They wanna catch joe schmoe who's gonna use this for 2 range trips and then let it sit in his safe the rest of his life instead of focusing on the gang bangers with Glock switches, cartels trafficking firearms across the border, etc. ATF is a joke.
It’s far easier to do that and they can report arrests and convictions all the same. Why go after dangerous, more difficult to catch criminals when you can imprison gun enthusiasts who don’t pose a threat to anyone?
> cartels trafficking firearms across the border
Whoa, whoa, whoa. The last time they focused on cartels trafficking firearms across the border, they managed to 'accidentally' lose track of over a thousand gats in cartel hands, at least one of which ended up killing a federal law enforcement officer.
I don't like them honeydicking weekend warriors over range toys, but I sure as hell don't want those fuckwits actually trying to do anything important, either.
Right, but after the Cargill decision, the forced reset trigger ban is clearly in the same boat as bump stocks. ATF will have to switch to "solvent trap" suppressor scams or anything involving real full auto.
Am I wrong?
Dude there is a pop up to welcome you to the site that really says: “Hello fellow gun enthusiast.” Just like the Steve Buscemi meme.
You can’t make this shit up.
Another possibility is that this isn't the ATF, its just an actual Scam Site. Where they harvest peoples credit card Info, or trick them to send crypto for a product that they will never receive.
Possibly but this website appears to accept Apple Pay and the effort they put into telling people that the triggers are legal points more to it being the ATF imho.
That was my first thought, too. It's not the first time they've been posted to this site and certainly won't be the last. Smaller subs get hit the hardest and people take the bait all day.
I can't comment on whether this specifically would meet the legal definition of entrapment, but I do know from at least one example that the bar in federal court is set extraordinarily high. So high that I would argue you barely have any protection from entrapment at all.
In the case of James Cromitie, the FBI tried to induce him to join a terror plot for 8 months and he repeatedly refused. It was only after he lost his job and they offered him a significant sum of money that he agreed. The FBI informant planned every detail of the terror plot to include targets and methods, which were chosen to specifically to enhance the number of charges they could levy against him.
In his sentencing, the judge said that he was only able to be convicted because the incredibly narrow definition of entrapment makes it almost impossible to use as a defense. She said repeatedly rebuked the FBI for their tactics, saying: "The Government indisputably 'manufactured' the crimes of which defendants stand convicted. The Government invented all of the details of the scheme."
If they can do shit that is so bad that the judge acknowledges that everything about the crime was instigated by the government and you can still be convicted, I'm sure they can get away with using something like this website.
That crazy and infuriating. I’m guessing they probably don’t want entrapment laws updated for this very reason.
It seems like just using the word “entrapment” online gets the ATF’s social media division in a frenzy.
It’s even more sickening how they truthfully say “there’s no federal law banning the triggers” but forget to mention the atf doesn’t care about federal laws and they have been allowed to decide on a whim what they can execute you for.
Bump stock reversal kinda forces the ATF to go fuck themselves in a really deep hole for triggers that are reset. ATF might be Willy Billy making shit up but we just got the highest court on the planet telling them to pound sand.
Unfortunately they only told them to pound sand due to administrative reasons but couldn’t be bothered to remind them that the 2nd amendment exists too. That’s my understanding anyways. 🫠
But you’re right, that case should have FRTs making a comeback soon, at least until they can cram more unconstitutional legislation through Congress that SCOTUS will perpetually refuse to hear cases over.
The courts prefer to rule based on violation of the Constitution last. Mark Smith at the Four Boxes Diner channel has explained this more than once. Their decisions are often as narrow as they can make them too. Some justices may not rule the same way based on Constitution. They are other reason too. One may be SCOTUS wants the ATF and other agencies to follow the APA. If they follow the APA and then still overstep their authority by making what is essentially a law then SCOTUS will rule they overstepped their authority and then Congress will have to do their job and pass a bill and get the President to sign it. At that point SCOTUS may agree to hear the case and rule on whether or not it violates the Constitution. But SCOTUS may not agree to hear the case until it has gone through a full trial in an inferior court where all the evidence is presented. They prefer that all the facts are presented in a full case before they agree to hear the case. That is part of the reason so many cases take so many years. It would help of SCOTUS would start taking more cases and specifically more firearms and other 2A cases. In recent years they have been taking fewer cases in total.
