Jump to content
308AR.com Community
  • Visit Aero Precision
  • Visit Brownells
  • Visit EuroOptic
  • Visit Site
  • Visit Beachin Tactical
  • Visit Rainier Arms
  • Visit Ballistic Advantage
  • Visit Palmetto State Armory
  • Visit Cabelas
  • Visit Sportsmans Guide

Rare Breed FRT-15 Trigger


Recommended Posts

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 154
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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...   :popcorn:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by blue109
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...