User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/4/2018 1:35:06 AM EDT
[#1]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2018 1:38:00 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote History |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2018 1:39:31 AM EDT
[#3]
Doesn't ban them, binary triggers fire once on the pull and once on the release
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2018 1:40:59 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Doesn't ban them, binary triggers fire once on the pull and once on the release And how many rounds per pull was that... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2018 1:41:20 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Doesn't ban them, binary triggers fire once on the pull and once on the release |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2018 1:46:13 AM EDT
[#6]
Old Interpretation:
Automatic = fires more than once per function of the trigger "Function of the trigger" includes PULL and RELEASE Binary trigger = one round per FUNCTION of the trigger, and even if a robot or a wooden dowel is used to pull and release the trigger, it clearly fires only ONE round per FUNCTION of the trigger New Interpretation: Automatic = fires more than once per pull of the trigger There is no more "function of the trigger" concept. If the pull (and any subsequent actions between pull and another fresh pull) causes two or more rounds to fire, it is a machine gun Binary trigger = one round on PULL, and another round before you can pull again. It clearly fires TWO rounds per PULL of the trigger (on the basis that only pull actions count, but all rounds dispensed between pulls count) |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2018 1:47:36 AM EDT
[#7]
Afraid so.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2018 1:57:03 AM EDT
[#8]
The LAW not regulation says specifically “function” as opposed to pull with regards to machine guns, but rifle specifically mentions a pull of the trigger.
NFA text It’s on page 7 of the file. File is directly from ATFs website. They can try to claim otherwise, but they can’t rewrite the law and saying congressional intent is what they’ve decided to enact as opposed to what’s written is asinine since the two definitions are very close in the text yet they specifically chose different terminology. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2018 2:01:32 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The LAW not regulation says specifically “function” as opposed to pull with regards to machine guns, but rifle specifically mentions a pull of the trigger. NFA text It’s on page 7 of the file. File is directly from ATFs website. The executive branch intends on REWRITING THE LAW and ENFORCING THEIR REWRITE OF SAID LAW. I know what it says in the NFA and GCA. Statutory definitions are supposed to mean something and are NOT supposed to be open to executive fiat and redefinition. For example, 18 U.S. Code § 1111 section A states that: Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Every murder perpetrated by poison, lying in wait, or any other kind of willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated killing; or committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, any arson, escape, murder, kidnapping, treason, espionage, sabotage, aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse, child abuse, burglary, or robbery; or perpetrated as part of a pattern or practice of assault or torture against a child or children; or perpetrated from a premeditated design unlawfully and maliciously to effect the death of any human being other than him who is killed, is murder in the first degree. Should the executive branch have the power to rewrite that to read: Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought, or the hurting of feelings in a public setting. Every murder perpetrated by poison, lying in wait, or any other kind of willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated killing; or committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, any arson, escape, murder, kidnapping, treason, espionage, sabotage, aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse, child abuse, burglary, or robbery; or perpetrated as part of a pattern or practice of assault or torture against a child or children; or perpetrated from a premeditated design unlawfully and maliciously to effect the death of any human being other than him who is killed, is murder in the first degree. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2018 2:29:39 AM EDT
[#10]
No, because the NRA lobbied so hard against it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2018 2:32:43 AM EDT
[#11]
Fuck them, come and take it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2018 2:41:32 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, because the NRA lobbied so hard against it. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2018 5:09:32 AM EDT
[#13]
The NRA threw something with no teeth to the other side for the other side to appease their masses with, in order to buy time for the dust to settle.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2018 6:07:52 AM EDT
[#14]
MAGA
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2018 6:15:20 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The NRA threw something with no teeth to the other side for the other side to appease their masses with, in order to buy time for the dust to settle. And I wanted to make it in before 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2018 6:39:43 AM EDT
[#16]
It appears the regulation would also criminalize bump firing even without a bump stock if you were to let the recoil of the firearm trip the trigger (as you don’t even need to ‘pull’ the trigger if the firearm is traveling forward).
