No and even the ATF rulled that both the pull and release are two delliberate acts and constitute two separate actions
non nfa sbr ar15 loophole?
- Thread starter Edwardteach72
- Start date
No and even the ATF rulled that both the pull and release are two delliberate acts and constitute two separate actions
What? No? Are you sure you are not thinking about when they changed their minds again about shouldering pistol braces
ArmedCorgi
.475 A&M Magnum
Well, whatever the loophole, I hope it's ironclad. I'd hate to think of the mess caused if after this comes out the ATF suddenly changes their determination.
Yeah, just searched it.. probably should have done that before i posted. Thats exactly what im thinking about
Depending on cost, I want one in 300 blk.
Uzi
.308 Win
When you let off the trigger your "continuous pull" is over. If the actual pulling of the trigger action allowed 2 rounds to come out as a burst before the finger was let off the trigger, it would be highly illegal in all 50 states without going through the NFA as a class 3 weapon category. That's the whole point of these as drop in triggers. The reason companies don't sell them to places like NY and many other states and cities, is because they're scared and don't do enough research.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
It would all boil down to I guess if the judge or jury would accept if the ATF's interpretation is relevant to NY Penal Law 265. It doesn't have to be. NY Penal laws have different definitions from things that contradict the ATF all the time.
In this case they don't but that doesn't mean they have to accept the ATF's definition. They can say that one continuous pull and mandatory release because the trigger doesn't stay back fires 2 rounds.
I don't agree with that but they could say it and you'll have to defend against it.
i do believe this is like many if not all the binary triggers that have it set up that if you pull the trigger and choose not to fire the subsequent second shot by releasing the trigger you are able to flip the "selector" switch from binary/echo/what ever to semi or safe and it will disengage the whole system and you are then able to release the trigger without a second shot going off
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
So what happens when the firearm's expert goes to check for operability and he doesn't do that?
That's like saying that you don't have a regular full auto or 3 round burst because you choose not to select it to burst or auto.
Exonautic
.308 Win
But if you pull the trigger on a 3 rd burst you have no chance to stop shots 2 and 3. With a binary you can cancel the second shot.
correct me if im wrong but full auto and 3 round burst, happens when the trigger is fully depressed (one action) and the gun shoots full auto (until the trigger is released or run out of ammo) and 3 round burst when the trigger is fully depressed (one action) 3 rounds are fired... but with both of those when the trigger is released (a second deliberate action) nothing happens? yes?
comparing the action of 1 deliberate trigger pull to the rear and something happening to a completely separate deliberate action is a bit of an apples to oranges
yes i can see how you see if some noneducated person (in firearms) or even many fuds would think oh thats the same thing, but once reading the ATFs ruling on the law (weird how i thought only congress can make laws, and courts can interpenetrate them, whole separate subject) on how the binary triggers work it wouldnt be much of a case
yes i can see how you see if some noneducated person (in firearms) or even many fuds would think oh thats the same thing, but once reading the ATFs ruling on the law (weird how i thought only congress can make laws, and courts can interpenetrate them, whole separate subject) on how the binary triggers work it wouldnt be much of a case
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Your missing the point. The point is that the weapon has that capability. Forget about the internal dynamics of full auto or burst.
By saying that you are going to put it in binary, fire one shot, hold it, switch it off binary and let go, it doesn't mean that it can't fire 2 rounds with one continuous pull and a mandatory let go because the trigger doesn't stay back. That's the same as saying my selector says full auto but it isn't because I'm not going to use it.
By saying that you are going to put it in binary, fire one shot, hold it, switch it off binary and let go, it doesn't mean that it can't fire 2 rounds with one continuous pull and a mandatory let go because the trigger doesn't stay back. That's the same as saying my selector says full auto but it isn't because I'm not going to use it.
It cannot fire 2 rounds with a continues pull no matter how many times you say it does. You can hold that trigger until you die and only one round will ever come out of it.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
That's assuming they accept the ATFs interpretation. They don't have to.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
I agree with you. That doesn't mean they will which is my point. They can say that the trigger doesn't stay back so one continuous pull and eventual release will fire 2 rounds.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Look. Don't argue with me. I agree. I'm just saying what they could say just like that spring on the bolt release. In the end, it's up to you to defend it with the ATF definition and up to them to accept the ATF definition which they don't have to.
My post is for the guy who wants to buy one but doesn't have the time, money, or balls to defend it but thinks it's 100 percent good to go and will have nothing to worry about. That guy may not be willing to buy it if he thought there was any change of it not being good to go no matter how slight the chance.
