Thread 64278893

>claims it's not an SBR because it was *intended* to shoot 5.56 scattershot
>ATF folds
>SBRs now only a felony if you intend them to be

>>64278893 (OP)
>SBRs now only a felony if you intend them to be
Not exactly but somewhat? this ruling really only applies to the antithesis (so far), from what i've gathered and understand i believe you would effectively have to submit a firearm/system/evidence to the ATF to be reviewed under the auspicious of being approved with this ruling.

I dont get how this works. Is it automatically a felony if you change the barrel to another caliber? I assume only theor factory specs are safe

>>64278921
It applies to any 5.56 rifle as long as you own a couple of Franklin's bullet condoms. You can demonstrate how your rifle can shoot two bullets at once, making it a firearm.

I must be a retard because even after reading the ATF letter I'm just not getting it.

>>64278921
ATF determinations don't matter anymore and they could always just change their mind whenever they wanted so it's best to just ignore them and lawyer up if they come for you

>>64278996
tl;dr:
>Definition of a rifle in the GCA includes the phrase "fire a single projectile"
>Company makes an AR that's "designed" to shoot duplex loads (as far as I can tell it's not any different than normal, but it's an advertised capability and alongside it they sell hollow base bullets you can stick over the top of a 5.56 bullet)
>ATF says it's illegal and bans them from selling it
>Company takes ATF to court
>Judge says it's obviously not a rifle according to the law if it's designed to fire more than one projectile at once
>ATF recently published an open letter admitting that it's legal and announcing that they will not be pursuing an appeal

>>64279025
Is only Franklin's stuff safe like this, or can I email the ATF saying my rifle has the same capability and is no longer a rifle and chop the barrel? Not that I would, I already have an SBR lower

>>64278951
>It applies to any 5.56 rifle
i HIGHLY doubt this personally, i would be surprised if it even applies to the AR-15 design. the entire case hinged on their specific designs.
>>64278998
>ATF determinations don't matter anymore
im halfway convinced that the government will flip flop on this and essentially okay determinations. The crown doesn't want its subjects being too free now right?

>>64279036
Like everything else with the ATF, no one fucking knows and it's all up to how much they want to fuck with you on that day.

>>64278893 (OP)
SBRs stopped being a felony for non-influencers the moment the ATF flip-flopped on braces like 5 times in a row. I'm glad this exists because between the tax-free stamp and this ruling plus ATF letter, it swings the door wide open for the SBR portion of the NFA to be tossed out in the next year or two. If someone asks if it has a tax stamp just say it is stamped, nobody outside of uber fudd gun ranges will bat an eye. Just don't brag about it or needlessly bring attention to yourself.

The real rifles were the firearms they identified as along the way

>>64279051
anon, ATF determinations have NEVER mattered and it was always just a pinky promise and involved telling on yourself first
it was never necessary and it was always harmful

>>64278893 (OP)
It's always been a game to them (the ATF)

>>64279060
I am willing to admit I'm probably wrong in my assumption, I usually just assume the worst case scenario when it comes to this stuff.

>>64279051
>the entire case hinged on their specific designs.
What did they change? Maybe it's got a longer leade since stacking a second bullet makes the cartridge a little longer? It doesn't look like it uses a special magazine so it can't be too much longer.

>>64279036
I'd just buy a few of Franklin's bullet condoms, confirm that they function as intended through your barrel, and then cut it down. The same way that owning a shoestring with a loop in it and a Garand at the same time demonstrates constructive intent, you can use a spare bullet condom to demonstrate your weapon's capability to fire multiple projectiles per shot.

>>64279083
essentially their claim boils down to "our design is different because it can feed .410/.45LC on top of 5.56" and under the view of the government thats a different design then a run of the mill AR-15

>>64279122
Anon, that was a different chambering entirely. do you even own .410 or 5.56? The two cannot share a chamber. Hell, you can fit an entire 5.56 cartridge IN a .410

>>64280125
>. Hell, you can fit an entire 5.56 cartridge IN a .410
Isn't that what this is? They really need to upload a video of it.

>>64279059
Underrated post

>>64278951
>it applies to any 5.56 rifle
That isn't true. As of right now my understanding of the law and settlement is that it only applies to an Antithesis firearm. Technical mechanical details notwithstanding, that means that the lower itself is basically SBR'd for free, as far as I understand it.

>>64279025
Interesting

They totally could have filed an appeal. It's surprising to me they didn't. My best guess is that this is credited to the top down sea change at the atf.

