[ARCHIVED THREAD] - I recently examined and tested an Arizona Regulator three position FRT (Page 5 of 8)
|
Quoted: Absolutely, if you want to be the type that just wants to slide the little package off the hook down at your local purveyor of evil goodness. It does not take a great deal of effort to follow these behind-the-scenes developments to understand more of the reasons why the things you buy do certain things, don't do other things and are designed as they are. Not mention the much-hashed discussions of philosophical reasons of why you might want to point your money in certain directions. I agree, stack them deep. But I also think that being an informed consumer is not such a bad thing. Quoted: Quoted: Frankly, patents are not something consumers need to concern ourselves with. Buy what you can, and give nothing back. Absolutely, if you want to be the type that just wants to slide the little package off the hook down at your local purveyor of evil goodness. It does not take a great deal of effort to follow these behind-the-scenes developments to understand more of the reasons why the things you buy do certain things, don't do other things and are designed as they are. Not mention the much-hashed discussions of philosophical reasons of why you might want to point your money in certain directions. I agree, stack them deep. But I also think that being an informed consumer is not such a bad thing. You're right. I spoke a little too flippantly. |
|
I will say this. When RB first released their FRT, everyone went crazy, asking how is this legal, then went crazy buying them. Then the AFT stepped in and said no-no. Everyone said FUCK. What would have happened if it had just ended there and RB folded and went under? AFT would have continued their stance that they are MG's and they would not be legal. But RB pushed the issue, spent un told amounts of money fighting it and in the end, won. So I will always have some respect for them for doing that, not backing down and fighting the issue. However that does not give them free pass to be douche bags. |
|
Quoted: I will say this. When RB first released their FRT, everyone went crazy, asking how is this legal, then went crazy buying them. Then the AFT stepped in and said no-no. Everyone said FUCK. What would have happened if it had just ended there and RB folded and went under? AFT would have continued their stance that they are MG's and they would not be legal. But RB pushed the issue, spent un told amounts of money fighting it and in the end, won. So I will always have some respect for them for doing that, not backing down and fighting the issue. However that does not give them free pass to be douche bags. it seems like rare breed should have been/should be compensated for their efforts and our freedoms to own frts. It seems like Rare Breed should have entered into some sort of royalty / licensing agreement with these companies. Something like a 5 or 10% kickback per unit sold. that way they get compensated for their expenses and other companies benefited from RB so therefore a kickback would be appropriate |
|
Quoted: it seems like rare breed should have been/should be compensated for their efforts and our freedoms to own frts. It seems like Rare Breed should have entered into some sort of royalty / licensing agreement with these companies. Something like a 5 or 10% kickback per unit sold. that way they get compensated for their expenses and other companies benefited from RB so therefore a kickback would be appropriate Quoted: Quoted: I will say this. When RB first released their FRT, everyone went crazy, asking how is this legal, then went crazy buying them. Then the AFT stepped in and said no-no. Everyone said FUCK. What would have happened if it had just ended there and RB folded and went under? AFT would have continued their stance that they are MG's and they would not be legal. But RB pushed the issue, spent un told amounts of money fighting it and in the end, won. So I will always have some respect for them for doing that, not backing down and fighting the issue. However that does not give them free pass to be douche bags. it seems like rare breed should have been/should be compensated for their efforts and our freedoms to own frts. It seems like Rare Breed should have entered into some sort of royalty / licensing agreement with these companies. Something like a 5 or 10% kickback per unit sold. that way they get compensated for their expenses and other companies benefited from RB so therefore a kickback would be appropriate That was how I felt originally. But just reading on here and I could be totally wrong. But wasn't it the bumpstock supreme Court case decision that paved the way. Then the government backed down from the RB case, at which point. RB rolled over and made a deal? If so. I feel like they should of kept fighting. It wasn't all on their dime either. Alot of money was donated to them for them to fold to the government. IMO. Y'all correct me, if this is wrong |
|
Quoted: That was how I felt originally. But just reading on here and I could be totally wrong. But wasn't it the bumpstock supreme Court case decision that paved the way. Then the government backed down from the RB case, at which point. RB rolled over and made a deal? If so. I feel like they should of kept fighting. It wasn't all on their dime either. Alot of money was donated to them for them to fold to the government. IMO. Y'all correct me, if this is wrong It's the government that folded, not RB. The only duty RB got out of it was not to make it for pistols, and to enforce their patent. The controls on the government however are huge. They are enjoined from ever classifying any forced reset trigger as a machinegun again. |
|
Quoted: It's the government that folded, not RB. The only duty RB got out of it was not to make it for pistols, and to enforce their patent. The controls on the government however are huge. They are enjoined from ever classifying any forced reset trigger as a machinegun again. That's basically what I said. Why did the government back down? And why would you even make a deal with the government at that point? |
|
Quoted: That's basically what I said. Why did the government back down? And why would you even make a deal with the government at that point? This way if RB breaches the settlement agreement the DOJ can still go after FRTs, no? There is still the Cargill precedent on our side, but it would be starting from scratch in court. Everyone shitting on RB for sticking to the terms of the settlement needs to realize they are making damn sure they can't be found in breach of it so that the government can't go after the FRTs - ALL of them. If they have to make a big show of suing everyone under the sun to stay in compliance with the contract, so be it. It's the only thing stopping the DOJ from going after all FRTs as MGs. You also have to remember that we can't have nationwide injunctions anymore. So if RB is found in breach of the settlement because they didn't file enough patent lawsuits, there will be nothing stopping a "Turn them all in or destroy them by making 3 cuts here, here and here" order from the ATF like they did with bumpstocks. And where are bumpstocks today after Cargill? They used to be hanging on the shelves of major retailers like Cabelas. Now? Nowhere. I get that FRTs are far superior in every way, and nobody wants a bumpstock when they could have an FRT. But still. No big retailer, even very pro-2A ones like Palmetto, is willing to touch these with a 10 foot pole. No one wants to be left holding the bag with a bunch of inventory made illegal with the stroke of a pen. And that's what WILL happen if everyone shitting on RB for patent lawsuits get their way. The DOJ finds RB in breach of the settlement and then they are no longer prevented from going after FRTs as machine guns. Yes, they will have to explain to the court how they are MGs in light of Cargill. But while that happens, you will be ordered to destroy or surrender your FRTs. It will take years in court, and it will likely happen during the next dem administration when all these agencies have the leash taken off and are out for revenge. |
|
