BATFE update

[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]

Originally Posted by zukiphile

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.

Originally Posted by zukiphile

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.

Originally Posted by zukiphile

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]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

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]

Originally Posted by Verminator

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?

Originally Posted by ATN082268

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]

Originally Posted by zukiphile

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]

Originally Posted by Shane Tuttle

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]

Originally Posted by zukiphile

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]

Originally Posted by ATN082268

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]

Originally Posted by ATN

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]

Originally Posted by zukiphile

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

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

If the people who dream up these ways to [maybe] get around the laws would direct their energies and resources toward repealing or revising the laws we don't like instead of inventing potentially risky ways to get around the laws, IMHO the firearms community would be better served.

I don't see anything wrong with someone operating within the law and everything wrong with an unelected bureaucrat changing the law with a regulation.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by ATN082268

I don't see anything wrong with someone operating within the law and everything wrong with an unelected bureaucrat changing the law with a regulation.

The problem is that laws are written with words, and words are subject to interpretation. The people who think up these gadgets think they are operating within the law, but that's only according to their interpretation of the law. I stated above that I have no problem with such people experimenting with these gadgets when the only person they are putting at risk of prosecution is themselves.

It's a different matter entirely when they put their gadget on sale commercially and either state or imply that it's "legal." Sometimes they have a letter of determination from the BATFE -- sometimes they don't. Ever read the letter of determination for the original wrist brace? I have. It was rather clear that the device was being deemed acceptable when used as a wrist brace. So that comes right back to the basic law -- put a wrist brace on the AR-15 pistol because you have arthritis and you need the brace to shoot it one-handed, and you're within the law. Put a "wrist brace" on your AR-15 pistol because you want to shoot it like a short-barreled rifle, with the brace as a shoulder stock, and you are NOT within the law.

Ultimately, who decides what the law (or regulation) says and means? Not you, not me, not the guy who invented the latest gee-whiz gizmo ... in fact, not even the people who wrote the law or the regulation. The final determination is made by the courts. Since the courts in many parts of the country are inherently liberal and anti-gun, IMHO it's better to avoid them wherever and whenever possible.

[44 AMP]

The people who think up these gadgets think they are operating within the law, but that's only according to their interpretation of the law.

Sometimes, it's also within the ATF's interpretation of the law...THAT DAY!

Went through this years ago (and for years) with a Broomhandle Mauser and its stock. The ATF changed it mind SEVERAL times over the years about what was, and was not legal.

For many years, pistol + stock = NFA item. Period.
Then changed a bit, Certain C&R guns and stocks exempted from NFA status.
Then changed again (after about a decade or so), so that ONLY "original" stocks qualified as exempt.

Since the stock had NO markings at all, was just wood and metal fitting, HOW was one supposed to tell if it was made in the 20s (and legal) or the 50s or newer (and so NOT legal)??? You can't. Physical appearance won't tell you with certainty. TO avoid all risk, I wound up selling the stock, and a few years later sold the pistol.

Point here is, that the ATF said it was legal, then later said it wasn't. And the "pistol brace" attached to the firearm, is in the same group. Currently legal, when used as designed as a brace, not legal when used as a shoulder stock. TODAY.

Tomorrow, they may not be legal at all, IF the ATF changes its mind and re-writes their rules.

I'm fine with people creating work-arounds, and while some people consider that exploiting a "loophole" others see it as working within existing law. However, I find those people who BRAG about it are doing us ALL a dis-service. Poke the bear, dance on the internet with your tongue sticking out showing off how you're doing something that the ATF "can't touch" because its "legal" and all you will accomplish is to wake the bear and make him mad.

And brother, let me tell you, that once the bear wakes and is angry, they WILL do something about it. Often doing something that goes beyond the original rules and covers not just the loophole you found, but other things as well. Things that I might care about, not just your silly "braces".

If that happens, then I (and others) suffer, solely due to YOUR arrogance. Don't much care for that, personally.

We are on yet another slippery slope, with definitions of trigger "action". IF they redefine things in just the right way, every semi auto trigger MIGHT be classified as a machine gun.

They might do that, and get away with it, simply by changing the definition and then taking no action for a period of time. Or just taking limited action NOW and saving the really big stuff for later down the road. The possibility exists and should not be ignored.

