Patriot Mobile

ATF going to homes collecting solvent traps

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • jmohme

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 11, 2015
    3,362
    96
    It appears many sellers are willingly giving up their customer lists.............
    I don't know for certain, but it may not even involve cooperation from sellers.

    How hard could it be for a government agency to see in detail a transaction between an individual and a company that sells on the internet?
    Especially if said company has gotten the attention of the Feds by openly selling an illegal or regulated item by calling it something that it is not.

    The easiest fix for all of this would be just to eliminate the stupid laws that make it difficult for the average person to own a hearing safety device.
    Target Sports
     

    jmohme

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 11, 2015
    3,362
    96
    On another note:

    The people who the ATF are coming to harass, should not be in the least bit surprised.
    These idiots, knowingly bought these items to install on their .556 or 9mm semi automatic solvent dispensers and are now being looked at by the federal idiots without warrants.

    They should be grateful that the lack of warrants allow them to close the door on them.
     

    studenygreg

    TGT Addict
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 7, 2015
    3,635
    96
    On another note:

    The people who the ATF are coming to harass, should not be in the least bit surprised.
    These idiots, knowingly bought these items to install on their .556 or 9mm semi automatic solvent dispensers and are now being looked at by the federal idiots without warrants.

    They should be grateful that the lack of warrants allow them to close the door on them.
    While I personally would not get one due to what you mentioned, I disagree because buying an item that can be used to make something illegal should not warrant harassment. There are so many things you can buy to make illegal items like weapons, drugs, etc. I certainly wouldn't want to be harassed because I bought a pipe, ball bearings, charcoal..........

    Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
     

    kbaxter60

    "Gig 'Em!"
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 23, 2019
    9,902
    96
    Pipe Creek
    Apologies if this one has been posted already. A gun buddy from out of state sent it to me and I found it instructive.
    Spoiler alert. It's mostly audio with subtitles, not an action movie.
     

    Coyote9

    Well-Known
    TGT Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    14   0   0
    Jan 13, 2020
    1,487
    96
    Granbury Texas
    Forced reset triggers clearly are on the line between auto and manual fired weapons. I suggest that each person should read the BATF definition of automatic (machine gun) weapons prior to purchasing a FRT system. I am not an attorney, I have read the definition, my interpretation is that a FRT constitutes a fully automatic weapon because a single pull of the trigger causes multiple shots to be fired. People can and get all semantic and re define words (seen a lot of that elsewhere recently) to argue that a FRT is a single shot per pull semi automatic. That's okay by me ,just know the depth of the water your stepping into .
     

    benenglish

    Just Another Boomer
    Staff member
    Lifetime Member
    Admin
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Nov 22, 2011
    23,932
    96
    Spring
    When I bought my SlideFire stock, I absolutely waited until I saw them at a gun show where I could pay cash and walk away.

    Didn't help; I wound up destroying it, anyway.
     

    toddnjoyce

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Sep 27, 2017
    19,285
    96
    Boerne
    … a single pull of the trigger causes multiple shots to be fired...

    Is not ATF’s definition. You talked about semantics, but words mean things. To save everybody the trouble, here’s the definition in 26 USC 5845

    (b) Machinegun.--The term “machinegun” means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.  The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

     

    Coyote9

    Well-Known
    TGT Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    14   0   0
    Jan 13, 2020
    1,487
    96
    Granbury Texas
    Is not ATF’s definition. You talked about semantics, but words mean things. To save everybody the trouble, here’s the definition in 26 USC 5845

    (b) Machinegun.--The term “machinegun” means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.  The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

    Todd, is this not the definition BATF uses? I agree with you we should all use one definition, the semantics to which I refered are the ones used to argue that FRT is not a single function of the trigger
     

    cycleguy2300

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Mar 19, 2010
    6,767
    96
    Austin, Texas
    Forced reset triggers clearly are on the line between auto and manual fired weapons. I suggest that each person should read the BATF definition of automatic (machine gun) weapons prior to purchasing a FRT system. I am not an attorney, I have read the definition, my interpretation is that a FRT constitutes a fully automatic weapon because a single pull of the trigger causes multiple shots to be fired. People can and get all semantic and re define words (seen a lot of that elsewhere recently) to argue that a FRT is a single shot per pull semi automatic. That's okay by me ,just know the depth of the water your stepping into .
    F* the ATF the horse they rode in on

    Надіслано з дому вашої мами за допомогою Tapatalk
     

    Shady

    The One And Only
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Aug 24, 2013
    4,645
    96
    Forced reset triggers clearly are on the line between auto and manual fired weapons. I suggest that each person should read the BATF definition of automatic (machine gun) weapons prior to purchasing a FRT system. I am not an attorney, I have read the definition, my interpretation is that a FRT constitutes a fully automatic weapon because a single pull of the trigger causes multiple shots to be fired. People can and get all semantic and re define words (seen a lot of that elsewhere recently) to argue that a FRT is a single shot per pull semi automatic. That's okay by me ,just know the depth of the water your stepping into .



    and another Shal not be infringed , But
     

    toddnjoyce

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Sep 27, 2017
    19,285
    96
    Boerne
    Todd, is this not the definition BATF uses? I agree with you we should all use one definition, the semantics to which I refered are the ones used to argue that FRT is not a single function of the trigger

    What I quoted is the exact wording of the law ATF has to follow. In the FRT letter to FFLs, ATF specifically used the phrase “single, continuous pull of the trigger” as the basis for their determination of the classification of FRTs as machinegun parts. That semantic discrepancy is the basis for Rare Breed’s lawsuit.

    Add to it the vagueness of ATF’s opening statement in the letter that if “some FRT devices…” are machineguns then ALL FRT devices are now machineguns and you get to what SCOTUS said in W. Va v EPA is unconstitutional, which is an Congress didn’t give ATF the authority to change what the definition of is is.

    ETA: the more I think about it, an FRT’s reset can be overcome if there’s enough pressure applied, so even “single, continuous pull” is really qualified as “within the designed specifications” but outside of those parameters one single, continuous pull does get only one shot.
     
    Last edited:
    Every Day Man
    Tyrant

    Support

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    116,108
    Messages
    2,952,936
    Members
    34,935
    Latest member
    LandenR
    Top Bottom