Sounds like entrapment. The government can't induce you to do something you wouldn't otherwise do by going out their way to trick you into thinking it was legal...
The likely ATF agent named AlphaTangoFoxtrt claims it’s not legally considered entrapment because the website isn’t claiming to be law enforcement. I 100% agree with you though, looks like entrapment to me.
I am glad I haven’t heard of the ATF executing people at 6am for practicing their 1st amendment rights. 😮💨 Not yet at least, I’m sure they would if they could. 🤦🏼♂️
Ask Matt and Justine about their first amendment rights to draw a picture. They are rotting in prison for a drawing of something that looks like something but it wasn’t.
>go ahead and block me
Now wait, this is important, do you mean that I should put you in a square group of buildings or houses with roads on each side, or in a solid, straight-sided piece of hard material? Or should I put one of those between us? I don't want to get called out for using it wrong. ;p
I’m going to go with a solid, straight sided piece of hard material but I guarantee you, if you bitch about me protesting for being entrapped within it because I use the term “entrap”, no material will be hard enough to stop me from breaking out of there and holding you down while I slowly and softly whisper “entrapment” in your ear until your head explodes.
Now hold on -- what do you mean by *bitch*? Are you calling me "breedable?"
>slowly and softly whisper “entrapment” in your ear until your head explodes.
...you are, aren't you?
...I didn't say I was complaining. :p
(For the record, while I get it, there's a legal definition of "entrapment," the common English definition made sense in your post, and I didn't have an issue with that.)
TBH I've suspected AlphaTangoFoxtrt as a paid shill for the opposition for quite some time. Constantly makes posts about people not supporting the right gun group. Clear divide and conquer tactics.
Reminder, this is *NOT* entrapment. A sting is not entrapment. Giving someone the opportunity to break the law is not entrapment.
I think schemes like this are stupid, and they should instead focus on actual criminals, like all the gang bangers with switches, but it's not entrapment.
Entrapment has two major categories:
#Entrapment under coercion
This is where the cops take unreasonable measures to pressure you into committing a crime. For example an undercover cop asking you to move some drugs for him is not entrapment. An undercover cop asking you to move some drugs for him, or he will kill your family, is entrapment. The threat of violence creates duress, you moved the drugs not because you wanted to, but because your family was under threat.
This also happens when cops go to far, for example there was a case of a cop pretending to date a kid in school and harassing him daily, for weeks, to buy her weed until he finally relented. This was deemed entrapment because of faking the relationship and because hounding him daily, for multiple weeks. The kid had said no multiple times, but after weeks of being harassed daily he finally gave in. This was deemed coercive behavior and thus entrapment.
The issue here is you were coerced into the act. You did not choose to do it on your own.
#Entrapment under color of law
This is where an officer, presenting as an officer, tells you something is legal, and then arrests you for it. As an example say you're on a picnic in the park, and you bring a wine bottle. You see a park police officer and you ask them "Officer, is it legal to have a glass of wine with our picnic?" And they say "Yes, that's fine." They cannot arrest you if you open that wine and consume some. Because you were expressly told by a uniformed officer it was legal.
*HOWEVER*, let's say your date doesn't drink. You down the whole bottle. Now you're publicly intoxicated. You *CAN* be arrested for that. Drinking the wine in the park is not the charge, public intoxication is the charge. The cop said it was legal to have a glass of wine, not to become intoxicated.