Quoted: I think they backed down because if it had continued and went to SCOTUS and RB prevailed, FRTs might end up being ruled as protected under the 2A where congress couldn't even touch them. This way if RB breaches the settlement agreement the DOJ can still go after FRTs, no? There is still the Cargill precedent on our side, but it would be starting from scratch in court. Everyone shitting on RB for sticking to the terms of the settlement needs to realize they are making damn sure they can't be found in breach of it so that the government can't go after the FRTs - ALL of them. If they have to make a big show of suing everyone under the sun to stay in compliance with the contract, so be it. It's the only thing stopping the DOJ from going after all FRTs as MGs. You also have to remember that we can't have nationwide injunctions anymore. So if RB is found in breach of the settlement because they didn't file enough patent lawsuits, there will be nothing stopping a "Turn them all in or destroy them by making 3 cuts here, here and here" order from the ATF like they did with bumpstocks. And where are bumpstocks today after Cargill? They used to be hanging on the shelves of major retailers like Cabelas. Now? Nowhere. I get that FRTs are far superior in every way, and nobody wants a bumpstock when they could have an FRT. But still. No big retailer, even very pro-2A ones like Palmetto, is willing to touch these with a 10 foot pole. No one wants to be left holding the bag with a bunch of inventory made illegal with the stroke of a pen. And that's what WILL happen if everyone shitting on RB for patent lawsuits get their way. The DOJ finds RB in breach of the settlement and then they are no longer prevented from going after FRTs as machine guns. Yes, they will have to explain to the court how they are MGs in light of Cargill. But while that happens, you will be ordered to destroy or surrender your FRTs. It will take years in court, and it will likely happen during the next dem administration when all these agencies have the leash taken off and are out for revenge. I agree. I feel like during the next D presidency. They're coming for them regardless. The government just bought themselves some time. In my experience. When the government comes to you to make a deal in a position of weakness. ANY deal offered is for their benefit, not yours. You might as well keep fighting. Because the government doesn't offer any quarter. Unless it benefits them. |
|
Quoted: I think they backed down because if it had continued and went to SCOTUS and RB prevailed, FRTs might end up being ruled as protected under the 2A where congress couldn't even touch them. This way if RB breaches the settlement agreement the DOJ can still go after FRTs, no? There is still the Cargill precedent on our side, but it would be starting from scratch in court. Everyone shitting on RB for sticking to the terms of the settlement needs to realize they are making damn sure they can't be found in breach of it so that the government can't go after the FRTs - ALL of them. If they have to make a big show of suing everyone under the sun to stay in compliance with the contract, so be it. It's the only thing stopping the DOJ from going after all FRTs as MGs. You also have to remember that we can't have nationwide injunctions anymore. So if RB is found in breach of the settlement because they didn't file enough patent lawsuits, there will be nothing stopping a "Turn them all in or destroy them by making 3 cuts here, here and here" order from the ATF like they did with bumpstocks. And where are bumpstocks today after Cargill? They used to be hanging on the shelves of major retailers like Cabelas. Now? Nowhere. I get that FRTs are far superior in every way, and nobody wants a bumpstock when they could have an FRT. But still. No big retailer, even very pro-2A ones like Palmetto, is willing to touch these with a 10 foot pole. No one wants to be left holding the bag with a bunch of inventory made illegal with the stroke of a pen. And that's what WILL happen if everyone shitting on RB for patent lawsuits get their way. The DOJ finds RB in breach of the settlement and then they are no longer prevented from going after FRTs as machine guns. Yes, they will have to explain to the court how they are MGs in light of Cargill. But while that happens, you will be ordered to destroy or surrender your FRTs. It will take years in court, and it will likely happen during the next dem administration when all these agencies have the leash taken off and are out for revenge. This is almost verbatim the argument I made here multiple times over: by issuing C&D letters, and a few lawsuits here and there where appropriate, they absolutely are complying as required, and there is no sane person who would say they are not. Now, wouldn’t it be interesting if RB sues a super safety manufacturer, and it ends up losing, with the case being decided that RBs FRT and the Hoffman design patents are vastly different. Hmmm. That would be mighty interesting. It would be even further interesting if in another case, or even this same hypothetical case, it is shown that the RB issued patents were in fact issued in error and are not novel or unique? What would be the logical outcome of that occurring? A few other salient points: 1. Manufacturers are under no obligation to actually comply with a C&D letter. Some manufacturers will, in fact, totally ignore them from RB. That of course involves come mathing on the odds they actually bring suit if you ignore… 2. RB *has* to behave the way they are behaving, if they want to be in compliance. So please stop the whining and wadded panties. It should surprise no one. 3. RB *does* deserve a lot of credit for going the distance on this. Stop having the memory of a fucking libtarded gnat. You’d have no FRTs and like it for quite some time if they had lost. 4. RB might be playing 4d chess lawfare? This is a stretch, but interesting to contemplate. I’ll await for the inevitable autistic argumentative GD members to now weigh in and try to counter all this. |
|
Quoted: I agree. I feel like during the next D presidency. They're coming for them regardless. The government just bought themselves some time. In my experience. When the government comes to you to make a deal in a position of weakness. ANY deal offered is for their benefit, not yours. You might as well keep fighting. Because the government doesn't offer any quarter. Unless it benefits them. Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. 411 (2016)- Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they "were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment's enactment", but the Supreme Court noted that this contradicted Heller's conclusion that Second Amendment protects "arms ... that were not in existence at the time of the founding". SCOTUS in the Caetano case decision put a quantity of an "arm" to determine if it were "in comman use" and not "unusual"...200,000 units being possessed by citizens. I suspect under Caetano the quantity of FRT's in total has surpassed the "In Comman Use" threshold. Banning them outright is no longer an option according to SCOTUS and Caetano. If congress decides at some later date to change the definition of machinegun to incluude FRT's, then under the Gun Control Act of 1968 the government is REQUIRED to hold an amnesty registration of those articles. No less than thirty days and no longer ninety days, they can NOT be held consecutively (must have at least one day between amnesties). The more they are in common use the better. |
|
Quoted: Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. 411 (2016)- Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they "were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment's enactment", but the Supreme Court noted that this contradicted Heller's conclusion that Second Amendment protects "arms ... that were not in existence at the time of the founding". SCOTUS in the Caetano case decision put a quantity of an "arm" to determine if it were "in comman use" and not "unusual"...200,000 units being possessed by citizens. I suspect under Caetano the quantity of FRT's in total has surpassed the "In Comman Use" threshold. Banning them outright is no longer an option according to SCOTUS and Caetano. If congress decides at some later date to change the definition of machinegun to incluude FRT's, then under the Gun Control Act of 1968 the government is REQUIRED to hold an amnesty registration of those articles. No less than thirty days and no longer ninety days, they can NOT be held consecutively (must have at least one day between amnesties). The more they are in common use the better. Quoted: Quoted: I agree. I feel like during the next D presidency. They're coming for them regardless. The government just bought themselves some time. In my experience. When the government comes to you to make a deal in a position of weakness. ANY deal offered is for their benefit, not yours. You might as well keep fighting. Because the government doesn't offer any quarter. Unless it benefits them. Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. 411 (2016)- Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they "were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment's enactment", but the Supreme Court noted that this contradicted Heller's conclusion that Second Amendment protects "arms ... that were not in existence at the time of the founding". SCOTUS in the Caetano case decision put a quantity of an "arm" to determine if it were "in comman use" and not "unusual"...200,000 units being possessed by citizens. I suspect under Caetano the quantity of FRT's in total has surpassed the "In Comman Use" threshold. Banning them outright is no longer an option according to SCOTUS and Caetano. If congress decides at some later date to change the definition of machinegun to incluude FRT's, then under the Gun Control Act of 1968 the government is REQUIRED to hold an amnesty registration of those articles. No less than thirty days and no longer ninety days, they can NOT be held consecutively (must have at least one day between amnesties). The more they are in common use the better. FRT not firearm. 'can be regulated' Accs. 'can be regulated' Common use means what SCOTUS wants it to mean. SCOTUS after Thomas is lost. |
|
For anyone that is still saying that RBT is "just defending their patents", please explain how suing companies selling Super Safeties for alleged infringement of the '247 patent is required by the settlement agreement? RBT is not the owner of any of the patents that they manufacturer products under, they license them all from their shell company ABC IP LLC that was not a party to the settlement agreement. RBT is voluntarily doing these things. 9. RBT, RBF, Mr. DeMonico, and Mr. Maxwell agree to take all reasonable efforts to engage in patent enforcement seeking prohibitory injunctions against any person or entity that manufacturers, sells, or distributes any FRT during the life of U.S. Patent No. 10,514,223 patent, provided RBT, Mr. DeMonico, and Mr. Maxwell have a good faith argument that the device is within the scope of the patent. The United States will not bear litigation costs of any patent enforcement actions. https://gunrightsfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/FRT-Settlement-Agreement-FINAL.pdf |
|
Quoted: Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. 411 (2016)- Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they "were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment's enactment", but the Supreme Court noted that this contradicted Heller's conclusion that Second Amendment protects "arms ... that were not in existence at the time of the founding". SCOTUS in the Caetano case decision put a quantity of an "arm" to determine if it were "in comman use" and not "unusual"...200,000 units being possessed by citizens. I suspect under Caetano the quantity of FRT's in total has surpassed the "In Comman Use" threshold. Banning them outright is no longer an option according to SCOTUS and Caetano. If congress decides at some later date to change the definition of machinegun to incluude FRT's, then under the Gun Control Act of 1968 the government is REQUIRED to hold an amnesty registration of those articles. No less than thirty days and no longer ninety days, they can NOT be held consecutively (must have at least one day between amnesties). The more they are in common use the better. Quoted: Quoted: I agree. I feel like during the next D presidency. They're coming for them regardless. The government just bought themselves some time. In my experience. When the government comes to you to make a deal in a position of weakness. ANY deal offered is for their benefit, not yours. You might as well keep fighting. Because the government doesn't offer any quarter. Unless it benefits them. Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. 411 (2016)- Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they "were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment's enactment", but the Supreme Court noted that this contradicted Heller's conclusion that Second Amendment protects "arms ... that were not in existence at the time of the founding". SCOTUS in the Caetano case decision put a quantity of an "arm" to determine if it were "in comman use" and not "unusual"...200,000 units being possessed by citizens. I suspect under Caetano the quantity of FRT's in total has surpassed the "In Comman Use" threshold. Banning them outright is no longer an option according to SCOTUS and Caetano. If congress decides at some later date to change the definition of machinegun to incluude FRT's, then under the Gun Control Act of 1968 the government is REQUIRED to hold an amnesty registration of those articles. No less than thirty days and no longer ninety days, they can NOT be held consecutively (must have at least one day between amnesties). The more they are in common use the better. In your professional opinion. Should RB have kept fighting or accepted the governments deal? |
|
Quoted: I just wonder when Brownells will start selling FRTs? I'm more interested in manufacturers offering FRTs as a standard option. That would really help bolster the "in common use" requirement. It could also help protect them from being regulated as "accessories", as someone previously mentioned. |
|
Quoted: It's the government that folded, not RB. The only duty RB got out of it was not to make it for pistols, and to enforce their patent. The controls on the government however are huge. They are enjoined from ever classifying any forced reset trigger as a machinegun again. Quoted: Quoted: That was how I felt originally. But just reading on here and I could be totally wrong. But wasn't it the bumpstock supreme Court case decision that paved the way. Then the government backed down from the RB case, at which point. RB rolled over and made a deal? If so. I feel like they should of kept fighting. It wasn't all on their dime either. Alot of money was donated to them for them to fold to the government. IMO. Y'all correct me, if this is wrong It's the government that folded, not RB. The only duty RB got out of it was not to make it for pistols, and to enforce their patent. The controls on the government however are huge. They are enjoined from ever classifying any forced reset trigger as a machinegun again. Here's the thing tho: Does the executive branch get to redefine what an object is by legal agreement with a 3rd party? Or is defining things for legal purposes the job of congress? If forced reset triggers aren't machine guns by definition of the statute, then it doesn't matter what the government agreed about them. They either aren't and never were OR are and always were. Agreement or no agreement. And if they AREN'T machine guns, then what is the executive branch going to do if they violate one of the provisions of that agreement (like make FRT for handguns)... prosecute them for producing something that they have, in writing, said they don't think is a machine gun? |
|
Quoted: I'm more interested in manufacturers offering FRTs as a standard option. That would really help bolster the "in common use" requirement. It could also help protect them from being regulated as "accessories", as someone previously mentioned. Quoted: Quoted: I just wonder when Brownells will start selling FRTs? I'm more interested in manufacturers offering FRTs as a standard option. That would really help bolster the "in common use" requirement. It could also help protect them from being regulated as "accessories", as someone previously mentioned. I've said in the past, I think there are guns that were produced in the past that withered on the vine due to the 86 ban... and absolutely could be brought back. New production American 180s. Or Tippman 1919 scale model .22s (I don't know if FRT is even possible for that one). Stuff that was super fun because it was full auto, large capacity mag or belt fed .22lr |
|
Quoted: I've said in the past, I think there are guns that were produced in the past that withered on the vine due to the 86 ban... and absolutely could be brought back. New production American 180s. Or Tippman 1919 scale model .22s (I don't know if FRT is even possible for that one). Stuff that was super fun because it was full auto, large capacity mag or belt fed .22lr Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I just wonder when Brownells will start selling FRTs? I'm more interested in manufacturers offering FRTs as a standard option. That would really help bolster the "in common use" requirement. It could also help protect them from being regulated as "accessories", as someone previously mentioned. I've said in the past, I think there are guns that were produced in the past that withered on the vine due to the 86 ban... and absolutely could be brought back. New production American 180s. Or Tippman 1919 scale model .22s (I don't know if FRT is even possible for that one). Stuff that was super fun because it was full auto, large capacity mag or belt fed .22lr Bring back the Akins Accelerator!  I'd also like to see a resurgence of the Calico .22s and 9MMs. I know a company in Hillsboro tried restarting the product line in 2006, but I have no idea if they're still in business or if Calicos are readily available these days. |
