ATF vs Rare Breed Triggers

[Caballoflaco]

So there is a company called Rare Breed Triggers who make an AR trigger that has an assisted reset. The ATF recently sent them a letter telling them to cease and decist the manufacture of illegal machine guns, oh and start working with us on the recovery of all the illegal machine guns you have sold.

Rare Breed’s lawyers answered with a letter stating that by your definition our trigger is not a machine gun so stuff it and have continued manufacture and sale of said triggers.

This could end up being a really important case in the ATF’s ability to arbitrarily change definitions and interpretations in their enforcement of firearms regulations. I applaud Rare Breed for standing up on this and will probably donate some money to their legal fund if I find out how.

Eta: joshs your thought on this would be much appreciated

Read more at Recoil Magazine

https://www.recoilweb.com/rare-breed-triggers-atf-response-the-hero-we-need-170136.html


Quick note: I’m posting this in general discussion as it’s a gun control related article, I hope we can avoid extremely political tangents as it’s something that is important for site supporters to see as well. Can we please try to keep this from being moved to the politics forum

[Bergeron]

I heard some commentary that the real value of the FRT was that this whole situation was probably predicted by them, including the current situation. The suggestion was that Rare Breed wants this conflict, so that it can be brought to a legal resolution likely to favor gun rights.

I am so heartily sick of the "simulating full auto" line of gun control. I hate the post-86 full auto situation and ATF's arbitrary rule making.

[joshs]

There is a lot up in the air with the current state of administrative law. Until recently, federal courts have been very deferential to interpretations by administrative agencies. However, many federal jurists, including 5-6 members of SCOTUS, have voiced concern with the current overly-deferential jurisprudence. This is especially true for statutes that have criminal consequences where the rule of lenity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_lenity) should apply.

Since this is just a ruling or determination by ATF (instead of a regulation that has to go through the Administrative Procedures Act process), ATF should at most get Skidmore deference (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skidmore_v._Swift_%26_Co.). That's almost a no deference standard because the agency has to persuade the reviewing court with its arguments.

The applicable portion of the definition provides that a "machinegun" is "any weapon which shoots . . . automatically more than one shot . . . by a single function of the trigger."

The question is what does "automatically" mean, and what is "a single function of the trigger?"

Personally, I like freedom, so I think a reviewing court should apply the narrowest definition to avoid creating criminal culpability without notice.

However, there is some bad case law out there. Most of which deals with subgun parts. Since a subgun bolt and receiver is a pretty simple mechanism, "automatic" fire can be created by simply pulling the bolt to the rear and releasing it on some subguns with no fire control components installed. There is case law saying that this is still a machinegun because a "trigger" is anything that begins the automatic firing sequence.

ATF will likely claim "function" in the case of the FRT-15 is the same as other traditional machineguns because the user maintains constant rearward pressure on the "trigger" to fire more than one shot. However, the FRT-15 clearly works differently than other machineguns, but it will depend on how strictly federal courts want to construe the statute.

[BehindBlueI's]

I hope we can avoid extremely political tangents as it’s something that is important for site supporters to see as well. Can we please try to keep this from being moved to the politics forum

I think I can safely speak for the entirety of the staff and say it won't be. General political discussion will be deleted and the poster banned from the thread. Keep it on topic.

[Caballoflaco]

I heard some commentary that the real value of the FRT was that this whole situation was probably predicted by them, including the current situation. The suggestion was that Rare Breed wants this conflict, so that it can be brought to a legal resolution likely to favor gun rights.

I am so heartily sick of the "simulating full auto" line of gun control. I hate the post-86 full auto situation and ATF's arbitrary rule making.

This video they put out seems to back up that commentary. Function of the trigger starts at 1:16 their lawyer’s analysis starts at 5:45. I had to skip through their range time.

https://vimeo.com/486478480


Edited to post a link to the video since I can seem to imbed from Vimeo.

