User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/28/2022 4:35:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Old_Painless]
[#1]
For all your FRT-Lewis needs, a serious carry handle has been released by Klein Machining:
Sales in EE only. |
|
|
|
GA, USA
|
Posted: 1/7/2023 11:15:45 AM EDT
[#2]
CRIMINAL CASE FILED on a forced reset trigger last week.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-pr/pr/gun-shop-and-owner-charged-transfer-firearm-felon-aiding-and-abetting-unlicensed-firearm "According to public documents, Mr. Berrios-Aquino’s gun had been altered with an Alamo-15 Forced Reset Trigger, which modifies a gun to automatically fire more than one shot without manual reloading by a single function of the trigger." |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2023 11:36:46 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Malum-Prohibitum: CRIMINAL CASE FILED on a forced reset trigger last week. https://www.justice.gov/usao-pr/pr/gun-shop-and-owner-charged-transfer-firearm-felon-aiding-and-abetting-unlicensed-firearm "According to public documents, Mr. Berrios-Aquino’s gun had been altered with an Alamo-15 Forced Reset Trigger, which modifies a gun to automatically fire more than one shot without manual reloading by a single function of the trigger." Well the first circuit court of appeals definitely doesn't measure up to the fifth circuit (that just ruled bump stocks as legal). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_First_Circuit#Current_composition_of_the_court |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2023 11:51:08 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Malum-Prohibitum: CRIMINAL CASE FILED on a forced reset trigger last week. https://www.justice.gov/usao-pr/pr/gun-shop-and-owner-charged-transfer-firearm-felon-aiding-and-abetting-unlicensed-firearm "According to public documents, Mr. Berrios-Aquino's gun had been altered with an Alamo-15 Forced Reset Trigger, which modifies a gun to automatically fire more than one shot without manual reloading by a single function of the trigger." Hopefully they can use some of the recent 5th circuit opinion to bolster their defense.  Attached File |
|
|
|
GA, USA
|
Posted: 1/7/2023 1:24:40 PM EDT
[#5]
As to the Fifth Circuit case from yesterday, I am not so sure it helps out on forced reset triggers. Most of the text reads in a helpful manner. But then there is footnote 8 on p. 23.
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/20/20-51016-CV2.pdf |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2023 1:59:03 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Malum-Prohibitum: As to the Fifth Circuit case from yesterday, I am not so sure it helps out on forced reset triggers. Most of the text reads in a helpful manner. But then there is footnote 8 on p. 23. https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/20/20-51016-CV2.pdf One could argue that a forced reset guarantees each shot requires a distinct pull (and function) of the trigger whether conscious movement or continuous pressure light enough to allow individual trigger pulls without conscious effort of these discrete trigger pulls and discrete trigger functions. The government is conflating “pull” with “function”, because their argument is that easy bump firing or easy fast firing is effectively full auto. This 5th circuit decision seems to undermine that kind of dissembling wordplay. Highspeed camera evidence also undermines the “seeing is believing” view of “I only saw him pull the FRT trigger once to get a burst.” Beyond the speed of the unaided eye the trigger is functioning a single time for each shot and then reset to be able to function again for a quick follow up shot. Interesting and timely case for sure. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2023 2:05:39 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By KalmanPhilter: One could argue that a forced reset guarantees each shot requires a distinct pull (and function) of the trigger whether conscious movement or continuous pressure light enough to allow individual trigger pulls without conscious effort of these discrete trigger pulls and discrete trigger functions. The government is conflating “pull” with “function”, because their argument is that easy bump firing or easy fast firing is effectively full auto. This 5th circuit decision seems to undermine that kind of dissembling wordplay. Highspeed camera evidence also undermines the “seeing is believing” view of “I only saw him pull the FRT trigger once to get a burst.” Beyond the speed of the unaided eye the trigger is functioning a single time for each shot and then reset to be able to function again for a quick follow up shot. Interesting and timely case for sure. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By KalmanPhilter: Originally Posted By Malum-Prohibitum: As to the Fifth Circuit case from yesterday, I am not so sure it helps out on forced reset triggers. Most of the text reads in a helpful manner. But then there is footnote 8 on p. 23. https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/20/20-51016-CV2.pdf One could argue that a forced reset guarantees each shot requires a distinct pull (and function) of the trigger whether conscious movement or continuous pressure light enough to allow individual trigger pulls without conscious effort of these discrete trigger pulls and discrete trigger functions. The government is conflating “pull” with “function”, because their argument is that easy bump firing or easy fast firing is effectively full auto. This 5th circuit decision seems to undermine that kind of dissembling wordplay. Highspeed camera evidence also undermines the “seeing is believing” view of “I only saw him pull the FRT trigger once to get a burst.” Beyond the speed of the unaided eye the trigger is functioning a single time for each shot and then reset to be able to function again for a quick follow up shot. Interesting and timely case for sure. And by definition, MANUALLY RELOADING the trigger for each shot. |
|
|
|
GA, USA
|
Posted: 1/7/2023 8:47:52 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By KalmanPhilter: One could argue that a forced reset guarantees each shot requires a distinct pull (and function) of the trigger whether conscious movement or continuous pressure light enough to allow individual trigger pulls without conscious effort of these discrete trigger pulls and discrete trigger functions. The government is conflating “pull” with “function”, because their argument is that easy bump firing or easy fast firing is effectively full auto. This 5th circuit decision seems to undermine that kind of dissembling wordplay. Highspeed camera evidence also undermines the “seeing is believing” view of “I only saw him pull the FRT trigger once to get a burst.” Beyond the speed of the unaided eye the trigger is functioning a single time for each shot and then reset to be able to function again for a quick follow up shot. Interesting and timely case for sure. But in footnote 8 they address the Akins Accelerator, and basically say that because it mechanically starts a firing sequence, using a spring, that requires no further input from the shooter, that it is different from the standard bump stock, for which the shooter must keep applying forward pressure with his other hand. This is my concern - that forced reset triggers operate more like the Akins Accelerator than the standard bump stock, since the bolt forces the trigger forward. The rest of the opinion is great and fills me with hope, but footnote 8 causes me some dismay. The future of forced reset triggers may not be so bright in the Fifth Circuit. Please read footnote 8 and tell me if you disagree (and why). |
|
|
GA, USA
|
Posted: 1/7/2023 8:50:04 PM EDT
[#9]
Footnote 8
The Government points to an unpublished Eleventh Circuit case—which held that a mechanical bump stock called the Akins Accelerator is a machinegun for purposes of federal law—as support for its argument that non-mechanical bump stocks operate by a single function of the trigger. See Akins v. United States, 312 F. App’x 197, 200 (11th Cir. 2009). But that evidence cuts in the other direction. Unlike nonmechanical bump stocks, a shooter using an Akins Accelerator need only pull the trigger once to activate the firing sequence. The mechanical bump stock then maintained the bump fire of its own accord. See 83 Fed. Reg. at 66517. Precisely for that reason, our decision today would not apply to an Akins Accelerator. |
|
|
GA, USA
|
Posted: 1/7/2023 8:51:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Malum-Prohibitum]
[#10]
So what are your thoughts? Is a forced reset trigger more like a nonmechanical bump stock or more like a mechanical bump stock (Akins Accelerator)?
|
|
|
GA, USA
|
Posted: 1/7/2023 8:53:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Malum-Prohibitum]
[#11]
"Unlike nonmechanical bump stocks, a shooter using an Akins Accelerator need only pull the trigger once to activate the firing sequence. The mechanical bump stock then maintained the bump fire of its own accord."
