Aguila Blanca
Staff
I see a degree of validity in both sides of this argument.
For openers, I believe the Second Amendment means what it says, and that we should be allowed to own (and carry) any firearm we choose, up to and including machine guns. (I also believe that I should be allowed to own a tank, a howitzer, and an F-16 if I could afford them. Since I can't afford them, that's a moot point.) That said, private ownership of machine guns has been heavily restricted and regulated since 1934, and we pretty much all know that private citizens are not allowed to make or buy new ones. The supply is limited to those that already exist.
I also believe that laws are meant to be interpreted and applied according to the plain language understanding of what they say. While I don't like the Gun Control Act of 1934, I don't have an overwhelming need or urge to own or shoot a machine gun, so it doesn't affect me. I fully recognize that there are people who can afford to shoot more ammo in a day than I'll shoot in a lifetime, and that those people might like to own machine guns. I think they should be allowed to own them ... but they can't.
The sticky wicket arises when people try to parse the language of the laws and/or regulations to create something that IS -- functionally -- indistinguishable from a machine gun while technically not being a machine gun ... maybe.
The definition of a "machine gun" in the National Firearms Act of 1934 is:
The BATFE definition of a "machine gun" is found in 27 CFR 478.11:
So the BATFE regulation starts off by saying the same thing as the NFA, but then adds some further language about parts and conversions and "constructive possession." Let's skip that and stick to basics: a "machine gun" is a firearm that shoots, or is designed to shoot, automatically or semiautomatically, more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.
The problem is that the NFA defined "machine gun," but it didn't define "trigger" or "function." I think the attorneys on this forum will confirm that, in general, when a term is not defined in a law itself, application of the law defers to the ordinary dictionary definition of the term. As applied to firearms, I don't think there's any controversy over what the "trigger" is. But ... what is a "function" of the trigger?
The dictionary definition of function (the noun) is:
So now we have all the "Philadelphia lawyer" type inventors who come up with things like bump stocks, binary triggers, and now forced reset triggers. They all pick their interpretation of what a "single function of the trigger" means, and then they get all butt-hurt if the BATFE doesn't agree with them. The problem is that we're arguing over a term that ISN'T DEFINED in the law. So until the courts tell us what the term means, we're guessing. We're playing with semantics. And when the price of holding the losing hand is a potential felony conviction, frankly it's a game I prefer not to play.
If Harry Hobbyist wants to fire up his Harbor Freight mill/drill machine and design a new gizmo that makes an ordinary semi-automatic firearm shoot as fast as a machine gun and that he thinks is within the letter of the law, I have no problem with that. Where I have concerns is when Harry Hobbyist takes his gizmo to Freddy Factory and Freddy starts churning out these gizmos and selling them to the rest of us, assuring us that "they're perfectly legal" because they still only fire one shot with each "function" of the trigger.
But "function" has still not been defined by the courts. This is why I consider such efforts to be akin to pulling a tiger's tail. We KNOW the BATFE doesn't want us to own machine guns. It should not be difficult to predict that anything that makes/allows a semi-automatic firearm to shoot as fast as a machine gun is going to awaken the sleeping tiger.
For openers, I believe the Second Amendment means what it says, and that we should be allowed to own (and carry) any firearm we choose, up to and including machine guns. (I also believe that I should be allowed to own a tank, a howitzer, and an F-16 if I could afford them. Since I can't afford them, that's a moot point.) That said, private ownership of machine guns has been heavily restricted and regulated since 1934, and we pretty much all know that private citizens are not allowed to make or buy new ones. The supply is limited to those that already exist.
I also believe that laws are meant to be interpreted and applied according to the plain language understanding of what they say. While I don't like the Gun Control Act of 1934, I don't have an overwhelming need or urge to own or shoot a machine gun, so it doesn't affect me. I fully recognize that there are people who can afford to shoot more ammo in a day than I'll shoot in a lifetime, and that those people might like to own machine guns. I think they should be allowed to own them ... but they can't.
