Introducing the m/45SA Swedish K SBR
- Thread starter GreaseGunner
- Start date
“Rule” is court language. SCOTUS already addressed a very similar situation in the bumpstock case and found that current statutes defining machine guns did not apply. Distinctions can be made, but for the most part, the reasoning applies equally to an FRT.
You probably know more than me on the topic but it was my understanding that the Supreme Court ruled that the bump stock didn’t meet the CURRENT definition of a machinegun. So, if congress changes the definition then they could be challenged again. If the definition is changed, who knows that they could do to the Nfa machinegun community then.
Again I’m not an expert and please correct me if I’m wrong.
As for the Swedish k, I’ve always wanted one and yours looks awesome. I’m must admit its outside my budget though.
Gotta add this strong data point from this year. MGs arent protected by the 2nd so says:
https://www.courthousenews.com/sixth-circuit-says-second-amendment-doesnt-cover-machine-guns/
That wasn't a very good case, what with the court concluding that shooting at police with his Glock switch made it unusually dangerous. In any event that is just one district, and just going by the article it looks like they didn't properly apply bruen. A circuit court split is one of the best ways to get a case before The supreme Court. Hopefully one that doesn't involve a criminal that likes to shoot at cops.
I think the NFA will fall. I always have. Things are moving that way.
I do get tired of hearing MG people hating on FRTs and telling other people which MGS should exist.
I promise that if you hand me a M16 and a AR15 w/ FRT, I could tell you which is which blindfolded.
GG, good job on the semi M45 SBR. I came real close to making one once. I wish I had not sold the parts cause I would have put a Ar15 FCG and SS in it.
I do get tired of hearing MG people hating on FRTs and telling other people which MGS should exist.
I promise that if you hand me a M16 and a AR15 w/ FRT, I could tell you which is which blindfolded.
GG, good job on the semi M45 SBR. I came real close to making one once. I wish I had not sold the parts cause I would have put a Ar15 FCG and SS in it.
Matt, yer the best! Agreed, we should not be eating our young and MG ownership has almost reached the point of the common person not being able to afford it—we’re going to turn into a community of wealthy folks and SOTs.I think the NFA will fall. I always have. Things are moving that way.
I do get tired of hearing MG people hating on FRTs and telling other people which MGS should exist.
I promise that if you hand me a M16 and a AR15 w/ FRT, I could tell you which is which blindfolded.
GG, good job on the semi M45 SBR. I came real close to making one once. I wish I had not sold the parts cause I would have put a Ar15 FCG and SS in it.
In my post above I'm sure I came across as hating FRTs. I wish they would be solidly legal. I would buy more than one if so. My opinion though is that they will eventually be banned by most states or Federally determined illegal. I almost bought one but decided I do not like the prospects of me being able to keep it and would I get a refund?
GreaseGunner
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2019
- Messages
- 222
Well the blame for this costs of this hobby rests on those who make MG’s an “investment” and treat them like the stock market. But on the flip side it’s no different than classic cars, motorcycles, boats, side by sides, whatever-if you really want something, then you can find a way to get it. I’m 39 and worked two jobs my entire adult life so I can have the “toys” that I have.
Let’s not go down this age old rabbit hole as every single one of these FRT/SS leads to or how the “NFA just isn’t fair because it costs too much” I’m sorry my response ruffled feathers. I don’t give a crap about the FRT/SS gimmick (I have two for demo use) but I do care when that’s all anyone can think of anymore and it’ll be one more “loop hole” exposed that makes the next AWB more ironclad…then the same ones screaming “give me my FRT” will be screaming “it’s not fair you took my loop hole away”
Let’s not go down this age old rabbit hole as every single one of these FRT/SS leads to or how the “NFA just isn’t fair because it costs too much” I’m sorry my response ruffled feathers. I don’t give a crap about the FRT/SS gimmick (I have two for demo use) but I do care when that’s all anyone can think of anymore and it’ll be one more “loop hole” exposed that makes the next AWB more ironclad…then the same ones screaming “give me my FRT” will be screaming “it’s not fair you took my loop hole away”
On the contrary, we need to get FRTs out there and in huge numbers. Rare Breed has already put in the record that they alone sold 103,000 triggers before ATF shut them down. There are dozens of manufacturers now selling their own version. People are 3D printing them on their own. When one came out for the tx22 Taurus, it became the number one selling handgun in the United States for several months now, I highly suspect a large number of those are going to be firing pretty quick.
