BATFE update

[Aguila Blanca]

I see a degree of validity in both sides of this argument.

For openers, I believe the Second Amendment means what it says, and that we should be allowed to own (and carry) any firearm we choose, up to and including machine guns. (I also believe that I should be allowed to own a tank, a howitzer, and an F-16 if I could afford them. Since I can't afford them, that's a moot point.) That said, private ownership of machine guns has been heavily restricted and regulated since 1934, and we pretty much all know that private citizens are not allowed to make or buy new ones. The supply is limited to those that already exist.

I also believe that laws are meant to be interpreted and applied according to the plain language understanding of what they say. While I don't like the Gun Control Act of 1934, I don't have an overwhelming need or urge to own or shoot a machine gun, so it doesn't affect me. I fully recognize that there are people who can afford to shoot more ammo in a day than I'll shoot in a lifetime, and that those people might like to own machine guns. I think they should be allowed to own them ... but they can't.

The sticky wicket arises when people try to parse the language of the laws and/or regulations to create something that IS -- functionally -- indistinguishable from a machine gun while technically not being a machine gun ... maybe.

The definition of a "machine gun" in the National Firearms Act of 1934 is:

The term "machine gun" means any weapon which shoots, or is designed to shoot, automatically or semiautomatically, more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.

The BATFE definition of a "machine gun" is found in 27 CFR 478.11:

Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machine gun, and any combination of parts from which a machine gun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

So the BATFE regulation starts off by saying the same thing as the NFA, but then adds some further language about parts and conversions and "constructive possession." Let's skip that and stick to basics: a "machine gun" is a firearm that shoots, or is designed to shoot, automatically or semiautomatically, more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.

The problem is that the NFA defined "machine gun," but it didn't define "trigger" or "function." I think the attorneys on this forum will confirm that, in general, when a term is not defined in a law itself, application of the law defers to the ordinary dictionary definition of the term. As applied to firearms, I don't think there's any controversy over what the "trigger" is. But ... what is a "function" of the trigger?

The dictionary definition of function (the noun) is:

1 : professional or official position : occupation His job combines the functions of a manager and a worker.
2 : the action for which a person or thing is specially fitted or used or for which a thing exists : purpose
3 : any of a group of related actions contributing to a larger action especially : the normal and specific contribution of a bodily part to the economy of a living organism The function of the heart is to pump blood through the body.
4 : an official or formal ceremony or social gathering They went to several functions during their college reunion weekend.
5a : a mathematical correspondence that assigns exactly one element of one set to each element of the same or another set
b : a variable (such as a quality, trait, or measurement) that depends on and varies with another height is a function of age also : result illnesses that are a function of stress
6 : characteristic behavior of a chemical compound due to a particular reactive unit also : functional group
7 : a computer subroutine specifically : one that performs a calculation with variables (see variable entry 2 sense 1a) provided by a program and supplies the program with a single result

Number 1 doesn't apply in this context. Numbers 4 through 7 don't seem to apply in this context. What about numbers 2 and 3?

2 : the action for which a person or thing is specially fitted or used or for which a thing exists : purpose

I'd say that could apply. The trigger exists to cause [or allow] a firearm to discharge. So that is the function of the trigger.

3 : any of a group of related actions contributing to a larger action especially : the normal and specific contribution of a bodily part to the economy of a living organism The function of the heart is to pump blood through the body.

"A group of related actions ..." I'd say that could also apply. In fact, I'd say that in this context this is the definition that fits best. The way we have traditionally viewed it, a "single function" of a trigger means pulling the trigger far enough that it releases the sear and then allowing the trigger to return far enough to reset [and to allow the sear to reset].

So now we have all the "Philadelphia lawyer" type inventors who come up with things like bump stocks, binary triggers, and now forced reset triggers. They all pick their interpretation of what a "single function of the trigger" means, and then they get all butt-hurt if the BATFE doesn't agree with them. The problem is that we're arguing over a term that ISN'T DEFINED in the law. So until the courts tell us what the term means, we're guessing. We're playing with semantics. And when the price of holding the losing hand is a potential felony conviction, frankly it's a game I prefer not to play.

If Harry Hobbyist wants to fire up his Harbor Freight mill/drill machine and design a new gizmo that makes an ordinary semi-automatic firearm shoot as fast as a machine gun and that he thinks is within the letter of the law, I have no problem with that. Where I have concerns is when Harry Hobbyist takes his gizmo to Freddy Factory and Freddy starts churning out these gizmos and selling them to the rest of us, assuring us that "they're perfectly legal" because they still only fire one shot with each "function" of the trigger.

