Holyoke Bust

Sucks for him. Just hoping these are not legitimate documented machine guns that will most likely be destroyed. That would really suck.

My question is, Why was he being investigated in the first place ?

I grew up in Holyoke not too far from where he was busted. I left Holyoke in 1997.

From the grapevine I was told he added/made guns full auto.
His old lady turned him in.
 
FRT's use the recoil impulse to force the trigger forward, by MA law they're a bump stock. It's grey for the rest of thr states, buy not really for MA.
No grey area anywhere - ATF says they are machine-guns

Don't get me wrong as I believe the NFA is completely BS but the FRT fits the legal definition without twisting logic.
 

Attachments

  • ForcedResetTriggers.pdf
    326.8 KB · Views: 3
No grey area anywhere - ATF says they are machine-guns

Don't get me wrong as I believe the NFA is completely BS but the FRT fits the legal definition without twisting logic.
Technically, it does not. The trigger and BCG both reset into a locked condition until such time as you pull the trigger again. If you pull the trigger fully and hold it back, there is no subsequent shot. There is a "sweet spot" of pressure that allows the reset operation to push your finger forward JUST past the break so you can immediately pull the trigger past the break point again.

There are paintball markers that use a very similar system, and with skill and practice, you can get a near continuous stream of paint out of your marker, all using a mechanical marker with the only electronics being the loader.
 
Technically, it does not. The trigger and BCG both reset into a locked condition until such time as you pull the trigger again. If you pull the trigger fully and hold it back, there is no subsequent shot. There is a "sweet spot" of pressure that allows the reset operation to push your finger forward JUST past the break so you can immediately pull the trigger past the break point again.

There are paintball markers that use a very similar system, and with skill and practice, you can get a near continuous stream of paint out of your marker, all using a mechanical marker with the only electronics being the loader.
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 word function is not operative of the trigger, rather it refers to the operator.
Applying and maintaining a specific range of pressure is a single function with respect to the operator.
 
The word function is not operative of the trigger, rather it refers to the operator.
Applying and maintaining a specific range of pressure is a single function with respect to the operator.
The text is “function of the trigger” not function of the finger. But I digress.

Doing a little digging the ATF has filed an extension in the rare breed case. It’s due back in court after the 9th of this month. We will see if there is movement on it in the next couple weeks. I believe the recent Supreme Court ruling in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection may be tested here. Interesting none the less.
 
Last edited:
The text is “function of the trigger” not function of the finger. But I digress.

Doing a little digging the ATF has filed an extension in the rare breed case. It’s due back in court after the 9th of this month. We will see if there is movement on it in the next couple weeks. I believe the recent Supreme Court ruling in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection may be tested here. Interesting none the less.
It's a linguistics and language thing
Function is being used as a verb and should be seen as operation or action of the trigger.
We should be attacking the NFA as a whole not trying to wordsmith around its infringements.
 
Prediction:

Pleads guilty to one count of illegal possession of a MG gets 24-36 months in the fed pen. That is if he has a clean record and has no history of drug use or violence.
 
FRT pretty much lost that fight as far as I can tell - when using it you needed only one action (apply pressure) to make it continuously fire.
With a binary you need to separately pull and release (two actions) to fire multiple rounds
With a bump stock the actions are transferred from your trigger finger to your support arm.

With the forced reset trigger you take one action, applying pressure to the trigger, and the firearm continuously fires without a change of input from the user.
The fight is still going on.
 
No grey area anywhere - ATF says they are machine-guns

Don't get me wrong as I believe the NFA is completely BS but the FRT fits the legal definition without twisting logic.
The word function is not operative of the trigger, rather it refers to the operator.
Applying and maintaining a specific range of pressure is a single function with respect to the operator.
It's a linguistics and language thing
Function is being used as a verb and should be seen as operation or action of the trigger.
We should be attacking the NFA as a whole not trying to wordsmith around its infringements.