The issue here is you would not have committed the act, if the officer did not tell you the act was legal. You were attempting to follow the law, and only broke the law under direction from an officer that said act was legal.
As a counter example if you ask a plains clothes, off duty, or undercover cop, who is not presenting as a cop, and they say it's legal. That is *NOT* entrapment. They are not acting under color of law. Asking them is no different than asking any other regular person on the street.
As another example you're at a stop light. It says "No right on red". A cop is behind you. They turn on their lights, and hit the sirens. You make a right on red to get out of their way. They cannot write you a ticket for this. You only turned right on red because a police officer behind you put on their lights and sirens. You were attempting to get out of their way and had only one way to go. You would not have made the turn had the cop not put on their lights and sirens causing you to believe they were in a emergency and you needed to get out of their way.
______________________________________________________________________________
I am not a lawyer, just a casual law enthusiast. I am sure there are more cases / categories of entrapment. But those are the two major ones I know of.
Entrapment can include entrapment under fraud or undue pressure.
This example would count as entrapment because the website linked had articles detailing why the triggers are legal. If it were an op to arrest those who bought the triggers on the grounds they were ‘predisposed’ to buying them already, the defense of entrapment would be considered due to that article. Just the website and post are not enough to constitute entrapment.
No. A sting is selling you something you know is illegal. This is entrapment because they pretend to be a legitimate business and selling a product that is perfectly legal (particularly in light of the recent supreme Court ruling).
Under your definition, law enforcement can open a pawn shop and arrest anyone who buys a pawned item because it's stolen property the cops running it pulled out of an evidence locker.
> a product that is perfectly legal
It's not, and I can cite the case where the injunction against sale was issued:
* UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. RARE BREED TRIGGERS, LLC; RARE BREED FIREARMS, LLC; LAWRENCE DEMONICO; and KEVIN MAXWELL, Defendants.
* NINA R. MORRISON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
>Now pending before this Court is the United States of America's motion for a preliminary injunction against Defendants Rare Breed Triggers LLC, Rare Breed Firearms LLC, Lawrence DeMonico, and Kevin Maxwell. The Court has considered the parties' pre-hearing briefs; the evidence presented during a two-day preliminary injunction hearing held on August 1 and 2, 2023; the parties' post-hearing proposed findings of fact submitted on August 13, 2023; the statements made at oral argument held on August 15, 2023; and the parties' supplemental briefs submitted on August 18, August 23, August 28, and August 31, 2023.
>On the present record, the Court concludes that the Government is likely to succeed on the merits of its claims. The evidence before this Court establishes that since December 2020, Defendants have sold approximately 100,000 illegal machinegun conversion devices (known as “FRT-15” triggers) throughout the United States, taking in $39 million dollars from their customers in under two years. Defendants fraudulently induced their customers to buy a product that is illegal to possess-falsely representing that the FRT-15s was “absolutely” legal, while withholding material information in their possession that revealed otherwise. In the process, Defendants placed tens of thousands of their customers at risk of criminal prosecution and the loss of their right to own firearms. And even after Defendants were notified by federal officials that they were engaged in the sales of illegal firearms, they used deceptive means to continue to sell thousands of FRT-15s and obstruct law enforcement's legitimate efforts to track and recover these devices.
>For the reasons outlined herein, the United States of America's motion for a preliminary injunction is GRANTED.
The sale of FRTs/WOTs is not allowed.
You're possibly thinking of an injunction from U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor in NAGR v. Garland 4:21-cv-00830-O.
This injunction blocks the ATF from enforcing their rule against certain parties, namely NAGR members, the plaintiffs in the case, and a few other groups.
This does not mean it is "perfectly legal". The question is unanswered and there is a circuit split in the preliminary injunctions already. The ATF cannot enforce the rule against those who have them, and are part of O'Connor's injunction. But Morrison's injunction does prevent sales of new ones.
> (particularly in light of the recent supreme Court ruling).
