Tag Archives: Lawsuit

authoritarian swine, Courts, gun control, Law

Rare Breed Triggers Fighting Back

4 Comments

I recently noted that the ATF has deemed the FRT-15 semiautomatic trigger is a machinegun. Rare Breed Triggers president Lawrence DeMonico is pushing back.

In this video, Mr. DeMonico explains what the ATF did, why Rare Breed knows they are wrong — on so many levels — and what Rare Breed is doing to fight back.

Before going to market, they took the FRT-15 to four separate subject matter experts, who all, independently said the trigger was semiautomatic. Personally, in terms of the language of the law, I think it’s a no-brainer since very point of the trigger is that it forces a reset absolutely requiring the user to pull the trigger once again before it will fire.

Of course, the ATF is not using the actual language of 26 U.S. Code § 5845:

(b)Machinegun
The term “machinegun” means 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.

The ATF has adopted a new definition of “function of the trigger” to mean “volitional movement of the finger.” Read that. Do you see “volitional”, “movement,” or “finger” in there anywhere?

And even that is remarkably stupid, even for an agency that thinks inanimate pieces of plastic are machineguns. One more time: The FRT-15 forces a reset and requires the user to consciously and manual pull the trigger again to fire. At least with a bump-fire stock, the finger could passively sit on the ledge, while the user — consciously and manually operates the action with his off-arm.

I assumed that Rare Breed Triggers would file a lawsuit. In the video, Mr. DeMonico confirms that a suit has been filed. Once I knew that, and in which court, it took me approximately 10 seconds to find it; and most of that time was spent typing search terms. The case is Rare Breed Triggers, LLC et al v. Garland et al.

This case is going to be fun to watch. For one Mr. DeMonico pulls no punches. For another…

There’s the matter of his subject matter experts. They were… the ATF’s subject matter experts. One literally wrote the ATF’s academy course on machinegun identification. Another taught the course in machinegun identification.

Those people are going to walk into court, present their prior-ATF credentials, and explain that the FRT-15 is semiautomatic.

The ATF is going to walk into court and tell the judge and jury that fingers are triggers.

Please note that only one person had been charged with unlawful possession of a bump-fire stock machinegun. When defense showed up with an expert witness who said bump-fire stocks are not machineguns, the prosecution dropped the charge, rather than try to tell the judge and jury that fingers are triggers.

This case won’t be in a Ninth Circuit court. The judge is probably going to be pounding his gavel and demanding order when everyone cracks up laughing.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine, Courts, gun control, Law

Mexico May Have Chosen Poorly

2 Comments

This should be interesting.

Mexico sues US gun manufacturers over arms trafficking toll
The Mexican government sued United States gun manufacturers and distributors Wednesday in U.S. federal court, arguing that their negligent and illegal commercial practices have unleashed tremendous bloodshed in Mexico.

The unusual lawsuit was filed in U.S. federal court in Boston. Among those being sued are some of the biggest names in guns, including: Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc.; Barret Firearms Manufacturing, Inc.; Beretta U.S.A. Corp.; Colt’s Manufacturing Company LLC, and Glock Inc. Another defendant is Interstate Arms, a Boston-area wholesaler that sells guns from all but one of the named manufacturers to dealers around the U.S.

It appears some of those outfits being sued are suppliers for the Mexican army and police. I suggest those manufacturers go all Ronnie Barrett, and stop selling or servicing weapons for Mexico. Barrett itself may be inclined to do so since Mexico uses their .50 BMG platform.

I think Mexico’s time and money would be better spent at home, cracking down on cartels like Los Zetas, which has been armed and equipped — not to mention staffed — by the Mexican army;they are after the smugglers and unlawful users of the weapons. Hey, Mexico could sue their army for trafficking guns to cartels.

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act should put a stop to this suit but as that report notes, activist judges have begun gutting it. This suit was filed in federal court in Boston, so I don’t expect good things.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine, Courts, gun control, Law

Weird Lawsuit: Monroe County, Iowa v. Iowa Firearms Coalition & J.D. Thompson

1 Comment

As the suit says, Monroe County is suing IFC and a county resident. Specifically, the suit is over a Chief Justice order barring firearms from court houses, and a state law that says if you do that, you must provide security. I jumped right into the filing because I really wondered how the heck the county was going to rationalize a claim against those defendants.

And… I don’t see a claim against them.

I need someone smarter than myself to explain this to me. The obvious unofficial backstory makes it clear that the county is maliciously targeting IFC and Thompson because they warned the county to comply with the law. But the only way the court filing addresses the official defendants is this.

STATEMENT OF THE IOWA FIREARMS COALATION (sic) AND MR. THOMPSON
30. Monroe County, Iowa has been advised by the Iowa Firearms Coalition that if it continues to comply with a lawful Order of the Iowa Supreme Court, that it will impose this unfunded mandate upon Monroe County, Iowa or that Monroe County, Iowa will be liable for this unfunded mandate plus attorney fees and other costs allowed by HF 2502. Monroe County, Iowa denied Mr. Thompson’s request.

31. No personal judgement is sought against Mr. Thompson.

WTF? There’s no actionable claim. They only say that IFC warned them they should comply with the law. Thompson gets no mention beyond that he made an unspecified — in the filing — request. Neither IFC’s nor Thompson’s warning/request is included in the filing. So even this vague soeta-claim is unsupported.

Other than that, the whole thing is a claim against the state for an unfunded mandate imposed by HF 2502. But even that is bogus. There’s no mandated expenditure; all they have to do is not declare a gun-free zone. If they choose to do that, then they voluntarily accept the expense. It would like Joe Blow calling vehicle registration fees an unfunded mandate; it isn’t because no one has to pay it unless they choose to buy a car.

This reads like a case against the state, and some office intern accidentally listed the wrong defendants. And even then, the alleged unfunded mandate would have been imposed by the Chief Justice who issued the gun-free order. Including IFC and Thompson has no point — legally; unofficially, it looks like retaliation for protected speech — but to make them pay for the county’s suit against the state.

OK, smarter people; what have I missed?

Statement from IFC Chairman Michael Ware:

“You just stated what our attorneys did as well. We have no idea what has motivated this action, but we seek to correct the injustice.”

The case may be BS, but IFC still needs to defend itself. Good attorneys are not cheap. You can help support IFC HERE.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail