blue109 Posted May 23 Report Share Posted May 23 12 hours ago, 98Z5V said: Why wouldn't you aggressively protect your copyright, brother? You invented it. Armalite did it for years, with the use of the "AR-10" term. Then, they just gave up, and we now have some truly shiit "AR-10" products on the market now - that aren't anywhere near AR-10 in the least. it's one thing to protect your copyright, it's another to make it part of your deal with the devil to stop litigating you. they are basically saying "we will stop coming after you, as long as you help us crush anyone else who dares to come up with their own version" If that's how it went down, that it's basically akin to being on the ATF payroll. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
98Z5V Posted May 25 Author Report Share Posted May 25 On 5/23/2025 at 8:14 AM, blue109 said: it's one thing to protect your copyright, it's another to make it part of your deal with the devil to stop litigating you. they are basically saying "we will stop coming after you, as long as you help us crush anyone else who dares to come up with their own version" If that's how it went down, that it's basically akin to being on the ATF payroll. The exact "deal" made, brother, is quite simple. Have you researched it? "The Deal" was that Rare Breed gets to keep what they have, because it IS legal, and it IS NOT a "machinegun" per the very, pinpointed definition of the law that was passed in 1934. The NFA. "The Deal" is - you do you, Boo - run with scissors, Rare Breed. Just AGREE that you will not develop this technology for Handguns... ATF was very specific in using the term "Handguns" in that agreement. They didn't say "Pistols." There is a difference between the two definitions. A "Handgun" accepts a magazine in it's grip, and it semi-auto. A "Pistol" is a revolver - it DOES NOT accept a magazine in it's grip, at all. Fine line... The ATF definitions are spelled out - not because of the ATF, but because of lawmakers that made the law. SO, "The Deal" was... You can have the technology - the courts say so. Once we drop this, agree to NOT develop this technology, for Handguns... What, exactly, does not make sense about that? I don't want Glock switches running willy nilly all over the place, and being called "legal." There's too many stupid gangbanger MFers out there... Let's discuss... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
98Z5V Posted May 25 Author Report Share Posted May 25 Check it: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue109 Posted May 26 Report Share Posted May 26 (edited) it's a machine gun or it it isn't, regardless what gun you put it in. I fully support forced reset triggers for handguns, even though I have no interest in owning one. Not sure how ATF can tell them not to develop it for certain platforms. either the trigger is legal by their definition, and they can kick rocks, or it's not, and they can continue the courtroom bs. but my issue was with the the part where they agreed to go after anyone else developing similar technology as a part of their dismissal deal....according to the other video. I hadn't seen that anywhere else, so if that video was inaccurate, it's a non-issue. If they did sign on to that, it's shitty. seems like a lot of compromises were made when it looked like they were about to win free and clear. I'm not a fan of 2A compromises. Edited May 26 by blue109 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armed Eye Doc Posted June 9 Report Share Posted June 9 The statists won't give up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.