|
Quoted: I will say this. When RB first released their FRT, everyone went crazy, asking how is this legal, then went crazy buying them. Then the AFT stepped in and said no-no. Everyone said FUCK. What would have happened if it had just ended there and RB folded and went under? AFT would have continued their stance that they are MG's and they would not be legal. But RB pushed the issue, spent un told amounts of money fighting it and in the end, won. So I will always have some respect for them for doing that, not backing down and fighting the issue. However that does not give them free pass to be douche bags. Like SB Tactical except SB Tactical didn't try to sue every other brace manufacturer out of business |
|
Quoted: This is almost verbatim the argument I made here multiple times over: by issuing C&D letters, and a few lawsuits here and there where appropriate, they absolutely are complying as required, and there is no sane person who would say they are not. Now, wouldn’t it be interesting if RB sues a super safety manufacturer, and it ends up losing, with the case being decided that RBs FRT and the Hoffman design patents are vastly different. Hmmm. That would be mighty interesting. It would be even further interesting if in another case, or even this same hypothetical case, it is shown that the RB issued patents were in fact issued in error and are not novel or unique? What would be the logical outcome of that occurring? A few other salient points: 1. Manufacturers are under no obligation to actually comply with a C&D letter. Some manufacturers will, in fact, totally ignore them from RB. That of course involves come mathing on the odds they actually bring suit if you ignore… 2. RB *has* to behave the way they are behaving, if they want to be in compliance. So please stop the whining and wadded panties. It should surprise no one. 3. RB *does* deserve a lot of credit for going the distance on this. Stop having the memory of a fucking libtarded gnat. You’d have no FRTs and like it for quite some time if they had lost. 4. RB might be playing 4d chess lawfare? This is a stretch, but interesting to contemplate. I’ll await for the inevitable autistic argumentative GD members to now weigh in and try to counter all this. Quoted: Quoted: I think they backed down because if it had continued and went to SCOTUS and RB prevailed, FRTs might end up being ruled as protected under the 2A where congress couldn't even touch them. This way if RB breaches the settlement agreement the DOJ can still go after FRTs, no? There is still the Cargill precedent on our side, but it would be starting from scratch in court. Everyone shitting on RB for sticking to the terms of the settlement needs to realize they are making damn sure they can't be found in breach of it so that the government can't go after the FRTs - ALL of them. If they have to make a big show of suing everyone under the sun to stay in compliance with the contract, so be it. It's the only thing stopping the DOJ from going after all FRTs as MGs. You also have to remember that we can't have nationwide injunctions anymore. So if RB is found in breach of the settlement because they didn't file enough patent lawsuits, there will be nothing stopping a "Turn them all in or destroy them by making 3 cuts here, here and here" order from the ATF like they did with bumpstocks. And where are bumpstocks today after Cargill? They used to be hanging on the shelves of major retailers like Cabelas. Now? Nowhere. I get that FRTs are far superior in every way, and nobody wants a bumpstock when they could have an FRT. But still. No big retailer, even very pro-2A ones like Palmetto, is willing to touch these with a 10 foot pole. No one wants to be left holding the bag with a bunch of inventory made illegal with the stroke of a pen. And that's what WILL happen if everyone shitting on RB for patent lawsuits get their way. The DOJ finds RB in breach of the settlement and then they are no longer prevented from going after FRTs as machine guns. Yes, they will have to explain to the court how they are MGs in light of Cargill. But while that happens, you will be ordered to destroy or surrender your FRTs. It will take years in court, and it will likely happen during the next dem administration when all these agencies have the leash taken off and are out for revenge. This is almost verbatim the argument I made here multiple times over: by issuing C&D letters, and a few lawsuits here and there where appropriate, they absolutely are complying as required, and there is no sane person who would say they are not. Now, wouldn’t it be interesting if RB sues a super safety manufacturer, and it ends up losing, with the case being decided that RBs FRT and the Hoffman design patents are vastly different. Hmmm. That would be mighty interesting. It would be even further interesting if in another case, or even this same hypothetical case, it is shown that the RB issued patents were in fact issued in error and are not novel or unique? What would be the logical outcome of that occurring? A few other salient points: 1. Manufacturers are under no obligation to actually comply with a C&D letter. Some manufacturers will, in fact, totally ignore them from RB. That of course involves come mathing on the odds they actually bring suit if you ignore… 2. RB *has* to behave the way they are behaving, if they want to be in compliance. So please stop the whining and wadded panties. It should surprise no one. 3. RB *does* deserve a lot of credit for going the distance on this. Stop having the memory of a fucking libtarded gnat. You’d have no FRTs and like it for quite some time if they had lost. 4. RB might be playing 4d chess lawfare? This is a stretch, but interesting to contemplate. I’ll await for the inevitable autistic argumentative GD members to now weigh in and try to counter all this. Nothing in their deal requires them to go after home brewers. I could give them the benefit of the doubt about other manufacturers, but threatening people talking about printing super safeties for personal use is out of line. They can get fucked. |
|
Quoted: I'm more interested in manufacturers offering FRTs as a standard option. That would really help bolster the "in common use" requirement. It could also help protect them from being regulated as "accessories", as someone previously mentioned. Quoted: Quoted: I just wonder when Brownells will start selling FRTs? I'm more interested in manufacturers offering FRTs as a standard option. That would really help bolster the "in common use" requirement. It could also help protect them from being regulated as "accessories", as someone previously mentioned. Ben is getting on that. I’m in for a factory rifle. ?? |
|
