BATFE update

[Aguila Blanca]

I received an e-mail today from the NSSF with a caution about a new BATFE letter addressing forced reset triggers. Apparently, not all forced reset triggers are created equal, and some of them may be construed by the BATFE to be machine guns.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/o...en-letter-forced-reset-triggers-frts/download

I considered posting this in the Rifles area, but these triggers can also be installed in those new-fangled "Other" firearms (the ones that sure look like short-barreled rifles pretending to not be short-barreled rifles), so I'm posting it here in the hope of reaching more members.

Bottom line: If you have forced reset triggers, or are considering buying one, read the letter carefully.

 

[BornFighting88]

Also got this open letter being an FFL-03 holder in good standing.

So how does the ATF get away with labeling essentially a component as an entire firearm. Set aside the fact that the lower receiver of an AR is the “firearm”, I get that part. It is the serialized part that holds all the other components. But are these FRT’s, as they are being called, serialized?? How do they quantify this argument??

 

[44 AMP]

How do they quantify this argument??

I have no idea what their reasoning is, but they've been doing it since 1986 when the M16 auto sear, all by itself, without any gun present was classified as a "machine gun".

Personally, I don't know what a forced reset trigger is, or how it works, but according to a Washington Examiner article on MSN, it allows firing more than one round without releasing the trigger.

IF so, then that would meed the Fed definition of "machine gun".

However, I do have to wonder just how "creative" the definition is...

 

[ballardw]

Also got this open letter being an FFL-03 holder in good standing.

So how does the ATF get away with labeling essentially a component as an entire firearm. Set aside the fact that the lower receiver of an AR is the “firearm”, I get that part. It is the serialized part that holds all the other components. But are these FRT’s, as they are being called, serialized?? How do they quantify this argument??

Since BATFE has classified a piece of string as a "machine gun", https://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2010/01/25/shoestring-machine-gun/

it takes very little to imagine creative thinking is involved.

 

[mehavey]

piece of string as a "machine gun...

Ya jus' can't make this stuff up.
It has to be seen to be believed.

 

[FrankenMauser]

IF so, then that would meed the Fed definition of "machine gun".

However, I do have to wonder just how "creative" the definition is...

The ATF redefined it in the letter, in order to meet their desires. Instead of, "...single function of the trigger..." it is now "...continuous pull of the trigger..."
...Because the trigger must perform 3 (arguably 4) different functions, to reset for each subsequent shot. And, well, that word, "function" is just annoying and counterproductive to their cause.

You'll also note that they declare "some" triggers to be illegal NFA items, but not all. And they also do not specify which of them may or may not fall into either category.

 

[The Verminator]

This is all totally predictable.

People should just quit trying to cheat.

I don't get the fascination with automatic weapons anyway.

Ammo is scarce and that's just another way to burn it up too fast.

 

[seanc]

This is all totally predictable.

People should just quit trying to cheat.

I don't get the fascination with automatic weapons anyway.

Ammo is scarce and that's just another way to burn it up too fast.

And cars! Any car that's capable of going over 70 MPH should be banned. There's a worldwide energy shortage, no one should be wasting fuel going over 70 MPH.
/sarcasm!

 

[GE-Minigun]

Not cheating…working within the law at the time…then the ATF does not like it and redefines was it is. Has happen multiple times in the past and will continue to be that way, prime example, the Franklin Armory Reformation. All fine and dandy until the ATF so, nope it is an SBR…

 

[The Verminator]

Any car that's capable of going over 70 MPH should be banned.

Invalid comparison.

If it were illegal to have a car that could go over 70 you'd have a valid comparison.

So you don't.

 

[The Verminator]

Not cheating…working within the law at the time…then the ATF does not like it and redefines was it is. Has happen multiple times in the past and will continue to be that way, prime example, the Franklin Armory Reformation. All fine and dandy until the ATF so, nope it is an SBR…

That's what happens when you try to cheat.

Never a happy ending.

 

[GE-Minigun]

How is it cheating when you are working/designing within the law? Granted I'm not the smartest guy in the room, but if you (ATF) state that "X" is legal and "X" isn't and I design within both of those parameters then you change both "X"'s...how is that cheating? You (ATF) have moved the goal post...

 

[The Verminator]

No.

The goal post is no automatic weapons. That's the law.

Just because you can slyly design a part to turn a semi auto into full auto doesn't mean you're not breaking the law.

You're still breaking that law.

