UZI Talk Forums
+ Reply to Thread
Page 9 of 13 FirstFirst 1 9 13 LastLast
Results 161 to 180 of 259

Thread: New ar15 trigger slap inducing full auto simulator.

  1. #161
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    756
    Quote Originally Posted by ScottinTexas View Post
    Fighting the Feds is not a great plan.
    Someone has to, and not a whole lot of folks besides them are volunteering to do so.

  2. #162
    UZI Talk Life Member
    Jack007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    938
    Fighting the Feds is not a great plan.
    Get your shine box! Some jackboots need licking! You're a natural.
    "All that is necessary for evil to triumph, is for good men to do NOTHING!"
    Edmund Burke 1729-1797

  3. #163
    UZI Talk Life Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Near Houston, TX
    Posts
    2,790
    Fighting the Feds over a device that obviously turns a semi AR into a machine gun is not the hill I want to die on. Pick something legit and that you can defend to fight over; this thing is neither.
    My name is actually Scott and I really do live in Texas.

    I know, not very creative but it is factual.

    By the way - Facebook is truly evil; resist the urge to participate.

  4. #164
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    756
    Quote Originally Posted by ScottinTexas View Post
    Fighting the Feds over a device that obviously turns a semi AR into a machine gun is not the hill I want to die on. Pick something legit and that you can defend to fight over; this thing is neither.
    The legal definition of MG is it fires more than one shot for a single function of the trigger. ATF has already determined with "binary" triggers the pull and the release are separate and distinct "functions" or movements of the trigger and firing once on pull and again on release is still semi automatic fire, not an MG. This only fires on the pull stroke and has to be shoved forward again to reset before a subsequent shot can be fired when the trigger is pushed rearward again. Pull trigger, one function and bang. Bolt cycles and on the return stroke strikes a lever that forces the trigger forward again, second function. Trigger finger providing rearward force moves trigger back, gun fires with 3rd function of the trigger. Repeat until the trigger finger no longer pulls trigger. The first shot requires one function, each subsequent shot requires 2 functions, thus not an MG. Note the law is concerned only with the trigger function, it does not address anything else.

    How does a standard semi auto function? You pull the trigger it goes bang. When finger pressure is released, typically a spring moves the trigger forward again until it resets, at which point pulling the trigger to the rear again fires the gun and the trigger must again move forward to allow it to fire another shot on the pull after it resets.

    The only mechanical difference in actual function between the FRT15 and a standard semi auto trigger system is the internal mechanism is forcing the trigger forward much harder than a spring would and doing so by harnessing the force of the bolt closing instead of a spring.

    IOW, from the outside if one observes the trigger movements required to fire each shot, they are identical. The law states that how the trigger moves to fire more than one shot is the deciding factor on whether or not a gun is an MG or not.

  5. #165
    UZI Talk Life Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Southern New Hampshire
    Posts
    2,321
    Quote Originally Posted by slimshady View Post
    The only mechanical difference in actual function between the FRT15 and a standard semi auto trigger system is the internal mechanism is forcing the trigger forward much harder than a spring would and doing so by harnessing the force of the bolt closing instead of a spring.
    But that difference would be why the ATF seems to think that the FRT15 trigger is a machinegun conversion device (machinegun). With a M16 the trigger is pulled and held which causes the gun to fire until the trigger is released or the ammunition runs out. The law makes no reference to the finer points of the mechanism, simply the result. The M16 requires a constant pull and so does the FTR15 trigger in a semi auto AR. With both systems, the release of the hammer for repetitive rounds fired is different, but the results are the same. The definition makes no reference to function or mechanism, just the result. So it would seem to me, holding the trigger in one direction with multiple rounds fired, would tend to meet the definition of machinegun.

    Certainty I wish the owners of the FRT15 trigger system luck with their disagreement with the ATF. If this goes to court, the hired consultants will be helpful, but it still comes down to what is in the law. The Judicial Branch looks to the ATF for firearms information. The opinion of the ATF tends to carry more weight with the courts than that of knowledgeable individuals. Pulling the trigger and releasing the trigger has been determined to be two different "functions" of the trigger. At least from my research of the law continuous pull would tend to be considered one function. If they can convince a judge otherwise, because of semantics of trigger reset, hurray for them. Personally I would tend to think that would be very unlikely. Hopefully I am wrong. YMMV.

    Scott

  6. #166
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    368
    I guess we found the full semi-automatic that CNN liked to talk about.

  7. #167
    UZI Talk Life Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Near Houston, TX
    Posts
    2,790
    Quote Originally Posted by A&S Conversions View Post
    But that difference would be why the ATF seems to think that the FRT15 trigger is a machinegun conversion device (machinegun). With a M16 the trigger is pulled and held which causes the gun to fire until the trigger is released or the ammunition runs out. The law makes no reference to the finer points of the mechanism, simply the result. The M16 requires a constant pull and so does the FTR15 trigger in a semi auto AR. With both systems, the release of the hammer for repetitive rounds fired is different, but the results are the same. The definition makes no reference to function or mechanism, just the result. So it would seem to me, holding the trigger in one direction with multiple rounds fired, would tend to meet the definition of machinegun.