Quoted: This is almost verbatim the argument I made here multiple times over: by issuing C&D letters, and a few lawsuits here and there where appropriate, they absolutely are complying as required, and there is no sane person who would say they are not. Now, wouldn’t it be interesting if RB sues a super safety manufacturer, and it ends up losing, with the case being decided that RBs FRT and the Hoffman design patents are vastly different. Hmmm. That would be mighty interesting. It would be even further interesting if in another case, or even this same hypothetical case, it is shown that the RB issued patents were in fact issued in error and are not novel or unique? What would be the logical outcome of that occurring? A few other salient points: 1. Manufacturers are under no obligation to actually comply with a C&D letter. Some manufacturers will, in fact, totally ignore them from RB. That of course involves come mathing on the odds they actually bring suit if you ignore… 2. RB *has* to behave the way they are behaving, if they want to be in compliance. So please stop the whining and wadded panties. It should surprise no one. 3. RB *does* deserve a lot of credit for going the distance on this. Stop having the memory of a fucking libtarded gnat. You’d have no FRTs and like it for quite some time if they had lost. 4. RB might be playing 4d chess lawfare? This is a stretch, but interesting to contemplate. I’ll await for the inevitable autistic argumentative GD members to now weigh in and try to counter all this. Quoted: Quoted: I think they backed down because if it had continued and went to SCOTUS and RB prevailed, FRTs might end up being ruled as protected under the 2A where congress couldn't even touch them. This way if RB breaches the settlement agreement the DOJ can still go after FRTs, no? There is still the Cargill precedent on our side, but it would be starting from scratch in court. Everyone shitting on RB for sticking to the terms of the settlement needs to realize they are making damn sure they can't be found in breach of it so that the government can't go after the FRTs - ALL of them. If they have to make a big show of suing everyone under the sun to stay in compliance with the contract, so be it. It's the only thing stopping the DOJ from going after all FRTs as MGs. You also have to remember that we can't have nationwide injunctions anymore. So if RB is found in breach of the settlement because they didn't file enough patent lawsuits, there will be nothing stopping a "Turn them all in or destroy them by making 3 cuts here, here and here" order from the ATF like they did with bumpstocks. And where are bumpstocks today after Cargill? They used to be hanging on the shelves of major retailers like Cabelas. Now? Nowhere. I get that FRTs are far superior in every way, and nobody wants a bumpstock when they could have an FRT. But still. No big retailer, even very pro-2A ones like Palmetto, is willing to touch these with a 10 foot pole. No one wants to be left holding the bag with a bunch of inventory made illegal with the stroke of a pen. And that's what WILL happen if everyone shitting on RB for patent lawsuits get their way. The DOJ finds RB in breach of the settlement and then they are no longer prevented from going after FRTs as machine guns. Yes, they will have to explain to the court how they are MGs in light of Cargill. But while that happens, you will be ordered to destroy or surrender your FRTs. It will take years in court, and it will likely happen during the next dem administration when all these agencies have the leash taken off and are out for revenge. This is almost verbatim the argument I made here multiple times over: by issuing C&D letters, and a few lawsuits here and there where appropriate, they absolutely are complying as required, and there is no sane person who would say they are not. Now, wouldn’t it be interesting if RB sues a super safety manufacturer, and it ends up losing, with the case being decided that RBs FRT and the Hoffman design patents are vastly different. Hmmm. That would be mighty interesting. It would be even further interesting if in another case, or even this same hypothetical case, it is shown that the RB issued patents were in fact issued in error and are not novel or unique? What would be the logical outcome of that occurring? A few other salient points: 1. Manufacturers are under no obligation to actually comply with a C&D letter. Some manufacturers will, in fact, totally ignore them from RB. That of course involves come mathing on the odds they actually bring suit if you ignore… 2. RB *has* to behave the way they are behaving, if they want to be in compliance. So please stop the whining and wadded panties. It should surprise no one. 3. RB *does* deserve a lot of credit for going the distance on this. Stop having the memory of a fucking libtarded gnat. You’d have no FRTs and like it for quite some time if they had lost. 4. RB might be playing 4d chess lawfare? This is a stretch, but interesting to contemplate. I’ll await for the inevitable autistic argumentative GD members to now weigh in and try to counter all this. If they only went after people who were actually infringing on their patents then nobody would have an issue with them. Also, even if they lost we'd still have super safeties 
|
|
Quoted: Here's the thing tho: Does the executive branch get to redefine what an object is by legal agreement with a 3rd party? Or is defining things for legal purposes the job of congress? If forced reset triggers aren't machine guns by definition of the statute, then it doesn't matter what the government agreed about them. They either aren't and never were OR are and always were. Agreement or no agreement. And if they AREN'T machine guns, then what is the executive branch going to do if they violate one of the provisions of that agreement (like make FRT for handguns)... prosecute them for producing something that they have, in writing, said they don't think is a machine gun? The government never specifically conceded in writing that Forced Reset Triggers are "not machineguns". At a high level, what the US DOJ and Rare Breed agreed to was that the government would halt any appeals and/or file motions to dismiss its current litigation against FRTs (there were a couple different cases), return existing seized FRTs (with some limitations) and would also not prosecute owners under the NFA or 922(o) for possession of an FRT as a machinegun if it met certain mechanical and model* stipulations. *Model meaning the FRT was not for a traditional handgun....like a TX22...which all sort of folks are now filming themselves with and which are clearly delineated as outside of the DOJ criminal prosecution safe harbor provisions of this agreement as outlined in section 11 b. In exchange for discontinuing litigation and prosecution Rare Breed agreed to never develop an FRT trigger for a traditional handgun and to actively enforce their patent to prevent others from manufacturing FRTs. Nowhere does the agreement stipulate that the government agrees that "FRTs are not machineguns" only that the DOJ would discontinue litigation and/or criminal prosecution at this time (per the specific terms of the agreement) , which are two totally different outcomes. i.e. we agree with you vs. we are not going to continue to fight you at this time. If Rare Breed violates the agreement the government could absolutely initiate new litigation against FRT manufacturers and/or criminal enforcement action against owners. My personal take is that the agreement is so loosely worded that any future administration could make the claim that Rare Breed didn't try hard enough to enforce their patents and tear this agreement up and start the litigation process again and/or restart criminal enforcement action against end users. Again my personal take is that this agreement is basically a "kick the can down the road" strategy for the government until the odds in the courts and/or congress are more in their favor to make these devices illegal. There is also nothing in the agreement that prevents criminal enforcement action by the DOJ today for the manufacture and/or possession of traditional handgun FRT of which most folks don't have the financial resources to fight the DOJ and will be forced into a plea agreement if caught with one and prosecuted. Of course Congress is not in any way beholden to this agreement and can create a new category of banned or restricted firearms that encompass all "recoil assisted rate of fire accelerators" equipped firearms and/or components like Bump Stocks, FRTs, hellfires, etc. Details of the DOJ / Rare Breed FRT agreement are here: https://gunrightsfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/FRT-Settlement-Agreement-FINAL.pdf |
|
Quoted: Not arfcon, just one guy who called and asked loaded questions. It was definitely a conflict of interest if nothing else. But calling was kinda sketchy IMO Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: https://i.postimg.cc/yxrSvMrY/1543838794903.jpg I want what works. HK are total d-bags, but their stuff works. JDs works too. I just ordered another. It's an R rated world out there, some of you sound like you may need some parental guidance. There are ways to clean up a GI trigger too. Honestly I haven't noticed that I didn't have a clean breaking 4lb pull when in 3rd position doing bursts, mag dumps, fire and maneuver incorporating James T. Kirk shoulder rolls with zips in the wire and calling in artillery on my position. But granted, I bet it would go better with a lighter cleaner trigger pull. The guy seems to think arfcom is trying to do a Ray Epps/J6 on him. It ain't a matter of "unpleasant truths." Its more "what the fuck are you smoking?" His device looks awesome and has a great rep. But...I get why people are saying he's off-putting. Not arfcon, just one guy who called and asked loaded questions. It was definitely a conflict of interest if nothing else. But calling was kinda sketchy IMO I didn't see anything he posted only the response so I found his name and searched myself and came to the opinion he's a loon that I wouldn't want associated with my site. Not saying anything about his products but he shouldn't be allowed within 20' of a computer imo. |