But........people keep trying to cheat.

 

[ATN082268]

No.

The goal post is no automatic weapons. That's the law.

Just because you can slyly design a part to turn a semi auto into full auto doesn't mean you're not breaking the law.

You're still breaking that law.

But........people keep trying to cheat.

Do forced reset triggers turn a semi auto into full auto? Is one part of an actual machine gun, a machine gun?

 

[Shane Tuttle]

No.

The goal post is no automatic weapons. That's the law.

Just because you can slyly design a part to turn a semi auto into full auto doesn't mean you're not breaking the law.

You're still breaking that law.

But........people keep trying to cheat.

No, the goalpost is the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Having the BATFE nefariously come up with their opinion of what is and what is not lawful with near zero control by the People is not what the Founding Fathers intended.

You wouldn't have people trying to "cheat" if the BATFE wouldn't continually violate the Peoples' constitutional rights and make up definitions out of thin air after the fact a law abiding citizen already possesses the part/firearm. You wouldn't have people trying to "cheat" if there wasn't over 20,000 useless gun laws in place that violate the rights of citizens.

Invalid comparison.

If it were illegal to have a car that could go over 70 you'd have a valid comparison.

So you don't.

It's illegal to drive your car 70mph in Vermont. So, yes, he does have a valid comparison.

Your personal disdain of full auto weapons do not trump citizens' rights to defend themselves as they see fit. You can hide behind whatever garbage laws the BATFE wants to interpret as illegal all you want. And I don't condone breaking laws currently in place. But the fact of the matter is, just because it's the law doesn't mean that's where the goal post is set and the People just have to sit there and take it without legally fighting back against corrupt actions of the government.

 

[zukiphile]

No.

The goal post is no automatic weapons. That's the law.

Just because you can slyly design a part to turn a semi auto into full auto doesn't mean you're not breaking the law.

You're still breaking that law.

But........people keep trying to cheat.

Since no one has slyly turned a semi-auto firearm into a fully auto firearm with an FRT, that hypothetical isn't what the BATF letter is about.

Congress wrote the law on this and it turns one whether more than one round is fired with "a single function of the trigger". You don't have to like the law, but it's Congresses job to write our laws, and there it is. That isn't what BATF are purporting to enforce. They've announced that they will enforce their own standard, a single, continuous pull of the trigger. BATF are part of the executive branch and don't properly create law.

I agree that people shouldn't try to cheat. That includes the BATF.

 

[The Verminator]

Awww.......aren't those some interesting excuses?

Hey, if you keep trying to cheat and slyly break the law you WILL regret it.

But, you go and have your fun........I guarantee there will be consequences.

 

[The Verminator]

It's illegal to drive your car 70mph in Vermont. So, yes, he does have a valid comparison.

No, he doesn't.

If it was against the law to own a car that would go over 70.......THEN he would have a valid comparison.

 

[zukiphile]

Awww.......aren't those some interesting excuses?

If your inference is that the law is an excuse, feel free to review the explanation.

If it was against the law to own a car that would go over 70......THEN he would have a valid comparison.

No, that's the hypothetical his comparison implies, not a factual assertion.

In the absence of the payment of a federal tax, it's not legal to possess a trigger that fires more than once with a single function of the trigger. It isn't just fully automatic firing that's prohibited, but the mechanism that permits it to happen.

That's the factual foundation. The comparison is to motor vehicle laws. If they functioned the same way, there'd be an analogous prohibition of a car geared to exceed more than 70mph with a single function of the accelerator.

Let's unpack the point of the comparison as well. We accept possession of a wide range of vehicles that are often very dangerous, but we endeavor to reduce the harm by making harmful acts illegal. Congress doesn't accept unregistered automatic rifles even though they are used almost exclusively by hobbyists as giggle generators.

The difference is the point of the comparison, not a flaw in it.

HTH.

 

[Shane Tuttle]

What difference does it make to have a car capable of going over 70 and a law in place you can't drive over 70?

The firearm (car) itself and the capabilities isn't in question. It's the parallel of the firearm/car being legal and the trigger/going over the speed limit.

You can parse the words said all you want. Fact is, seanc's comment draws the point of peoples' aversion of auto weapons and being permissive of allowing government overreach clearly violates our constitutional rights. If you don't already see the 20,000+ laws placed against the 2A as a problem, including the BATFE's constant overreach, then I can see why you think everyones' posts here are "excuses".