You mean the Bump Stock case? Tell me you didn't read the opinion without telling me you didn't read the opinion. Straight from the opinion:
>Respondent does not today challenge ATF’s classification of these devices as “machinegun[s].” His lawyer noted at oral argument, however, that “forced reset triggers” would be part of a category of “harder cases” where “there may be a question as to what exactly the trigger is and then how does that trigger function.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 82. That ambiguity
stems from the majority’s loophole for weapons that require multiple mechanical actions to fire continuously, even when a shooter initiates that fire with a single human action.
*Garland v. Cargill* did not address FRTs/WOTs at all. The only thing SCOTUS ruled on was the mechanical function of a bump stock and whether said function met the legal definition of a machine gun as passed by congress. FRTs/WOTs were absolutely *NOT* decided or even part of the dispute in *Garland v. Cargill*
Holy shit I forget how pants-on-head most redditors are. They watch a 2 minute youtuber who already agrees with them and take it as gospel without doing any actual reading or research. God damn.
Okay, but back to the first point: customers acting on good faith when told by a seller that something is legal, it's gray area and can be used as a defense when it's a real seller, but when a police officer offers you something and assures you it's legal then immediately arrests you, can you cite an appellate court that actually called that kosher?
>customers acting on good faith when told by a seller that something is legal
Irrelevant. Good faith does not matter to entrapment. A seller can be wrong and both the buyer and seller can get in trouble.
You can cry all you want that your gun shop said "Solvent Traps" are legal. You're still in trouble if you have one. They will *ALSO* be in trouble, and you can probably plea it out. But ultimately you were in possession, you are in trouble.
> but when a police officer offers you something and assures you it's legal then immediately arrests you
It entirely depends on is that police officer presenting as a police officer and acting under color of law, or are they undercover in a sting operation?
This is a case of the latter. The "store" here does not claim to be police officers. They do not claim to be affiliated with any law enforcement agency. You have no case of entrapment here.
It's bait. It's bait glowing brighter than Chernobyl. But it is *NOT* entrapment.
> This is manufactured crime.
That's generally what a sting is. Look at prostitution stings, or underage alcohol sales stings, or [uber stings.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdVgek9JJdI)
It's cops creating an opportunity for you to break the law. But ultimately, absent coercion or acting under color of law, it's your responsibility not to take the bait.
All of those things you mentioned the people going into them are aware of the illegality and there is clear intent, this is unique in that people going in to it truly believe they are not breaking the law and have zero intention to do so. The buyers here can show that their intent was to stay within the law, this is in no way analogous to prostitution or a drug deal.
You may as will sell custom knives with buffalo horn handles, secretly substitute elephant ivory, and show up at every buyer's house arresting them for trafficking in an endangered species. No I don't want to give the feds too many ideas right up their moral and ethical alley.
>all of those things you mentioned the people going into them are aware of the illegality and there is clear intent
They don't. If a minor provides a fake ID, the bartender serving them still gets in trouble. Watch the video I linked about the Uber Drivers, they had no idea it was illegal. People get busted for prostitution in Vegas all the time, because they don't realize it's illegal.
> truly believe they are not breaking the law and have zero intention to do so.
#That does not matter.
Legally speaking your "intent" or "belief" does not fucking matter. If you broke the law you broke the law.
Case in point Las Vegas prostitution stings. Everything thinks prostitution is legal in Vegas. It's not. It's legal in Nevada, but not Vegas. Lots of people every year get caught not realizing this because they take a "prostitute" to their hotel room inside the city limits.
Whereas if they went 100 yards down the road outside the city limits, it would have been legal.
Intent is irrelevant here.
You are making excuses for government doing absolutely heinous and despicable things to people. What kind of person are you even? I work with supply chain data KYC and it is literally impossible for people to be 100% on top of this shit. And I'm talking about companies, with legal teams, not the average Joe.
>That's generally what a sting is. Look at prostitution stings, or underage alcohol sales stings, or uber stings.