Unlike nonmechanical bump stocks, a shooter using a forced reset trigger need only pull the trigger once to activate the firing sequence. The forced reset trigger then maintained . . . See my concern? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2023 10:59:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Cycolac]
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Malum-Prohibitum: "Unlike nonmechanical bump stocks, a shooter using an Akins Accelerator need only pull the trigger once to activate the firing sequence. The mechanical bump stock then maintained the bump fire of its own accord." Unlike nonmechanical bump stocks, a shooter using a forced reset trigger need only pull the trigger once to activate the firing sequence. The forced reset trigger then maintained . . . See my concern? On a nonmechanical bump stock the shooter has to manually reload the pressure on the trigger each time to cause trigger movement. That is the same with the forced reset trigger. The only difference is the arm opposite the arm with the finger touching the trigger caused the movement on the nonmechanical bump stock while the finger initially touching the trigger to fire the first shot on the FRT is the same human body part that manually reloads the pressure on the trigger to fire subsequent shots. I understand the ruling on the mechanical bump stock (Akins accelerator). No human body part HAS to move after the first shot is fired to keep the device firing. As a side note, the drawings that were shown to demonstrate how a nonmechanical bump stock functions actually illuded to how the mechanical bump stock (Akins accelerator) works with the buffer spring pushing the rifle forward, hitting the trigger repeatedly... See # 3  Attached FileWith regards to # 3, that is not how a (nonmechanical) bump stock works. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2023 11:03:13 PM EDT
[#13]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2023 11:07:44 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jtb33:
I know what you are trying to demonstrate. That has no bearing on 'single function of the trigger' - or however exactly the law is worded. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2023 11:08:33 AM EDT
[Last Edit: KalmanPhilter]
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Malum-Prohibitum: "Unlike nonmechanical bump stocks, a shooter using an Akins Accelerator need only pull the trigger once to activate the firing sequence. The mechanical bump stock then maintained the bump fire of its own accord." Unlike nonmechanical bump stocks, a shooter using a forced reset trigger need only pull the trigger once to activate the firing sequence. The forced reset trigger then maintained . . . See my concern? Yes. I too am concerned that the following fine distinction in law and actual mechanics is too nuanced to hold: A binary trigger is only pulled once but you get two shots with two functions of the trigger - pull and release. Two functions, two shots. Not a machine gun. An FRT trigger has to have a function of the trigger for each shot. Pull too hard and it won’t fire automatically, which real machine guns are indifferent too. The shooter has to release the trigger, which on an FRT is assisted by bolt carrier movement. On a conventional semi-trigger releasing the trigger is assisted (automatically) by the the trigger spring as well. Very fast rates of fire are also capable consciously with a short reset “3-gun” trigger, that isn’t a machine gun. An FRT makes the finger pressure a more continuous effort but the trigger itself is a single function per shot. Your concern has merit under the legal circumstances. Conflating trigger pull with trigger function AND observing a high rate of fire makes the process look “automatic” but it doesn’t meet the definition in law of what an automatic firearm is. But neither do open-bolt semi-autos or semi-auto FALs with a blocked selector but retaining the safety sear. The precedence has been set for bureaucrats to twist the law such that anything easy to convert or has an evil twin can get the tax-stamp-two-step hoop dance. Extrapolate this specious reasoning and the camel’s nose might soon be sniffing Glocks and ARs as knowledge of modifications spreads to people with poor judgement and impulse control. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2023 11:41:36 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Malum-Prohibitum: "Unlike nonmechanical bump stocks, a shooter using an Akins Accelerator need only pull the trigger once to activate the firing sequence. The mechanical bump stock then maintained the bump fire of its own accord." Unlike nonmechanical bump stocks, a shooter using a forced reset trigger need only pull the trigger once to activate the firing sequence. The forced reset trigger then maintained . . . See my concern? |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 1/9/2023 1:03:16 AM EDT
[Last Edit: new21022]
