But the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) unilaterally classified the FRT-15 as a “machinegun.” ATF then sued Rare Breed and went after its customers. You can read about that here if you’re interested.

But Rare Breed challenged the ATF’s classification under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), saying that the agency acted beyond its authority and circumvented Congress. A Federal District Judge has now ruled in Rare Breed’s favor, citing not only the APA, but also the recently decided Cargill v. Garland Supreme Court decision that overturned the bump stock ban.

How the FRT-15 Functions

The term “forced reset” accurately describes how the trigger works. A standard AR trigger resets when the shooter releases rearward pressure, thus allowing the trigger mechanism to move forward. Another press of the trigger starts the whole process over. Most of you know that, of course. But the FRT-15 uses a newly designed hammer that forces the trigger forward to the reset, along with the shooter’s finger, as the bolt carrier moves forward to chamber the next round.

A locking bar prevents the shooter from pressing the trigger again until the bolt cycle is complete. The shooter can take advantage of the hammer-assisted reset to dramatically increase the rate of fire. Or not. With practice, the shooter can manipulate the trigger to fire only one shot or the equivalent of a short burst.

Keep in mind that the locking bar’s pressure on the trigger prevents another press until the bolt cycles. The locking bar is only released as the bolt cycle is completed. The shooter cannot simply hold the trigger to the rear, or the rifle will malfunction. The trigger must execute its function for each round fired. So, while the FRT-15 is capable of a prodigious rate of fire, it is still a semi-automatic trigger.

But the ATF rule subtly changed the National Firearms Act’s (NFA) language to classify the FRT-15 as a “machinegun.” Many of you probably know that the NFA calls any firearm that fires more than one projectile on “a single function of the trigger” as a “machinegun.” ATF’s rule changed that requirement to “a single constant rearward pull of the trigger.” Subtle but significant. That change provided partial grounds for overturning the rule.

 The Court’s Decision

Federal District Judge Reed O’Connor took the time to learn how the FRT-15 works and explained it in his decision. We’ll skip that since we’ve already covered it. We’ll simply note that Judge O’Connor wrote that “FRT’s do not fire multiple rounds with a single function of the trigger and, thus, do not qualify as machineguns.”

But the judge went further. Noting the ATF’s language change, he wrote that “Defendants (ATF) transform the required statutory focus away from the objective trigger mechanics to the subjective actions of the gun user instead. This is incorrect and is the same rewriting of the statute Defendants already attempted – and failed – to do with bump stocks. For purposes of statutory interpretation, it matters not what human input is required to activate the trigger. All that matters is whether more than one shot is fired each time the trigger functions (emphasis added). As Cargill explained, courts cannot look to the shooter’s actions in deciding whether FRTs are machineguns. Indeed, the ‘notion that the definition turns on the actions of an unnamed shooter is inconsistent with both the [definition’s] grammatical and statutory contexts.’”

Judge O’Connor vacated the ATF’s rule classifying FRTs as “machineguns,” meaning it’s like the rule never existed at all. But the decision also orders the ATF to take certain actions. Other aspects of the decision also merit brief discussion.

Court Orders

Judge O’Connor issued the following orders to the ATF:

1. The Court VACATES defendants’ unlawful classification of FRTs as “machineguns.”
2. The Court DECLARES unlawful Defendants’ determination that FRTs are “machineguns.”
3. The Court ENJOINS Defendants – along with their respective officers, agents, servants, and employees – from implementing or enforcing against the parties in this lawsuit, in any civil or criminal manner described below, the ATF’s expanded definition of “machinegun” to FRTs that this Court has determined is unlawful:

• Initiating or pursuing criminal prosecutions for possession of FRTs;
• Initiating or pursuing civil proceedings for possessing, selling, or manufacturing FRTs based on the claim that FRTs are machineguns;
• Initiating or pursuing criminal prosecutions for representing to the public of potential buyers and sellers that FRTs are not machineguns;
• Initiating or pursuing civil actions for representing to the public of potential buyers and sellers that FRTs are not machineguns;
• Sending “Notice Letters” or other similar communications stating that FRTs are machineguns;
• Seizing or requesting “voluntarily” (sic) surrender of FRTs to the government based on the claim that FRTs are machineguns;
• Destroying any previously surrendered or seized FRTs; and
• Otherwise interfering in the possession, sale, manufacture, transfer, or exchange of FRTs based on the claim that FRTs are machineguns.