>>64280514
The settlement was specifically with Franklin since they were the defendants, but the court's ruling applies to any rifled firearm that fires duplex rounds. It's the same way that the ATF settled with Rare Breed and now anyone can make forced reset triggers, but in this case the settlement doesn't include the language about mandatory lawsuits.

All of this hinges on how exactly the condoms work. If you just push the original bullet into the case far enough for the brass ring to press into the crimp, then every .223 gun can fire these. If it's some weird shit where the gun has a .45 bore and a .223 bolt face and the condom fits over the entire cartridge then yeah, you'd need some specialized parts to make it compatible.

>>64280522
Yes, ATF has a presidential directive to stop being cunts.

>Breaking news
They removed Antithesis from their website and set all of their videos private.

>>64279057
My ATF guy was telling me that he thinks they're going to at least get a lot more lenient with existing rules and thought the same about SBR's and suppressors. They're looking to get a bigger budget and understand they have to pay ball with Trump to get there.

>>64280576
>They're looking to get a bigger budget
I fail to see why they should have any budget, given that it's an illegal agency created to infringe on our constitutional rights.

>>64280565
Oh fuck.... Ohhh fuck

What the fuck could have possibly happened now

>>64280588
They were advertising both .45/.410 and .223 versions of the Antithesis but the ATF settlement only mentions .45/.410. Maybe they didn't read closely enough and jumped the gun?

>>64278893 (OP)
Well shit, good for them. The only reason I know this exists is because when it was first unveiled at shot several years ago, Ian and Karl did a vid where they were such snarky faggots about it; that it would bring me joy to see it succeed purely to spite them. It particularly grated me because Ian has said in the past that his favourite guns are ones made to be legal on technicality, but apparently franklins attempt wasn't cool enough for his hipster tastes, because they both completely shat on it in a way that seemed to go beyond professional critique into personal vendetta territory.

>>64279036
Franklin has the law letters and is willing to license their designs out to anyone who wants to make them for a nominal fee.
Franklin spent a million or so in legal fees fighting these clowns so letting them recover their costs is the right thing.

>>64280655
>we fought for your freedom
>which makes it our freedom
The name Antithesis in the context of firearms is theirs, and that got the specific go-ahead, but the concept of "yeah I might shoot some ratshot someday" should be the important part, and they didn't invent that, just notice the ramifications, so I don't see them rightfully ultimately controlling it. It's less of an opportunity for them to lawfare competitors out than FRT has been failing to deal with.

>>64280614
That was a different thing. That was the straight rifled firearm, their "Reformation". Straight rifling provides no stabilization, limiting the practical use to short range with standard ammo or medium range with boutique aerodynamically stabilized projectiles.
This new concept of firearms, Antithesis being their first example, hypothetically need zero compromises, concessions, or physical differences from the SBR you want in any way. The manufacturer just has to acknowledge you might shoot duplex/ratshot/etc out of it and run the paperwork as such from the start. Not transferring as a "Rifle", not as a "Short Barreled Rifle", not as a new legally exclusive Franklin Armory licensed Antithesis(tm) class of weapon, but just as a "Firearm". Which is what many virgin receivers/frames on the market already are until you assemble them into something else.

>>64279025
That has to be the flimsiest fig leaf I've ever seen. Duplex and Triplex loads have existed for over a century. By that logic my ability to make .45-70 duplex makes my 1895 no longer a rifle.

>>64278893 (OP)
So now any company just has to say it's designed to shoot both bullets and shot, and shot has to be made in all calibers. So SBRs are effectively legal without needing a stupid brace. Neat.

Side question how effective would scattershot be against drones? Does it fuck up a rifle barrel?

>>64279025
legitimately surprised they didn't pull some "well that makes it a shotgun so it's a destructive device" bullshit

So Franklin Armory *DESIGNED and MADE* the Antethis to fire multiple projectiles with their (currently) unavailable .223 scatter shot.

What is stopping me from buying one of their barrels and swapping it out on my current rifle? Would I not be redesigning and remaking it? Or am I forced to shill out yet another $1k+ for something so I can stay kosher under big brother?

>>64280565
holy shit that didn't last long. I have a feeling we're gonna hear about a legal update.
>>64281067
The ruskies have been making shitty diy anti drone rounds with bb's and heat shrink and yes it does fuck up their barrels in those instances. Legal loopholes aside, I could see commercially available "rifle shot" rounds becoming a trend now that drones are a standard part of warfare.

>>64280565
whahahah
mfw when selling sbrs transitioning to shotguns doesnt work because trumpstein is a transphobe!