    Certainty I wish the owners of the FRT15 trigger system luck with their disagreement with the ATF. If this goes to court, the hired consultants will be helpful, but it still comes down to what is in the law. The Judicial Branch looks to the ATF for firearms information. The opinion of the ATF tends to carry more weight with the courts than that of knowledgeable individuals. Pulling the trigger and releasing the trigger has been determined to be two different "functions" of the trigger. At least from my research of the law continuous pull would tend to be considered one function. If they can convince a judge otherwise, because of semantics of trigger reset, hurray for them. Personally I would tend to think that would be very unlikely. Hopefully I am wrong. YMMV.

    Scott
    Well said; better than I could summarize.

    My opinion is that if the average Bubba - or myself - pulled the trigger and dumped a 30-rd mag with no additional conscious effort, or, had to struggle to release the trigger unnaturally to fire only a single round - then this gizmo is essentially a DIAS.

    I'm not going to die on that hill.
    My name is actually Scott and I really do live in Texas.

    I know, not very creative but it is factual.

    By the way - Facebook is truly evil; resist the urge to participate.

  8. #168
    UZI Talk Life Member
    Hey...'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    3,036
    Quote Originally Posted by A&S Conversions View Post
    But that difference would be why the ATF seems to think that the FRT15 trigger is a machinegun conversion device (machinegun). With a M16 the trigger is pulled and held which causes the gun to fire until the trigger is released or the ammunition runs out.The law makes no reference to the finer points of the mechanism, simply the result. The M16 requires a constant pull and so does the FTR15 trigger in a semi auto AR. With both systems, the release of the hammer for repetitive rounds fired is different, but the results are the same. The definition makes no reference to function or mechanism, just the result. So it would seem to me, holding the trigger in one direction with multiple rounds fired, would tend to meet the definition of machinegun.

    Certainty I wish the owners of the FRT15 trigger system luck with their disagreement with the ATF. If this goes to court, the hired consultants will be helpful, but it still comes down to what is in the law. The Judicial Branch looks to the ATF for firearms information. The opinion of the ATF tends to carry more weight with the courts than that of knowledgeable individuals. Pulling the trigger and releasing the trigger has been determined to be two different "functions" of the trigger. At least from my research of the law continuous pull would tend to be considered one function. If they can convince a judge otherwise, because of semantics of trigger reset, hurray for them. Personally I would tend to think that would be very unlikely. Hopefully I am wrong. YMMV.

    Scott
    Actually, the law as-written states function of the trigger.

    I consider your statement wrong. Any judge listening to the argument would have to rule in RBs favor. Only a judge with his head stuck in politics, or feelings, would decide against.

  9. #169
    UZI Talk Life Member
    Hey...'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    3,036
    Quote Originally Posted by ScottinTexas View Post
    I'm not going to die on that hill.
    You won’t die on any hill. You’ll die on a hospital bed.

  10. #170
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    756
    Quote Originally Posted by Hey... View Post
    Actually, the law as-written states function of the trigger.

    I consider your statement wrong. Any judge listening to the argument would have to rule in RBs favor. Only a judge with his head stuck in politics, or feelings, would decide against.
    Exactly. The law explicitly states the trigger has to fire more than one round after a single function to be an MG, which ATF themselves have interpreted as a movement in one direction and have stuck to that for decades. There is no mention of pull or even what is acting on the trigger to make it move in the definition. The only moving part that counts is the trigger movement and it has 3 different movements required to get 2 shots off with the FRT. If I pull the FRT back hard enough the trigger stays back, the bolt stays open and only one shot is fired. If it met the legal definition of an MG it would continue to fire until I released it.

  11. #171
    UZI Talk Life Member
    Jack007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    938
    You won’t die on any hill. You’ll die on a hospital bed.
    Yep!
    With "friends like that...".
    The sad state of affairs in today's "gun culture". Our enemies have thoroughly infiltrated us with fair weather allies. As time goes on, we will see more and more of the wheat being separated from the chaff.
    "All that is necessary for evil to triumph, is for good men to do NOTHING!"
    Edmund Burke 1729-1797

  12. #172
    UZI Talk Life Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Southern New Hampshire
    Posts
    2,321
    Quote Originally Posted by Hey... View Post
    Actually, the law as-written states function of the trigger.

    I consider your statement wrong. Any judge listening to the argument would have to rule in RBs favor. Only a judge with his head stuck in politics, or feelings, would decide against.
    You certainly entitled to your opinion. Maybe I am wrong. But my understanding is that the trigger is reset automatically. The operator of the firearm simply puts constant pressure on the trigger and multiple shots will be fired. If the reset of the trigger is automatically done by the mechanism not the operator of the firearm. Please explain to me how that is not a machinegun?

    Scott

  13. #173
    UZI Talk Life Member
    Hey...'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    3,036
    If you can’t see it already then you’re not worth my time.

