Florida just "accidently" banned aftermarket AR15 triggers

[MedWheeler]

RecoilRob writes:

Back in the late '80's there was a rash of dangerous 'Hotdog Vendor Girls' selling dogs along the roadways of Southern Florida. They wore bikini's and the better looking (and more skimpily clad) ones seemed to do better business so the race was on and there were some absolutely spectacular women hocking their wares....which did cause an accident or three from people who couldn't look away. So for our 'safety' the local Government set out to ban them. What a farce! The proposed law ended up being thousands of words and many, many pages as they struggled to describe just how much a bikini needed to cover to be legal. I remember one section that went on and on....'the curvature of the buttock at a radius of xxx' cotangent to'....trying to quantify in legalese and in the end...after many weeks, they gave up and just banned all from the main thoroughfares to the side roads where they could sell as they pleased. And...they DID please!

Thank you for the memories. I was a cop in that county back then, though not in that city (West Palm Beach.) Miss Gloria Gonzalez started that whole enterprise, and did quite well at that. I remember the wringing of hands as the county struggled with the wording of that ordinance, too.

 

[CapnMac]

Are they going to compensate all those individuals that held bump stocks legally before they were ban?

Depends on the language in the bill.
Most of the time, to prevent ex post facto challenge of the new law, there's an enactment period, and after that date specific, then it's no further sales.
If the law actually bans possession, that will be more complicated.

 

[barnbwt]

It’s a hard sell on binary triggers anyway. The law has been one round of ammunition fired per pull of the trigger. Binary triggers fire on pull and release. By my count there is one trigger pull and two rounds of ammunition. I wish we didn’t have that law banning full auto, but it’s been on the books longer than I have been on the planet, but some bozo at the BATF forgot how to count and let that fly for a while. Florida seems to have caught that error and they may be fixing it. But who knows since the people who wrote the law won’t comment on what the law means... the thing to do now is get somebody who can bumpfire at the shoulder go on record for cyclic rate with an unmodified gun then let them try to figure out what’s illegal. I think cranks, and bumpstocks are clearly out now though. UNLESS they come installed from the factory...the law only addresses modifications.

Hey PSA, get your lowers ready for “Florida compliance” and make an extra 3% for your trouble. Just don’t gouge like cheaper than dirt did a while back because we as a community still hold that grudge.

Good, lord, gun owners are the worst at protecting the rights of gunowners...

First off, the law is one round per *action* of the trigger. *Action*, not 'pull.' It's not a loop hole, it's not a suggestion, it's been the law for nearly a hundred years. There have been release triggers forever on trap guns. Gatling guns have always been legal (at least until Florida decided that a trigger can only reciprocate, which coincidentally makes it bump-fireable, which is also intended to be banned)

Second off, if the ban on bump fire stocks or equipment that assists bump fire is allowed to stand, a ban on other equipment that allows bump fire is certain to soon follow. The only way to prevent bump fire with a reciprocating trigger is 1) a ban on all semi-autos (probably still a bridge too far outside of CA/HI/NJ/NY at this time) or 2) a ban on triggers lighter than the weight of the rifle. Apparently, in the Olde Country, Britons are often subject to rules that require the trigger of their guns be heavier than the weight of the rifle (that's what I was told by a visitor, anyway) for 'drop safety' reasons

So no, some guy at the ATF was not 'wrong' to infringe on us less than he could have tried for at the time. We were infringed plenty by the Akins Accelerator fiasco, but most gun owners that consent to a bump stock ban are likely totally unaware of its implications & how it impacted the fight we face today. Some guy firing rapidly from the shoulder via bump fire or fast fingers will not convince the anti's their ban on bump fires is wrong, it will convince them all semi-autos capable of rapid fire need to be banned as well, and for the exact same reasons, using the exact same arguments, that many gun owners used to support the ban on bump fire stocks. The goal is banning all rapid fire. Not bump stocks, not 'mag-dumps.' And these people think anything faster than one shot every ten seconds is 'rapid.' It has been about banning rapid fire and concealable guns since the 30's, the only two types useful for dealing with human assailants when necessary.

So please stop making their job easier by agreeing with their arguments simply because you (plural) think shooting slightly more rapidly than you personally care for is wrong.