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By EagleArmsHBAR: The difference between the Atkins Accelerator and the FRT is that with the Atkins, you can pull the trigger hard and hold it down (hard pressure, even a zip tie) and the rifle will fire due to the design. The FRT is distinguishable because the trigger is still pivoting and is undoubtedly reset. Another pull is required. A hard pull on the FRT will cause a malfunction. But a correct tension show string may be able to get you there all the same. You could argue that a properly flexible mannequin could get a bump stock going too. The fifth circuit didn’t make a lawful test, just a recommendation. I forget how the Atkins worked; but iirc the trigger moved into you like a bump stock, that I think would be a distinction work making with the FRT that is different from both. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2023 6:42:06 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Cycolac]
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By new21022: But a correct tension show string may be able to get you there all the same. You could argue that a properly flexible mannequin could get a bump stock going too. The fifth circuit didn’t make a lawful test, just a recommendation. I forget how the Atkins worked; but iirc the trigger moved into you like a bump stock, that I think would be a distinction work making with the FRT that is different from both. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By new21022: Originally Posted By EagleArmsHBAR: The difference between the Atkins Accelerator and the FRT is that with the Atkins, you can pull the trigger hard and hold it down (hard pressure, even a zip tie) and the rifle will fire due to the design. The FRT is distinguishable because the trigger is still pivoting and is undoubtedly reset. Another pull is required. A hard pull on the FRT will cause a malfunction. But a correct tension show string may be able to get you there all the same. You could argue that a properly flexible mannequin could get a bump stock going too. The fifth circuit didn’t make a lawful test, just a recommendation. I forget how the Atkins worked; but iirc the trigger moved into you like a bump stock, that I think would be a distinction work making with the FRT that is different from both. The main difference between the Akins and the 'non-mechanical' bump stock is that the Akins had a spring in it to push the firearm forward toward the finger which continued the firing sequence while the 'non-mechanical' bump stock required the shooters other arm to move the firearm forward to enable the trigger to engage the shooter's finger. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2023 9:34:37 AM EDT
[#19]
FWIW I found out a distant relation worked for the machine shop that made all FRTs.
I asked him about production numbers and he said they averaged probably 3k a week for about 1.5 years. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2023 9:35:49 AM EDT
[#20]
Nice!
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2023 9:48:15 AM EDT
[#21]
Wow, that's not as many as I expected.
Those numbers put it at roughly 230k in circulation On $85million in sales... Even if they ran a 50% margin, $40+million doesn't go far in constant litigation |
|
|
|
GA, USA
|
Posted: 1/12/2023 11:11:50 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By H4ppyB34r: Wow, that's not as many as I expected. Those numbers put it at roughly 230k in circulation On $85million in sales... Even if they ran a 50% margin, $40+million doesn't go far in constant litigation You have to subtract out the 10,000 units the ATF seized as they were trying to move them from the vendor. As far as constant litigation, there really has not been much of any litigation. It does not cost a lot to do the preliminary bit that occurred in Florida and the venue question in North Dakota. That is all that has happened so far. Any word on whether Rare Breed is going to file a lawsuit and actually push it forward this time? |
|
|
GA, USA
|
Posted: 1/12/2023 11:13:03 AM EDT
[#23]
So the ATF has maybe gotten over its fear of prosecuting forced reset trigger cases, or only in Puerto Rico?
According to public documents, Mr. Berrios-Aquino’s gun had been altered with an Alamo-15 Forced Reset Trigger, which modifies a gun to automatically fire more than one shot without manual reloading by a single function of the trigger. https://www.justice.gov/usao-pr/pr/gun-shop-and-owner-charged-transfer-firearm-felon-aiding-and-abetting-unlicensed-firearm |
|
|
GA, USA
|
Posted: 1/12/2023 11:25:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Malum-Prohibitum]