Wholeheartedly disagree. “Function of the trigger” is a trigger function. Not an operator function. It is not an action applied to the trigger like you originally claimed. It is a function of the trigger, or if you want to talk linguistics, is a trigger function.

The USC definition does not mention the operator.
 
Wholeheartedly disagree. “Function of the trigger” is a trigger function. Not an operator function. It is not an action applied to the trigger like you originally claimed. It is a function of the trigger, or if you want to talk linguistics, is a trigger function.

The USC definition does not mention the operator.
Disagree or not, I'm stating the interpretation that the courts WILL use against forced reset triggers.
The government twists the English language all to hell to make a bump stock into a machine gun whereas a simple change in linguistic interpretation taking into account the clear intent of the law is needed to include FRTs in the NFA.

Stop tilting at windmills by arguing a machine gun really isn't a machine gun by a very specific technical description.
Come out and say it - The Second Amendment recognized the people's existing right that extends to ALL bearable arms. Period, end of discussion.
So the real argument is that yes, the FRT does convert a semi to full but it is still a bearable arm so piss off government.
 
Disagree or not, I'm stating the interpretation that the courts WILL use against forced reset triggers.
The government twists the English language all to hell to make a bump stock into a machine gun whereas a simple change in linguistic interpretation taking into account the clear intent of the law is needed to include FRTs in the NFA.

Stop tilting at windmills by arguing a machine gun really isn't a machine gun by a very specific technical description.
Come out and say it - The Second Amendment recognized the people's existing right that extends to ALL bearable arms. Period, end of discussion.
So the real argument is that yes, the FRT does convert a semi to full but it is still a bearable arm so piss off government.

Except that’s not the government’s argument. The ATF altered the wording of the USC definition in their opinion, and mis-stated how the FRT functions. They never claimed a single function by the operator.

You’re stating things pretty matter of factly. Maybe the DOJ will use your argument, maybe they won’t. Maybe the courts will agree, maybe they won’t.

As for this:
“Stop tilting at windmills by arguing a machine gun really isn't a machine gun by a very specific technical description.”

I’ll fix it for you:
“Stop tilting at windmills by arguing a type of trigger really isn't a machine gun by a using the letter of the definition that was passed by Congress, rather than the ATF’s whim.”
 
Except that’s not the government’s argument. The ATF altered the wording of the USC definition in their opinion, and mis-stated how the FRT functions. They never claimed a single function by the operator.

You’re stating things pretty matter of factly. Maybe the DOJ will use your argument, maybe they won’t. Maybe the courts will agree, maybe they won’t.

As for this:
“Stop tilting at windmills by arguing a machine gun really isn't a machine gun by a very specific technical description.”

I’ll fix it for you:
“Stop tilting at windmills by arguing a type of trigger really isn't a machine gun by a using the letter of the definition that was passed by Congress, rather than the ATF’s whim.”
My issue is with bad case law - my assertion of the language is where they will go and the historical use of the word and the legislative intent both point to the FRT being held as a machine gun.
It doesn't matter what we believe the words mean, the only interpretation that matters is those who went through the ivory towers together in order to sit on the bench and in congress. They will defer to each other every single time

Remember, Roberts feels like he needs to give a big win to the left right now in order for HIS court to be seen more neutral by his social circle (to be read as American hating socialists)
 
My issue is with bad case law - my assertion of the language is where they will go and the historical use of the word and the legislative intent both point to the FRT being held as a machine gun.
It doesn't matter what we believe the words mean, the only interpretation that matters is those who went through the ivory towers together in order to sit on the bench and in congress. They will defer to each other every single time

Remember, Roberts feels like he needs to give a big win to the left right now in order for HIS court to be seen more neutral by his social circle (to be read as American hating socialists)

Case law on whether the FRT is a machine gun or not will have no bearing on whether the NFA is constitutional. The courts wouldn’t extend a decision that broadly.