>>64281340
Changing the barrel doesn't change the designation of the gun, what it was originally created as. Same as a pistol needing to be made a as a pistol initially. You can't put a short barrel on a rifle and call it a pistol. So for this you have to buy the "firearm" designated gun and keep it in a configuration where it still meets that designation. So likely you can't swap out the barrel because that's what makes it a general firearm and not a rifle or shotgun.

>>64281531
It has (had) a normal barrel.

>>64281548
If your rifle was recorded as a "rifle" on the 4473, then it is forever a rifle. If it was recorded as a "firearm", then you can change it to a non-rifle configuration. However, ATF rulings generally apply to a specific product or sometimes just a single example that was submitted to them. Whether you could get prosecuted for swapping in franklin's keyhole maker likely comes down to how gun-friendly your local DA is and who happens to be in charge of the ATF at that particular moment than.

>>64279109
What the fux is constructive intent? Good luck pinning that. Law is retardedly easy to dispel

>>64281588
I am willing to accept that a firearm is sold as whatever category at the time of sale from an FFL. I'm not going to stop asking questions.

Why would the federal definition of what a rifle is include language such as "remake" and "redesign"? Once sold, the manufacturer can not remake or redesign it since it is no longer in their possession. It's yours. Why can't you do that?

Even if.. If all Franklin Armory has done is make a literal meme round while changing nothing about the design of this new firearm, and it can be fired through my DDM4, then my "rifle" has been miscategorized from factory.

>>64280551
>the court's ruling applies to any rifled firearm that fires duplex rounds
I don't think this is necessarily true yet until it is argued as such. My understanding is that the lawsuit was brought over the specific firearm design of the antithesis, even though as we can probably deduce, there isn't actually anything mechanically unique about the antithesis.
>It's the same way that the ATF settled with Rare Breed
Except it isn't. The Rare Breed lawsuit and settlement only applies to forced reset triggers that operate in a similar manner mechanically and functionally similar enough
In the case of the Antithesis, because it is unlikely that the Antithesis is functionally different than any other AR, then it truly is only the stated name and intention of the firearm that makes it except. This is why if you watch Franklin's video they even say that they're going to be selling the "license" to whatever "tech" (there isn't any real tech here) makes the Antithesis a multi projectile round.
Legally, until another suit is brought I don't believe this just applies in a blanket manner.
>all of this hinges on how exactly it works
I'm pretty confident but I could be wrong that this settlement and case was won entirely with words and definitions, not with any novel engineering or function distinctions. That is why there is simply a license for an "antithesis" design (once again there isn't any functional distinction), and why this was a settlement.

The whole thing is an interesting confluence of the American language based legal system, the IP system, capitalism, and human drive to obtain material wealth.

>>64281340
It isn't the upper that is the firearm, noob. It is the lower. Which is why this whole thing makes no sense in functional material actuality and is clearly just a game of semantics and language.

>>64280576
>bigger budget
Tranny gun confiscation operators don’t pay for themselves I guess.

>>64281722
>Only a single projectile...for each single pull of the trigger
Wouldn't anything with a binary trigger not qualify as a rifle since it fires two shots per *pull*?

>>64281661
The idea that because you had certain items in your posession you were planning to violate the NFA. It has, to my knowledge, never held up in court as its own charge and has only ever been tacked on to add weight to cases. It's one of those "We COULD charge you with this if we catch you so you better not even think about it" it's very much a relic of when the ATF played very heavily on the gotcha! side of trying to fuck ordinary people instead of acting as a proper regulatory agency. With recent rulings in the past few years the concept is pretty much legally dead.

>>64281786
It's already been established that the pull of a trigger is a complete separate action from releasing the trigger. In both scenarios, only a single round is discharged.

>>64281799
>it's very much a relic of when the ATF played very heavily on the gotcha! side of trying to fuck ordinary people instead of acting as a proper regulatory agency
Are you implying they ever stopped? Remember, the ATF still maintains that it's illegal to shoulder a pistol brace.

>>64281803
The wording of the machine gun section in the NFA uses the phrase "single function of the trigger," which is why binary triggers aren't machine guns: pulling and releasing are separate functions. This rifle section says "single pull off the trigger," with a pull meaning a pull and not a release.

>>64281815
Exactly. You pull a binary trigger, you get one round. Release the trigger as a sperate action, you get one round.