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2018 7:00:12 AM EDT
[#17]
The new wording would create a dangerous gray area but would not be a direct ban
Binaries fire 1 round on pull. The user can rotate the selector to not fire on release. This backs up that the fire on release is distinctly separate from the round fired on pull, still 1 round per pull. That being said, I'd rather not have to sell that distinction before some democrat appointed anti-gun crusading judge. We need more pushback against this regulation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2018 7:21:25 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The new wording would create a dangerous gray area but would not be a direct ban Binaries fire 1 round on pull. The user can rotate the selector to not fire on release. This backs up that the fire on release is distinctly separate from the round fired on pull, still 1 round per pull. That being said, I'd rather not have to sell that distinction before some democrat appointed anti-gun crusading judge. We need more pushback against this regulation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2018 7:24:47 AM EDT
[#19]
What about crank fired for semi belt feds ?
They are not as the statute says "self operating" |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2018 7:37:51 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The NRA threw something with no teeth to the other side for the other side to appease their masses with, in order to buy time for the dust to settle. Quote HistoryQuoted:
The NRA threw something with no teeth to the other side for the other side to appease their masses with, in order to buy time for the dust to settle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2018 7:44:00 AM EDT
[#21]
Don’t care. Will not comply.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2018 7:49:55 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The LAW not regulation says specifically “function” as opposed to pull with regards to machine guns, but rifle specifically mentions a pull of the trigger. NFA text It’s on page 7 of the file. File is directly from ATFs website. They can try to claim otherwise, but they can’t rewrite the law and saying congressional intent is what they’ve decided to enact as opposed to what’s written is asinine since the two definitions are very close in the text yet they specifically chose different terminology. The only relevant question is: Will the courts uphold the regulation? Anyone who believes that the courts will save us from this edict hasn't been paying attention. First, the courts are in the lead when it comes to twisting the words in a statute to reach a particular result. Some of us remember the decisions on Obamacare. Second, the courts have demonstrated that they will go pretty far when the object is to keep automatic weapons out of the hands of the unwashed masses. For recent examples see Hollis v. Lynch and Watson v. Attorney General. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2018 7:54:18 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Old Interpretation: Automatic = fires more than once per function of the trigger "Function of the trigger" includes PULL and RELEASE Binary trigger = one round per FUNCTION of the trigger, and even if a robot or a wooden dowel is used to pull and release the trigger, it clearly fires only ONE round per FUNCTION of the trigger New Interpretation: Automatic = fires more than once per pull of the trigger There is no more "function of the trigger" concept. If the pull (and any subsequent actions between pull and another fresh pull) causes two or more rounds to fire, it is a machine gun Binary trigger = one round on PULL, and another round before you can pull again. It clearly fires TWO rounds per PULL of the trigger (on the basis that only pull actions count, but all rounds dispensed between pulls count) |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2018 7:54:45 AM EDT
[#24]
OP, according to the definition you posted, bump stocks sound legal to me. The trigger gets functioned or pulled each time for a new round to fire. It is all manufactured wordsmithing unconstitutional bullshit anyway.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2018 7:56:02 AM EDT
[#25]
In before some Fudd posts "sorry your girl lost"
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2018 8:00:37 AM EDT
[#26]
functioning as a self
- acting or self - regulating mechanism that harnesses the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm in a manner that allows the trigger to reset and continue firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shoote |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2018 8:11:28 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm sti a felon come October 1st.... so much for no teeth and appeasement. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The NRA threw something with no teeth to the other side for the other side to appease their masses with, in order to buy time for the dust to settle. And it gets easier each time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2018 8:12:41 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Need to shop NRA onto the teachers there 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2018 8:15:15 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Actually the word PULL still doesn’t make it an MG. Are you “PULLING” a trigger when it’s realeased? Ask Mr Webster and he will say no. Webster ceased to be relevant when Bill Clinton said, "It depends on what your definition of 'is' is." |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2018 8:17:01 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes And how many rounds per pull was that... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2018 8:18:05 AM EDT
[#31]
Oh, but they're just stupid gimmicks too so nobody could possibly mind if we ban them. It's not like they have a practical purpose so it's ok to throw them under the bus, and doing so will surely benefit us in the long term.
Something about water hoses... Also, eagerly awaiting the hickock45 video. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2018 8:19:09 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Don’t care. Will not comply. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2018 8:20:35 AM EDT
[#33]
Yes, and because it is hidden in banning bumpstocks, many will not know and will gleeful cheer it because "hurr durr gotta get rid of them thar bumpstocks to protect the 2A" attitude that even several here have
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2018 8:24:22 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, and because it is hidden in banning bumpstocks, many will not know and will gleeful cheer it because "hurr durr gotta get rid of them thar bumpstocks to protect the 2A" attitude that even several here have Yeah so are some sleds but see how fast that sumbitch accelerates down the slippery slope when it starts. But you know GD is functionally retarded on some issues. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2018 8:24:52 AM EDT
[#35]
MATFGA
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2018 8:26:09 AM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
Read the following from the rule and decide if you think binary triggers are exempt or included. "Therefore, the Department proposes to exercise its delegated authority to clarify its interpretations of the statutory terms “single function of the trigger,” “automatically,” and “machinegun.” Specifically, the Department proposes to amend 27 CFR 479.11 by defining the term “single function of the trigger” to mean “single pull of the trigger.” The Department further proposes to amend these regulations by defining the term “automatically” to mean “as the result of a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that allows the firing of multiple rounds through a single pull of the trigger.” ... Interpreting the term “automatically” to mean “as the result of a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that allows the firing of multiple rounds through a single pull of the trigger” also reflects the ordinary meaning of that term at the time of the NFA’s enactment in 1934." Read the entire proposed rule here Based on the wording, it would seem that the proposed encompasses any and all resulting firing of multiple rounds from the initial single pull of a trigger. Regardless of any specific mechanical function that allows for it. Yep, binary trigger will certainly fall under this interpretation. Even it did not, you can rest assured that they will go after those next. All anyone needs to do is watch an advert video from Franklin Armory to realize the "firing of multiple rounds" down range is the target of the Left. A.W.D. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2018 8:26:54 AM EDT
[#37]
Fine. They interpret it as a pull. I shall design a gun that fires repeatedly and automatically when the trigger is pushed. And it will not be a machine gun.
In fact, I think we now have carte blanche to build as many Maxim machine guns as we want. ETA: Browning .50s too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2018 8:29:28 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Actually the word PULL still doesn’t make it an MG. Are you “PULLING” a trigger when it’s realeased? Ask Mr Webster and he will say no. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Old Interpretation: Automatic = fires more than once per function of the trigger "Function of the trigger" includes PULL and RELEASE Binary trigger = one round per FUNCTION of the trigger, and even if a robot or a wooden dowel is used to pull and release the trigger, it clearly fires only ONE round per FUNCTION of the trigger New Interpretation: Automatic = fires more than once per pull of the trigger There is no more "function of the trigger" concept. If the pull (and any subsequent actions between pull and another fresh pull) causes two or more rounds to fire, it is a machine gun Binary trigger = one round on PULL, and another round before you can pull again. It clearly fires TWO rounds per PULL of the trigger (on the basis that only pull actions count, but all rounds dispensed between pulls count) A.W.D. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2018 8:31:13 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Fine. They interpret it as a pull. I shall design a gun that fires repeatedly and automatically when the trigger is pushed. And it will not be a machine gun.
In fact, I think we now have carte blanche to build as many Maxim machine guns as we want.... A.W.D. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2018 8:34:08 AM EDT
[#40]
I suspect the reason so many non-ARF gun owners don't give a shit about the whole bump stock/binary trigger thing is because it you just look at the responses in this thread I don't think half the peeps posting seem to know what they are talking about, much less able to explain it to fellow gun owners "out in the wild".
I've tried and usually just go with the one bang per pull of finger as far as bump stocks go (they understand that) and don't even try to confuse them with the binary trigger stuff because to be honest I'm not sure about it myself. I have a Tac-Con 3mr drop in trigger I got with a lower i bought. Hell, I don't even know what the third position does, I just like the trigger pull in the normal position as it's a great hunting trigger. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2018 8:37:17 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Fine. They interpret it as a pull. I shall design a gun that fires repeatedly and automatically when the trigger is pushed. And it will not be a machine gun.
In fact, I think we now have carte blanche to build as many Maxim machine guns as we want. ETA: Browning .50s too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2018 8:47:39 AM EDT
[#42]
Solution to this is a push-button for a trigger. Or a butterfly lever.
No trigger = no machine gun. Gimme an electric button for full auto. Or even a butterfly lever like on the M2. Thanks, ATF. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2018 9:05:33 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
OP, according to the definition you posted, bump stocks sound legal to me. The trigger gets functioned or pulled each time for a new round to fire. It is all manufactured wordsmithing unconstitutional bullshit anyway. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2018 9:18:07 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Don't sweat it. You get used to it. And it gets easier each time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2018 9:19:11 AM EDT
[#45]
Whats even more concerning is in the past ATF has ruled that guns that can readily accept machine gun parts such as three pin lowers on ARs HK pinned lowers etc are illegal without a stamp. When the Bump Stock becomes a machine gun part then its logical to conclude that any gun that can readily accept one will need a stamp.
We will probably have to have some buffer tube that will not work with a bump stock since the bumpstock somehow easily creates a machine gun according to Trump and the NRA. To all the idiots that think this is low hanging fruit this is the keys to the entire farm. If they can ban accessories at will then say goodbye to anything ever used in the next mass shooting. Its written that its to ban anything that increases the rate of fire of a rifle. Well Mags do that comps and alot of other things. Those can all be on the chopping block now thanks to this ruling. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2018 9:24:08 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Actually the word PULL still doesn't make it an MG. Are you "PULLING" a trigger when it's realeased? Ask Mr Webster and he will say no. they therefore, are pulling the trigger to release it." - ATF Opinion letter coming soon |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2018 9:28:33 AM EDT
[#47]
It's not an immediate redetermination on binary triggers as instant illegal mgs the second this rule passes, but the wording does allow for a near future redetermination that binary are mgs without a new proposed rule change.
After this rule passes (pending litigation), all it will take is 1 asshole to submit a letter requesting clarification and then we will see... One thing binary has going for it is the huge prevalence of DOUBLE BARREL TRAP GUNS that shoot one barrel on pull and one on release... I binary. You can't ban binary without banning half the fudds trap guns that are out there ... So either binary will be allowed to stand despite the "pull" language, or all the fudds that supported bump bans, AWB, and mag limits will have to give up their trap guns due to the bullshit they supported. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2018 9:29:06 AM EDT
[#48]
It's all 55 pages of preposterous statements like on Page 5
"These (prior) decisions did not include an extensive legal analysis relating to the definition of machinegun" The government claims that until the Vegas shooting they never did a an extensive legal analysis? Really? Akins went through the 11th circuit. On to another point people forget: It is a scientific fact that a semi-automatic AR-15 has the same cyclic rate as the machinegun version the M-16. They both contain the same essential operating mechanism (other than a mechanical trip in the trigger assembly of the M-16). Both have the same cyclic rate or the time it takes to complete a single cycle of the firing mechanism. Any semiautomatic firearm can fire as fast as a machinegun (and always could). This is why Jerry M. can do what he does... All semi-automatic firearms are intrinsically capable of being "bump fired" stock or no stock. Without the mastering of this shooting technique first, a bump stock does nothing. Anybody think they might move the goal post to include any semiautomatic some day? The government claims that the bump firing technique is lawful, but using a stock to do it in a safer more accurate manner is unlawful, and it's the rate of fire that is the concern even though the stock has nothing to do with the cyclic rate of the host firearm. This list of statements that require a suspension of disbelief of the natural sciences is legion. ATF experts will be impeached with them...(They thought the shoe string was bad in court). |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2018 9:30:21 AM EDT
[#49]
If the summery you posted was the complete statute I’d agree they would fall under the ban. Problem is that summery does not include the part about no physical manipulation required after the pull to keep firing. A binary trigger only fires once when pulled. You must physically manipulate (also known as release) to fire another round. Does not meet their definition of automatic under the old or new complete statute.
According to the summery the ATF has been using the pull definition since 2006 to accept or deny products brought to market. You’re focused on a word they already use. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2018 10:27:17 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's not an immediate redetermination on binary triggers as instant illegal mgs the second this rule passes, but the wording does allow for a near future redetermination that binary are mgs without a new proposed rule change. After this rule passes (pending litigation), all it will take is 1 asshole to submit a letter requesting clarification and then we will see... One thing binary has going for it is the huge prevalence of DOUBLE BARREL TRAP GUNS that shoot one barrel on pull and one on release... I binary. You can't ban binary without banning half the fudds trap guns that are out there ... So either binary will be allowed to stand despite the "pull" language, or all the fudds that supported bump bans, AWB, and mag limits will have to give up their trap guns due to the bullshit they supported. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