I’d rather not willingly give up ground on the fight against the ATF intentionally changing the wording of actual codified law when they issue their opinions. It goes hand in hand with their unilateral changes of opinion.
 
Except that’s not the government’s argument. The ATF altered the wording of the USC definition in their opinion, and mis-stated how the FRT functions. They never claimed a single function by the operator.
Machine gun definition: 26 U.S. Code § 5845 - Definitions

(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.


ATF’s examination found that some FRT devices allow a firearm to automatically expel more
than one shot with a single, continuous pull of the trigger. For this reason, ATF has concluded
that FRTs that function in this way are a combination of parts designed and intended for use in
converting a weapon into a machinegun, and hence, ATF has classified these devices as a
“machinegun” as defined by the NFA and GCA.
Accordingly, ATF’s position is that any FRT that allows a firearm to automatically expel more
than one shot with a single, continuous pull of the trigger is a “machinegun”, and is accordingly
subject to the GCA prohibitions

The ATF is using function of the trigger in the manner I stated and because it is within the legislative intent of the NFA the courts will accept the argument.

Bringing this to court doesn't have a huge upside but there is a lot of downside if the wrong case allows a poor argument to affirm the NFA.
Right now the entire legal world knows that Miller was horrific case law and is ripe for attack so let's do that instead of pushing for a novelty and loosing it all.

The correct way to address is that the specific definition of a machine gun is moot because the NFA itself is an impermissible infringement especially when taken in light of the 1986 ban on new registry entries (given that the tax was a way to get around the belief by congress that those covered items were protected)
 

Attachments

  • ForcedResetTriggers.pdf
    326.8 KB · Views: 1
Machine gun definition: 26 U.S. Code § 5845 - Definitions
The ATF is using function of the trigger in the manner I stated and because it is within the legislative intent of the NFA the courts will accept the argument.

Bringing this to court doesn't have a huge upside but there is a lot of downside if the wrong case allows a poor argument to affirm the NFA.
Right now the entire legal world knows that Miller was horrific case law and is ripe for attack so let's do that instead of pushing for a novelty and loosing it all.

The correct way to address is that the specific definition of a machine gun is moot because the NFA itself is an impermissible infringement especially when taken in light of the 1986 ban on new registry entries (given that the tax was a way to get around the belief by congress that those covered items were protected)

The ATF have never said it is a “single function of the trigger.” They only ever make claims that a machine gun has a “single, continuous pull of the trigger”. They are inventing text of the USC and never state how their made up text relates to the actual text.
 
When will people learn ...

This is why you STFU. Now this charge will probably be used to negotiate and dropped instead of another charge dropped.

According to the Justice Department in Boston, 56-year-old Daniel A. Augusto was indicted in Springfield on unlawful possession of machine guns, six counts of unlawful possession of unregistered firearms, and making false statements to federal agents.

The charge of making false statements to federal agents provides for a sentence of up to five years in prison, three years of supervised release and a fine of $250,000.
 
The ATF have never said it is a “single function of the trigger.” They only ever make claims that a machine gun has a “single, continuous pull of the trigger”. They are inventing text of the USC and never state how their made up text relates to the actual text.
Function

function verb
functioned; functioning\ ˈfəŋ(k)-sh(ə-)niŋ \
Definition of function (Entry 2 of 2)
intransitive verb
1: to have a function : SERVE an attributive noun functions as an adjective
2: to carry on a function or be in action : OPERATE

Remember the NFA is nearly 100 years old so the language is slightly archaic. Nevertheless, the courts will use the archaic grammatical structure (as called out in Bruen's text, history, and tradition standard) to determine the meaning.
Ask yourself why they used the specific word, function?
Thesaurus Function
function
verb
Synonyms of function (Entry 2 of 2)
to have a certain purpose
  • the heart functions as a pump for the blood
Synonyms for function
Words Related to function
They wanted a single statement that would cover all actions to a trigger that served to cause a firearm to fire - pull, push, twist, turn, squeeze, press, etc.