|
Quoted: The government never specifically conceded in writing that Forced Reset Triggers are "not machineguns". At a high level, what the US DOJ and Rare Breed agreed to was that the government would halt any appeals and/or file motions to dismiss its current litigation against FRTs (there were a couple different cases), return existing seized FRTs (with some limitations) and would also not prosecute owners under the NFA or 922(o) for possession of an FRT as a machinegun if it met certain mechanical and model* stipulations. *Model meaning the FRT was not for a traditional handgun....like a TX22...which all sort of folks are now filming themselves with and which are clearly delineated as outside of the DOJ criminal prosecution safe harbor provisions of this agreement as outlined in section 11 b. In exchange for discontinuing litigation and prosecution Rare Breed agreed to never develop an FRT trigger for a traditional handgun and to actively enforce their patent to prevent others from manufacturing FRTs. Nowhere does the agreement stipulate that the government agrees that "FRTs are not machineguns" only that the DOJ would discontinue litigation and/or criminal prosecution at this time (per the specific terms of the agreement) , which are two totally different outcomes. i.e. we agree with you vs. we are not going to continue to fight you at this time. If Rare Breed violates the agreement the government could absolutely initiate new litigation against FRT manufacturers and/or criminal enforcement action against owners. My personal take is that the agreement is so loosely worded that any future administration could make the claim that Rare Breed didn't try hard enough to enforce their patents and tear this agreement up and start the litigation process again and/or restart criminal enforcement action against end users. Again my personal take is that this agreement is basically a "kick the can down the road" strategy for the government until the odds in the courts and/or congress are more in their favor to make these devices illegal. There is also nothing in the agreement that prevents criminal enforcement action by the DOJ today for the manufacture and/or possession of traditional handgun FRT of which most folks don't have the financial resources to fight the DOJ and will be forced into a plea agreement if caught with one and prosecuted. Of course Congress is not in any way beholden to this agreement and can create a new category of banned or restricted firearms that encompass all "recoil assisted rate of fire accelerators" equipped firearms and/or components like Bump Stocks, FRTs, hellfires, etc. Details of the DOJ / Rare Breed FRT agreement are here: https://gunrightsfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/FRT-Settlement-Agreement-FINAL.pdf Quoted: Quoted: Here's the thing tho: Does the executive branch get to redefine what an object is by legal agreement with a 3rd party? Or is defining things for legal purposes the job of congress? If forced reset triggers aren't machine guns by definition of the statute, then it doesn't matter what the government agreed about them. They either aren't and never were OR are and always were. Agreement or no agreement. And if they AREN'T machine guns, then what is the executive branch going to do if they violate one of the provisions of that agreement (like make FRT for handguns)... prosecute them for producing something that they have, in writing, said they don't think is a machine gun? The government never specifically conceded in writing that Forced Reset Triggers are "not machineguns". At a high level, what the US DOJ and Rare Breed agreed to was that the government would halt any appeals and/or file motions to dismiss its current litigation against FRTs (there were a couple different cases), return existing seized FRTs (with some limitations) and would also not prosecute owners under the NFA or 922(o) for possession of an FRT as a machinegun if it met certain mechanical and model* stipulations. *Model meaning the FRT was not for a traditional handgun....like a TX22...which all sort of folks are now filming themselves with and which are clearly delineated as outside of the DOJ criminal prosecution safe harbor provisions of this agreement as outlined in section 11 b. In exchange for discontinuing litigation and prosecution Rare Breed agreed to never develop an FRT trigger for a traditional handgun and to actively enforce their patent to prevent others from manufacturing FRTs. Nowhere does the agreement stipulate that the government agrees that "FRTs are not machineguns" only that the DOJ would discontinue litigation and/or criminal prosecution at this time (per the specific terms of the agreement) , which are two totally different outcomes. i.e. we agree with you vs. we are not going to continue to fight you at this time. If Rare Breed violates the agreement the government could absolutely initiate new litigation against FRT manufacturers and/or criminal enforcement action against owners. My personal take is that the agreement is so loosely worded that any future administration could make the claim that Rare Breed didn't try hard enough to enforce their patents and tear this agreement up and start the litigation process again and/or restart criminal enforcement action against end users. Again my personal take is that this agreement is basically a "kick the can down the road" strategy for the government until the odds in the courts and/or congress are more in their favor to make these devices illegal. There is also nothing in the agreement that prevents criminal enforcement action by the DOJ today for the manufacture and/or possession of traditional handgun FRT of which most folks don't have the financial resources to fight the DOJ and will be forced into a plea agreement if caught with one and prosecuted. Of course Congress is not in any way beholden to this agreement and can create a new category of banned or restricted firearms that encompass all "recoil assisted rate of fire accelerators" equipped firearms and/or components like Bump Stocks, FRTs, hellfires, etc. Details of the DOJ / Rare Breed FRT agreement are here: https://gunrightsfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/FRT-Settlement-Agreement-FINAL.pdf So they're picking and choosing whom to enforce the law against? Hello, equal protection clause... |
|
Quoted: Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. 411 (2016)- Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they "were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment's enactment", but the Supreme Court noted that this contradicted Heller's conclusion that Second Amendment protects "arms ... that were not in existence at the time of the founding". SCOTUS in the Caetano case decision put a quantity of an "arm" to determine if it were "in comman use" and not "unusual"...200,000 units being possessed by citizens. I suspect under Caetano the quantity of FRT's in total has surpassed the "In Comman Use" threshold. Banning them outright is no longer an option according to SCOTUS and Caetano. If congress decides at some later date to change the definition of machinegun to incluude FRT's, then under the Gun Control Act of 1968 the government is REQUIRED to hold an amnesty registration of those articles. No less than thirty days and no longer ninety days, they can NOT be held consecutively (must have at least one day between amnesties). The more they are in common use the better. I’ve always been a gamblin man… Figure I’d roll the dice and these are way more fun than a lottery ticket. All the variants and flavors?…. It’s safe to say it’s more than 30 and less than 100. In before the guys who chime in congress will ban and you have to turn them in.  There is precedent amigos (see above circa 1968). Also In 1994 everything was “grandfathered” nothing was turned in. Will it happen? Doubtful. Will states do it? Oh heck yes. Federally? I am cautiously optimistic. |
|