>>64281805
They maintain it because it is, in fact, illegal to shoulder a brace. It's also, in lieu of conclusive video evidence complete with actually firing the weapon, impossible to prove. What they're not doing is trying to setup sting operations to catch people buying short barreled uppers and stocks at the same time and using that as proof that you're going to make an unregistered SBR. It's also illegal to posses pot, but the DEA isn't going around arresting people for buying a dime bag from a retailer in states where it's legalized. So much enforcement power is predicated entirely on the assumption that there will always be consequences and recent rulings, along with increasingly common usage and shifting administrative priorities, have made enforcement effectively impossible.

>>64281824
Yes, but only one of those is a pull. So for the purposes of determining where it's a rifle ("per single pull") that's two projectiles, and for the purposes of determining whether it's a machine gun ("single function") it's only one projectile.

>>64279025
Why wouldn't this make it a SBS?

>build own AR
>intend it to fire multiple projectiles

>>64280135
>onahole for my 5.56 casing

>>64281907
Because a shotgun is defined as smoothbore.

>>64280125
its been a very long time since i've even seen a .410 IRL so no. I either way my point stands.

It's another AA12 debacle waiting to happen. They'll say it's fine, they'll sell, a bunch of them will be confiscated because they went back on their own rulings. And the public perception of the bumbling purposeless law enforcement agency that is the firearms sections of the ATF gets ever worse as they're forced to make people comply with laws that make no sense what so ever.

>>64280135
honestly that looks more like a discarding sabot than anything else.

it's gone, guys

>>64278998
>lawyer up
Yes

>>64279036
How's that boot leather taste coomplier

>>64281040
Ever heard of "don't look a gift horse in the mouth" retard

>>64282965
It basically is, but it's the same outside diameter as the bullet and sits over the ogive rather than the bearing surface.

>>64283081
I am all for full NFA repeal and anything that kicks the ATF in the nuts. This? This isn't that. This is a technicality so minor they already pulled all info about one of the products they claimed was "totally not an SBR because of this one weird trick the feds hate".

>>64283125
Then what do you propose we do? Other than mass noncompliance and/or filing suits on the grounds that a $0 tax is not a tax and is a de facto registry which is unlawful?

ATF has arbitrary decided that the settlement doesn't actually count for anything but the 410/45LC version because they are gay and can't take a loss

Annnnnddddd.... it's gone.

>>64283117
so I assume it fires two smaller .220 - .222 projectiles depending on exactly how thick the sabot is?

>>64283270
Lmao, I fucking called it: >>64280600. They didn't even bother reading the settlement they signed.

>well we aren't getting a single pro-gun bone from a completely Republican government
>not even an executive order or shuffled ATF leadership
>
>but we scored another SWEET edge-case technicality for SBRs, so it's a W year for the 2A!
I hate this shit

>>64284256
>>well we aren't getting a single pro-gun bone from a completely Republican government
based retard

>>64284256
>90 year old NFA $200 tax stamp has been eliminated
I never thought I'd see the day that this happened and it's so close.

>>64284328
>good news, anon, your cancer treatment is free!
>It's not going into remission and we're mostly treating the wrong location in your body, but hey it's free!

>>64284328
The $200 was never the issue, it was all the felony traps and registration that went along with it.

>>64284256
lol, he thought Trump was pro gun when he banned bump stocks and famous said "take the guns first"
lmao

>>64284328
>stamp has been eliminated
The right of the people to keep and bear arms with reasonable ergonomic features is still infringed with a ten year prison sentence felony if you don't get a stamp first. Removing the $200 fee of the stamp is not the win to relax on.
>>64284340
>never
Not recently, but not never. Inflation adjusted, that $200 used to be $4800.

>>64284340
Do you understand how much $200 was back in the 1930s? That was equivalent to thousands of dollars and it wasn't until the 21st century that $200 became somewhat reasonable to pay. If it weren't for that high tax then SBRs and suppressors would've become common use and had real action taken decades ago. Wtf do you mean the $200 was never the issue?

>>64284406
I didn't intend to relax on that. The whole point of removing the tax is now the amount of people that will own NFA items will greatly increase making those items even easier to defend as common use and remove from the NFA altogether. This is a multi part plan and a major part of the plan has been successfully taken care of

>>64281588
my 80% lower was definitely just milled today with the intent of creating a "firearm"

>>64284420
>pedantry because he doesn't want to face the fact that this isn't some slam dunk win
It's crumbs, man!

>>64280135
>>64282965
woah, 65% more bullet per bullet

>>64284347
it was within the first month all the gun rights orgs were trying to convince their subs that something was off with "maga" legislation

>>64281722
I thought gun powders were not actual explosives, but burn slower and actual explosives burn at much faster rates.

>>64284791
Gun powder/smokeless are low explosives.