4. This scope of this injunction covers the Individual Plaintiffs and their families, the Organizational Plaintiffs and their members, and the downstream customers of any commercial member of an Organizational Plaintiff to the extent that it does not interfere with other courts, such as the E.D.N.Y. jurisdiction over the Rare Breed Parties (this is an ongoing case in the Eastern District of New York) and other pending criminal cases against individuals already subject to prosecution.
5. The Court further ENJOINS Defendants from pursuing criminal proceedings or criminal enforcement actions against the Rare Breed Parties on the grounds that FRTs are “machineguns.”
6. The Court ORDERS Defendants to return to all parties, including manufacturers, distributors, resellers, and individuals, all FRTs and FRT components confiscated or seized pursuant to their unlawful classification within thirty (30) days of this decision.
7. The Court ORDERS Defendants to mail remedial notices correcting their prior mailing campaign that “warned” suspected FRT owners that possession of FRTs and FRT components was purportedly illegal.

The ATF Overstepped

The ATF overstepping its authority has become a familiar theme of late. Rules addressing bump stocks, frames and receivers, pistol braces, and FRTs all represent that trend. The problem is that the ATF, as an executive agency, does not have the power to enact federal law. Yet those rules carry thousands of dollars in fines and years of prison time as consequences should a citizen run afoul of them. So, they essentially carry the weight of federal law.

The Constitution clearly states that only Congress can enact federal statutes, especially those that carry substantial penalties, as all those rules do or did. Judge O’Connor addresses this in his conclusion, noting that executive agencies making such rules represents “rampant evasion of the democratic process.” Only the people’s elected representatives, “not life-tenured judges and unelected bureaucrats” may initiate and enact statutory change (emphasis in original).

“Rather than respect this intentional feature of our democratic system,” the judge wrote, “Defendants chose to advance an (sic) policy agenda wholly divorced from the NFA’s statutory text. Thus, to allow Defendants’ unlawful action to stand would be to functionally rewrite the NFA. That is not how our democratic system functions.”

What Now?

ATF always appeals decisions that go against them. The last few years have proven that. But this case cited the already settled Cargill Decision as a major part of its reasoning. Might the ATF admit defeat since the Supreme Court has already ruled on a similar case? This could get interesting.

The post Federal Judge Overturns Forced Reset Trigger Ban appeared first on The Mag Life.

If you aren’t familiar with the Safe Handgun Roster, here’s what you should know: The California legislature first enacted the Unsafe Handgun Act (UHA) in 1999. Its stated purpose was to “reduce the number of firearms deaths in the state and curbing handgun crime, as well as promoting safety.” Essentially, the UHA, which established the roster, gave the state the power to dictate to Californians which handguns they could manufacture, sell, or own, based on subjective criteria established by politicians.

2007 saw the introduction of the requirement for a loaded chamber indicator (CLI) and a magazine disconnect mechanism (MDM). These were touted as guarding against accidental or negligent discharges. On a personal note, many gun owners, including yours truly, consider magazine disconnect mechanisms to be undesirable. 

Finally, in 2013, lawmakers added microstamping capability as a roster requirement. Microstamping is the theoretical process of using a gun’s firing pin to imprint certain data, like the gun’s manufacturer, model, and serial number, onto the primer when a round is fired. These stamps would, of course, be microscopic, hence the name. The only problem was that such technology did not exist, nor does it exist today. That’s why it’s referred to as theoretical. 

Those onerous requirements, however, may be getting the bum’s rush thanks to a recent ruling in Federal District Court.

The Lawsuit

California residents Lance Boland, Mario Santellan, Reno May, Jerome Schammel, and the California Rifle & Pistol Association filed suit in federal court, alleging that the roster, and its requirements, infringe on their Second Amendment rights, and are therefore unconstitutional.

The suit’s timing is not coincidental. Last year’s Bruen Decision by the Supreme Court opened the door to the challenge, with its requirement that gun laws must be consistent with the Second Amendment’s plain text and analogous to gun laws as they were understood and practiced in 1791, when the Bill of Rights was ratified.

The Decision

Federal District Judge Cormac J. Carney opened the decision with a powerful statement indicating where the decision will go: “The Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. That right is so fundamental that to regulate conduct covered by the Second Amendment’s plain text, the government must show more than that the regulation promotes an important interest like reducing accidental discharges or solving crime. Rather, to be constitutional, regulations of Second Amendment rights must be ‘consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.’” Meaning in 1791.