But "function" has still not been defined by the courts. This is why I consider such efforts to be akin to pulling a tiger's tail. We KNOW the BATFE doesn't want us to own machine guns. It should not be difficult to predict that anything that makes/allows a semi-automatic firearm to shoot as fast as a machine gun is going to awaken the sleeping tiger.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I also believe that laws are meant to be interpreted and applied according to the plain language understanding of what they say.

I would disagree. Statutes are intended to be plain and clear to avoid a need to "interpret".

I respectfully submit that you are arguing semantics. Every time you read something, you interpret what the words mean. Here's what one state's statute has to say on the subject:

Words and phrases. Construction of statutes. (a) In the construction of the statutes, words and phrases shall be construed according to the commonly approved usage of the language; and technical words and phrases, and such as have acquired a peculiar and appropriate meaning in the law, shall be construed and understood accordingly.

Then there's this, from the Georgetown University Law Center:

https://www.law.georgetown.edu/wp-c...ding-Interpreting-and-Applying-Statutes-1.pdf

b.
Plain Meaning

i. Ordinary or Reasonable Understanding
Courts generally assume that the words of a statute mean what an “ordinary” or “reasonable” person would understand them to mean. Moreover, some courts adhere to the principle that if the words of a statute are clear and unambiguous, the court need not inquire any further into the meaning of the statute. Thus, you can often begin by looking at the ordinary or reasonable understanding of a statute’s text based on your own experience and understanding of language and grammar.

ii. Dictionary Definitions
Dictionaries can also be helpful in interpreting the meaning of statutory language. It will likely be more effective to compare and contrast definitions from multiple dictionaries to obtain a broader consensus on the meaning of words. Analyzing interpretations from multiple sources will help you to reduce the risk of choosing an interpretation that may have been approved by one source but rejected by many others. If you are asked to interpret a statute that was enacted a long time ago, you might consider digging up dictionary definitions (as well as other sources such as encyclopedias) from the time period in which the statute was enacted. Be aware however, that if a statute deals with a technical or specialized subject (e.g., ERISA, tax, telecommunications, etc.), the words in the statute may have meanings that differ from their ordinary usage. In such circumstances, courts may interpret the text dealing with a technical or specialized subject in a manner consistent with the way those words are used in the relevant industry or community.

 

[Spats McGee]

I would disagree. Statutes are intended to be plain and clear to avoid a need to "interpret".....

That all sounds well and good, but as a practical matter, it's impossible. As soon as one reaches for anything outside the 'four corners' of the statute to look for a meaning, you have reached 'interpretation.' For example, a statute may say 'it shall be unlawful to possess cocaine.' Well, what does it mean to 'possess' something? What exactly is 'cocaine?'

Welcome to TFL!

 

[mehavey]

Henry VI, Part 2, Act IV, Scene 2
Line 2379, Dick the Butcher.

 

[zukiphile]

The sticky wicket arises when people try to parse the language of the laws and/or regulations to create something that IS -- functionally -- indistinguishable from a machine gun while technically not being a machine gun ... maybe.

Should that wicket be sticky?

You are correct that a normal rule of statutory interpretation requires that terms not specifically defined be given their ordinary meaning. On the other hand, federally we have a doctrine of judicial deference to agencies in where their interpretations are deemed merely "reasonable".

If course, you are also correct at a practical level that tangling with people who have the power to ruin your life even if you are innocent of any charge they might bring shouldn't be undertaken casually.

The problem is that the NFA defined "machine gun," but it didn't define "trigger" or "function." I think the attorneys on this forum will confirm that, in general, when a term is not defined in a law itself, application of the law defers to the ordinary dictionary definition of the term. As applied to firearms, I don't think there's any controversy over what the "trigger" is. But ... what is a "function" of the trigger?

The other source one could consult would be history and practice. If a trigger movement rearward is a function, and a trigger movement forward is a function, then a trigger movement backward and forward can't be a single function. That's the take on binary triggers, yes?

I set that forth as history and ask whether there is any genuine controversy as to the meaning of function in this context. That a federal agent wished the word meant something else doesn't introduce a real controversy as to meaning. The agent's desire to regulate shouldn't be the basis of his power to regulate.

If the term were so vague that one couldn't reasonably foresee which devices to which it applies, then there's a due process issue.

We KNOW the BATFE doesn't want us to own machine guns.

If we are governed by laws, should that ever matter?