 

[The Earl o Sammich]

I thought there was an Amendment to the Constitution that said the Government cannot make a law the would require the surrender of personal property, something previously legal, with out compensating the owners. I can't find it so I must be wrong.

 

[barnbwt]

Nobody will know what it means until someone is prosecuted and a judge decides if the mod was legal.

Anyone want to be a test case?

When the bureaucrats issue rulings & opinions on where they stand, the people will know what line to tread. "Why, that sounds like those enforcing the rules also making the rules, instead of divided form of government we allegedly enjoy?" Why yes, Timmy, it does, but if you don't want to be a test case & have your life & finances ruined, you'll do as they say.

Not like we have direct experience with this via a long history of ATF practices or anything.

 

[barnbwt]

I know how it works. The point being I'm glad the local walmart does not sell fully automatic weapons and explosives and artillery to everyone who wants them, that was reasonable legislation. That is where I draw my personal line of reason. I don't want to "give up" bump stocks and bianary triggers to appease anyone, I think they are stupid and never should have been legal in the first place. I think they are a loophole to circumvent the law and it makes us all look bad. If you want to fall on the sword for them that's your choice.

Do you have any experience with machine guns first hand? I ask because they are mechanically very, very similar to semi-autos you do approve of, and in terms of practical use, essentially identical.

Is it just because they fire faster than you are comfortable shooting? Because that's a personal issue, not something that should bear out in the law, since many, many users of machineguns can wield them just as responsibly as any bolt-action. Or think of it this way; if machineguns were available as a target for anti-gunners --like back in the 30's or 80's-- you wouldn't have as many of them knocking on the door of semi-autos as they are today.

 

[barnbwt]

Regarding "aftermarket triggers", someone is reading into this what is simply not there. But that's typical of ambulance chasing, worthless attorneys. What a stretch.

So, a Geissele 3-gun trigger, a huge favorite of the bump-fire scene because it makes bump fire noticeably easier, is not a modification to a firearm that increases the rate of fire by way of enabling bump fire, the same way as the bump fire stocks that are the explicit intended focus of these laws but not the extent of their broad language?

Please answer clearly; I'm an engineer, so I like to understand things clearly if at all possible, so I know how to conduct myself (should I ever move to Florida.) If you mean that triggers aren't being banned today, I'm willing to grant you that, but if there's nothing stopping them being banned in the law itself, please explain what would keep the FL AG from deciding the expand the enforcement focus once stocks fall out of fashion, and bump-firers turn to drop-in triggers and lightweight bolt carriers to make their fun easier to come by. That's exactly what happened with MA's AWB recently, when it was expanded to all semi-autos 'functionally similar' to assault weapons (i.e. all of them).

 

[someguy2800]

someguy2800 writes:



So, what you think is "stupid" should not be legal?

Imagine living under a government that thinks that, if you don't have a documented need for something, it should be illegal, or at least, heavily taxed. A young, childless couple buying a three-bedroom house? Nope.That's stupid. Come back after you have kids, and the government will relocate you (this is how it still works in many former Soviet states.) Want to buy a pickup truck, but don't use it to make a living? Nope. Not for you, unless you pay the "excess vehicle impact tax" of $5,000 in the name of, you know, "ecological impact." That same young, childless couple is restricted to a vehicle seating no more than four people (the government is feeling generous in the name of carpooling.) Oh, and forget about having any more vehicles than your household has licensed drivers. Excess vehicles, such as "project cars",or collectibles, are just "stupid", aren't they?

Fast motorcycles? I'm sure there are more than a few people who think they're "stupid" (ditto for fast cars, SUVs, 4x4s, etc.) Are they to go, too?

Fried foods? Big cups of soft drinks? Alcoholic beverages? High heels? You name it, and someone in power thinks it's "stupid."

Bump-stocks? Trigger cranks? Nope, I don't have any. I did entertain for a fleeting moment the trigger crank I saw once for a 10/22 in a Bass Pro store. Thought it might be fun, but it wouldn't be any where I can actually go to shoot these days. Now, if that were to change, the choice has been eliminated.

For decades, I felt I had no use for an AR-type. I'm glad that, when I decided to get one, I still had the choice, and that's what liberty is about.