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By H4ppyB34r: Wow, that's not as many as I expected. Those numbers put it at roughly 230k in circulation On $85million in sales... Even if they ran a 50% margin, $40+million doesn't go far in constant litigation If only we were as organized as the Scientology folks, we would file 200,000 individual lawsuits. The ATF would be overwhelmed and surrender, just like the IRS did to the Scientologists (and nobody else has been able to do that to the IRS). |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2023 12:04:27 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Malum-Prohibitum: If only we were as organized as the Scientology folks, we would file 200,000 individual lawsuits. The ATF would be overwhelmed and surrender, just like the IRS did to the Scientologists (and nobody else has been able to do that to the IRS). Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Malum-Prohibitum: Originally Posted By H4ppyB34r: Wow, that's not as many as I expected. Those numbers put it at roughly 230k in circulation On $85million in sales... Even if they ran a 50% margin, $40+million doesn't go far in constant litigation If only we were as organized as the Scientology folks, we would file 200,000 individual lawsuits. The ATF would be overwhelmed and surrender, just like the IRS did to the Scientologists (and nobody else has been able to do that to the IRS). Unity and communication, the two Achilles' heels of gun-folk. We absolutely suck at both as a collective group. Will be our downfall as history shows. First they came for machine guns, but I wasn't a machine gun owner so I said/did nothing (and looked down upon those that did!).....then the semi-auto's, then the pistols, then the fudd-guns, then sporks!!! ...mark my word. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2023 6:28:31 PM EDT
[#26]
|
|
|
|
NJ, USA
|
Posted: 1/26/2023 2:58:11 PM EDT
[#27]
It's on for reals now:
BREAKING: USA v. Rare Breed Triggers (E.D. NY): Federal government files lawsuit against Rare Breed Triggers, says the company is "illegally selling machinegun conversion devices they style as the FRT-15". https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nyed.491328/gov.uscourts.nyed.491328.1.0.pdf |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2023 3:16:32 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DirtyDigz: It's on for reals now: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nyed.491328/gov.uscourts.nyed.491328.1.0.pdf Guess the fedbois filed in the friendliest court they could, eh? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2023 3:54:29 PM EDT
[#29]
Cliff notes?
|
|
|
|
WI, USA
|
Posted: 1/27/2023 4:53:53 AM EDT
[#30]
Artical.
Judge blocks sale of machine gun converters after U.S. sues https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-blocks-firearms-sellers-selling-machine-gun-converters-2023-01-26/ JP |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2023 5:36:46 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NostalgiaforInfinity: Guess the fedbois filed in the friendliest court they could, eh? Federal judicial service On December 15, 2021, President Joe Biden nominated Nina Morrison to serve as a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. President Biden nominated Morrison to the seat vacated by Judge Dora Irizarry, appointed by George Bush. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2023 10:20:00 AM EDT
[Last Edit: j3_]
[#32]
The word is trigger not trigger group. I doubt they will have much problem convincing a jury or judge that the function is to pull the trigger to a certain spot for multiple rounds to be fired and until you move the finger from that spot and the firing stops the function has not been completed.
My comment is about judges and juries not if it is or is not a correct application of the wording or the intent of the definition. |
|
|
|
GA, USA
|
Posted: 1/27/2023 1:22:09 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Malum-Prohibitum]
[#33]
No facts stated to support venue in Brooklyn, four days after the complaint is filed the Biden appointee blocks the sale of FRTs . . .
UPDATE: Web site accessible in New York, Can order from NY. paragraphs 104-05. |
|
|
GA, USA
|
Posted: 1/27/2023 2:15:33 PM EDT
[#34]
Anybody have a copy of the order?
There must have been a lot going on on the 23, 24, 25, and 26th of January. |
|
|
GA, USA
|
Posted: 1/29/2023 6:52:10 PM EDT
[#35]
https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/united-states-obtains-temporary-restraining-order-against-firearm-companies-illegally
|
|
|
GA, USA
|
Posted: 1/29/2023 6:55:13 PM EDT
[#36]
https://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-york/nyedce/1:2023cv00369/491328
SUMMONS Returned Executed by United States of America. Lawrence Demonico served on 1/26/2023, answer due 2/16/2023; Kevin Maxwell served on 1/26/2023, answer due 2/16/2023; Rare Breed Firearms, LLC served on 1/26/2023, answer due 2/16/2023; Rare Breed Triggers, LLC served on 1/26/2023, answer due 2/16/2023. (Marutollo, Joseph) |
|
|
GA, USA
|
Posted: 1/29/2023 6:56:37 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Malum-Prohibitum]
[#37]
TRO was issued ex party, meaning one party, no argument from both sides, after a hearing on January 24. The next day, here is the docket entry.
