Just an FYI post. Received this moments ago via e-mail. May be old news to some but I hadn't seen it before. Bryan

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) recently examined devices commonly known as “forced reset triggers” (FRTs) and has determined that some of them are “firearms” and “machineguns” as defined in the National Firearms Act (NFA), and “machineguns” as defined in the Gun Control Act (GCA).

These particular FRTs are being marketed as replacement triggers for AR-type firearms. Unlike traditional triggers and binary triggers (sometimes referred to generally as “FRTs”), the subject FRTs do not require shooters to pull and then subsequently release the trigger to fire a second shot. Instead, these FRTs utilize the firing cycle to eliminate the need for the shooter to release the trigger before a second shot is fired. By contrast, some after-market triggers have similar components but also incorporate a disconnector or similar feature to ensure that the trigger must be released before a second shot may be fired and may not be machineguns.

Both the NFA and GCA regulate machineguns. “Machinegun” is defined under 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b) and 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(23) as—

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. (Emphasis added.)

ATF’s examination found that some FRT devices allow a firearm to automatically expel more than one shot with a single, continuous pull of the trigger. For this reason, ATF has concluded that FRTs that function in this way are a combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and hence, ATF has classified these devices as a “machinegun” as defined by the NFA and GCA.

Accordingly, ATF’s position is that any FRT that allows a firearm to automatically expel more than one shot with a single, continuous pull of the trigger is a “machinegun”, and is accordingly subject to the GCA prohibitions regarding the possession, transfer, and transport of machineguns under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(o) and 922(a)(4). They are also subject to registration, transfer, taxation, and possession restrictions under the NFA. See 26 U.S.C. §§ 5841, 5861; 27 CFR 479.101.

Under 26 U.S.C. § 5871, any person who violates or fails to comply with the provisions of the NFA may be fined up to $10,000 per violation and is subject to imprisonment for a term of up to ten years. Further, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 5872, any machinegun possessed or transferred in violation of the NFA is subject to seizure and forfeiture. Under 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2), any person who violates § 922(o) may be sent to prison for up to 10 years and fined up to $250,000 per person or $500,000 per organization.

Based on ATF’s determination that the FRTs that function as described above are “machineguns” under the NFA and GCA, ATF intends to take appropriate remedial action with respect to sellers and possessors of these devices. Current possessors of these devices are encouraged to contact ATF for further guidance on how they may divest possession. If you are uncertain whether the device you possess is a machinegun as defined by the GCA and NFA, please contact your local ATF Field Office. You may consult the local ATF Office’s webpage for office contact information.

__________________
Ordnung muss sein
SWHF #789

I received same and posted in another section. General firearms.

__________________
I’m your Boogie Man, uh huh.

I really tried to understand this when I received my email. I’ve gone over it several times.

Probably just me but it seems ambiguous and vague.

Maybe after a beer tonight I’ll be able to understand what the ATF is actually saying.

Jim

It's vague on purpose.
Forced reset triggers and Binary triggers are completely different and aren't the same thing.
Binary's require two functions of the trigger to work.

__________________
Dave Ramsey Cultist

There's a variety of people on YouTube, some of which are lawyers, who've been talking about this.

For those of you that don't know what a Forced Reset Trigger is: It mechanically forces the trigger to reset while you're maintaining a squeeze against the trigger, which causes the gun to immediately fire again once reset.

The ATF has decided FRT triggers are "machine guns" and they're coming after the entire supply chain, and the individuals involved. Eventually they'll go after end users, probably after they force FFLs to surrender all sales documents.

Solvent traps and 80% kits are also in the cross hairs.

Not to mention, as if it would have made any difference, but the guy that invented it did so based on "his" attorney's interpolation of the ATF's definition of what makes a gun full auto too before going into full production.
Nothing like slapping the ATF in the face and saying "whatch'a gonna do about it, I'm using your definitions?"

__________________
Dave Ramsey Cultist

If I understand correctly, there's an ongoing court case on the subject of whether or not FRTs are machine guns, according to the law. There's also a copyright lawsuit between the two companies involved.

I'm not a lawyer, but even I can make a compelling case on both sides of the FRT argument.

On one hand: Because the trigger is forcibly resetting itself, the end user is deciding to continue applying pressure in order to follow through with a new trigger pull, thus it is in fact one shot per trigger pull, and not a machine gun.

On the other hand: If you tie a rubber band to the trigger and draw it tight enough around the grip to cause a trigger pull, the gun will keep firing on its own, thus it is a machine gun, because no conscious decision or action is necessary to fire additional rounds.

So as a result, FRT manufacturers have found a way to make something that simultaneously is and is not a machine gun. Meanwhile, the ATF seems to have lost patience with the court proceedings.

Oh, I forgot to mention. They can pound sand.

I'm unfamiliar with a "forced reset trigger" and have never heard the term. Aside from the legalities, is there any real advantage to such a trigger or is it pure gadgetry?

Sounds like "if I can do it why not do it".

I personally have no use for a FRT and limited use for Binary Trigger. At least with Binary Trigger, you can burst fire.

I think there is a similar trigger used by shotgun shooters, trap I think. When they are in position to shoot before they call for a bird, they can pull the trigger and when they see the target they just release the trigger and the shot gun fires. I think it is supposed to be quicker and you don't pull off target like you may do when you pull the trigger.
SWCA 892

In the shotgun world, what you are referring to is a release trigger. It allows the shooter to set the trigger so that when you release the trigger, the shotgun fires. It requires fewer muscles and helps with anticipation of recoil. I would not compare the mechanics of the release trigger with the FRT trigger. I have used my O/U shotgun with a double release trigger in both trap and sporting clays.

So do forced rest triggers, iirc the law requires 2 functions of the trigger rather that two pulls or manual reset of the trigger.

Those pesky, but duly enacted laws…..

Administrative laws, enacted at the whim of faceless, non elected, bureaucrats, that’s where we’re headed if The ATF has its way.

Best of luck. Let us know how that works out for ya.

There's no such thing as an administrative law. ATF is charged by Congress to create and publish regulations, but those regulations are not laws. US Attorneys can only prosecute violations of law.

This is a good video.

Rare Breed FRT-15 Shooting Compilation/Review *Extremely Fast* - YouTube

__________________
To cannon, all men are equal

Is this different from a "bump trigger?"

Well there’s not really a bump trigger. There’s bumpstocks. And there’s binary triggers. Neither fit the legal definition of machinegun. If that helps

I do a pull and release trigger that runs mighty slick. Kinda figure one of these days I’ll get a nasty letter. To which I’ll laugh and respond with a lengthy reply that destroys the fear porn that AFT is pushing via use of administrative advisory’s in form of CFR “rules”

CFR “rules” are not law. Scalia gutted that and Chevron in a case called Crandon v US

__________________
R/S
J.D.

We used to joke that a police general order wasn’t perfect unless it was so ambiguous that no one could understand it. Sounds like ATF is following the same format.

__________________
Old Cop
LEO (Ret.)

Surprising that the ATF is going after a trigger system that allows a defacto workaround of the 1934 NFA.

I don’t understand the confusion. They sell a trigger group that does not have a disconnector, and fires as fast as a real full auto gun. Did they think the ATF would do nothing? And why does it cost three times the price of a similar semi auto trigger group? Did the individual parts cost three times as much? Even if RBT destroys all their sales records, the credit card clearing company will have everything. So if they are deemed “illegal”, purchasers won’t have to turn them into the ATF for destruction. Just send them back to RBT, & have the CC company issue a refund for purchasing an illegal product. Problem solved. GARY