Jump to content

Open Letter to All Federal Firearms Licensees - Forced Reset Triggers (FRTs)


davel501
 Share

Recommended Posts

Quote

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.

 

Open_Letter_to_All_FFLs_-_Forced_Reset_Triggers_(FRTs).pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO, this is the wrong battle to pick.  The Nazi's at the AFT may actually (IMO) be correct on this one.  Their "ghost gun" and pistol brace crap is another story, where they are flat out "legislating," rather than "enforcing."  I know a lot of you will disagree with me, but if you read the statutory definition above, those FRT's actually fit.  Even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/24/2022 at 12:59 PM, Jeffrey said:

I'm still waiting to hear all the arrests over slidefire stocks.  Is it safe to assume all those in possession destroyed them?  lol

 

I don't recall (and Google isn't helping) if the ATF promised to seek out all the owners of all the bump stocks, though.  I believe they've said that's the plan here.  I presume a vast majority of sales are easily traceable thanks to internet and credit card purchases, and I suspect a simple, "I don't have it any more" will get you a lot of ATF-style loving.  I don't own a FRT, but if I did I'm not sure I'd want to be a test case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The very first day I saw an FRT in action on YouTube, I thought to myself, AFT coming for these right quick. I've never fired a full auto, but I've watched a ton of videos. I know zero about about how full auto works. That said, the Rare Breed company is using the technical language of how their trigger functions in order to fight the AFT. I think it's likely a losing battle. Even if Rare Breed is 100% correct, who has the money to get into a full blown legal battle with the government who can print all the dollars they need? 

These kinds of triggers test the waters. They're also pretty useless in this time of super high ammo prices. I've never desired one of these, a binary trigger, or a bump stock? That doesn't mean I think it was right to ban bump stocks ot from a technical perspective the FRT. However, like someone else said, i love my family nd our dog too much to be the test case. Glad i stayed away. Meantime,, just out of curiosity, I went to Rare Breeds site last night. Unless I'm missing something, they're still selling these???? That seems like playing with hot fire (pardon the pen) to me???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/4/2022 at 9:34 AM, JDW said:

The very first day I saw an FRT in action on YouTube, I thought to myself, AFT coming for these right quick. I've never fired a full auto, but I've watched a ton of videos. I know zero about about how full auto works. That said, the Rare Breed company is using the technical language of how their trigger functions in order to fight the AFT. I think it's likely a losing battle. Even if Rare Breed is 100% correct, who has the money to get into a full blown legal battle with the government who can print all the dollars they need? 

These kinds of triggers test the waters. They're also pretty useless in this time of super high ammo prices. I've never desired one of these, a binary trigger, or a bump stock? That doesn't mean I think it was right to ban bump stocks ot from a technical perspective the FRT. However, like someone else said, i love my family nd our dog too much to be the test case. Glad i stayed away. Meantime,, just out of curiosity, I went to Rare Breeds site last night. Unless I'm missing something, they're still selling these???? That seems like playing with hot fire (pardon the pen) to me???

 

I have no interest in bump stocks, binary triggers, or FRTs either. I don't shoot that much ammo that fast either. I can't afford it. Regardless of whether or not we find a use for them I think we, as shooters, have a vested interest in pushing the limits of the law or the "opinion" when it comes to the ATF of what is legal. Either they are just blowing hot air or they're trying to force our hands and it does shooters a disservice to just sit back and let it happen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Average Joe should be able to purchase anything that with one pull of the trigger is designed to kill one thing. 

Limitations beyond that seem reasonable. 

A bump stock fits that a reset does not, I'm not sure the point of them anyhow. 

If one shot isn't enough, Like the carpenter says "you need to use a bigger nail". 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/8/2022 at 7:25 AM, SiliconSorcerer said:

Limitations beyond that seem reasonable. 

 

I disagree, from where I stand it's an infringment, I fully believe the 2nd was enacted and was intended to allow the civilian population to have arms every bit as equal as those used by the government, and is not limited to handicapped or inferior versons of arms.

 

A bump stock fits that a reset does not, I'm not sure the point of them anyhow.

 

A bump stock is nothing more than an forced reset device, at the end of the day a forced reset trigger, a bump stock and the rubber band I posted above all do the same thing, they assist in returning the trigger to it's normal resting place, allowing another pull of that trigger to discharge another bullet, one pull on bullet, but as I said I personally believe this limitation is in  infringment in itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/8/2022 at 3:09 PM, Flynn said:

 

I disagree, from where I stand it's an infringment, I fully believe the 2nd was enacted and was intended to allow the civilian population to have arms every bit as equal as those used by the government, and is not limited to handicapped or inferior versons of arms.

 

You are correct.  More people here should read the federalist papers written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay.  They discuss the 2nd Amendment, their reasoning for it and the intent.  Yes, they wanted the populace to be armed the same as the regulars ( which was the standing military). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/8/2022 at 3:09 PM, Flynn said:

 

I disagree, from where I stand it's an infringment, I fully believe the 2nd was enacted and was intended to allow the civilian population to have arms every bit as equal as those used by the government, and is not limited to handicapped or inferior versons of arms.