[jh9]

However, there is some bad case law out there. Most of which deals with subgun parts. Since a subgun bolt and receiver is a pretty simple mechanism, "automatic" fire can be created by simply pulling the bolt to the rear and releasing it on some subguns with no fire control components installed. There is case law saying that this is still a machinegun because a "trigger" is anything that begins the automatic firing sequence.

Wait. So a trigger can be a part, no parts, or even a collection of parts? Then what do they think they're going to accomplish with this other than spend a lot of money?

Since I'm not a lawyer I assume my understanding of "strict scrutiny" is wrong in some way. Because the idea that there are 6 SCOTUS justices who think "yeah, let's do massive proliferation of privately owned machine guns in 2021" because *pushes up glasses* "technicallllly this isn't a single function of the trigger" seems... optimistic.

I'm open to having my understanding of "strict scrutiny" corrected. Maybe the situation isn't such that they can essentially say "yeah, but no." Or maybe people have great expectations about just how "pro gun" the recent appointees are.

[joshs]

Wait. So a trigger can be a part, no parts, or even a collection of parts?

Yes. "A trigger is generally 'anything, as an act or event, that serves as a stimulus and initiates or precipitates a reaction.' Webster's Unabridged Dictionary 2021 (2nd ed.1997). Within the realm of firearms, it is commonly understood as 'a small projecting tongue in a firearm that, when pressed by the finger, actuates the mechanism that discharges the weapon.”' Id. However, the latter definition is obviously a context-specific articulation of the former. According to the testimony of the government's expert, the manipulation of his hands on the assembled weapon initiated a reaction, namely the firing of the gun and two automatic successive firings." United States v. Carter, 465 F.3d 658, 665 (6th Cir. 2006).


Since I'm not a lawyer I assume my understanding of "strict scrutiny" is wrong in some way. Because the idea that there are 6 SCOTUS justices who think "yeah, let's do massive proliferation of privately owned machine guns in 2021" because *pushes up glasses* "technicallllly this isn't a single function of the trigger" seems... optimistic.

I'm open to having my understanding of "strict scrutiny" corrected. Maybe the situation isn't such that they can essentially say "yeah, but no." Or maybe people have great expectations about just how "pro gun" the recent appointees are.

Strict scrutiny is a standard of judicial review used when courts review certain constitutional questions (primarily in the 1A context), it wouldn't apply in a statutory construction case like this one (unless there is also a 2A claim, which wouldn't be likely in this case).

My point about five to six justices was that they want to get rid of Chevron deference, at least when dealing with statutes that have criminal consequences. That may not be enough to help Rare Breed if reviewing courts simply agree with ATF's application of the statute.

[Artemas2]

How difficult is it for ATF to re-write their definitions? Mechanically it may be a semi auto trigger, however the rate of fire is well above what any human(Miculek not withstanding) could achieve.

Would a case like this risk a more vague definition of what full auto is and create a more "I know it when I see it" type guideline?

[Trigger]

Experts, please correct me if I’m out to lunch here.

The ATF has even declared a piece of string a machine gun. The case in question is where a person took a loop of string about 8” long, attached it on the left side of the rifle stock (M-1A) behind the trigger guard, ran the string forward, across the trigger, and back on the right side of the stock. A loop at the end (or metal ring) allows the trigger finger to fit in the loop. When the loop is pulled, the string tightens, and the rifle fires. Under recoil, the trigger resets, and due to the elasticity of the string, the recoil pad, and the shooter’s shoulder, the rifle drives forward and fires again. Voila - crude bump-fire operation of a semi-auto rifle.

The ATF declared that this loop of string used this way is a machine gun. Insane, in my opinion, but there it is.

[joshs]

How difficult is it for ATF to re-write their definitions? Mechanically it may be a semi auto trigger, however the rate of fire is well above what any human(Miculek not withstanding) could achieve.

Would a case like this risk a more vague definition of what full auto is and create a more "I know it when I see it" type guideline?

They aren't rewriting a definition in this case, (at least not yet) just applying it. They can change the regulation, but there is a statutory definition of "machinegun," so they can't really depart from that.