So by the definition you can read "by a single function of the trigger" as "by a single (action, operation or working) of the trigger" which covers all of the physical manipulations that cause a firearm to fire.
The colloquial verbiage of "single, continuous pull" is a compliant rewording of that archaic legal phrase "single function" because a continuous pull is a single action (function).
 
my guess is the glock selectors. Customs has been working to stop them from crossing and passing that info to ATF. There are going to be more arrests for these as time goes on for sure. So many crossed the borders that it was mind boggling.
 
From what I know/recall: Must have been 10+ years ago now at least Holyoke got cleaned up really well with that Police chief that was super tough on crime, I forget his name off hand. The problem was that he drove all the crime out of Holyoke........and into Chicopee and Springfield.
I got lost going through Chicopee last week, ended up crossing the river and got lost in Holyoke as well, old school, no GPS in the truck, have to say I was a bit nervous. Maybe I'm just a closet racist. <shrug>
That was Chief Scott. He would make arrest himself. He was not just a figure head.
 
From what I know/recall: Must have been 10+ years ago now at least Holyoke got cleaned up really well with that Police chief that was super tough on crime, I forget his name off hand. The problem was that he drove all the crime out of Holyoke........and into Chicopee and Springfield. I got lost going through Chicopee last week, ended up crossing the river and got lost in Holyoke as well, old school, no GPS in the truck, have to say I was a bit nervous. Maybe I'm just a closet racist. <shrug>

That was Chief Scott. He would make arrest himself. He was not just a figure head.
Interesting. Not residing in Western MA for many years now, I was not aware of Chief Scott's tenure. I just remember avoiding Holyoke downtown like the plague... just as I avoid Springfield downtown today. I guess crime has a way of moving... if squeezed out in one place, it just pops up in another nearby more accommodating place. [thinking]
 
FRT's use the recoil impulse to force the trigger forward, by MA law they're a bump stock. It's grey for the rest of thr states, buy not really for MA.

True, and this did happen in MA, but ATF is federal. So while he might be F's anyway for any number of other reasons (unregistered suppressors, giggle switches, MA laws, etc), should he not get the same "gray area" for FRT when it comes to ATF? I'm probably being naive about it. Who is actually charging him?
 
True, and this did happen in MA, but ATF is federal. So while he might be F's anyway for any number of other reasons (unregistered suppressors, giggle switches, MA laws, etc), should he not get the same "gray area" for FRT when it comes to ATF? I'm probably being naive about it. Who is actually charging him?
I think the ATF enforces state law don't they? Seem to remember some bullshit about the healey edict and lowers/sbr's.
 
I think the ATF enforces state law don't they? Seem to remember some bullshit about the healey edict and lowers/sbr's.

Ok. That's the part I don't really understand. But I'll run with your comment. But looks like this is almost moot anyway, as he's kind of F'd regardless.
 
I think the ATF enforces state law don't they? Seem to remember some bullshit about the healey edict and lowers/sbr's.
Except according to the black letter of the law, an SBR is not subject to the MA AWB because of how the state defines a "Rifle". SBRs end up falling outside any classification under State Law since they are not "firearms" either (which are defined as exclusively handguns) and not shotguns since they have a rifled barrel.

Of course, this is Massachusetts and no one would ever beat the charges, "because GUNZ" and the system is stacked against folks who follow the letter of the law while ignoring the spirit of the law, unless what you are doing is something our overlords agree with.
 
I think the ATF enforces state law don't they? Seem to remember some bullshit about the healey edict and lowers/sbr's.
My limited understanding is they don’t enforce but they won’t “approve” something which is in violation of state law. In other words, ATF won’t come knock your door in for an AR with a collapsible stock (state AWB violation), but won’t approve a form to make a suppressor in MA unless you’re an FFL and MA dealer.


Sucks for this guy on the FRTs which were openly sold as legal for a while, but the modified MP5 clones and Glock switches are black and white violations.
 
Back
Top Bottom