The only reason machine guns are allowed to be regulated according to the supreme Court is because they are dangerous and unusual. All firearms are dangerous, that's kind of the point. So they also have to be unusual. With the number of civilian transferable machine guns capped they can always rule that there are not enough to be in common use. That's the key right there. Common use.
What you really need is an actual manufacturer to start cranking out basic AR-15s with the three position rotary super safety as factory standard. It gets them in the hands of anybody who wants one without having to do any hand fitting or anything. Hard to believe that there are some people out there who will only buy something that's ready to go. It also eliminates the argument that a trigger system is an accessory added after the fact, we now have a firearm manufactured with one.
We also need to get a reliable factory made .22LR model out there for the people who can't afford to blow up a few hundred dollars worth of ammo in 2 minutes.
Once they can't touch FRTs you also weaken the argument that machine guns are unusual.
The only reason machine guns are allowed to be regulated according to the supreme Court is because they are dangerous and unusual. All firearms are dangerous, that's kind of the point. So they also have to be unusual. With the number of civilian transferable machine guns capped they can always rule that there are not enough to be in common use. That's the key right there. Common use.
What you really need is an actual manufacturer to start cranking out basic AR-15s with the three position rotary super safety as factory standard. It gets them in the hands of anybody who wants one without having to do any hand fitting or anything. Hard to believe that there are some people out there who will only buy something that's ready to go. It also eliminates the argument that a trigger system is an accessory added after the fact, we now have a firearm manufactured with one.
We also need to get a reliable factory made .22LR model out there for the people who can't afford to blow up a few hundred dollars worth of ammo in 2 minutes.
Once they can't touch FRTs you also weaken the argument that machine guns are unusual.
Glock switches have always been unregistered machine guns. There are popular among our urban Utes precisely because they fit a popular easily obtained handgun with easily available 33 round extended magazines. They are easily concealed, something that is valuable in situations where you can be arrested for having it. As we see in the FBI crime statistics you're more likely to be killed by being stomped to death than with a rifle or shotgun of any type.
While we might see some criminal use of the handgun FRTs any rifle use would be statistically insignificant. In any event that becomes irrelevant once we get enough out in the wild they become common use. Handguns in general are the number one choice of criminals but you can't ban handguns because they are in common use and are the number one choice for lawful self-defense as well.
And Glock switches have the advantage of early adoption and market saturation. Are they going to change over to something else even if it's available?
While we might see some criminal use of the handgun FRTs any rifle use would be statistically insignificant. In any event that becomes irrelevant once we get enough out in the wild they become common use. Handguns in general are the number one choice of criminals but you can't ban handguns because they are in common use and are the number one choice for lawful self-defense as well.
And Glock switches have the advantage of early adoption and market saturation. Are they going to change over to something else even if it's available?
I'll be in the minority but I remember when the industry and people within it knew how to police themselves so we didn't end up with events like Route 91 that bring hell down upon the entire industry and not just some NFA work around gimmick toy.
IMO if you're running an FRT you can't claim to be "law abiding" because you're very clearly violating the spirit of the law if not the law it's self with these gimmicky toys and it's just a matter of time before some nut case uses one in a high body count mass casualty event and they pass some sweeping law against ALL firearms that act like machine guns including NFA registered items.
First off any law that restricts an individual from having any handheld firearm that he desires to possess without being individually determined through due process to not be trusted with it is facially unconstitutional. This is per the actual wording of the second amendment and the supreme Court Bruen decision.
Also when one considers at the time of the founding the militia was the primary means of military defense of the United States, standing armies being dangerous to Liberty, the argument that the founding fathers would never allow people to have machine guns is patently ludicrous. That's like saying the Army shouldn't be allowed to have them because at that time they were the army.
