Bypass Congress to take your guns, here is how:

[dogtown tom]

Tennessee Gentleman What about Shockwaves and the Remington version? Those were based on BATFE rules which Bdien could change?

Nope.
Biden can't change ATF regulations. ATF regulations, like all government regulations must be based on an enabling federal law.

The Shockwave and Remington TAC14 would have been legal if made in 1934 because they do not meet the definition of rifle/shotgun/handgun in the Gun Control Act of 1968, nor do they meet the definition of any firearm in the National Firearms Act of 1934.

 

[shurshot]

But, isn't it accurate to say that they no longer meet the definition based upon their NAME and not what they actually are? In my mind, if it fires a 20 gauge shotgun shell out of a smooth bore and isn't chambered to fire any other round, whether it's called a "shotgun" or not, it's still a shotgun. It's a matter of Semantics vs. Definition, right?
I had a Tac14 20 and sold it recently as I anticipated a hassle with the forthcoming Administration change... and truth be told, it was kind of useless.

 

[dogtown tom]

shurshot But, isn't it accurate to say that they no longer meet the definition based upon their NAME and not what they actually are?

Nope.
I can build a gun, name it a machine gun and guess what.....it ain't a machine gun unless it meets the definition if machine gun.

In my mind, if it fires a 20 gauge shotgun shell out of a smooth bore and isn't chambered to fire any other round, whether it's called a "shotgun" or not, it's still a shotgun. It's a matter of Semantics vs. Definition, right?

Semantics are not part of federal law or ATF regulations, definitions are.

 

[shurshot]

I respectfully disagree Dogtown. It appears that Semantics DO play a role, hence the recent reversal in definitions pertaining to TAC14 "Firearms", 80% kits and "arm braces" on short barreled AR's "pistols". The definitions were previously interpreted one way, based upon Semantics, now its changing, largely due to how the items are and can be used.

Is a machine gun defined as such by the name, or by it's function? Function, correct, as you wrote? So the Tac14, fires a shotgun shell... and nothing else, right? Calling it a rifle doesn't make it so, and the definition of "firearm", is rather vague. We all know in reality it's a sawed off shotgun pistol. So how do we "define" the Tac14? See my point?

 

[dogtown tom]

shurshot I respectfully disagree Dogtown. It appears that Semantics DO play a role, hence the recent reversal in definitions pertaining to TAC14 "Firearms", 80% kits and "arm braces" on short barreled AR's "pistols".

There has been no reversal in definitions for the TAC 14, 80% kits or arm braces. Why? Because those aren't defined in federal law or ATF regulation now or in the past.

The definitions were previously interpreted one way, based upon Semantics, now its changing, largely due to how the items are and can be used.

You are confusing definitions in federal law/ATF regs with determinations made by ATF Technical Branch/FATD. They are not the same thing. A "determination" by FATF is merely an opinion of how a particular firearm is classified when compared to the definitions in federal law/ATF regs. For example:
Bumpstocks- never defined in federal law, and when examined by ATF were determined to NOT meet the definition of machine gun. Trump ordered ATF to rewrite the definition of "machinegun" to include bumpstocks.

To make the Tac14 a "shotgun" would require rewriting the definition of "shotgun"......and that hasn't happened.

Is a machine gun defined as such by the name, or by it's function? Function, correct, as you wrote?

Really? Have you read the definition of machine gun in ATF regs?
Here it is:

Machine gun. 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. For purposes of this definition, the term “automatically” as it modifies “shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot,” means functioning as the result of a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that allows the firing of multiple rounds through a single function of the trigger; and “single function of the trigger” means a single pull of the trigger and analogous motions. The term “machine gun” includes a bump-stock-type device, i.e., a device that allows a semi-automatic firearm to shoot more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of the semi-automatic firearm to which it is affixed so that the trigger resets and continues firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter.

Thats the definition.

So the Tac14, fires a shotgun shell... and nothing else, right? Calling it a rifle doesn't make it so, and the definition of "firearm", is rather vague.

It's not vague in the least, as long as you are willing to read the definitions:
https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=a0593b1d1f97ff276b40f1c830ab4b84&mc=true&node=se27.3.478_111&rgn=div8
Does the TAC14 meet the definition of:
Rifle? Nope
Pistol or revolver? Nope
Shotgun? Nope
AOW? Nope
SBS? Nope
SBR? Nope
Machine Gun? Nope
Silencer? Nope
Destructive Device? Nope
Firearm? Why yes it does.