  14. #174
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    756
    From the 6th circuit court of appeals decision regarding the ATF redefining full auto to include bumpstocks:

    https://news.bloomberglaw.com/white-...-appeals-court

    "the court disagreed with ATF’s interpretation of the law. “Single function of the trigger” refers to the mechanical process of the trigger, i.e. its depression, release, and resetting, the court said. A bump stock can’t be classified as a machine gun because it doesn’t enable a semiautomatic firearm to fire more than one shot each time the trigger goes through this cycle, the court added."

    In case you missed it, back in March the 6th circuit slapped AFTs peepee for banning bumpstocks and even said the lower court should have granted an injunction as the plaintiffs were likely to prevail over ATF. The language they inserted into the CFR as a "rule change" to redefine how MGs work was done to allow bumpstocks to be banned. From what I understand they are using this same rule change to go after this trigger, even though at least one circuit has already slapped it down.

    The plain language of the law and the 6th agrees: to be an MG the trigger has to be moved to the fire position and held there for for more than 1 round to be fired. If the trigger has to move back and reset before the second round fires, it's not an MG. This trigger has to have the trigger move forward and reset for each shot, if you pull it as hard as you can the trip lever the bolt carrier hits to reset the trigger simply stops the forward carrier movement and you get 1 shot and the bolt partially open. If you release the trigger and the recoil spring is strong enough, the bolt closes and the trigger resets.
    Last edited by slimshady; 08-15-2021 at 09:08 PM.

  15. #175
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    39
    What options do the people who bought them have at this point? I am curious to see how far RBT is able to argue the legality.
    It doesn't look good tho.
    Should a person destroy it now?
    Should a person wait and will the atf gives them a choice to turn it in or destroy it at that time?
    The felony option is not a wise one....
    Last edited by macrobert; 08-16-2021 at 10:04 PM.

  16. #176
    UZI Talk Life Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Near Houston, TX
    Posts
    2,790
    That's a good explanation. I found a slo-mo video of this trigger vs. a FA lower and the difference in the trigger / finger motion is subtle but observable. Seems like the BATF is struggling with how to deal with the automated reset action that wasn't contemplated by the original verbiage.

    However, assuming bumpstocks ultimately become contraband, so will this. Which leads me to my personal philosophy: If you want a machine gun, buy one and pay the tax. History shows that clever shortcuts are likely to end up with undesirable consequences. Pay your money and take your chances.
    My name is actually Scott and I really do live in Texas.

    I know, not very creative but it is factual.

    By the way - Facebook is truly evil; resist the urge to participate.

  17. #177
    UZI Talk Life Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Near Houston, TX
    Posts
    2,790
    Quote Originally Posted by macrobert View Post
    What options do the people who bought them have at this point? I am curious to see how far RBT is able to argue the legality.
    It doesn't look good tho.
    I'm no lawyer but the BATF has put owners on 'notice' via the letter. But this will end up in court and take a year or more to resolve. Look at the bumpstock debacle. And our courts are so political that nobody can predict the ultimate outcome.

    But don't expect any input / help / $ from RBT. They're insulating themselves from any liability to their customers. That's maybe the real crime here, if there is one; the buyers end up having to decide if they need to have a real or imaginary 'boating accident'.

    I'll tell you this much: I have had a call and email from a BATF inspector about a DD and this is the last thing you want. All the potential negative consequences for you (fine, Club Fed, legal fees, loss of all firearms) makes fighting them over one of these things irrational.
    My name is actually Scott and I really do live in Texas.

    I know, not very creative but it is factual.

    By the way - Facebook is truly evil; resist the urge to participate.

  18. #178
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    756
    What letter? Has any owner gotten a letter from AFT?

    One of the problems with ATF flip flopping is people buy these items in good faith and later through no fault or action on their part the item becomes illegal according to ATF. Some owners are active on gun forums and such and are fully aware what is going down. Others will have no idea there is a problem and continue on blissfully unaware that toy in the closet is worth 10 years in Club Fed.

    "How can it be illegal, I bought it down at Farm and Fleet 10 years ago, it said ATF approved right on the box!"

  19. #179
    Registered User OldBesty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Wesley Chapel, FL
    Posts
    736
    court date is reported set for tomorrow, 8/18, U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida

  20. #180
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    368
    Quote Originally Posted by OldBesty View Post
    court date is reported set for tomorrow, 8/18, U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida
    I've been following this on pacermonitor.com. Looks like it's delayed.

    "ENDORSED ORDER granting Plaintiffs' ore tenus Motion to Amend Complaint. On or before August 27, 2021, at 2:00 PM, Plaintiffs may file an Amended Complaint. The Preliminary Injunction Hearing scheduled for August 18, 2021, and all associated deadlines, are cancelled. On or before September 10, 2021, Defendants may file a Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 2). Signed by Judge Carlos E. Mendoza on 8/13/2021. (KMS)"

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts


Please consider becoming an UZI Talk Supporter.