This statement demonstrates that Judge Carney recognizes and understands a core tenet of Bruen: that courts are not allowed to weigh the Second Amendment’s plain text against a perceived public good as defined by the government or the court itself. Justice Clarence Thomas noted that such considerations were “one step too many,” and thus unconstitutional. One would think other judges would understand this clear concept, but many have proven that they either do not, or they refuse to abide by that requirement.

Judge Carney then goes on to detail how no single handgun in the entire world meets the three requirements of a CLI, MDM, or microstamping capability. Not one. Therefore, no new semi-automatic handguns have been added to the roster since the microstamping requirement of May 2013.  Californians who wish the exercise their rights, the judge notes, are limited to older designs and sometimes older handguns because the UHA prohibits their acquiring modern state-of-the-art models.

The judge also notes that not one of the over 800 handguns on the roster meets all three requirements, having been grandfathered in as those requirements were implemented. One wonders, then, whether the roster is actually about safety, as defined by California politicians, or strangling lawful gun purchases in the state. An excellent point was made by another commentator that the police are not bound by the roster’s restrictions. Does that mean the police carry inherently “unsafe” firearms? That fact alone renders the entire roster concept nonsensical.

The state’s attorneys trotted out dubious laws from 1783 Massachusetts, 1792 New York City, and 1821 Maine to try to justify the UHA, but Carney rejected them because they dealt primarily with gunpowder storage. In addition, those laws were intended to prevent fire and explosions, as opposed to limiting access to arms, so they are not analogous to the UHA.

The state also argued that the roster does not infringe on the Second Amendment because residents can purchase and own “some” firearms. Judge Carney rejected that ill-considered point as well.

The Conclusion

Judge Carney’s conclusion lays it all out:

“The Second Amendment enshrines a fundamental constitutional right for law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms for self-defense. Increasingly in modern times, with ‘the ubiquity of guns and our country’s high level of gun violence,’ ordinary law-abiding people feel a need to possess handguns to protect themselves against violence. This may be because they ‘live in high-crime neighborhoods,’ or because they ‘must traverse dark and dangerous streets in order to reach their homes after work or other evening activities,’ or because they ‘reasonably believe that unless they can brandish or, if necessary, use a handgun in the case of attack, they may be murdered, raped, or suffer some other serious injury.’”

“Californians have the constitutional right to acquire and use state-of-the-art handguns to protect themselves. They should not be forced to settle for decade-old models of handguns to ensure that they remain safe inside or outside the home. But unfortunately, the UHA’s CLI, MDM, and microstamping requirements do exactly that. Because enforcing those requirements implicates the plain text of the Second Amendment, and the government fails to point to any well-established historical analogues that are consistent with them, those requirements are unconstitutional and their enforcement must be preliminarily enjoined. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is GRANTED”

Implications

This is a huge win for gun rights. California has long prided itself on its draconian gun control that limits responsible citizens while doing nothing to curb crime. Many of us have witnessed the head-scratching comments from California politicians regarding firearms, as well as clownish behaviors like former state legislator Kevin DeLeon’s explanation of “Ghost Guns” and “30 magazine clips.” You should look that one up online. It would be comedy gold if it weren’t so serious.

California isn’t the only state with a gun roster. Expect other suits to follow in those states. California will no doubt appeal this decision. That appeal will go to the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals, a notoriously anti-gun panel. But the Bruen Decision has forced the 9^th Circuit to reexamine some of its past rulings, which are now wending their way through the Federal court system once again. One hopes the 9^th Circuit can see which way the wind blows, but don’t count on it.

So, as always with these early cases, we have a nice win but it’s not over yet. This one will drag on for a while. The immediate question is whether the 9^th Circuit will order a hold on Judge Carney’s preliminary injunction, thus delaying its benefits to California gun owners. We shall see.

You can read this important decision for yourself at courtlistener.com.

The post California “Safe Handgun” Roster Ruled Unconstitutional appeared first on The Mag Life.

So, what’s the big deal about two guys suing the state of Illinois to own suppressors, outside the obvious? And what kind of argument do they have? Well, really there are several arguments in their filing that discuss the reasoning behind the lawsuit.

These residents of Illinois have decided to stand up and push back against what they feel is an unfair law, one which they argue goes against their Second Amendment right to bear arms. These two, one who has lived in Illinois his whole life and one who moved there, are not permitted under state law to own or even possess a suppressor, and depending on where they are, it’s either a Class 2 or Class 3 felony to do so. The second Plaintiff of the case had to legally transfer ownership of his suppressor to family members that reside outside Illinois. They decided to push back.