I didn't say they should be illegal because I think they are stupid, I said I think they should be illegal because its a gimick to circumvent the law. My thinking they are stupid is an entirely different issue. I fully support anything you want to own or do that is not against the law or puts my rights in jeopardy.

 

[eastbank]

believe me your rights are in danger, legal registered machine guns and their are tens of thousands them out there, only a hand full off people have been killed by the their legal owners since 1934. how about the laws that are on the books be inforced by those who impose them on us and if they don,t they pay a price for their neglect. the nut case that did the school shooting gave so many signs of his craziness that the government and local officials ignored.

 

[someguy2800]

believe me your rights are in danger, legal registered machine guns and their are tens of thousands them out there, only a hand full off people have been killed by the their legal owners since 1934.

Do you have any experience with machine guns first hand? I ask because they are mechanically very, very similar to semi-autos you do approve of, and in terms of practical use, essentially identical.

Is it just because they fire faster than you are comfortable shooting? Because that's a personal issue, not something that should bear out in the law, since many, many users of machineguns can wield them just as responsibly as any bolt-action. Or think of it this way; if machineguns were available as a target for anti-gunners --like back in the 30's or 80's-- you wouldn't have as many of them knocking on the door of semi-autos as they are today.

I'm not afraid of machine guns and I am also a mechanical engineer, I know how a full auto sear works. I don't have a problem with you owning a transferable machine gun and if I could justify the money I would own one myself. The problem I have is with thugs running around the streets with them such as was the case during Prohibition, and was the reason for restricting them in the first place. The ban in 86 further restricted them and its now almost unheard of for a registered machine gun to be used in a crime, and that is a good thing. I don't want to go back to the 20's when people could buy a thompson and explosives out of the sears catalog, just the same as I'm glad they can't dump DDT in the river anymore. We can all wish we lived in a utopia where everybody can do what they want, but the gangsters taught us full auto weapons were not a good idea for the general public, Timothy McVeigh taught us we can't let people buy truckloads of ammonium nitrate for no reason, and we need speed limits and laws against drunk driving because people will kill themselves and your family. Like it or not thats the way it works. I don't want you to give up any of your guns. Not a single one. I won't give up mine either.

(ditto for fast cars,) Are they to go, too?

I'm not giving up that either.

 

[CoalTrain49]

Depends on the language in the bill.
Most of the time, to prevent ex post facto challenge of the new law, there's an enactment period, and after that date specific, then it's no further sales.
If the law actually bans possession, that will be more complicated.

The law that just passed here in WA bans possession after a year grace period. During that year you must sell your stock to the state patrol. After that it's contraband and I'm sure a nice fine will go with possession if you get caught with one. The law takes affect in June.

 

[CoalTrain49]

I'm not giving up that either.

View attachment 782529

 

[WestKentucky]

I'm not giving up that either.

View attachment 782529

I know...I saw a beemer on drag radials or some such beefy tire and wondered who in the heck would even own that thing, I knew who it was before I scrolled up to see the name. I like “different” too but if I’m going European I’m going Reliant Robin. Carry on Someguy, there’s a butt for every seat so they say.

 

[barnbwt]

I'm not afraid of machine guns and I am also a mechanical engineer, I know how a full auto sear works. I don't have a problem with you owning a transferable machine gun and if I could justify the money I would own one myself. The problem I have is with thugs running around the streets with them such as was the case during Prohibition, and was the reason for restricting them in the first place. The ban in 86 further restricted them and its now almost unheard of for a registered machine gun to be used in a crime, and that is a good thing. I don't want to go back to the 20's when people could buy a thompson and explosives out of the sears catalog, just the same as I'm glad they can't dump DDT in the river anymore. We can all wish we lived in a utopia where everybody can do what they want, but the gangsters taught us full auto weapons were not a good idea for the general public, Timothy McVeigh taught us we can't let people buy truckloads of ammonium nitrate for no reason, and we need speed limits and laws against drunk driving because people will kill themselves and your family. Like it or not thats the way it works. I don't want you to give up any of your guns. Not a single one. I won't give up mine either.

I appreciate your candor. However...

1) So you don't want 'thugs' (definition please) to have access to machine guns because of over-dramatized events from nearly 100 years ago; why do you feel 'thugs' should have access to semi-autos that are just as powerful, shoot nearly as fast in practice, and are used in essentially the same manner? I submit that you cannot defend one type of gun and not the other, simply because it has been made less common by a regulatory scheme designed to ban all auto-loaders.

2) You are comfortable with means-testing your second amendment rights? That's the only purpose in accepting a punitive taxation, pricing, and regulatory system as it is currently. Actually, a $25,000 M16 is well beyond an even comically-stretched meaning of 'punitive.' It is prohibitive, pure and simple. Same as being excused for breaking espionage laws, there will always be exceptions given enough money & power, but to claim they are the rule is simply disingenuous.

3) Despite fifty years on the books, from 34-86 I think there was one use of a registered MG in crime. Do you really think that was because the law kept them out of the hands of killers, or because it simply made them vanish? Explain why the same would not be true of semi-autos (hey, it's rare a semi is used to murder in England or Japan, right?) or why you think it should not matter that they are used in many killings.

4) A Thompson was an incredibly expensive item at the time. Capone wanted one personally not because it was the best tool for the job, but because it was a really cool status symbol. The BARs and Thompsons used in crime were generally stolen from police or National Guard armories (or sold by them, or whatever). In any case, a vanishingly small portion of crime was committed by Dillingers with BARs, but rather the same cheap, lousy, small caliber concealable revolvers, derringers, and autos we see still used for crime today. Then as now, the policy makers blamed an item that only featured in a handful of bright, flashy news stories but had a minimal impact in practice. Sure made for good movies, though.

(5) DDT was among the best things to ever happen to mankind, up there with antibiotics. Malaria was nearly driven extinct before Silent Spring and rigged studies on bald eagles were published to a naiive and ignorant American public)

6) You don't want us to give up our guns 'even a single one,' yet don't think the general public can be trusted with full autos (unless they're rich un-convicted drug dealers, I guess), yet think that semi-autos should be protected despite being just as dangerous in any objective evaluation.

Speed limits and BACs are how government regulates the public's use of its roadways; similarly, they'd be within their rights to post reasonable gun rules on their own gun ranges. But posting rules about what & how we own these things, or use them on our own property, is a farther bridge. One that many can justify crossing, but not I. Please explain how semi-autos can be justifiably treated differently than full automatics based on safety, military utility, or common use arguments. That's how the Supreme Court has told us we're supposed to approach the issue. Looking at the supposed 'danger' of automatics in a vacuum is disingenuous, and doing so will eventually get semi-automatics and repeaters banned as well.

 

[barnbwt]

The law that just passed here in WA bans possession after a year grace period. During that year you must sell your stock to the state patrol. After that it's contraband and I'm sure a nice fine will go with possession if you get caught with one. The law takes affect in June.

Didn't Massachusetts's bump stock ban have like a life sentence or something crazy like that? Florida's grace period ends this fall IIRC.

 

[someguy2800]

I appreciate your candor. However...

I'm not going to continue this conversations as its unproductive. I respect your opinion and I expect the same.

 

[barnbwt]

I didn't say they should be illegal because I think they are stupid, I said I think they should be illegal because its a gimick to circumvent the law. My thinking they are stupid is an entirely different issue. I fully support anything you want to own or do that is not against the law or puts my rights in jeopardy.

Your last sentence completely contradicts your first. If a bump stock 'circumvents' the ban on full automatic, then what is bump firing without a stock? It can certainly be done, and is actually quite easy if you tune the trigger and bolt carrier dynamics via after-market accessories (which is why the Florida law covers these, duh).

It isn't the bump stock that 'puts your rights in jeopardy,' it's guys like you that roll over when politicians and activists try to take them from you, thinking you can hide from them or something. I 'get' not trying to make waves. The whole 'blend in as a Grey Man thing.' That's not a path to defending what's yours, though. At some point you have to put your foot down & tell these people enough is enough. They're openly trying to ban semi-autos now, and I see no reason they won't try to ban all semi-autos in the anti-gun strongholds within the next two years at this rate; please explain how the previous banning machine guns and bump stocks has slowed that logical progression of their ideology. They weren't calling for a ban on all semi-autos in the 90's, 80's, 70's, 60's, or even 30's (technically NFA was more of a mag limit originally), so why are they now? It's because they've banned everything else up to semi-autos, so now they're next. If anything, as the number of types of banned items increases, the process accelerates (1934, 1968, 1986, 1994...2018?)