We all know in reality it's a sawed off shotgun pistol.

Really? We all DON'T KNOW that. Only those ignorant of how firearms are defined in federal law would assume that.

So how do we "define" the Tac14? See my point?

By reading the definitions. It aint hard.

 

[44 AMP]

Here's an example of commonly understood definitions, vs. actual technical definitions..(non firearms related)

Ever been on an Army base? How many trucks do you think are on post??

By the Army's definition, (n the 70s) there are two. (2) They are the pulleys on the base commander's flagpole. (lesser command flagpoies are not counted)

Those hundreds or thousands of wheeled things we all think of as trucks are not "trucks" under the Army definition, they are "vehicles".

Thanks to the wording of the laws, the ATF has a rather convoluted system of definitions and often is at odds with the commonly understood terms and usages.

AND, as noted, is subject to a significant degree of change, without changing the actual laws.

 

[shurshot]

Dogtown, Your missing my point (or I didn't clarify it well enough for you to understand) and this seems to be going in another direction, a very negative one. No interest in continuing if you want to debate Semantics vs definition over what the Tac14 is and or go into personal digs / attacks. Have a good day.

 

[TXAZ]

Shurshot
I don’t see dogtown’s reply as digs, but a sharing of his encyclopedic knowledge on “the rules”.

So Dogtown, Someone can build for themselves an unserialized “Schumer-Pelosi UltraEvil Black FullAuto*Assault Weapon(tm)”, that fires up to 30 rounds / second (if you can cycle the bolt and pull the trigger that fast).

Still legal correct?

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Care to look at how the definition of "machine gun" can be made to encompass binary triggers? What's the start of the definition of "machine gun"?

Machine gun. 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.

So let's play semantics. What is a "single function" of the trigger? Those who are advocating for binary triggers are, I believe, taking the approach that pulling the trigger is one function, and releasing the trigger is another, separate function.

Really?

How often do you fire any firearm without releasing the trigger and allowing it to return to the rest, or starting, position? Looking at this as a semi-professional writer and editor (which I have been for about 40 years), I have to say that IMHO it would not be any stretch at all for the BATFE to determine that a "single function of the trigger" encompasses both pulling the trigger and allowing it to return. [In other words, one full cycle.] That would mean that a binary trigger fires two shots with a single function of the trigger.

Oops.

I posted in another thread that people who pull the tiger's tail shouldn't be surprised when the tiger turns around and takes a bite out of them.

You can't discuss definitions without discussing semantics. "Semantics" is the study of meanings. Words have meanings. In federal, and most state, laws, it is not uncommon for a law to start off by defining what various words mean for the purposes of that particular law. When that occurs, it doesn't make any difference what Merriam-Webster or the Oxford Dictionary or the Cambridge dictionary say the word means. For the purposes of that law, the words mean what the definitions in the law say they mean. It's not arguing semantics to point this out. It's just reading the law.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

There has been no reversal in definitions for the TAC 14

Yet

Trump ordered ATF to rewrite the definition of "machinegun" to include bumpstocks.

And can't Biden do the same thing?

 

[dogtown tom]

shurshot Dogtown, Your missing my point (or I didn't clarify it well enough for you to understand) and this seems to be going in another direction, a very negative one.

I don't think I'm missing anything. You want ATF regs and federal law to match how YOU define a particular firearm or how YOU understand the meaning. It just doesn't work that way.

When I point out what the law actually says you think its going in a negative direction?

No interest in continuing if you want to debate Semantics vs definition over what the Tac14 is and or go into personal digs / attacks. Have a good day.

Sorry, but I think you really need to debate ATF. All I can do is point out what federal law and ATF consider the TAC14 and why that is.
You'll be shocked at what you would consider a shotgun (because it fires a shotgun shell) and what ATF considers as a Destructive Device.

 

[dogtown tom]

Aguila Blanca Care to look at how the definition of "machine gun" can be made to encompass binary triggers? What's the start of the definition of "machine gun"?

Quote:
Machine gun. 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.
So let's play semantics. What is a "single function" of the trigger? Those who are advocating for binary triggers are, I believe, taking the approach that pulling the trigger is one function, and releasing the trigger is another, separate function.

Really?

I believe ATF currently believes the pull is a separate function than the release. Hence the current legality of binary triggers.

How often do you fire any firearm without releasing the trigger and allowing it to return to the rest, or starting, position?

I'm pretty sure we do that on every firearm.

