Quote:
Originally Posted by srvy
I suggest looking up binary triggers and ATF legality!
|
Already have because I've represented clients who were contacted by the ATF regarding their purchase of binary triggers, as well as clients who purchased 'oil traps,' suppressor kits, bump stocks, and forced re-set triggers. I've represented clients facing charges of possessing unregistered NFA items. I've read the ATF position papers on these various items, including how those positions have changed over the years as well as the myriad of legal briefs from a variety of parties in support of and in opposition to those changes. I'm on a first name basis with several ATF agents in my District, whether administrative, from representing people in the firearms business, or enforcement, from representing people under investigation or indictment, because of my work.
I get similar responses a fair amount. Or I get called a 'fudd'. There is a difference between my own personal opinions and my legal advice. My legal advice is generally based upon what I think is the best way to avoid undue scrutiny from Uncle Sam or other law enforcement groups. I give that advice irrespective of whether I think the law is good, just, constitutional, or wise. As one example, I'm not really sure why I need the government's permission to ingest a particular chemical or substance but I will certainly give advice to not purchase, possess, transport, manufacture, or distribute a substance that the government bans.
In this thread, some were speculating that the firearm used was a full auto and someone suggested a binary trigger, specifically as a way to get around the prohibition on fully automatic firearms and thus a potential explanation for the rapid string of shots. I did not agree with the speculation that the firearm was full auto (and since the firearm has been revealed to be a Taurus 92, I am correct) and I also believe that the binary triggers fall into a legal gray area if they do not cross the line. Part of the issue is that the term 'binary trigger,' like 'bump stock,' or 'forced reset trigger,' can be used to cover different items. Here's an ATF letter re: forced re-set trigger demonstrating that binary triggers can be acceptable but also showing that the term 'forced re-set triggers' has been applied to binary triggers:
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/op...-frts/download
Further, the previous discussion in this thread of binary triggers discussed the use of one pull of the trigger to discharge two cartridges: once during the regular pull and once during the release. Note that the above ATF letter quotes 18 USC 921(a)(23) to define a machine gun
"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."
[Note that unlike a frame or receiver, the definition of machine gun specifically includes parts, which is why some guys in Central District of Florida were convicted of selling machine guns when they were selling small metal plates with lines etched on them for cutting. The government argued that if the cards were cut along the etched lines, the resulting parts could be used to convert a semi-automatic firearm into an automatic firearm. Forget the fact that even the ATF could not make the resulting 'parts' work. The intent was sufficient to justify a conviction.]
Binary triggers that fire two shots based upon two pulls of the trigger are thus not machine guns. Binary triggers that fire two shots based upon one pull of the trigger are machine guns. To the extent that there is confusion over the two, well, my legal advice would be to stay away from anything that could put you in the cross-hairs of the ATF. Or you could end up like this guy who is trying to argue that his triggers are not machine guns:
https://www.wfla.com/news/florida/at...-desist-order/