 

[someguy2800]

I agree they are going to need to come up with a better definition of what is legal and what is not. I don't think anybody's coming after your geissele trigger but there is a potential to muddy the waters of a self defense case. Even doing a trigger job could be considered a modification to increase rate of fire by an anti gun prosecutor.

 

[barnbwt]

I'm not going to continue this conversations as its unproductive. I respect your opinion and I expect the same.

Fair enough. Your supporting argument seems contradictory to my eyes, however; it may need some examination & refinement

 

[someguy2800]

Your last sentence completely contradicts your first. If a bump stock 'circumvents' the ban on full automatic, then what is bump firing without a stock? It can certainly be done, and is actually quite easy if you tune the trigger and bolt carrier dynamics via after-market accessories (which is why the Florida law covers these, duh).

It isn't the bump stock that 'puts your rights in jeopardy,' it's guys like you that roll over when politicians and activists try to take them from you, thinking you can hide from them or something. I 'get' not trying to make waves. The whole 'blend in as a Grey Man thing.' That's not a path to defending what's yours, though. At some point you have to put your foot down & tell these people enough is enough. They're openly trying to ban semi-autos now, and I see no reason they won't try to ban all semi-autos in the anti-gun strongholds within the next two years at this rate; please explain how the previous banning machine guns and bump stocks has slowed that logical progression of their ideology. They weren't calling for a ban on all semi-autos in the 90's, 80's, 70's, 60's, or even 30's (technically NFA was more of a mag limit originally), so why are they now? It's because they've banned everything else up to semi-autos, so now they're next. If anything, as the number of types of banned items increases, the process accelerates (1934, 1968, 1986, 1994...2018?)

I'm not hiding from anyone. I have my opinion you have yours. Drop it.

 

[barnbwt]

I agree they are going to need to come up with a better definition of what is legal and what is not. I don't think anybody's coming after your geissele trigger but there is a potential to muddy the waters of a self defense case. Even doing a trigger job could be considered a modification to increase rate of fire by an anti gun prosecutor.

Seriously, why do you think this? No one's been prosecuted for bump stocks yet, either, but you can't claim they aren't the target of this effort. The Geissele 3-Gun trigger is specifically sought after for its rapid, easy, controllable bump-fire properties --same with the Franklin binary trigger (which I think was specifically targeted by one of these bump-stock bans)

I agree, a broad reading covers trigger jobs, and I've heard people argue even lubricants (even I think that one could be a stretch, since lube is needed to make the gun cycle at any speed). The 1934 NFA was actually just about this vague, which is why an entire Bureau had to be stood up after Prohibition simply to interpret what congress had poorly crafted. Very rarely is the reach of interpreted restrictions reduced, while they are frequently extended (but even they didn't think they could ban bump stocks outright; just springs that assist in tuning the bump-fire reciprocation to match the action's cyclic speed)

Honestly, I mostly fear a Massachusetts-style delayed fuse effect. The MA AWB banned all but a litany of guns by name & model --cool right? Fudds could keep their wood-stocked BAR hunting rifles & Mini 14s, and the people made due since ARs were uncommon then. Then, decades later, the AG decides to actually enforce a long-ignored caveat that guns 'similar to' the banned ones were also to be banned, and now every semi-auto there is is on the chopping block (because even the venerable BAR has had a 'tacticool' variant made for the free states; the fantastic FN FNAR with 20rnd detachable magazines & *black plastic* pistol grip)

No one who consented to the law originally was cool with banning all semis, that was wildly beyond the scope of a supposed "assault weapons" ban, after all. Semi hunting rifles had been around for generations, you know? Not like these new black-plastic assault guns that blow deer to pieces. But buried in the law, was that little caveat...waiting to be exploited. "Readily convertible to full automatic" is the NFA caveat that has already been exploited to ban the entire common-use class of firearms known as 'open-bolt'

 

[WestKentucky]

I truly think that some of these devices make us look as foolish as the left wingers. The law was passed saying you couldn’t have full auto, so somebody goes way out of their way to design, develop,manufacture, and market a device essentially saying “yeah well we want it so we are still gonna have it. Go write another law if you don’t like it” and then the right wing gets pissy when they do just exactly as should be expected and go write another law to finish doing what the left thought they previously had accomplished...and were satisfied with until some group of jacklegs kicked the bear. It’s quite near childish provocation if you think of it that way...and we wonder why they think we are a bunch of idiots.