They put one of those landmines in they now (thankfully) sunset 94 AWB.
in that act, they banned the Streetsweeper and Stryker-12 shotguns, AND any other firearms that were "substantially similar to" them.

Those guns use mechanisms copied from DA revolvers. The language of that law COULD have allowed them to restrict DA revolvers. They didn't (at the time) but the law was there, waiting so that they could do it at a later date.

That specific law is gone now, but others like it can and do still exist. Regulations can be changed at the director's whim, and while proposed changes do go through a "review and comments" process, the general public doesn't see that or comment. Like a lot of things, technically the information is made "public" but one has to dig, or be on the right list to actually be informed, and the majority of the public isn't.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

I'm fine with people creating work-arounds, and while some people consider that exploiting a "loophole" others see it as working within existing law.

I am also fine with people exploiting a "loophole." No matter how the anti-2A folks try to characterize it, "exploiting a loophole" is complying with the law.

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

However, I find those people who BRAG about it are doing us ALL a dis-service. Poke the bear, dance on the internet with your tongue sticking out showing off how you're doing something that the ATF "can't touch" because its "legal" and all you will accomplish is to wake the bear and make him mad.

That's really my gripe, I guess. As I've already written, I have no problem if somebody wants to invent some gizmo and take his (or her) chances on whether or not it's legal. The problems that affect the rest of us arise when these gizmos go into production, and then the usual suspects post openly on Youtube about using them in ways that clearly DON'T comply with the law.

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

We are on yet another slippery slope, with definitions of trigger "action". IF they redefine things in just the right way, every semi auto trigger MIGHT be classified as a machine gun.

They might do that, and get away with it, simply by changing the definition and then taking no action for a period of time. Or just taking limited action NOW and saving the really big stuff for later down the road. The possibility exists and should not be ignored.

We will have to watch out for that. It's already a hot-button topic, since apparently some forced reset triggers are (today) okay, while others are not okay. But the BATFE can't do too much to unilaterally change the definition of trigger function, since there's some basic definition stuff in the NFA law itself. But the NFA doesn't define "function," so the BATFE certainly has some regulatory latitude, and we can be assured that they will exercise it -- to our detriment.

[HiBC]

Suppose I'm going to build a race car (or a "race gun") and my goal is winning.

I'd study the rules and build the most advantage into the car or gun that I could manage while still complying with the rules.

This is one way technology gets advanced.

I have read a lot of posts here. A bunch of them are written in the true spirt of "Control!" "We (the unelected bureaucrats) ,because WE possess TRUE Knowledge! We will interpret,modify,tweak,and alter the law (Constitution) in any way we think we can get away with.

Originally Posted by 44 AMP
However, I find those people who BRAG about it are doing us ALL a dis-service. Poke the bear, dance on the internet with your tongue sticking out showing off how you're doing something that the ATF "can't touch" because its "legal" and all you will accomplish is to wake the bear and make him mad.

IMO,this is a full miss. Law enforcement SHOULD be about protecting lawful Rights, not ego,or dominance,or being a bear,or getting angry. Why would we not expect a BATF agent to to see any firearm that met the letter of the law, or the 2017 letter of BATF guidelines as an expression of a good citizen being in compliance with the law? Where does the "Us against them" sentiment come from? BATF Agent,seeing my AR Pistol,SHOULD say "Good job,Buddy!! Looks like you did your homework!"

An "Angry Bear" is a bad cop harassing citizens . He does not understand his job and should be fired.

How is it that regulatory workarounds to the Constitution are "More Equal" than the Freedom of the Citizen the Constitution was written to protect?

Take a deep breath and remember the Constitution,Supreme Law of the Land,was primarily written to LIMIT GOVERNMENT and PROTECT FREEDOM,

And I suggest all benefit of the doubt should go to limiting government (particularly the regulations of unelected bureaucrats ) and protecting the Freedom of you and me to create and enjoy. Without getting permission .

John Moses Browning did not need "permission". His creations have save a lot of American lives. We need to preserve the freedom to create and innovate as JMB did.

I'm not in the market for a binary trigger or a forced reset trigger . I did carefully study the regs and built an AR pistol. Why? BECAUSE I LAWFULLY COULD. I see the interpretation of "one handed". Aside from Bullseye Competition,who shoots a handgun one handed? Far more handgun shooting is done two handed. Its the "New Normal" at least since Jeff Cooper and the Thunder Ranch.