Historical Basis

In the Complaint filed, the Plaintiffs state that Illinois has criminalized suppressors despite their common use. Suppressors have been used commonly since Hiram Maxim applied for his patent in 1908 for a device that would reduce gunshot noise. He called it a “silencer,” but people who are familiar with them know the misnomer and agree that suppressor is a more appropriate term.

Suppressors have been used across history with firearms. Even President Theodore Roosevelt had a suppressor on his 1894 Winchester. For nearly 25 years after the initial patent for suppressors, the product went unregulated. It wasn’t until the 1934 National Firearms Act that suppressors started to be regulated, but not banned.

Common Use Arguments

The Plaintiffs lay out reasons that suppressor usage is generally accepted and that suppressors are very infrequently used for criminal activity. In 2017, acting AFT Deputy Director Turk admitted to that fact, stating suppressors “are very rarely used in criminal shootings.” One study showed that suppressor-related prosecutions for a given year were only 30-40 cases out of nearly 80,000 federal cases.

The Plaintiffs continue to state that ownership is beneficial and increases the safety of firearm use with five common and practical uses of suppressors. The first reason they give is for hearing protection. When suppressors are not used, the decibel levels from gunfire are above hearing safe, which we all know, and prolonged exposure leads to hearing loss. However, if a suppressor is used, the decibel levels are reduced to safer levels.

Secondly, suppressors are used to protect hunters and those around them. Reports have shown that up to 95% of adult hunters say they don’t wear hearing protection while hunting. Using a suppressor would protect their hearing while maintaining situational awareness.

Third, suppressors are used as a common courtesy to reduce noise in communities. Suppressors don’t silence gunshots by any stretch of the imagination, but they keep the sound down to acceptable levels to reduce the levels of noise pollution in neighborhoods. Maxim stated that was one of the reasons for his invention. In other countries around the world where suppressor ownership is legal, it’s almost seen as rude to shoot without a suppressor. I have to agree.

Fourth, suppressor ownership and usage provide for safer training and make the firearm more accurate. The suppressor mitigates at least some of the recoil from the firearm, helps with muzzle flash, and gives the shooter better control over the weapon. There are many instructors that employ suppressors in their courses to help new shooters get comfortable and reduce the propensity of the shooter to develop a flinch in response to the recoil. Additionally, suppressors help with situational awareness and allow the students to hear commands and warnings easier making the overall situation safer.

Fifth, suppressors make self-defense or defense of the home safer and more effective. When used for home defense circumstances, earmuffs or plugs might not be readily available, meaning that the user is protecting their hearing. Additionally, the suppressor allows for effective communication with others in the dwelling and the ability to hear potential threats.

Legal Terms and Rulings

Illinois law states it is illegal to have “any device or attachment of any kind designed, used or intended for use in silencing the report of any firearm.” Anyone who has used a suppressor knows that it doesn’t silence the firearm, even on a .22lr. It diminishes the report for the firearm, but regardless of what Hollywood likes to show, it does not silence anything.

We are all familiar with the Second Amendment and the text. The ATF classifies suppressors as firearms in accordance with the NFA registration. If you apply that term for suppressors, based on the Heller, McDonald, and Bruen decisions, it’s a straightforward case when taking the Second Amendment into account. There has been ambiguity regarding how the text is interpreted and how it really applies to suppressors, but using the ATF name of “firearm” for suppressors, eliminates it.

Just as a quick background for those that might not be as familiar with those mentioned cases, each of those cases has a significant decision regarding the legality of firearm ownership thanks to the Second Amendment. In the oldest decision, District of Columbia v. Heller, the US Supreme Court ruled the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, outside of service in a militia, including lawful purposes like self-defense within the home.

Following up on Heller, in 2010, in McDonald v. city of Chicago, the Supreme Court overturned the previous decision and stated that the Second Amendment was incorporated within the Fourteenth Amendment, protecting individual rights against infringement by state and local governments. After Heller and McDonald, the court had established a two-part framework to see if laws or rulings interfered with the Second Amendment, combining history with a means-end analysis.

Then with New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc v. Bruen in 2022, the Supreme court rejected the second portion of the framework, instead focusing on the constitutional text and history for a ruling. As such, the court ruled the Second Amendment included the right for an individual to carry a concealed weapon in public. The court went on to state that the text of the Second Amendment goes beyond what the Founding Fathers used as weapons or even the Reconstruction generation, but with the spirit of the text.

With those three monumental decisions, the Second Amendment received a major plus-up in protection. The Complaint that was filed in Illinois points to all three of those decisions and the texts that explicitly shows that the current Illinois law for banning suppressors violates the very heart of the Second Amendment.