Why on Earth would they handicap themselves when they were betting the very existence of the United States on civilians owning guns that were at least on par with the ones they would be facing? In addition privately owned warships and cannons abounded, the United States basically legalizing piracy as long as you had a government document authorizing it on their behalf and they bought or borrowed many a Cannon also.
They were also aware of fast firing guns of the time because people tried to sell them to the government. No regulation, that didn't happen until 1934 long after the era Bruen allows for contemporary laws to be considered. The actual ban on new machine guns is actually much newer, 1986. As far as I know every supreme Court decision and most lower Court decisions on machine guns use the outdated tests and legal theories that predate Heller and everything that followed.
Second, laws are written to prohibit something, not to allow it. If the law is silent on something, it is explicitly allowed. The definition of machine gun is specific, you move the trigger and hold it there and if it continues to fire more than one shot it is a machine gun. Full stop, absolutely nothing else is a machine gun no matter what mechanism it uses or method as long as the trigger, defined as the part that initiates the firing sequence, has to be moved for each shot. That is not a so-called loophole, that is the law being silent on any other type of fast firing mechanism. And thus explicitly allowed.
Third, the only possible way machine guns or other NFA items can be considered to not be covered by the second amendment is that old dangerous and unusual or not in common use thing brought up by Heller. It is precisely because the government acted early to curb the number of these particular firearms that they are not in common use and are considered unusual. Look at the popularity of these devices these days, if you could go into any gun store and buy an M16 for $5 more to cover the extra part and walk out with it how many AR-15s you think they would sell? They have a selector on them, if you don't want to or can't afford to blow away a few hundred dollars in a sitting you don't have to. They would be common as dirt considering the number of AR-15 sold in the United States. It is that artificial scarcity caused by the previous laws that might allow machine guns to be considered not protected by the second amendment.
And fourth it is these not a machine gun devices' popularity without any meaningful government regulation yet that offers a glimmer of hope to get machine guns off of the NFA or at least get rid of the ban on new ones. Rare Breed alone sold over 100,000 before ATF told them to stop. How many bump stocks existed prior to the changing of the regulation? Supreme Court has said bump stocks are not machine guns, precisely because they require a separate movement of the trigger for each shot.
This also directly applies to FRTs, they require the same thing. Bump stocks came back on the market over a year ago, FRTs by whatever mechanism they use are extremely popular, how many makers are there these days? It would not surprise me if by the end of the year there are close to a million if not more legal not a machine guns out there. By the time any federal legislation could get passed and signed by the president there will be a metric shit ton of them out there. Not unusual, in common use, and presumptively constitutionally protected by the second amendment.
They are going to have a major uphill battle trying to get them banned with a law that will stick. The absolute worst thing they could do from their viewpoint is not create a separate category of NFA for these alone, if they simply change the definition of machine gun to include these they have now added a million or more legally defined machine guns to those out there, making machine guns the same common and not unusual guns. There goes any NFA on them as well.
The best chance for overturning the NFA in my lifetime is right now. Congress has already reduced the tax on everything but machine guns and DD's to zero. They tried to eliminate the registration as well but were blocked by procedural roadblocks. We have at least a somewhat gun friendly supreme Court lineup right now, at least one that looks to the original laws instead of making things up as they go along like many of the lower courts do. If we can get the right case with a sympathetic guy on our side of the argument there's a very good chance things will go back to the way they were pre-1934.
And all this hinges on making something sell so well it is in common use. Instead of complaining about the existence of them which is not going to go away you should be buying as many as you can afford.
As for not wanting our criminals and urban Utes to have machine guns, with the appearance of the Glock switch and the easy manufacture of it they are as common as dirt in places like Chicago. They are already illegal and like the flow of drugs across the border they can't stop it either. Rifles which are the main focus of FRTs are used in so few crimes it is statistically insignificant. You're more likely to get stomped to death by a pair of heavy boots, perhaps we should start regulating who can buy work boots?
Also when one considers at the time of the founding the militia was the primary means of military defense of the United States, standing armies being dangerous to Liberty, the argument that the founding fathers would never allow people to have machine guns is patently ludicrous. That's like saying the Army shouldn't be allowed to have them because at that time they were the army.