 

 

 

 

A bump stock is nothing more than an forced reset device, at the end of the day a forced reset trigger, a bump stock and the rubber band I posted above all do the same thing, they assist in returning the trigger to it's normal resting place, allowing another pull of that trigger to discharge another bullet, one pull on bullet, but as I said I personally believe this limitation is in  infringment in itself.

A bump stock fits.  I.e. 1 pull 1 shot.   A reset trigger is not a forced reset it fires 2 rounds with one pull one on reset/release of the trigger.  

If you want a full auto and hand grenades that's not a battle in signing up for. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/8/2022 at 4:57 PM, SiliconSorcerer said:

A bump stock fits.  I.e. 1 pull 1 shot.   A reset trigger is not a forced reset it fires 2 rounds with one pull one on reset/release of the trigger.  

If you want a full auto and hand grenades that's not a battle in signing up for. 


That's where you're wrong bucko.

A BINARY TRIGGER does as you describe. One shot on pull, one shot on release.

A FORCED RESET TRIGGER only fires one shot on pull, and then forces the trigger reset (moving forward) even though you're still pulling against the trigger. Then once the bolt is in battery again, it allows you to pull the trigger again. If you release the trigger before the bolt goes in to battery, a second shot won't happen. Of course, the timing of all of this is in milliseconds so it's difficult to get single shots off..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They got the power we got the vote. The problem is not enough of us vote to totally oust the anti group. I had the discussion with friends and relatives about things as bump stocks and such. The problem is when nongunners  see video of such devices all they see a machine gun. Its a problem we’ve created by accepting these devices. Same with shouldering a braced pistol. Looks like a SBR to the uninitiated. We can’t get them on board so we’re paddling up steam on some of these issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a machine gun. Go look up how the trigger on a full auto AR works then look at this thing. 

 

Bump stocks are idiotic. I can't believe how mad people got when Wheeler tried to head off a bigger grab by proposing super specific bump stock legislation. People turned on her so fast over stupid freaking bump stocks. 

 

The nfa should not exist. It is directly in conflict with the second amendment. The whole purpose is to make sure the populace can take up arms to defend against foreign armies. The more time we waste playing games with gimmicky workarounds the more entrenched the infringement gets. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/10/2022 at 7:48 PM, davel501 said:

This is a machine gun. Go look up how the trigger on a full auto AR works then look at this thing. 

 

Bump stocks are idiotic. I can't believe how mad people got when Wheeler tried to head off a bigger grab by proposing super specific bump stock legislation. People turned on her so fast over stupid freaking bump stocks. 

 

The nfa should not exist. It is directly in conflict with the second amendment. The whole purpose is to make sure the populace can take up arms to defend against foreign armies. The more time we waste playing games with gimmicky workarounds the more entrenched the infringement gets. 


No, it's most definitely not.

An auto (M16) trigger lets you hold the trigger back without the trigger resetting, while the firearm continues firing rounds on the disconnector and auto sear.

The FRT forces the trigger to reset (forward) even against your rearward pull, unless you pull hard enough to stop the cycle. It takes just the right amount of constant rearward pressure to make the FRT function perfectly, along with the perfect buffer weight, etc.
 

 

Edited by Bird76Mojo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/10/2022 at 10:19 PM, Bird76Mojo said:


No, it's most definitely not.

An auto (M16) trigger lets you hold the trigger back without the trigger resetting, while the firearm continues firing rounds on the disconnector and auto sear.

The FRT forces the trigger to reset (forward) even against your rearward pull, unless you pull hard enough to stop the cycle. It takes just the right amount of constant rearward pressure to make the FRT function perfectly, along with the perfect buffer weight, etc.
 

 

 

My point was the nfa was the infringement. Playing games with the atf bolsters that infringement. 

 

The green piece in that video looks just like an auto sear. As you stated, if you do things just right it will kick out multiple bullets per trigger press. That's enough for the atf to invoke the power of the nfa and do what the atf does. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/11/2022 at 8:35 AM, davel501 said:

 

My point was the nfa was the infringement. Playing games with the atf bolsters that infringement. 

 

The green piece in that video looks just like an auto sear. As you stated, if you do things just right it will kick out multiple bullets per trigger press. That's enough for the atf to invoke the power of the nfa and do what the atf does. 


No, it will NOT fire multiple rounds per trigger pull. Ever. The operator pulls the trigger AGAIN after the trigger resets. 

There is no auto sear in the trigger pack either.

It uses the hammer being pushed rearward by the bolt carrier to force the trigger to reset forward, even if you're still applying rearward pressure.

It still takes you pulling the trigger again for every single round to be discharged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/11/2022 at 9:35 AM, davel501 said:

 

My point was the nfa was the infringement. Playing games with the atf bolsters that infringement. 

 

The green piece in that video looks just like an auto sear. As you stated, if you do things just right it will kick out multiple bullets per trigger press. That's enough for the atf to invoke the power of the nfa and do what the atf does. 

I don't understand your point. 

You are basically saying that legal work-arounds are dumb because it acknowledges the existence of the NFA, but you have no actual strategy or path of removing the NFA, other than saying "The NFA is an infringement and should be repealed".  OK...no one is arguing against that.  But the next question is...how do you plan on getting the NFA repealed?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...