Legal Precedence of Lawsuit

So, what happens if the Plaintiffs win? Well, the law would be struck down and suppressor ownership would become legal, at least on paper. If the aftermath of the Bruen decision is any indication, the state would undoubtedly fight back and appeal the decision. But it would also mean, theoretically, suppressor ownership would be legal in Illinois regardless of the current state of ATF or politics. If they win, it could mean legal cases in the other seven states that forbid ownership of suppressors as well, but could have implications beyond just that.

Conclusion

With over 86% of all NFA applications in 2022 for suppressors, it’s not hard to see the importance of this case. For those of us that live in areas that allow for suppressor ownership, it’s great to see the first steps being taken in those restricted states. The legal argument brought about by the Plaintiffs is a compelling one and it will be very interesting to see how this one plays out.

You can read the filing at https://suppressor.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Complaint_Anderson_v_Raoul.pdf

The post Suppressor Ban Lawsuit Filed in Illinois appeared first on The Mag Life.

A New Manufacturer Category

Section A is where the seller records the firearm’s manufacturer and importer, if any. Reflecting the new frames and receivers rule, ATF has now added a “Privately Made Firearm (PMF)” category. Homemade firearms have always been legal and do not require a serial number unless they are transferred to another person.

This addition requires the FFL to record that the firearm being transferred was privately manufactured. The FFL will also record the assigned serial number in the same section.

A New Residence Question

Section B, line 10 asks for the purchaser’s address. A new question has been added, reading: “Reside in City Limits?” This may reflect the fact that, while many cities have their own firearms laws, some people’s address says they live in that city when they actually reside outside the marked limits.

New Qualifying Questions

Section B is filled out by the purchaser and includes qualifying questions to establish whether the transferee is a prohibited person. Two new questions have been added, apparently aimed at straw purchasers and gun traffickers. Now, we all know that criminals do not necessarily tell the truth, but this looks to be an administrative tool to use against them if they are caught.

Line 21.b.

The first new question, line 21.b., asks “Do you intend to purchase or acquire any firearm listed on this form and any continuation sheet(s), or ammunition, for sale or other disposition to any person described in questions 21 (c)-(m), or to a person described in question 21.n.1 who does not fall within a nonimmigrant alien exception?”

Basically, line 21.b. asks whether you intend to give or sell the firearms and/or ammunition you’re buying to a prohibited person. If you answer in the affirmative, you are now prohibited yourself because you intend to make a straw purchase.

Line 21.c.

The second new question is on line 21.c. It reads, “Do you intend to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm listed on this form and any continuation sheet(s) or ammunition in furtherance of any felony or other offense punishable by imprisonment for a term of more than one year, a Federal crime of terrorism, or a drug trafficking offense?”

In other words, do you plan to use this firearm and/or ammunition to commit a crime, engage in terrorism, or sell drugs? If so, you are now a prohibited person. Again, it seems unlikely that any such person would answer yes, but this is probably one more thing to throw at such people in court.

New Age Requirements

Section C now contains the following notice: “If transferee/buyer is under 21, a waiting period of up to 10 days may apply where notification from NICS is received within 3 business days to further investigate a possible disqualifying juvenile record. A NICS check is only valid for 30 calendar days from the date recorded in question 27.a.”

This comes from the Senate gun control bill passed last summer, authorizing NICS to look at juvenile records for 18- to 20-year-old gun purchasers. NICS must inform the FFL within three days of a delay for that purpose. The FFL will then note on line 27.c the date on which the transfer can proceed if NICS does not extend the waiting period.

Line 27.d provides a place for the FFL to note whether and when NICS notifies them of an additional delay and when the transfer can proceed if NICS fails to respond.

Implementation

ATF has advised FFLS to begin using the revised Form 4473 immediately, though the mandatory implementation date is April 1, 2023. ATF says the revised 4473 e-form will be available soon.

For most of us, the new revisions are meaningless. The waiting period for 18-20-year-olds is problematic, Second Amendment-wise, and that may be challenged in court. But some folks have filled out so many 4473s that they habitually just check off the boxes in Section B without reading the questions. I’ve seen people do it. Be aware that if you check the wrong box, the FFL can’t just toss the form in the trash and give you a new one. They have to keep the one marked in error. Don’t be the guy who accidentally puts himself on the ATF’s radar by not reading the new questions.

Thanks to Orchid Advisors for the copy of the revised Form 4473.

The post ATF Changes the 4473: What You Need to Know appeared first on The Mag Life.