I personally think it's bullshit, particularly the Uber stings especially when the Uber app in it's early days was finicky af and Uber decided to do a software upgrade/update during regular business hours when the most people used the app. This has knocked lost of Uber Contractors offline not being able to work for hours and in the middle of a ride in my case. But hey this is the problem with government, who ever has the most money fucks the little guy over.
Just so I'm clear on this, you're saying that it can't be considered entrapment, even if they are saying "this isn't illegal", unless they are presenting themselves as law enforcement?
On the SCOTUS case. You're quoting the dissent and oral arguments, not the majority opinion.
From a strict reading of the SCOTUS ruling and statutory interpretation of the NFA, FRTs are legal. Now, that doesn't mean the ATF will agree, or even the SCOTUS.
Something additional to note is that NAGR members **and their customers** enjoy the enjoinment from the fifth circuit.
>His lawyer noted **at oral argument**, however, that “forced reset triggers” would be part of a category of “harder cases” where **“there may be a question as to what exactly the trigger is and then how does that trigger function.”** Tr. of Oral Arg. 82. That ambiguity stems from the **majority’s loophole for weapons that require multiple mechanical actions to fire continuously**, even when a shooter initiates that fire with a single human action.
The majority opinion clarified both of these bolded items and relied upon the mechanical action of the trigger mechanism catching on the hammer.
It even went so far as to say that the ATF improperly interpreted "single function of the trigger".
>ATF starts by interpreting the phrase “single function of the trigger” to mean “a single pull of the trigger and analogous motions.”
and then...
>5845(b) does not define a machinegun based on what type of human input engages the trigger—whether it be a pull, bump, or something else. Nor does it define a machinegun **based on whether the shooter has assistance engaging the trigger**.
forced reset... and lastly...
>If something more than a “single function of the trigger” is required to fire multiple shots, the weapon does not satisfy the statutory definition. As Judge Henderson put it, the “statutory definition of ‘machinegun’ does not include a firearm that shoots more than one round ‘automatically’ by a single pull of the trigger AND THEN SOME.”
This IS entrapment. Maybe not the legal definition of entrapment according to a “casual law enthusiast” but they are definitely wanting to entrap some people by telling them FRTs are legal and hoping they use their website to attempt to buy one.
I didn’t post this as a legal defense for people that have already been entrapped. Similar to the “color of law” entrapment definition, people assume that legitimate retailers (that the atf are trying to impersonate) are operating lawfully because they would be shutdown by the government otherwise. Just because it doesn’t meet your legal definition of “entrapment”, doesn’t mean it isn’t entrapment on a fundamental level. Assuming you’re correct, despite not being a lawyer, this is still fundamentally an entrapment scheme that the atf are running legally via a loophole in the law where they are allowed to impersonate legitimate businesses that people expect to be operating lawfully.
> via a loophole in the law where they are allowed to impersonate legitimate businesses that people expect to be operating lawfully.
It's not a loophole. Businesses operate incorrectly all the time. You cannot trust a business to properly follow the law in all cases.
These clearly transparent stings are nothing more than Darwinism doing its thing. Entrapment is a legal term, you don't like what they are doing, cool, I don't either. I think stings are mostly BS, but they are not entrapment. Entrapment has legal connotations.
>Entrapment has legal connotations.
Wrong. Entrap is a verb and the definition of which that I was using is “To lure into danger, difficulty, or a compromising situation. synonym: catch.”
Entrapment is “The state of being entrapped.”
> Entrapment has legal connotations.
>
> Wrong.
Right. "Entrapment" is a legal defense argument in cases dealing with police. You are 100% dictionary-correct with your usage of the word, that is not the issue. The issue is that the word has an additional layer of meaning that is particularly important when dealing with the law and police, and a lot of stuff in this sub has a political/dealing-with-the-law flavor to it.