I also believe that laws are meant to be interpreted and applied according to the plain language understanding of what they say. While I don't like the Gun Control Act of 1934, I don't have an overwhelming need or urge to own or shoot a machine gun, so it doesn't affect me.

Like you, I have no use for a machine gun. I'd go a step further and assert that a binary trigger is a product liability wet dream. The government prohibiting something by this fiat redefinition doesn't affect us, but the process by which an agent that wants to expand its authority by redefining a word gets away with it, has made itself greater and has made you and me smaller.

A redefinition process that allows government itself to remove a limit on federal authority is a problem not only limited to firearms.

 

[The Verminator]

Haters gonna hate.

Lovers gonna love.

Cheaters gonna cheat.

We do what we do.

That's life among the humans.

 

[44 AMP]

The agent's desire to regulate shouldn't be the basis of his power to regulate.

I agree with the principle. The basis of the power to regulate is the LAW.

However, in the real world, the basis of an agent's ability to apply regulation can, and sometimes is their desire to regulate, and this goes on until/ unless their superiors, or a court decision orders otherwise.

A redefinition process that allows government itself to remove a limit on federal authority is a problem not only limited to firearms.

We lost a big chunk of common sense control a long time ago when we allowed Congress to assume the authority to define the English language.

We lost another big chunk when Congress decided that violation of regulation was violation of the law. There used to be a difference, nowdays, not so much...

 

[Aguila Blanca]

The other source one could consult would be history and practice. If a trigger movement rearward is a function, and a trigger movement forward is a function, then a trigger movement backward and forward can't be a single function. That's the take on binary triggers, yes?

Maybe yes, maybe no.

I have thought of a (or "the") function of a trigger as sufficient movement to release the sear, and then a return sufficiently far to allow the sear to reset. This "definition" (for the sake of discussion) also allows for binary triggers -- the initial pull is one function ("Bang!"), and the forward push followed by a second "Bang!" is a separate function. The law didn't stipulate that each "single function" of the trigger has to be in the same direction.

We KNOW the BATFE doesn't want us to own machine guns.

If we are governed by laws, should that ever matter?

Of course it shouldn't -- but reality strongly suggests that it does. Which is why laws and regulations need to be as clear and unambiguous as possible.

The government prohibiting something by this fiat redefinition doesn't affect us, but the process by which an agent that wants to expand its authority by redefining a word gets away with it, has made itself greater and has made you and me smaller.

A redefinition process that allows government itself to remove a limit on federal authority is a problem not only limited to firearms.

I agree 110%.

 

[Mike38]

This is all totally predictable.

People should just quit trying to cheat.

As unpopular as that is in most any gun forum, I agree, but wouldn't use the word "cheat". I'd use "creative manipulation of law".

If you poke a hibernating bear with a stick, you may get away with it, once. If you keep poking that bear, it's going to wake up and it's going to be mad as hell. Bump stocks, forced reset triggers, pistol braces etc. are poking that sleeping bear. Let the bear sleep and he won't bother you.

 

[The Verminator]

Quote from confidential internal BATF files.
Identification of illegal weapons.
1. If the firearm looks like a duck,
2. Walks like a duck,
3. Quacks like a duck,
4. Trigger moves in one or more directions.
5. Goes rat a tat tat like a machine gun.
Analysis:
We conclude that it's a machine gun and you go to jail.

 

[ATN082268]

We lost another big chunk when Congress decided that violation of regulation was violation of the law.

I question the constitutionality of bureaucrats making law through regulations and/or the courts making law through rulings but it has been going on for so long that I assume that our courts would have struck one or both down if unconstitutional. Technically our Congress can override bureaucrats and impeach judges but it rarely happens because one party likes the position a bureaucrat or judge takes.

 

[zukiphile]

1. If the firearm looks like a duck,...

That doesn't sound like a rifle I want, but isn't the "looks like a duck" idea what brought us a ban on bayonet lugs, flash hiders and shoulder things that go up?

I question the constitutionality of bureaucrats making law through regulations and/or the courts making law through rulings but it has been going on for so long that I assume that our courts would have struck one or both down if unconstitutional. Technically our Congress can override bureaucrats and impeach judges but it rarely happens because one party likes the position a bureaucrat or judge takes.

For a quarter century, we've had the CRA (Congressional Review Act) that is designed to give Congress an opportunity to review regulations promulgated by agencies. The problem conceptually is that if only Congress has the ability to make laws under the COTUS, then a congressional act can't change that. (Even with the CRA, lots of major regulations weren't subjected to its requirements before a few years ago.)