The sticky wicket arises when people try to parse the language of the laws and/or regulations to create something that IS -- functionally -- indistinguishable from a machine gun while technically not being a machine gun ... maybe.
The definition of a "machine gun" in the National Firearms Act of 1934 is:
The term "machine gun" means any weapon which shoots, or is designed to shoot, automatically or semiautomatically, more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.
The BATFE definition of a "machine gun" is found in 27 CFR 478.11:
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 machine gun, and any combination of parts from which a machine gun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.
So the BATFE regulation starts off by saying the same thing as the NFA, but then adds some further language about parts and conversions and "constructive possession." Let's skip that and stick to basics: a "machine gun" is a firearm that shoots, or is designed to shoot, automatically or semiautomatically, more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.
The problem is that the NFA defined "machine gun," but it didn't define "trigger" or "function." I think the attorneys on this forum will confirm that, in general, when a term is not defined in a law itself, application of the law defers to the ordinary dictionary definition of the term. As applied to firearms, I don't think there's any controversy over what the "trigger" is. But ... what is a "function" of the trigger?
The dictionary definition of function (the noun) is:
Number 1 doesn't apply in this context. Numbers 4 through 7 don't seem to apply in this context. What about numbers 2 and 3?Merriam-Webster said:1 : professional or official position : occupation His job combines the functions of a manager and a worker.
2 : the action for which a person or thing is specially fitted or used or for which a thing exists : purpose
3 : any of a group of related actions contributing to a larger action especially : the normal and specific contribution of a bodily part to the economy of a living organism The function of the heart is to pump blood through the body.
4 : an official or formal ceremony or social gathering They went to several functions during their college reunion weekend.
5a : a mathematical correspondence that assigns exactly one element of one set to each element of the same or another set
b : a variable (such as a quality, trait, or measurement) that depends on and varies with another height is a function of age also : result illnesses that are a function of stress
6 : characteristic behavior of a chemical compound due to a particular reactive unit also : functional group
7 : a computer subroutine specifically : one that performs a calculation with variables (see variable entry 2 sense 1a) provided by a program and supplies the program with a single result
I'd say that could apply. The trigger exists to cause [or allow] a firearm to discharge. So that is the function of the trigger.2 : the action for which a person or thing is specially fitted or used or for which a thing exists : purpose
"A group of related actions ..." I'd say that could also apply. In fact, I'd say that in this context this is the definition that fits best. The way we have traditionally viewed it, a "single function" of a trigger means pulling the trigger far enough that it releases the sear and then allowing the trigger to return far enough to reset [and to allow the sear to reset].3 : any of a group of related actions contributing to a larger action especially : the normal and specific contribution of a bodily part to the economy of a living organism The function of the heart is to pump blood through the body.
So now we have all the "Philadelphia lawyer" type inventors who come up with things like bump stocks, binary triggers, and now forced reset triggers. They all pick their interpretation of what a "single function of the trigger" means, and then they get all butt-hurt if the BATFE doesn't agree with them. The problem is that we're arguing over a term that ISN'T DEFINED in the law. So until the courts tell us what the term means, we're guessing. We're playing with semantics. And when the price of holding the losing hand is a potential felony conviction, frankly it's a game I prefer not to play.
If Harry Hobbyist wants to fire up his Harbor Freight mill/drill machine and design a new gizmo that makes an ordinary semi-automatic firearm shoot as fast as a machine gun and that he thinks is within the letter of the law, I have no problem with that. Where I have concerns is when Harry Hobbyist takes his gizmo to Freddy Factory and Freddy starts churning out these gizmos and selling them to the rest of us, assuring us that "they're perfectly legal" because they still only fire one shot with each "function" of the trigger.
But "function" has still not been defined by the courts. This is why I consider such efforts to be akin to pulling a tiger's tail. We KNOW the BATFE doesn't want us to own machine guns. It should not be difficult to predict that anything that makes/allows a semi-automatic firearm to shoot as fast as a machine gun is going to awaken the sleeping tiger.