ORDER: Plaintiffs motion for a temporary restraining order and order to show cause #5 is granted. The parties shall comply with the procedures outlined in the attached order. A hearing shall take place by video, unless counsel for Defendants elect to appear in person, on February 2, 2023 at 2:30 p.m. EST before Judge Morrison. The parties will receive a video conference access link by email after counsel for Defendants enter an appearance. (FV) Feb 2 is Thursday |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2023 7:29:40 PM EDT
[#38]
What's the purpose and what's all that mean...in layman terms?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2023 8:06:27 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cycolac: What's the purpose and what's all that mean...in layman terms? This, please, if someone could be so kind. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2023 4:22:09 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Malum-Prohibitum: https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/united-states-obtains-temporary-restraining-order-against-firearm-companies-illegally Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Malum-Prohibitum: https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/united-states-obtains-temporary-restraining-order-against-firearm-companies-illegally So the DOJ swears they are selling thousands of machineguns but doesn't care to go for criminal charges, they sue for civil fraud On January 19, 2023, the United States filed a civil complaint in federal court in Brooklyn against two firearm companies, and two individuals associated with these companies (collectively, “Defendants”), alleging that Defendants have conspired to defraud the United States and consumers, and have engaged in the ongoing commission of mail fraud and wire fraud, by unlawfully selling machine gun conversion devices. ... These defendants are believed to have earned millions at the expense of the public’s safety and are alleged to have conspired to undermine these very federal laws which are intended to keep the public safe. I would like to thank the United States Attorney’s Office and ATF personnel for their hard work and commitment in securing the temporary restraining order,” stated ATF Special Agent-in-Charge DeVito. Defendants are Rare Breed Triggers, LLC and Rare Breed Firearms, LLC (collectively, “RBT”) and their owner/operators Lawrence DeMonico, also known as “Larry R. Lee, Jr.” and Kevin Maxwell. As alleged in the complaint, Defendants have unlawfully sold thousands of FRT-15s to the general public. In the process, Defendants have sought to obstruct ATF’s mandate to enforce laws prohibiting the sale of machine guns and ensure public safety. Defendants have also allegedly misled consumers about the legality of FRT-15s. As set forth in the January 25, 2023 temporary restraining order (“TRO”), among other things, the Court found that “[t]here is probable cause to believe that Defendants’ fraudulent conduct is ongoing and imminent,” that “Defendants failed to register FRT-15s for the purpose of concealing from ATF the sale and transfer of these items,” and that the TRO is necessary to prevent “a continuing and substantial injury to the United States, as well as to past and future purchasers of FRT-15s who have been or may be misled into believing that their possession of FRT-15s is lawful when it is not.” This action is part of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York’s Civil Initiative to Reduce Gun Violence. The EDNY’s Civil Initiative to Reduce Gun Violence was created in 2022. The EDNY’s Civil Initiative to Reduce Gun Violence aims to work with federal, state, and local officials, as well as community stakeholders, to address the root causes of gun-related crime, and supports reform efforts made across the government. The EDNY’s Civil Initiative to Reduce Gun Violence complements the EDNY Criminal Division’s prosecution of gun-related crimes. The Office also works collaboratively on the Initiative with the Consumer Protection Branch of the Department of Justice. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2023 5:36:07 AM EDT
[#41]
They can’t prove (don’t want to lose) the FRT is a machine gun, so they go after the principles on fraud charges for illegally selling machine guns?
