Article Link! There may be a new administration, but ATF doesn't seem to notice.
- Thread starter James Moore
- Start date
Is it just me, or does anyone else find it disappointing that the ATF, under Pam Bondi's DOJ, is inserting itself into a CIVIL matter to support one company over another?
It's just another example that no matter who is in office, our 2nd Amendment rights are still under attack.
It's just another example that no matter who is in office, our 2nd Amendment rights are still under attack.
- Joined
- May 21, 2022
- Messages
- 2,328
- Reaction score
- 2,596
- Points
- 168
The biggest issue is the last sentence of the first paragraph in the piece of paper you posted. The ATF has no authority to establish regulations, legislation or policies that control the distribution of accessories based under the guise of "discouraging unregulated manufacture of forced reset triggers".
They lost the case with Rare Breed. Using suits to try and limit firearms accessories is beyond their authority regardless of what their agreement is with Rare Breed Triggers. They argue that it's in the ATF's "strong interest in promoting safe use of firearms by the public". Well next up is large magazines, scopes, hand grips and any other thing they can dream up that's within their "strong interest". Strong interest is not a law or regulation passed by Congress. Nor, does the ATF have the authority to "regulate firearms" by policies that have not been granted to them by Congress. Doing it through suits that put groups of companies out of business through patent litagation is just another method to allow the camel's nose in the 2A tent. And this exists before we even start discussing the 2A.
The ATF is not a party to that suit and has no interest or "standing". What are they doing now? Regulating firearms through agreements with suppliers and vendors they already threatened and harassed. Injecting the ATF into this suit sets the precedence for them injecting themselves into any other third party suit.
Bondi is bad news.
- Joined
- May 21, 2022
- Messages
- 2,328
- Reaction score
- 2,596
- Points
- 168
Come to think of it, the Govt. lost the Bump stock case after SCOTUS ruled after seven years. Explain to me the difference between a Bumpstock and an FRT. I don't have either one, but it appears they are very similar scenarios here from a legal standpoint.
They both produce the same results. Rapid Fire.
They are both legal now. The fact that this administration has sided with 1 private entity over another in an attempt restrict the production of a legal part is very disappointing.
It shows that no matter who is in the White House, the fight for our 2A rights must continue.
I not sure if you are up on the Rare Breed war against anyone who produces the HOFFMAN Super Safety, but they have been issuing Cease and Desist orders right and left since their settlement with the ATF.
Hoffman Tactical is just one of many in the fight. I wonder if the DOJ is planning a "Statement of Interest" in others?
I don't agree with the DOJ taking sides one way or the other. 
This case really isn't within their purview...
It is not "illegal" to patent an illegal device. You just can't produce it legally.
If a company produces a widget and produces that widget without patenting it, that widget becomes part of the public domain and can NOT be patented without a significant change or redesign. From what I understand with this particular lawsuit is that RB's patent is simply too broad in scope and should never have been awarded to them...
This case really isn't within their purview...It is not "illegal" to patent an illegal device. You just can't produce it legally.
If a company produces a widget and produces that widget without patenting it, that widget becomes part of the public domain and can NOT be patented without a significant change or redesign. From what I understand with this particular lawsuit is that RB's patent is simply too broad in scope and should never have been awarded to them...
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2022
- Messages
- 4,020
- Reaction score
- 3,603
- Points
- 168
As far as overall concern- I'd give this subject some time. Not that it's unimportant, but right now POTUS has far bigger fish to fry....this will come later, IMO.
A little OT but your new avatar is CRINGE!
I know it is fun to troll some people but this is definitely 
scary! If people keep avatar trolling I might just have to use this as my avatar! (courtesy of Gemini)
Last edited:
A little OT but your new avatar is CRINGE!
View attachment 37953
Needs more butter.
If POTUS has bigger fish to fry than 2A, why allow the DOJ to get involved at all?
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2026
- Messages
- 87
- Reaction score
- 37
- Points
- 18
Male or female who knows.A little OT but your new avatar is CRINGE!
View attachment 37953
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2022
- Messages
- 4,020
- Reaction score
- 3,603
- Points
- 168
"If"....you can't see that nation security, election fraud, human trafficking, and other huge issues in-play right now are paramount to plug-in the hole in the dam right now, I needn't waste my words.
I'm asking, if all these things are so important, why does he decide to pick a fight with the 2A community, at least the one's who are able to think for themselves.
TDS doesn't affect only the left. There are strains that cause some to not be able to see or admit, when Trump makes a bad decision.
I think Trump simply misspoke out of desperation to say SOMEthing about the incident.
I agree he misspoke. My greater concern is that he misspoke, because at heart, he is not a Champion and neither is Pam Bondi of our 2nd Amendment rights.
I've voted for him twice and I'll vote for him again for a 3rd term
, but just because he's the best man for the job, doesn't mean i can't criticize him for his leftist leanings when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. We can never give up the fight and must always call out out Representatives when they get it wrong.
My concern is that many have become complacent just because there's a Republican in the White House.
I agree he misspoke. My greater concern is that he misspoke, because at heart, he is not a Champion and neither is Pam Bondi of our 2nd Amendment rights.
I've voted for him twice and I'll vote for him again for a 3rd term
We can never give up the fight and must always call out out Representatives when they get it wrong.
My concern is that many have become complacent just because there's a Republican in the White House.
Agree on all points.
I also think if it wasn't for his pro-2A sons (Eric and Don Jr) influencing him, he wouldn't be as "good" as he is for the 2A. He'd be a lot worse.
I also agree that Bondi just pays lip service to the 2A.
That all said... Obama, Biden, and most of the dems are overtly and blatantly anti-2A. They actually want to take our guns and have said so.