My post is for the guy who wants to buy one but doesn't have the time, money, or balls to defend it but thinks it's 100 percent good to go and will have nothing to worry about. That guy may not be willing to buy it if he thought there was any change of it not being good to go no matter how slight the chance.
Last edited:
Uzi
.308 Win
No, you're missing the point.
When the law clearly describes the single action of a continuous pull, it's totally irrelevant whether or not you're able to stop a second round from firing while that previous action (which is the only one being regulated), has lapsed completely. The continuous pulling motion has expired permanently, and therefore only one round has been fired during that single trigger semi automatic pull action. The secondary action, which is the depression of the trigger, is differentiated and does not constitute any legal relation to the previous trigger pull. All it's doing is shortening the reset of the trigger essentially, allowing you to fire shots quicker, however, you're not tripping a disconnector and you're still firing semi automatic fire. The mechanics on the federal level also are extremely important here to understand. NY's law actually helps define that it's definitely legal believe it or not.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
If the judge or jury sees it that way, then you are correct. They could however not see it that way. It'll cost you money, time and gun seizures. That's my point.
A bump fire stock isn't one continuous pull either yet it will be treated as one by the arresting officer and District Attorney. Then the time and money thing comes into play along with gun seizures.
Uzi
.308 Win
Yeah, to be honest with you, I don't think it's a matter of gun owners necessarily being fearful of owning one in their location, I think it's on part that the suppliers aren't willing to sell them and other accessories on the account of their own fear and lack of understanding for each city and state, local laws etc. It's just like some gun stores eventually taking the plunge with "questionable" products. I've seen this stuff all the time on websites. Perfectly legal parts that won't ship out to such and such locations that have no regulations or laws regarding them because THEY are the fearful ones. Some people live in constant fear, but so do the manufacturers. The word spreads that it's automatically illegal under the presumption that the manufacturer made alone. Time flies by until someone finally says, "wait a second" and the rest is history until it's restricted or banned.
ArmedCorgi
.475 A&M Magnum
Couldn't have said it better. All the more reason for a clearly defined national standard of sorts. At least for the reason cited above where you get laws passed on the state level that end up having a chill effect on the market and end up making perfectly legal things illegal by fear and word of mouth.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
It's also law enforcement in this particular state too. They aren't gun guys or constitutionalists. If it looks and quacks like a duck... You get the picture.
MikeyCNY
6.5 Creedmoor
One of the more interesting theories on this I read on TFB (TheFirearmBlog) is that a round doesn't fire until it resets (so, pull trigger, release, then it fires).. no idea if that would give it a loophole though.
It's simple barrel less than 16" overall length greater than 26".
Exonautic
.308 Win
See my earlier post. With a buttstock anything with a barrel shorter than 16 inches is an sbr.
Exonautic
.308 Win
The more we go through this the more likely it seems to me that were looking at a high powered air rifle.
Is a shotgun really just “smooth bore”? Is that what defines shotgun? Because I’m still going with no rifling. But I do like your theory Exonautic.
Exonautic
.308 Win
The term “Shotgun” means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder, and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed shotgun shell to fire through a smooth bore either a number of ball shot or a single projectile for each single pull of the trigger.
From atf. So smoothbore would not cut it.
From atf. So smoothbore would not cut it.
ArmedCorgi
.475 A&M Magnum
This is a comment from an article about it in Soldier Systems Franklin Armory Announces - Reformation - 11.5” Barrel w/ Conventional Stock - No Tax Stamp - Soldier Systems Daily
Nick C says:
January 11, 2018 at 21:44
"I believe that if the rifle A) Didn’t start out life as a “rifle” and B) has a barrel of less than 16″ but an OAL of greater than 26″ it falls into the designation of firearm. I’ve looked at converting my pistol to one in the past, but I’d have to swap the barrel which I wasn’t interested in.
Interested to see how this pans out but from the research I’ve done (which is more than passing but not extensive) it seems as it’s legal." might be something to it. Though they allude to some kind of patent pending tech.
Nick C says:
January 11, 2018 at 21:44
"I believe that if the rifle A) Didn’t start out life as a “rifle” and B) has a barrel of less than 16″ but an OAL of greater than 26″ it falls into the designation of firearm. I’ve looked at converting my pistol to one in the past, but I’d have to swap the barrel which I wasn’t interested in.
Interested to see how this pans out but from the research I’ve done (which is more than passing but not extensive) it seems as it’s legal." might be something to it. Though they allude to some kind of patent pending tech.