: https://mailchi.mp/fluence-media/morningtake11718-2265991?e=732b015a93 it sounds like the DFL just shit the bed and all over MN last night. Rolled into a 3000 page omnibus and stifled any debate. Bunch of shitheels. |
The plane flew, admit you're wrong and get over it.
Easily irritated engineer of odd things
Joined:
Jul 2008
Posts:
27637
EE: 100% (5)
MN, USA
|
Originally Posted By Rat_Patrol: So reading through the house bill, FRTs don't seem to be affected by the language used? They don't seem to be. The definition as passed into law is: “a device that allows a firearm to shoot one shot on the pull of the trigger and a second shot on the release of the trigger without requiring a subsequent pull of the trigger.” |
| I'm traveling so can't pull it up quick, but I was curious about FRT's before this legislation. Isn't there verbiage in current law about devices that allow faster manipulation of the trigger? I know it's older so geared likely more towards trigger activators (cranks and such) but wonder how FRT's are viewed in that light. |
[NO TEXT]
Easily irritated engineer of odd things
Joined:
Jul 2008
Posts:
27647
EE: 100% (5)
MN, USA
|
Originally Posted By Weasel_Master: I'm traveling so can't pull it up quick, but I was curious about FRT's before this legislation. Isn't there verbiage in current law about devices that allow faster manipulation of the trigger? I know it's older so geared likely more towards trigger activators (cranks and such) but wonder how FRT's are viewed in that light. As far as I understood, the law was worded for trigger cranks. |
Strong men create good times. Good times breed weak men. Weak men create hard times. (You are here) Hard times breed strong men.