Looking at this as a semi-professional writer and editor (which I have been for about 40 years), I have to say that IMHO it would not be any stretch at all for the BATFE to determine that a "single function of the trigger" encompasses both pulling the trigger and allowing it to return. [In other words, one full cycle.] That would mean that a binary trigger fires two shots with a single function of the trigger.

I'm not sure why you would need to be a writer, but I agree, I've always believed the single function encompassed the complete act of pulling and releasing the trigger. But oddly, ATF Tech people don't.

I posted in another thread that people who pull the tiger's tail shouldn't be surprised when the tiger turns around and takes a bite out of them.

Yet, the tiger writes the rules.
If federal law changes, ATF can rewrite regulations. Definitions can change and do. Determinations can change when the staff attorney or a Tech Branch employee changes.

You can't discuss definitions without discussing semantics. "Semantics" is the study of meanings. Words have meanings. In federal, and most state, laws, it is not uncommon for a law to start off by defining what various words mean for the purposes of that particular law. When that occurs, it doesn't make any difference what Merriam-Webster or the Oxford Dictionary or the Cambridge dictionary say the word means. For the purposes of that law, the words mean what the definitions in the law say they mean. It's not arguing semantics to point this out. It's just reading the law

True.
Thats why what "we" consider a shotgun has no bearing, its how ATF defines shotgun that does.

 

[shurshot]

Yes, Semantics. It does indeed make a difference. And some like to manipulate situations using Semantics. . Remember this...?

"It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the—if he—if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not—that is one thing".(Bill Clinton).

 

[dogtown tom]

Tennessee Gentleman

Quote:
Originally Posted by dogtown tom
There has been no reversal in definitions for the TAC 14

Yet

"Yet" could apply to every ATF regulation. That the definition of machine gun was redefined to include bumpstocks is currently in litigation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogtown tom
Trump ordered ATF to rewrite the definition of "machinegun" to include bumpstocks.

And can't Biden do the same thing?

If so, be scared.
Trump in four years managed to implement more anti Second Amendment actions than Obama did in eight years.

 

[dogtown tom]

shurshot Yes, Semantics. It does indeed make a difference. And some like to manipulate situations using Semantics.

"It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the—if he—if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not—that is one thing".(Bill Clinton).

Semantics would make a difference if certain words were not specifically defined in federal law or ATF regs. In that case, I believe the courts have held that words or terms not statutorily defined are customarily given their ordinary meanings, usually derived from a dictionary.

As shotgun, rifle, pistol, etc ARE defined in the law and regulations, your ordinary meaning of the word "shotgun" wouldn't apply to the TAC14.

 

[shurshot]

"You can't discuss definitions without discussing semantics. "Semantics" is the study of meanings. Words have meanings. In federal, and most state, laws, it is not uncommon for a law to start off by defining what various words mean for the purposes of that particular law."(AB)

YES! That's what I tried to and should have said. Thanks AB.

 

[shurshot]

Ok, I'll try one more time to explain how Semantics does indeed come into play. Apparently I didn't give an example, explain it in detail and my point was missed.

The Tac14 did NOT say "Shotgun" anywhere on it, or on the box. It had a letter from ATF stating it was a legal. Had the 20 gauge shotgun shell firing, short barreled, pump action smooth bore, pistol gripped "firearm" had the word SHOTGUN written anywhere on it, it would have been classified as a short barreled shotgun pistol, WHICH IT IS, but it didn't, as semantics were used to define it as and call it a "firearm". It was a technicality, a play on words in the description... that allowed it to avoid being classified as a short barreled shotgun pistol "AOW".

Otherwise it would be considered the same as the J. Steven's .410 Autoshot, the H&R .410 Handigun or the Ithaca Autoburgler 20 gauge, all shotgun pistols, all requiring ATF registration under the 1934 law. This was the point I was trying to make pertaining to Semantics.

The Tac14... It's still a short barreled shotgun pistol... no matter how it is defined or described at the moment by ATF. I know, until recently, I owned one. Pretty hard to hold it and pretend it isn't.

ATF can classify the Tac14 as a "Firearm" and not a short barreled shotgun pistol if they wish. You can also put lipstick and yoga pants on a pig, assign pronouns and call her Suzy, but at the end of the day... it's still just a pig.

"Definitions can change and do. Determinations can change when the staff attorney or a Tech Branch employee changes."(Dogtown)

Correct. Lots of changes ARE forthcoming, like it or not. I predict in the next 8 years, the number of FFL dealers will diminish as more end up being closed down and forced out of buisness by ATF due to minor infractions, clerical errors, technicalities, etc. The rules will become more confusing and the enforcement FAR more intense and aggressive. The agenda was already planned. The pendulum is now swinging in the other direction... hard.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I believe ATF currently believes the pull is a separate function than the release. Hence the current legality of binary triggers.

