[Malum Prohibitum]

One important item has been accomplished. Temporarily, at least, the ATF will not be treating the Rare Breed FRT as a machinegun under the National Firearms Act, which means that they will be legal to purchase.

The super safety is open source with no licensing to Hoffman required, so good luck on Rare Breed shutting down production of every manufacturer out there (even if Rare Breed had a good patent argument against any super safety, which I doubt).

So if gun owners are aggressive about purchasing these things and putting them to use, then it increases, potentially, a likelihood of a finding that these items are "in common use" under that bastardized perversion of Miller that Scalia came up with in Heller.

How many does it take to be "in common use?" I don't know, but the more the better, and now that folks will not have a good reason to fear the federal government, they can go about openly purchasing them and openly using them. Not in Florida, of course, or several other states (and even more are enacting restrictions), but that is all the more reason to flood the market.

Just my two cents.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

https://rarebreedtriggers.com/triggers/

This is the real site.

Avoid the scam sites - they are going to be raking in money this weekend from the unsuspecting. I am going to leave up post #372, a scam site, so you can see how they look. There is more than one out there.

Not yet updated.

 

[seajay]

Why not post where we have to go to buy one? Using cash of course!

 

[alnen]

One important item has been accomplished. Temporarily, at least, the ATF will not be treating the Rare Breed FRT as a machinegun under the National Firearms Act, which means that they will be legal to purchase.

The super safety is open source with no licensing to Hoffman required, so good luck on Rare Breed shutting down production of every manufacturer out there (even if Rare Breed had a good patent argument against any super safety, which I doubt).

So if gun owners are aggressive about purchasing these things and putting them to use, then it increases, potentially, a likelihood of a finding that these items are "in common use" under that bastardized perversion of Miller that Scalia came up with in Heller.

How many does it take to be "in common use?" I don't know, but the more the better, and now that folks will not have a good reason to fear the federal government, they can go about openly purchasing them and openly using them. Not in Florida, of course, or several other states (and even more are enacting restrictions), but that is all the more reason to flood the market.

Just my two cents.

That's a good question. 200,000 Tasers were found to be in common use, however the knew grift of the left is to claim that the tools aren't in common "legal" use... meaning- sure, there are tens of millions of AR15s that are legally OWNED, but they are not often legally USED. They are twisting it to read as if "common use" only means used in actual defensive shootings. It's absurd. Just like the new move to simply say that something is simply not an "arm", and so is not protected by the 2a- ie magazines, suppressors, sbrs, etc. We live in blizzaro world where some courts actually entertain AND AGREE with the premises.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

That's a good question. 200,000 Tasers were found to be in common use

If you are referring to Caetano, the Supreme Court did not make any findings or hold anything about the number of stun guns. Instead, it unanimously reversed the lower court's holding that in common use meant "in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment." Then the court reversed the lower court's holding that stun guns were unusual, because, again, the lower court had found that stun guns did not exist at the time of the Second Amendment's enactment.

It is a very short opinion without much elaboration. Alito and Thomas concurred, however, with more detail. A concurrence is not the opinion of the Court, but it can be helpful for those wanting to cite to its language. Here, they did mention "hundreds of thousands" to reject the lower court's finding that there were not as many stun guns as firearms, so Caetano should have just purchased a handgun and shot the father of her two children instead of choosing a means of nonlethal force.

As the foregoing makes clear, the pertinent Second Amendment inquiry is whether stun guns are commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes today. The Supreme Judicial Court offered only a cursory discussion of that question, noting that the “ ‘number of Tasers and stun guns is dwarfed by the number of firearms.’ ” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. This observation may be true, but it is beside the point. Otherwise, a State would be free to ban all weapons except handguns, because “handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home.” Heller, supra, at 629.​

​

The more relevant statistic is that “[h]undreds of thousands of Tasers and stun guns have been sold to private citizens,” who it appears may lawfully possess them in 45 States. People v. Yanna, 297 Mich. App. 137, 144, 824 N. W. 2d 241, 245 (2012) (holding Michigan stun gun ban unconstitutional); see Volokh, Nonlethal Self-Defense, (Almost Entirely) Nonlethal Weapons, and the Rights To Keep and Bear Arms and Defend Life, 62 Stan. L. Rev. 199, 244 (2009) (citing stun gun bans in seven States); Wis. Stat. §941.295 (Supp. 2015) (amended Wisconsin law permitting stun gun possession); see also Brief in Opposition 11 (acknowledging that “approximately 200,000 civilians owned stun guns” as of 2009). While less popular than handguns, stun guns are widely owned and accepted as a legitimate means of self-defense across the country. Massachusetts’ categorical ban of such weapons therefore violates the Second Amendment.​

(emphasis in original).

Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. 411 (2016)

Caetano v. Massachusetts: The Second Amendment covers all weapons that may be defined as "bearable arms," even if they did not exist when the Bill of Rights was drafted and are not commonly used in warfare.

supreme.justia.com

The helpful language here is in the first sentence, ending with the italicized word, "today." If Americans overwhelmingly choose FRTs for lawful purposes, then that will dictate the outcome of a Supreme Court decision. If not, then the Court may reject whatever Second Amendment arguments are offered challenging a ban on FRTs. That argument is a lot easier if there are millions of these things than if there are merely 200,000.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/justice-department-agreement-ends-ban-on-forced-reset-triggers/

As a provision of the agreement, not only will Rare Breed be able to resume sales of its forced reset trigger after a long-standing ban that nearly shut the business down, but the settlement additionally requires all seized devices to be returned to their rightful owners. This marks a dramatic policy shift when it comes to the Second Amendment, but I caution that these are administrative changes and not codified law, meaning that another rogue anti-American administration like the last one could reverse everything just as easily.​

 

[OWM]

meaning that another rogue anti-American administration like the last one could reverse everything just as easily.

The one major weak link in our form of government. One administration tears down the Country and the next rebuilds. Doesn't seem to matter the political party.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

The one major weak link in our form of government. One administration tears down the Country and the next rebuilds. Doesn't seem to matter the political party.

This is why some of us criticized the move. A binding court ruling on the merits, even just at the Fifth Circuit, would have been better.

Nevertheless, this gives Americans a window of opportunity to buy as many of these things as possible so that "common use" arguments can be made when the pendulum at the DOJ inevitably swings the other way.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

MSN

The "Most Pro Gun Chief Attorney" Leider opposed the current stance on Forced Reset Triggers, stating that they were dangerous and should be banned.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Their three position triggers are back up for sale!

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Oh, never mind, they sold out yesterday.

LOL

I wonder how many the first production run was . . .

The non-scam web site is here.

https://rarebreedtriggers.com/product-category/triggers/

Out of stock

Please be aware that there are lots and lots of scam sites posing as Rare Breed.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Upon closer inspection, those were not Rare Breed triggers at all. They are Delta Team Tactical FRT-15L3 that they acquired from a patent infringement settlement. They sold out very quickly.

They are not sharing production planning of their own trigger. I am aware from ATF probable cause statements that Rare Breed does not produce anything. They hire outside contractors to produce their design. I wonder if they even have anybody under contract yet.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Comments are not favorable

Summary of the video: There was no way that the Second Circuit Court of Appeals would allow them to win, and they were fairly certain that the Supreme Court would not grant cert for an appeal. The end result would be FRTs are illegal MG's in the Second Circuit but are fine in the Fifth Circuit. With the settlement they can now sell them wherever state law does not ban them, at least for a few years until the Trump Administration ends.

Tidbit of news: They mention an MP5 version upcoming.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

More learned on that video:

2 models for AR15 in production
1 for AK47
1 for MP5

and a handful of others in preproduction planning.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Why not post where we have to go to buy one? Using cash of course!

deeznutz being sued by Rare Breed



I have a Super Safety from deeznutz. They work very well, and I cannot discern how it violates Rare Breed's intellectual property. It seems to be a completely different way of operating.

Deez Nutz Tactical

deeznutztactical.com

I own multiples of forced reset triggers.


I suggest you do, too, and encourage others to do so.

We are stuck with "in common use" as some sort of numbers test to offset the argument that a weapon is "dangerous and unusual." I have argued for why "dangerous and unusual" does not mean what the federal judges seem to think it means, but for now, the easiest way of fighting for the Second Amendment as applied to any particular "arm" is to show that it is in common use. 175,000 privately owned machine guns is often rejected by the "in common use" test, and federal judges are quite willing to overlook the circular argument of we can ban it because we banned it.

Buy them.

Own them.

Use them.

Encourage others to do the same.

Or see them banned and the ban upheld not too many years in the future.

 

[ICP_Juggalo]

Love how they call it the "Super Safety" Im gonna have to get one now

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

 

[gunsmoker]

"....TX-22 that goes Brrrrrrrrr!"

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

"....TX-22 that goes Brrrrrrrrr!"

They found a fun way to make even shooting .22 rimfire expensive . . .

 

[OWM]

Can you envision this in 10MM.