As I said above, it will come down to how reviewing courts apply the existing definition.

[joshs]

Experts, please correct me if I’m out to lunch here.

The ATF has even declared a piece of string a machine gun. The case in question is where a person took a loop of string about 8” long, attached it on the left side of the rifle stock (M-1A) behind the trigger guard, ran the string forward, across the trigger, and back on the right side of the stock. A loop at the end (or metal ring) allows the trigger finger to fit in the loop. When the loop is pulled, the string tightens, and the rifle fires. Under recoil, the trigger resets, and due to the elasticity of the string, the recoil pad, and the shooter’s shoulder, the rifle drives forward and fires again. Voila - crude bump-fire operation of a semi-auto rifle.

The ATF declared that this loop of string used this way is a machine gun. Insane, in my opinion, but there it is.

That's correct. There is a photo of the tested string here: https://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2010/01/25/shoestring-machine-gun/

[Trigger]

That's correct. There is a photo of the tested string here: https://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2010/01/25/shoestring-machine-gun/

Thanks, Josh. I had the routing all wrong. My string would have only been semi-auto after all.

[Bolt_Overide]

Part of me desperately wants to see this issue or something similar go before a federal court or even scotus, the ATF needs to be brought to heel legally. The other part of me thinks it isn't worth the risk.

[HCM]

I heard some commentary that the real value of the FRT was that this whole situation was probably predicted by them, including the current situation. The suggestion was that Rare Breed wants this conflict, so that it can be brought to a legal resolution likely to favor gun rights.



My understanding is the principals of Rare Breed are also the principals of Spikes Tactical but Rare Breed was intentionally walled off from Spikes in anticipation of the sort of situation.

[5pins]

Looks like they are back in stock if you wanted to get one. Take your chances. If the court blocks the AFT from enforcing their finding, then you may be able to enjoy it for a while. On the other hand it may be band before you get it in the mail.

[5pins]

Looks like a new player in the market.

The Wide Open Trigger. I think they should have called it the "full semi-auto trigger".

<span dir="auto" class="style-scope yt-formatted-string">
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhsUQcGBeXg

[Wise_A]

Part of me wants to grab one of these and an AR to put it in just to mess with fudd-y trap shooters at my club.

[5pins]

Part of me wants to grab one of these and an AR to put it in just to mess with fudd-y trap shooters at my club.

Me too but I don't want to have to give it up in a few months.

[ralph]

Part of me wants to grab one of these and an AR to put it in just to mess with fudd-y trap shooters at my club.

I agree, but due to the uncertainty of what’s going to happen here, I wouldn’t buy one unless…
A. The LGS had them in stock and on the shelf.
B. I’d be paying with cash..

[jandbj]

All this makes me miss the Akins Accelerator all over again.... sad face

[5pins]

And yet another forced reset trigger is about to hit the market, the Graves Star Fire ART. The only info I can find is from this guys videos on it.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDnra3wW_G4

[5pins]

Preliminary injunction denied.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFa90GDRGiQ

[RevolverRob]

For those of us who aren't going to watch a five minute video for 35 seconds of information: https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/breaking-news/os-ne-rare-breed-triggers-loses-lawsuit-atf-20211014-efhbk5l74vfhjehx5qqgycgsx4-story.html

Not a knock on you 5pins - I simply HATE Youtube and videos for conveying information. It's like having a meeting when a memo would suffice.

[5pins]

Rare Breed has announced they will not stop selling their triggers.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwrTGOW-HN4

[5pins]

I so wanted him to call the third position “full semi auto”. ;)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hd0Y5PFKDWg

[ccmdfd]

And yet another forced reset trigger is about to hit the market, the Graves Star Fire ART. The only info I can find is from this guys videos on it.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDnra3wW_G4

Late to the party, just saw this thread today.

Others have already said how I feel about these decisions the ATF likes to make.

