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...ed-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 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. 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.