Mine has no brace. It has a PISTOL buffer tube. It has iron sights. I do not typically shoulder it (though the kind BATF allows "incidental shoulder contact,and "Cheek pieces or pads") Without shoulder contact,I jam the buffer tube against my face under my cheekbone. A 300 BLK has roughly the recoil of a 30 Carbine. It works. The LOP is too short to contact my shoulder and the buffer tube is 2 in above my collarbone. Its designed for "no shoulder contact"

I challenge the proponents of that one handed qualifier to shoot the 14 in +bbl versions of the Contender,Encore, XP-100,MOA Maximum,and similar guns of ,one handed, without being awkward and inaccurate. Do you advocate arresting and charging the owners?
Will they ban the trap shooter's "Release Trigger" tomorrow?

Instead of banning "Ghost Guns", why not ban milling machines,lathes,3-D printers, and CAD workstations? After all,they provide "constructive opportunity". I'm a machinist with tools and I make things. Would you ban a Chef from home cooking? The very core of the RTKBA is the right to make your own gun.


I'll tell you who has been cheating,doing workarounds,and corrupting the clear intent of the law.

1) The American Citizen has a precedent of being able to own a warship complete with arms,shot,powder,and cannon. So much for duck hunting guns.

2) The Second Amendment of the Constitution states what it states. ....."Shall not be infringed"

1. To break; to violate; to transgress; to neglect to fulfill or obey; as, to infringe a law, right, or contract. [ imp. & p. p. Infringed ; p. pr. & vb. n. Infringing .]
Infringe | Definition of Infringe by Webster's Online ...
www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/infringe

[44 AMP]

John Moses Browning did not need "permission".

No, he did not. Likely because Browning lived and died BEFORE laws restricting
firearms by type, design, or physical measurements existed.

So, IMO, that one is a complete miss.....

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by HiBC

IMO,this is a full miss. Law enforcement SHOULD be about protecting lawful Rights, not ego,or dominance,or being a bear,or getting angry. Why would we not expect a BATF agent to to see any firearm that met the letter of the law, or the 2017 letter of BATF guidelines as an expression of a good citizen being in compliance with the law? Where does the "Us against them" sentiment come from? BATF Agent,seeing my AR Pistol,SHOULD say "Good job,Buddy!! Looks like you did your homework!"

I respectfully disagree -- and quite strongly. The role of law enforcement is to enforce the laws. When law enforcement starts deciding which laws they might want to enforce and which they want to overlook [today], we no longer have a nation of laws, we have anarchy.

The law is clear on what a "pistol" is: it's a firearm designed and intended to be fired held in one hand. AR-15 pistols are fine ... when fired held in one hand, and generally even when held in two hands, as long as they are not braced on the shoulder.

The problem is people who intentionally misuse wrist braces as shoulder stocks. People who put those braces on AR-15 pistols with every intention of using the resulting firearm as a short-barreled rifle are breaking the law. It's that simple. If they want to do that in their back yard, or even at their own shooting club, that's fine. But promoting the flagrant violation of the law by posting it on Youtube is (IMHO) just plain dumb, and (as my colleague has stated) it does the rest of us a disservice.

[Jim Watson]

I won't say never but I have hardly ever seen a "brace" used otherwise than as a stock.

If it weren't tied up in bureaucratic hassle, wouldn't you just buy an unrestricted SBR?

But if the "registry was opened" would you pay the tax to have a new real submachine gun?

[HiBC]

I've never posted anything on youtube.

My AR-15 pistol has nothing but a naked buffer tube. No brace.

I CAN demonstrate shooting it one handed. But that is not how its done
I do just fine with a cheek weld on the tube. I make a point of compliance.

I have an MOA Maximum single shot pistol. Its a 260 Remington. It has a 14 in bull barrel. And a 4x Leupold LER scope. Grip is like a Single Action Revolver.

Its legally a pistol. It would be hard to argue it was designed to be fired one handed unsupported.It can be done,but its not how its done.

Same with a 14 in TC Encore or a Contender 14 .

So,if I understand AB correctly, all of those should require registration as SBR's? You can't pick and choose,lest we have anarchy.

[mehavey]

REM XP-100 included in that list?