But man, that video is a giant middle finger to the ATF. Braced pistol being shot from the shoulder, simulated full auto fire, and heck, a suppressor to boot!

[5pins]

This could be nothing but I thought I would pass around the info.

FPC Statement on Possible ATF Actions Regarding ‘Forced-Reset Triggers’ (FRTs)

WASHINGTON, D.C. (January 27, 2022) — FPC Law is investigating a purported internal ATF email alleging that businesses which manufacture, distribute, or sell ‘forced-reset triggers’—specifically referring to “Rare Breed and Wide-Open Triggers (FRT Trigger).”— will be subject to forfeitures if they do not surrender “documents and FRT’s


While the publicly available copy of the email contains several typographical errors and FPC’s understanding is that it has not yet been verified or confirmed by the agency, out of an abundance of caution, FPC suggests that all individuals, entities, and businesses who are now or have been in possession of ‘forced-reset triggers’ consider the below measures through which you may be able to protect and preserve your rights should ATF contact you, visit you, and/or demand that you surrender any item in your possession.
FPC has and will continue to fight to defend and advance the People’s individual rights, liberty, and private property. Visit FPCLaw.org (http://www.fpclaw.org) for more information about our litigation, including challenges to unconstitutional acts, policies, and regulations by federal agencies, state and local gun bans, and other matters.



https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-statement-on-possible-atf-actions-regarding-forced-reset-triggers

<span style="font-weight: 400;">
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0Um1D44SUo

[NH Shooter]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0Um1D44SUo

Was it wrong of me to watch this video with the sound muted?

[HeavyDuty]

Was it wrong of me to watch this video with the sound muted?

I was practicing my lip reading.

[Coyotesfan97]

Was it wrong of me to watch this video with the sound muted?

Not anymore than going to her site and watching more videos.

[kwb377]

Cripes! Look at the size of those puppies.






And I'm talking about her hands...

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220128/0ad3b16a154a8ccaedd9b4b777e0487a.jpg

[jetfire]

True story: I used to work with Emily Taylor (the woman in the video) and based on my experiences with her, she is the last person I'd want providing me firearms related legal advice.

[awp_101]

Cripes! Look at the size of those puppies.






And I'm talking about her hands...

83418

[kwb377]

...



https://youtu.be/r03L0NsFmiM

[Gray Ghost]

I absolutely believe that the Administrative Procedure Act and the corresponding perversion of the non-delegation doctrine are wrong and unconstitutional. But this isn't even that. It's not like the ATF has published a rule, made under statutory authority, declaring FRT's to be machine guns. Instead they are just saying it and expecting the industry and the public to fall into line. They need more push back.

[5pins]

Federal court strikes down agency’s illegal ban on forced reset triggers

https://nationalgunrights.org/resources/press-releases/national-association-for-gun-rights-wins-lawsuit-against-atf-trigger-ban/


Washington, D.C. – On July 23, 2024, The National Association for Gun Rights won summary judgment from the Federal District Court, Northern District of Texas, striking down the ATF’s ban on forced reset triggers.

The ruling from Judge Reed O’Connor in NAGR v. Garland vacated the ATF’s ban on forced reset triggers, stating unequivocally that the ATF had acted beyond the scope of its statutory authority in redefining forced reset triggers as machine guns. The ruling was based in part on the Supreme Court’s recent Cargill decision striking down the ATF’s bump stock ban rule.

[jh9]

It boggles the mind that anyone thinks this shit is a good idea.

Public sentiment is inescapable. It drives policy, one way or another, no matter what form that takes. Proliferation of shit like this is going to be of considerable negative value to gun rights sooner than later.

In the mean while, enjoy your increasingly average DGU going up against someone with a Glock switch or lol-not-a-machine-gun. But at least this clown got to wave his pp at the ATF. That's ultimately what counts.

[farscott]

It boggles the mind that anyone thinks this shit is a good idea.

Public sentiment is inescapable. It drives policy, one way or another, no matter what form that takes. Proliferation of shit like this is going to be of considerable negative value to gun rights sooner than later.