Quoted: So they're picking and choosing whom to enforce the law against? Hello, equal protection clause... Its the government..... they always pick and choose whom to enforce the law against. Whether its the US DOJ tossing Mar-A-Lago and prosecuting Trump for declassified docs stored in a secured room to declining to prosecute Biden for actual classified docs stored in an unlocked garage all the way down to the local po-dunk police chief covering up crimes committed by their friends or family or framing folks for crimes who have a skin color he might now like and had the nerve to drive through their town. If you have hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars to spend on an army of experienced attorneys and like to gamble with your freedom than you can call the government on their unequal playing field and maybe you don't end up in jail, broke, or both. If you don't have all of those resources at your disposal and find yourself in the prosecutorial crosshairs than the odds are really stacked against you. |
|
"Nowhere does the agreement stipulate that the government agrees that "FRTs are not machineguns" I disagree. DOJ website: “This Department of Justice believes that the 2nd Amendment is not a second-class right,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi. “And we are glad to end a needless cycle of litigation with a settlement that will enhance public safety.” In June 2024, in Cargill v. Garland, the Supreme Court held that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) exceeded its statutory authority by issuing a rule classifying a bump stock as a “machinegun.” In July 2024, the Northern District of Texas applied Cargill v. Garland to a device called a “forced-reset trigger” (FRT) and concluded that FRTs also cannot be classified as a “machinegun.” DOJ dropped it's appeal of the decision in TX....DOJ conceded that Forced Reset Triggers are not machineguns. Attorney General Bondi in multiple interviews has stated they they are NOT machineguns and are legal to own under federal law. Only by CONGRESS (via legislation) changing the definition of a machinegun to include FRT's can change the fact that currently they ARE NOT machinguns. Cargill v. Garland settled that. Entrapment by estoppel is a legal defense in where a person was told by an authorized government official that their conduct was legal. -The advice must come from a government agent or official empowered to interpret the law. |
|
Quoted: I think they backed down because if it had continued and went to SCOTUS and RB prevailed, FRTs might end up being ruled as protected under the 2A where congress couldn't even touch them. This way if RB breaches the settlement agreement the DOJ can still go after FRTs, no? There is still the Cargill precedent on our side, but it would be starting from scratch in court. Everyone shitting on RB for sticking to the terms of the settlement needs to realize they are making damn sure they can't be found in breach of it so that the government can't go after the FRTs - ALL of them. If they have to make a big show of suing everyone under the sun to stay in compliance with the contract, so be it. It's the only thing stopping the DOJ from going after all FRTs as MGs. You also have to remember that we can't have nationwide injunctions anymore. So if RB is found in breach of the settlement because they didn't file enough patent lawsuits, there will be nothing stopping a "Turn them all in or destroy them by making 3 cuts here, here and here" order from the ATF like they did with bumpstocks. And where are bumpstocks today after Cargill? They used to be hanging on the shelves of major retailers like Cabelas. Now? Nowhere. I get that FRTs are far superior in every way, and nobody wants a bumpstock when they could have an FRT. But still. No big retailer, even very pro-2A ones like Palmetto, is willing to touch these with a 10 foot pole. No one wants to be left holding the bag with a bunch of inventory made illegal with the stroke of a pen. And that's what WILL happen if everyone shitting on RB for patent lawsuits get their way. The DOJ finds RB in breach of the settlement and then they are no longer prevented from going after FRTs as machine guns. Yes, they will have to explain to the court how they are MGs in light of Cargill. But while that happens, you will be ordered to destroy or surrender your FRTs. It will take years in court, and it will likely happen during the next dem administration when all these agencies have the leash taken off and are out for revenge. I’ll continue to shit on RB because they agreed to the deal that they did. They weren’t forced to take that deal but instead likely did because it would help bolster their position in the market by being king shit. They knew they had the government by the balls and they could have finished this once and for all which would have likely had even bigger ripple effects but they didn’t. They took the chickenshit way out. |
|
Does anyone know what .22 trip kits will work with the AZR 2 position and 3 position FRTs? I know that JD said he has something in the works, but without him posting here there are no updates. I'm curious about the CMMG, Bore Buddy, and GMR .22 trip kits. Any experience with them? |
|
Quoted: Does anyone know what .22 trip kits will work with the AZR 2 position and 3 position FRTs? I know that JD said he has something in the works, but without him posting here there are no updates. I'm curious about the CMMG, Bore Buddy, and GMR .22 trip kits. Any experience with them? I would assume the CMMG or BB m16 trip would work. The GMR and BB super safety versions are specifically for the super safety. The azr is more like an m16 autosear but I havent even taken my azr out of the package yet so I couldnt say for certain it would work. https://borebuddy.com/product/adjustable-trip-kit/ https://cmmg.com/auto-sear-trip-kit-22lr-ar-conversion |
|
Quoted: I’ll continue to shit on RB because they agreed to the deal that they did. They weren’t forced to take that deal but instead likely did because it would help bolster their position in the market by being king shit. They knew they had the government by the balls and they could have finished this once and for all which would have likely had even bigger ripple effects but they didn’t. They took the chickenshit way out. Quoted: Quoted: I think they backed down because if it had continued and went to SCOTUS and RB prevailed, FRTs might end up being ruled as protected under the 2A where congress couldn't even touch them. This way if RB breaches the settlement agreement the DOJ can still go after FRTs, no? There is still the Cargill precedent on our side, but it would be starting from scratch in court. Everyone shitting on RB for sticking to the terms of the settlement needs to realize they are making damn sure they can't be found in breach of it so that the government can't go after the FRTs - ALL of them. If they have to make a big show of suing everyone under the sun to stay in compliance with the contract, so be it. It's the only thing stopping the DOJ from going after all FRTs as MGs. You also have to remember that we can't have nationwide injunctions anymore. So if RB is found in breach of the settlement because they didn't file enough patent lawsuits, there will be nothing stopping a "Turn them all in or destroy them by making 3 cuts here, here and here" order from the ATF like they did with bumpstocks. And where are bumpstocks today after Cargill? They used to be hanging on the shelves of major retailers like Cabelas. Now? Nowhere. I get that FRTs are far superior in every way, and nobody wants a bumpstock when they could have an FRT. But still. No big retailer, even very pro-2A ones like Palmetto, is willing to touch these with a 10 foot pole. No one wants to be left holding the bag with a bunch of inventory made illegal with the stroke of a pen. And that's what WILL happen if everyone shitting on RB for patent lawsuits get their way. The DOJ finds RB in breach of the settlement and then they are no longer prevented from going after FRTs as machine guns. Yes, they will have to explain to the court how they are MGs in light of Cargill. But while that happens, you will be ordered to destroy or surrender your FRTs. It will take years in court, and it will likely happen during the next dem administration when all these agencies have the leash taken off and are out for revenge. I’ll continue to shit on RB because they agreed to the deal that they did. They weren’t forced to take that deal but instead likely did because it would help bolster their position in the market by being king shit. They knew they had the government by the balls and they could have finished this once and for all which would have likely had even bigger ripple effects but they didn’t. They took the chickenshit way out. 
