Not sure which “legal crap” you’re referring to, but FRTs do not meet the Federal definition of machine gun in the NFA or GCA. The ATF created an interpretation inconsistent with the actual law and they got it slapped down in the Rare Breed case.
In the Rare Breed settlement the DOJ stipulates that the Rare Breed FRTs are not machine gun conversion devices. It’s specific to the Rare Breed models, but it would be hard for them to successfully prosecute someone for a SS since it’s fundamentally the same thing. Doesn’t mean they won’t try as a terror tactic.
At the state level, several states explicitly outlaw FRTs, binaries, etc. That’s a whole different can of worms.
By “legal crap” I mean read the actual document(s) from the DOJ case. It says NOTHING about them not being machine guns. It only says the machine gun rule won’t be enforced under some circumstances eg. rarebreed.
Oh hell, nobody listens to me, just watch Kurt’s video. Search youtube for “Pyrrhic Victory at Best 2nd Amendment Lost” and skip to 3 minute mark.
The United States agrees not to enforce [NFA and GCA statutes], or any similar statute or agency interpretation of 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b) under which an FRT is contended to be a “machinegun” or otherwise unlawful against any person or organization for possessing or transferring FRTs under the following two conditions …
With the conditions being a) the mode of operation, and b) not designed for use in handguns (whose definition is not the same as “pistol” in the GCA/NFA).
This is tantamount to saying “we concede that some FRTs are legal” but there’s no easy way to do that in a settlement. So they worded it in a way (“agrees not to enforce”) that is actionable and contractually binding yet leaves the door open for them to go after handgun FRTs and other designs.
But the SS meets all five enumerated technical requirements in condition “a” and therefore should be covered by the terms of the settlement (though the burden of proof would fall to the accused). It is valid to say that we never got a ruling that FRTs are constitutionally protected. But it’s also valid to say that under the actual laws (not ATF “interpretations”) that FRTs do not meet the legal definition of a machinegun and therefore nothing in those statutes prohibits them.
An aside to Glock, TX22, and other handgun FRT makers/owners: BE CAREFUL! Those are not protected by the settlement. And though they should be legal per the GCA and NFA definitions of machinegun, there’s currently nothing to stop the ATF from overstepping and dragging you through a costly protracted legal battle.
Not sure which “legal crap” you’re referring to, but FRTs do not meet the Federal definition of machine gun in the NFA or GCA. The ATF created an interpretation inconsistent with the actual law and they got it slapped down in the Rare Breed case.
In the Rare Breed settlement the DOJ stipulates that the Rare Breed FRTs are not machine gun conversion devices. It’s specific to the Rare Breed models, but it would be hard for them to successfully prosecute someone for a SS since it’s fundamentally the same thing. Doesn’t mean they won’t try as a terror tactic.
At the state level, several states explicitly outlaw FRTs, binaries, etc. That’s a whole different can of worms.
By “legal crap” I mean read the actual document(s) from the DOJ case. It says NOTHING about them not being machine guns. It only says the machine gun rule won’t be enforced under some circumstances eg. rarebreed.
Oh hell, nobody listens to me, just watch Kurt’s video. Search youtube for “Pyrrhic Victory at Best 2nd Amendment Lost” and skip to 3 minute mark.
With the conditions being a) the mode of operation, and b) not designed for use in handguns (whose definition is not the same as “pistol” in the GCA/NFA).
This is tantamount to saying “we concede that some FRTs are legal” but there’s no easy way to do that in a settlement. So they worded it in a way (“agrees not to enforce”) that is actionable and contractually binding yet leaves the door open for them to go after handgun FRTs and other designs.
But the SS meets all five enumerated technical requirements in condition “a” and therefore should be covered by the terms of the settlement (though the burden of proof would fall to the accused). It is valid to say that we never got a ruling that FRTs are constitutionally protected. But it’s also valid to say that under the actual laws (not ATF “interpretations”) that FRTs do not meet the legal definition of a machinegun and therefore nothing in those statutes prohibits them.
An aside to Glock, TX22, and other handgun FRT makers/owners: BE CAREFUL! Those are not protected by the settlement. And though they should be legal per the GCA and NFA definitions of machinegun, there’s currently nothing to stop the ATF from overstepping and dragging you through a costly protracted legal battle.