In the mean while, enjoy your increasingly average DGU going up against someone with a Glock switch or lol-not-a-machine-gun. But at least this clown got to wave his pp at the ATF. That's ultimately what counts.

It does not matter that the "forced reset" trigger is a good idea or not. It DOES matter that Congress did not give BATFE the power to regulate the forced reset trigger. BATFE exceeded the authority given to the agency by Congress when the agency chose to regulate the forced reset triggers. All it takes for BATFE to have the authority to do so is a piece of legislation. If it becomes a good idea to regulate the devices, Congress will pass such legislation that will not be vetoed by POTUS and not found unconstitutional by.SCOTUS. That is how the system is supposed to function. BATFE is not supposed to decide what needs to be regulated with no guidance and direction from the legislative branch and no oversight from the judicial branch.

I also do not blame people and companies trying to find a way to stay within the letter of the law and filling a niche. I may have no use for a forced reset trigger, but the existence of those items does show the foolishness of the NFA's prohibition on full-auto firearms.

[jh9]

It does not matter that the "forced reset" trigger is a good idea or not. It DOES matter that Congress did not give BATFE the power to regulate the forced reset trigger. BATFE exceeded the authority given to the agency by Congress when the agency chose to regulate the forced reset triggers. All it takes for BATFE to have the authority to do so is a piece of legislation. If it becomes a good idea to regulate the devices, Congress will pass such legislation that will not be vetoed by POTUS and not found unconstitutional by.SCOTUS. That is how the system is supposed to function. BATFE is not supposed to decide what needs to be regulated with no guidance and direction from the legislative branch and no oversight from the judicial branch.

I also do not blame people and companies trying to find a way to stay within the letter of the law and filling a niche. I may have no use for a forced reset trigger, but the existence of those items does show the foolishness of the NFA's prohibition on full-auto firearms.

Technically correct, though incomplete. And also utterly useless.

I see things like the "forced reset trigger" like I see open carry: it's a threat to my own gun rights on a slightly longer timeline, and in the short term it creates problems for me (and other people) where they either didn't exist before or weren't nearly as large in scope. I don't have to have a lawyer's appreciation for the nuance and detail for every court case.

As an actual human being I can be annoyed at the outcome without needing to disprove "how technicallllly this is still one function of the trigger... first down." I can be aware of the legality (or not) based on how a judge read something someone wrote nearly a hundred years ago (NFA 1934) and still think it produces an end result with negative effects.

I am, in its entirely, expressing an opinion: Fake machine guns are stupid. Open carry is stupid in like 90% of cases. Both are largely the domain of attention whores who make my life more exasperating or dangerous than it needs to be. I can simultaneously acknowledge that the forced reset trigger is (unfortunately) technically legal as of 24-Jul-2024 and also that every time I see one on a public range I hope the person using it blows their dick off.

[HeavyDuty]

I think things like bumpstocks and FRTs are spectacularly stupid. But, it’s not up to ATF to regulate by rule - as stated above it’s up to the legislature to deal with these things.

However…

I also think the shooting community as a whole (not just the no-fun fudd contingent) has the responsibility to circle the wagons and self regulate this stuff. Public mockery of these things should be the norm.

[0ddl0t]

Or we could double down our support the 2nd amendment and reiterate that any arm legal for use by the US military is legal for use by private US citizens. The point of the 2nd amendment was to allow private citizens to own the same weapons of war their government might use against them in order to prevent the government from becoming too powerful.

If you don't agree with the 2nd amendment, pass a constitutional amendment to limit the right to bear "arms" to muskets or hunting rifles or whatever watered down "sporting use" exemption you want. Don't allow bureaucrats and judges to chip away at a foundational right...

[joshs]

I absolutely believe that the Administrative Procedure Act and the corresponding perversion of the non-delegation doctrine are wrong and unconstitutional. But this isn't even that. It's not like the ATF has published a rule, made under statutory authority, declaring FRT's to be machine guns. Instead they are just saying it and expecting the industry and the public to fall into line. They need more push back.