Some sort of end run strategy. Ultimately they will still have to prove the FRT is a machine gun to win. Smarter minds than me can explain this one. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2023 9:24:08 AM EDT
[Last Edit: loon_138]
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 0002s: They can’t prove (don’t want to lose) the FRT is a machine gun, so they go after the principles on fraud charges for illegally selling machine guns? Some sort of end run strategy. Ultimately they will still have to prove the FRT is a machine gun to win. Smarter minds than me can explain this one. The burden of proof in a civil proceeding is preponderance of the evidence, while criminal trials require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Perhaps since they know they might be able to prove one, but not likely the other, they opted for civil proceedings Just a guess |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2023 11:21:15 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By loon_138: The burden of proof in a civil proceeding is preponderance of the evidence, while criminal trials require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Perhaps since they know they might be able to prove one, but not likely the other, they opted for civil proceedings Just a guess That's what I was thinking. The issue is that the evidence is based on whether or not what they sell is a machine gun. If they didn't want to tackle this before, why now. They will win this in NYC, but will loose when they get counter sued in the FL or TX and and the 5th Circuit eventually hears this. This almost seems like they are attempting to hurt them financially. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2023 11:23:39 AM EDT
[Last Edit: jtb33]
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By loon_138: The burden of proof in a civil proceeding is preponderance of the evidence, while criminal trials require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Perhaps since they know they might be able to prove one, but not likely the other, they opted for civil proceedings Just a guess And when they have a win in civil court, they can try criminal charges and point back to their win in civil court and say, "Look! Another judge agreed that these were illegally being sold and RBT lost that lawsuit, so why would you come to some other conclusion?" Further, when the gov't gets to judge-shop, but cries 'foul' when RBT tried it in North Dakota, the game's already rigged in their favor. |
|
|
|
PA, USA
|
Posted: 1/30/2023 11:26:40 PM EDT
[#45]
 BREAKING NEWS!!! ATF Opinion That Triggers Are "Machine Guns" Is Upheld!!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2023 11:52:11 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryLawyer named Miranda 
|
|
|
|
GA, USA
|
Posted: 2/1/2023 8:14:52 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Malum-Prohibitum: TRO was issued ex party, meaning one party, no argument from both sides, after a hearing on January 24. The next day, here is the docket entry. ORDER: Plaintiffs motion for a temporary restraining order and order to show cause #5 is granted. The parties shall comply with the procedures outlined in the attached order. A hearing shall take place by video, unless counsel for Defendants elect to appear in person, on February 2, 2023 at 2:30 p.m. EST before Judge Morrison. The parties will receive a video conference access link by email after counsel for Defendants enter an appearance. (FV) Feb 2 is Thursday Just a reminder that the hearing is tomorrow (Thursday) afternoon, at 2:30 EST. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2023 9:47:35 PM EDT
[#48]
Was looking around tonight and saw this interesting bit on the Ruger SFAR:
Compatible with mil-spec MSR trigger groups Anyone, um, try it out? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/3/2023 12:06:50 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Malum-Prohibitum: Just a reminder that the hearing is tomorrow (Thursday) afternoon, at 2:30 EST. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Malum-Prohibitum: Originally Posted By Malum-Prohibitum: TRO was issued ex party, meaning one party, no argument from both sides, after a hearing on January 24. The next day, here is the docket entry. ORDER: Plaintiffs motion for a temporary restraining order and order to show cause #5 is granted. The parties shall comply with the procedures outlined in the attached order. A hearing shall take place by video, unless counsel for Defendants elect to appear in person, on February 2, 2023 at 2:30 p.m. EST before Judge Morrison. The parties will receive a video conference access link by email after counsel for Defendants enter an appearance. (FV) Feb 2 is Thursday Just a reminder that the hearing is tomorrow (Thursday) afternoon, at 2:30 EST. Any updates from this? I don't even know where to find court info, or what it means. |
|
|
|
NJ, USA
|
Posted: 2/3/2023 10:29:59 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By New_Username: Any updates from this? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By New_Username: Any updates from this? I haven't seen anything yet except this letter filed in advance of the hearing: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nyed.491328/gov.uscourts.nyed.491328.16.0_1.pdf I don't even know where to find court info, or what it means. Here for the court case filings and events: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66761832/united-states-v-rare-breed-triggers-llc/ And also here: https://nitter.pussthecat.org/2aupdates (2Aupdates is a twitter feed put out by Rob Romano, a legal analyst with FPC. You should be reading this feed every day anyway for general 2A related legal news. Nitter is a Twitter proxy that lets you read twitter without having to login to a twitter account and submit to their tracking.) |
|
|
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.
Attached File