One of the problems with federal law and regulation is that there is so much of it. If all the law a person needs to track is to not murder or speed, everyone knows the rules and real order is possible. If the law is so voluminous that no one person can know it all, and you can't make a decision without consulting a special priest to whom you've paid a bunch of money, that starts to look less like rule of law and more like a system in which your freedom to act exists at the pleasure of the state.


As to judges, you don't want judges who can be impeached and removed for the content of their opinions. That would make judges merely legislative extensions. Ideally, your claims are heard by a judge who reads and interprets the law and decides without regard to what legislators think about your claim.

As is true of agency regulation, we don't always achieve the ideal.

 

[Shane Tuttle]

Like you, I have no use for a machine gun. I'd go a step further and assert that a binary trigger is a product liability wet dream. The government prohibiting something by this fiat redefinition doesn't affect us, but the process by which an agent that wants to expand its authority by redefining a word gets away with it, has made itself greater and has made you and me smaller.

A redefinition process that allows government itself to remove a limit on federal authority is a problem not only limited to firearms.

Valid point. I'd like to have a full auto just to add to my armory. Otherwise, it doesn't serve me any real purpose. I may not need it. Someone else may, though. It's the fiat method you describe that the gov uses as a building block to practice overreach. That's my problem. And that's one reason why the Constitution and BOR have been trampled on.

 

[Skans]

I happen to like full-auto weapons. But, our legislators decided that We, The People, cannot any longer have any full-auto weapons made after 1986. Is that fair? Is that right? No, it's not!

So, I applaud all of these devices that come close to simulating full-auto fire. I particularly like the Echo and Binary triggers. They are ingeniously legal under the law and they really work.

Ammo is not scarce, it's become expensive due to inflation and hoarding. Ammo is some of the easiest stuff to mas produce. Once again, it is our politicians who have caused ammunition to be expensive and sometimes not available. In any event, I rather enjoy "wasting" ammo, especially 5.56, on occasion. It's not like anyone who is slow-firing their AR's are putting their ammo to any better use than I am.

 

[zukiphile]

I may not need it. Someone else may, though.

Or someone might just want it.

Some things trigger a desire in me that I don't think is sensible. A fast car or motorbike look like fun, but they are misery at legal speeds or during a crowded commute that is the bulk of my driving. A fully automatic rifle looks fun. Even "speed steel" looks like the people are having a blast, but I know that I enjoy slow fire formats. I thought about getting a suppressor last year, but I rarely shoot alone and I don't enjoy scrubbing parts; when would I ever use it?

It's amazing how old I got before I started to discern the differences amongst interests, abilities, needs, desires and fantasies.

 

[ATN082268]

As to judges, you don't want judges who can be impeached and removed for the content of their opinions. That would make judges merely legislative extensions.

If judges uphold the law made by lawmakers or legislature, doesn't that kind of make judges an extension of lawmakers or legislature?

 

[The Verminator]

If judges uphold the law made by lawmakers or legislature, doesn't that kind of make judges an extension of lawmakers or legislature?

Judges reject laws that are unconstitutional.

That's their job.

They are a check and balance to the lawmakers.

 

[zukiphile]

If judges uphold the law made by lawmakers or legislature, doesn't that kind of make judges an extension of lawmakers or legislature?

No, because it's a different function.

If a judge has a matter come before him between the state and a criminal defendant, or between a couple of parties in a civil matter, the ideal is that he applies the law is a way that is widely accepted and predictable by people who know the law. The judge's conclusions are ideally founded in the law itself.

If the state says you went 47mph through a 35mph zone, he should decide for or against you based on the evidence.

On the other hand, if the test of a judge is which side he hands an unprincipled victory to, and if he fails that test he is "fired" by the legislature, then he's just a political functionary. You can tell which way he will rule according to who the parties know. That's contrary to basic ideas of fairness and impartiality, and it's going to be less acceptable as dispute resolution.

If the state says you went 47mph through a 35mph zone, but the judge knows that he will be recalled if he convicts you because your father is a senator, his decision isn't really about the facts and the law.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

That doesn't sound like a rifle I want, but isn't the "looks like a duck" idea what brought us a ban on bayonet lugs, flash hiders and shoulder things that go up?

Not to mention protruding pistol grips, and telescoping stocks.

And BLACK!

 

[The Verminator]

Wise words.........don't cheat.

Don't poke or twist the tiger's tail.

Breakin' rocks in the hot sun ain't the worst of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0sI6eFarFE