Not saying I agree with ATF, but they don’t need a rule to apply a statutory term to a particular device. It either meets the definition in the statute or it doesn’t (like every other “machinegun”).

[BWT]

Not saying I agree with ATF, but they don’t need a rule to apply a statutory term to a particular device. It either meets the definition in the statute or it doesn’t (like every other “machinegun”).

Thanks for your insights as always. Just to clarify - you’re saying the FRT meets the definition or it doesn’t? Just trying to ensure I’m tracking with you.

[jh9]

Or we could double down our support the 2nd amendment and reiterate that any arm legal for use by the US military is legal for use by private US citizens. The point of the 2nd amendment was to allow private citizens to own the same weapons of war their government might use against them in order to prevent the government from becoming too powerful.

If you don't agree with the 2nd amendment, pass a constitutional amendment to limit the right to bear "arms" to muskets or hunting rifles or whatever watered down "sporting use" exemption you want. Don't allow bureaucrats and judges to chip away at a foundational right...

You don't need to pass a constitutional amendment. You can simply pass a law and have SCOTUS not strike it down. Which is exactly what's happened to date with the 1934 NFA, the 1968 GCA and basically every state AWB. And that's with this SCOTUS which is 6-3 because Trump appointed half of the 6. Public opinion and 2 vacancies in a Harris administration will be enough to overturn everything all the way back to Heller.

You do not appreciate how ephemeral some of the gains in the last couple decades are. They can go away just as easily as they came. And doing what you propose is one of the best ways to make that happen.

[jh9]

Also, me saying "as easily as they came" in the same thread as joshs is... rude. There was a lot of legal work involved in all of the recent cases.

What I meant was that for a lot of people who were not involved, a person waking up one day and noticing that some law was no longer in force may have been a bit like Christmas. For the people who were involved with the actual cases it was a ton of work that should be acknowledged.

[0ddl0t]

You don't need to pass a constitutional amendment. You can simply pass a law and have SCOTUS not strike it down.

If you believe SCOTUS should be encouraged to ignore the constitution to allow policies with which they happen to agree.

But to me giving SCOTUS that power is a much larger threat to the Republic than civilians being allowed parity with the military (or the military being restricted to parity with civilians).

[jh9]

If you believe SCOTUS should be encouraged to ignore the constitution to allow policies with which they happen to agree.

But to me giving SCOTUS that power is a much larger threat to the Republic than civilians being allowed parity with the military (or the military being restricted to parity with civilians).

SCOTUS doesn't need to be given that power. They were already given that power in like 1803. SCOTUS is what defines what is and is not constitutional. And has been doing so for the overwhelming majority of the United States' history based entirely on their whim. Overturning themselves whenever they see fit. Because no one else can.

You have your own idea of what is or isn't "constitutional" based on what you think it should be. And that is the "right" definition of constitutional, to you. Well. So do the 9 people in DC. And their opinion is the one that counts. And it has for more than a hundred years since before any of us were born.

[joshs]

Thanks for your insights as always. Just to clarify - you’re saying the FRT meets the definition or it doesn’t? Just trying to ensure I’m tracking with you.

I wasn't saying that it does or it doesn't. I was just saying that ATF doesn't have to pass a regulation to treat a particular device as a "machinegun." An enforcement agency can attempt to apply a federal statute to a particular item, and our courts can decide if that interpretation is correct (with any ambiguity being construed against the agency pursuant to the rule of lenity).

FRTs present a different (and I think harder) question under the current federal definition of "machinegun" than bump stocks did. If courts continue to narrowly construe what counts as a "single function of the trigger" then the government will lose.

[Corse]

People acting irresponsibly are the problem and always have been, not bump stocks or FRTs.

Also, there is no point in trying to appease the progressive left, they will try and ban guns not matter what you do, how many concessions you make, or how much you limit yourself. Everything is always hang by a frayed thread.