Why on Earth would they handicap themselves when they were betting the very existence of the United States on civilians owning guns that were at least on par with the ones they would be facing? In addition privately owned warships and cannons abounded, the United States basically legalizing piracy as long as you had a government document authorizing it on their behalf and they bought or borrowed many a Cannon also.
They were also aware of fast firing guns of the time because people tried to sell them to the government. No regulation, that didn't happen until 1934 long after the era Bruen allows for contemporary laws to be considered. The actual ban on new machine guns is actually much newer, 1986. As far as I know every supreme Court decision and most lower Court decisions on machine guns use the outdated tests and legal theories that predate Heller and everything that followed.
Second, laws are written to prohibit something, not to allow it. If the law is silent on something, it is explicitly allowed. The definition of machine gun is specific, you move the trigger and hold it there and if it continues to fire more than one shot it is a machine gun. Full stop, absolutely nothing else is a machine gun no matter what mechanism it uses or method as long as the trigger, defined as the part that initiates the firing sequence, has to be moved for each shot. That is not a so-called loophole, that is the law being silent on any other type of fast firing mechanism. And thus explicitly allowed.
Third, the only possible way machine guns or other NFA items can be considered to not be covered by the second amendment is that old dangerous and unusual or not in common use thing brought up by Heller. It is precisely because the government acted early to curb the number of these particular firearms that they are not in common use and are considered unusual. Look at the popularity of these devices these days, if you could go into any gun store and buy an M16 for $5 more to cover the extra part and walk out with it how many AR-15s you think they would sell? They have a selector on them, if you don't want to or can't afford to blow away a few hundred dollars in a sitting you don't have to. They would be common as dirt considering the number of AR-15 sold in the United States. It is that artificial scarcity caused by the previous laws that might allow machine guns to be considered not protected by the second amendment.
And fourth it is these not a machine gun devices' popularity without any meaningful government regulation yet that offers a glimmer of hope to get machine guns off of the NFA or at least get rid of the ban on new ones. Rare Breed alone sold over 100,000 before ATF told them to stop. How many bump stocks existed prior to the changing of the regulation? Supreme Court has said bump stocks are not machine guns, precisely because they require a separate movement of the trigger for each shot.
This also directly applies to FRTs, they require the same thing. Bump stocks came back on the market over a year ago, FRTs by whatever mechanism they use are extremely popular, how many makers are there these days? It would not surprise me if by the end of the year there are close to a million if not more legal not a machine guns out there. By the time any federal legislation could get passed and signed by the president there will be a metric shit ton of them out there. Not unusual, in common use, and presumptively constitutionally protected by the second amendment.
They are going to have a major uphill battle trying to get them banned with a law that will stick. The absolute worst thing they could do from their viewpoint is not create a separate category of NFA for these alone, if they simply change the definition of machine gun to include these they have now added a million or more legally defined machine guns to those out there, making machine guns the same common and not unusual guns. There goes any NFA on them as well.
The best chance for overturning the NFA in my lifetime is right now. Congress has already reduced the tax on everything but machine guns and DD's to zero. They tried to eliminate the registration as well but were blocked by procedural roadblocks. We have at least a somewhat gun friendly supreme Court lineup right now, at least one that looks to the original laws instead of making things up as they go along like many of the lower courts do. If we can get the right case with a sympathetic guy on our side of the argument there's a very good chance things will go back to the way they were pre-1934.
And all this hinges on making something sell so well it is in common use. Instead of complaining about the existence of them which is not going to go away you should be buying as many as you can afford.
As for not wanting our criminals and urban Utes to have machine guns, with the appearance of the Glock switch and the easy manufacture of it they are as common as dirt in places like Chicago. They are already illegal and like the flow of drugs across the border they can't stop it either. Rifles which are the main focus of FRTs are used in so few crimes it is statistically insignificant. You're more likely to get stomped to death by a pair of heavy boots, perhaps we should start regulating who can buy work boots?
Last edited:
Please Visit our Sister Sites Below
Please consider becoming an UZI Talk Supporter