I believe you are correct.

I also believe that it would not require an act of Congress to change that determination into considering a full cycle of the trigger (pull and release) as the "single function." Take a "standard" firearm -- say a 1911. To fire it once, you pull the trigger, and hold it. Now you want to fire it again ... but you can't, because the sear hasn't reset. To reset it, you have to release the trigger.

I'm just suggesting that the BATFE could determine that the "single function" includes both pulling the trigger and releasing it -- a complete cycle.

Yet, the tiger writes the rules.

That's why it's not smart to pull the tiger's tail. Or to poke the bear, or whatever other metaphor you wish to use.

 

[dogtown tom]

shurshot ....Had the 20 gauge shotgun shell firing, short barreled, pump action smooth bore, pistol gripped "firearm" had the word SHOTGUN written anywhere on it, it would have been classified as a short barreled shotgun pistol,

Hogwash.
What's engraved, written or marked on a firearm does not define it.
You can buy stripped AR lowers or complete AR rifles or pistols with "Full auto" selector markings....that doesn't make them machine guns.

WHICH IT IS, but it didn't, as semantics were used to define it as and call it a "firearm". It was a technicality, a play on words in the description... that allowed it to avoid being classified as a short barreled shotgun pistol "AOW".

Again, it isn't semantics, but the actual freaking definition. Not a "play on words".
And FYI there is no such thing as a "short barrelled shotgun pistol AOW".
Until you read the definitions and understand the differences between the various types of firearms your arguments fail.

Earlier you wrote:
"In my mind, if it fires a 20 gauge shotgun shell out of a smooth bore and isn't chambered to fire any other round, whether it's called a "shotgun" or not, it's still a shotgun."
Now you call it "a short barreled shotgun pistol "AOW" "? Which is it? Your own semantics are changing.

Otherwise it would be considered the same as the J. Steven's .410 Autoshot, the H&R .410 Handigun or the Ithaca Autoburgler 20 gauge, all shotgun pistols, all requiring ATF registration under the 1934 law. This was the point I was trying to make pertaining to Semantics.

Again, you either have not read the definitions or you fail to understand why the TAC14 IS NOT the same type of firearm as the Handigun or Autoburgler.
Why? OVERALL LENGTH my friend. The TAC14 and the Mossberg Shockwave avoid being AOW's like the Handigun or Autoburgler because they exceed 26"OAL. Thats the reason for the birdshead grip.

The Tac14... It's still a short barreled shotgun pistol... no matter how it is defined or described at the moment by ATF. I know, until recently, I owned one. Pretty hard to hold it and pretend it isn't.

What you think it is or is not is irrelevant.

ATF can classify the Tac14 as a "Firearm" and not a short barreled shotgun pistol if they wish. You can also put lipstick and yoga pants on a pig, assign pronouns and call her Suzy, but at the end of the day... it's still just a pig.

Sure they can. That's what Congress has told them they have to do. And being THATS THE LAW, your opinion is worthless as to the legality. No one really cares what you or I consider a firearm to be, its what federal law or ATF regs say it is.

"Definitions can change and do. Determinations can change when the staff attorney or a Tech Branch employee changes."(Dogtown)

Correct. Lots of changes ARE forthcoming, like it or not. I predict in the next 8 years, the number of FFL dealers will diminish as more end up being closed down and forced out of buisness by ATF due to minor infractions, clerical errors, technicalities, etc.

Really? A prediction based on what? Eight years of Obama and did the number of licensed dealers go up or down? It went up.

The rules will become more confusing and the enforcement FAR more intense and aggressive. The agenda was already planned. The pendulum is now swinging in the other direction... hard.

OMG THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!
I've been hearing that for the dozen years I've been an FFL. The pendulum swung farther under Trump than it did Obama.

 

[zukiphile]

I'm just suggesting that the BATFE could determine that the "single function" includes both pulling the trigger and releasing it -- a complete cycle.

In a world in which a wetland can be a parking lot in which a cattail grew after a flood a couple of summers ago, and never since, it doesn't take a lot of imagination to foresee encroachments that don't require explicit congressional approval. Where the end is a change in substantive policy and practice, the accepted meaning of a few words is unlikely to be a lasting obstacle.