|
|
Quoted: We don't have to be best friends for him to sell me a great product that works. I kinda like his saltiness. In my experience it's the overly friendly salesman that I worry about. I have one of his 2 position and a 3 position in different rifles. Will probably get another 3 position soon. |
|
Quoted: I'll continue to shit on RB because they agreed to the deal that they did. They weren't forced to take that deal but instead likely did because it would help bolster their position in the market by being king shit. They knew they had the government by the balls and they could have finished this once and for all which would have likely had even bigger ripple effects but they didn't. They took the chickenshit way out. It came down to the case in NY that was also ongoing, and a very unfavorable venue. They were winning in TX but in NY it was looking bad. And losing there would have meant prison. They way they described it, the settlement was a compromise that guaranteed no prison and still allowed them to make and sell FRTs. It wasn't the whole enchilada, but it was also a guaranteed "win" even if it wasn't a perfect one. I don't know anyone who wouldn't have taken that deal. It sucks but it was the safest, smartest play. If the penalties for losing were more like a parking ticket, I think they would have pressed on. |
|
Quoted: To make a show of compliance with the settlement agreement. Quoted: Quoted: So why are they going after FRTs that aren't even close to the same design as theirs?  So they're deliberately costing other companies a bunch of legal fees just to show their fealty to the government? 
|
|
Quoted: You obviously didn't watch the interview with Demonico and their lawyer. It came down to the case in NY that was also ongoing, and a very unfavorable venue. They were winning in TX but in NY it was looking bad. And losing there would have meant prison. They way they described it, the settlement was a compromise that guaranteed no prison and still allowed them to make and sell FRTs. It wasn't the whole enchilada, but it was also a guaranteed "win" even if it wasn't a perfect one. I don't know anyone who wouldn't have taken that deal. It sucks but it was the safest, smartest play. If the penalties for losing were more like a parking ticket, I think they would have pressed on. Quoted: Quoted: I'll continue to shit on RB because they agreed to the deal that they did. They weren't forced to take that deal but instead likely did because it would help bolster their position in the market by being king shit. They knew they had the government by the balls and they could have finished this once and for all which would have likely had even bigger ripple effects but they didn't. They took the chickenshit way out. It came down to the case in NY that was also ongoing, and a very unfavorable venue. They were winning in TX but in NY it was looking bad. And losing there would have meant prison. They way they described it, the settlement was a compromise that guaranteed no prison and still allowed them to make and sell FRTs. It wasn't the whole enchilada, but it was also a guaranteed "win" even if it wasn't a perfect one. I don't know anyone who wouldn't have taken that deal. It sucks but it was the safest, smartest play. If the penalties for losing were more like a parking ticket, I think they would have pressed on. Ahhh yes Rarebreed's lawyer, who happens to be from the firm founded by the new head of the DOJ Civil Rights Division who helped with this settlement. I'm sure they got no special treatment. |
|
Quoted: Is the AR 3 position available to purchase yet? I did not see it on his website. @JKrammes https://arizonaregulator.com/arizona-regulator-azr-15a1-combat-trigger-3-position/ |
|
Quoted: I’ll continue to shit on RB because they agreed to the deal that they did. They weren’t forced to take that deal but instead likely did because it would help bolster their position in the market by being king shit. They knew they had the government by the balls and they could have finished this once and for all which would have likely had even bigger ripple effects but they didn’t. They took the chickenshit way out. Quoted: You obviously didn't watch the interview with Demonico and their lawyer. It came down to the case in NY that was also ongoing, and a very unfavorable venue. They were winning in TX but in NY it was looking bad. And losing there would have meant prison. They way they described it, the settlement was a compromise that guaranteed no prison and still allowed them to make and sell FRTs. It wasn't the whole enchilada, but it was also a guaranteed "win" even if it wasn't a perfect one. I don't know anyone who wouldn't have taken that deal. It sucks but it was the safest, smartest play. If the penalties for losing were more like a parking ticket, I think they would have pressed on. Agreed, I can't fault RB for taking that deal.  EXCLUSIVE: Inside the FRT Settlement with Rare Breed |
|
Quoted: I like how his screenshots only show his response, seems like a good reason for curious people to go out on the internet and start looking. Quoted: Quoted: The screenshots and butt hurt for ARF on his website is a nice touch.  I like how his screenshots only show his response, seems like a good reason for curious people to go out on the internet and start looking. I found what you are talking about a few weeks back. 140IQ, NO Paper plates.....! Interesting people in the firearms community. LOL |
|
Quoted: I found what you are talking about a few weeks back. 140IQ, NO Paper plates.....! Interesting people in the firearms community. LOL Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The screenshots and butt hurt for ARF on his website is a nice touch. I like how his screenshots only show his response, seems like a good reason for curious people to go out on the internet and start looking. I found what you are talking about a few weeks back. 140IQ, NO Paper plates.....! Interesting people in the firearms community. LOL Hats off to you if you could actually manage to read all of that without your brain melting lol. |