Full auto is fun. For a few minutes. Bump firing is fun. For a few minutes. Once the novelty is gone then we are back to it being expensive, useful only in certain scenarios, and detrimental to essentially every purpose of a gun aside from mag dumping, replication of war, and harmful activities such as what was seen in Vegas. So really, I think they were a really dumb thing to ever create (both binary and bumpfire, cranks less so but still pointless) because now that they were created the left is taking another bite at gun rights because what they thought was done is an issue again because WE made it one by bringing all this crap out to open market. It’s the “I’m not touching you” of the gun control world, and people don’t expect a childish fight.

 

[someguy2800]

Seriously, why do you think this? No one's been prosecuted for bump stocks yet, either, but you can't claim they aren't the target of this effort. The Geissele 3-Gun trigger is specifically sought after for its rapid, easy, controllable bump-fire properties --same with the Franklin binary trigger (which I think was specifically targeted by one of these bump-stock bans)

I agree, a broad reading covers trigger jobs, and I've heard people argue even lubricants (even I think that one could be a stretch, since lube is needed to make the gun cycle at any speed). The 1934 NFA was actually just about this vague, which is why an entire Bureau had to be stood up after Prohibition simply to interpret what congress had poorly crafted. Very rarely is the reach of interpreted restrictions reduced, while they are frequently extended (but even they didn't think they could ban bump stocks outright; just springs that assist in tuning the bump-fire reciprocation to match the action's cyclic speed)

There is grey in every law but I just don't see them going as far as trying to ban or confiscate aftermarket trigger groups. They only have so much political capital and its unenforceable. The bigger danger I see is them using it in civil or criminal cases of self defense or when used in a crime. Either way a clarification is needed from the courts and it will come in time.

 

[barnbwt]

I truly think that some of these devices make us look as foolish as the left wingers. The law was passed saying you couldn’t have full auto, so somebody goes way out of their way to design, develop,manufacture, and market a device essentially saying “yeah well we want it so we are still gonna have it. Go write another law if you don’t like it” and then the right wing gets pissy when they do just exactly as should be expected and go write another law to finish doing what the left thought they previously had accomplished...and were satisfied with until some group of jacklegs kicked the bear. It’s quite near childish provocation if you think of it that way...and we wonder why they think we are a bunch of idiots.

Full auto is fun. For a few minutes. Bump firing is fun. For a few minutes. Once the novelty is gone then we are back to it being expensive, useful only in certain scenarios, and detrimental to essentially every purpose of a gun aside from mag dumping, replication of war, and harmful activities such as what was seen in Vegas. So really, I think they were a really dumb thing to ever create (both binary and bumpfire, cranks less so but still pointless) because now that they were created the left is taking another bite at gun rights because what they thought was done is an issue again because WE made it one by bringing all this crap out to open market. It’s the “I’m not touching you” of the gun control world, and people don’t expect a childish fight.

*cough* wut? Someone hasn't seen the Lawdog comic strip yet

Again, it's not about the 'utility' of bump fire, it's about protecting the possession of auto-loaders in general. They cannot be differentiated. It's funny, on the one hand, you claim rapid fire (all rapid fire, from what I can tell) is useless, but also expensive. By their very nature, expensive things are useful to the people buying them, and the people selling them. It's not about you, it's about the people willing and able to shoot larger volumes of fire than yourself, who want to do so. Fun (i.e. the pursuit of happiness) is a very legitimate activity, all sorts of behaviors are protected that have no higher purpose (and many that are arguably far more harmful to society than firearms).

If your rights are only protected because someone has failed to exploit an opportunity or keep a low profile, they were never really protected. You can use illegal machine guns (and all manner of other things) all day long if you can keep it secret. It's the corollary to that argument that 'loopholes' to a law are somehow illegal or should be avoided even if they are clearly permissible.

 

[The Earl o Sammich]

isn't the Second Amendment about giving We The People a fighting chance? ...against our rulers....?