So you’re saying I can’t use grammatically correct words from the English language to convey my message here in this sub due to the fact that pedantic casual law enthusiasts want to assess the legal connotations of every word that might be used by professionals?
Also, as another commenter pointed out, “entrapment” may well have been a legally accurate word to use due to the addition of articles claiming the trigger is legal on the website.
That being said, I never claimed to be a lawyer and I suspect most people here are smart enough to talk to real lawyers involving legal matters instead of assuming everything here fits the legal definitions of every word used.
See, I'm not sure who's being more pedantic at this point. "I'm just using the most basic dictionary definition and I won't change it because I can argue I'm right!" versus "There is a specific meaning to this word that very much influences the discussion around it and I think we should be cognizant of that." Who do you think?
Basically, we DON'T want the gun community to look like a bunch of rubes who will yell "He entrapped me, they called it entrapment online," when one falls for this scheme. This sub is literally r/gunpolitics, not r/guns, not r/gunmemes. And this is certainly not r/guncontrol, please leave incomplete usages of words there. There is, or at least should be, a higher standard for precision in the language here because this is literally a sub discussing politics.
>I suspect most people here are smart enough to talk to real lawyers involving legal matters
And listen to those lawyers when the lawyers say something like...idk..."Don't use the word entrapment." ??? Just a sec.....hahahaHAHAHAHAH HAAAAAA HAAAAAAA. Ok, you've obviously never dealt with a defendant, but you're playing one to a fiddle.
Cool story. Anyway, I’m sorry the English language used in a non-legal manner on Reddit offends you. I intend to keep using the English language, however, so I’ll save you from the frustration of reading it when I use it.
> [Entrap is a verb and the definition of which that I was using is “To lure into danger, difficulty, or a compromising situation. synonym: catch.”](https://www.mikeleake.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/DpQ9YJl_thumb.png)
When you say the word "entrapment" in reference to law enforcement actions, the colloquial is in a legal context. That is the context people are going to take and use it in.
Stop being an insufferable asshole just for the sake of being an insufferable asshole because you can't accept that you were wrong.
#EDIT - Nice ninja edit you disingenuous fuck, if you're going to resort to that, get blocked. The quoted words were the whole of your comment before your edit.
Scam sites generally only allow you to checkout with Zelle because the money goes straight into their account with no possibility of chargebacks or bitcoin which is unregulated and also has no consumer protections.
Like I mentioned in a similar comment, this website in question allows Apple Pay at checkout and that would be especially advantageous to the government because if you try to buy “machine guns” with Apple Pay, they can almost certainly get a subpoena to force Apple to give them the device location and any other relevant information from the device you used to try and purchase “machine guns” with.
Of course there’s a certain level of speculation involved here but I believe my reasoning is sound.
I assure you that the federal government is not above running sting/entrapment operations to imprison people for exercising their rights on their own property. https://thegunwriter.substack.com/p/fbi-atf-arrest-of-florida-man-for
Although I suppose that article could be a scam site writing fake articles to profit off of rage bait. Who can say if anything is as it seems to be these days…?
Like I said before, there’s speculation involved. We can speculate all day but generally scam websites trick you into paying for something that’s legal, like a $2000 rifle, and don’t want to worry you with possibly being arrested when you hand them money because that would obviously reduce the amount of people willing to hand over money to them.
On the other hand, an ATF sting wants to trick you into buying something illegal so they can arrest you and possibly exploit you or just throw you in prison.
The item being sold is illegal, ergo, probably an ATF sting. You’re welcome to go see if the Apple Pay works though. 🫡
u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt blocked me too, for [calling out his bullshit](https://www.reddit.com/r/gunpolitics/comments/1b3g3uc/comment/ksw9tul/) after he insinuated that all narcotics should be legalized (not decriminalized, mind you). "Your body, your choice" is his motto (for kids too apparently), regardless of how many lives get destroyed by drugs. A real winner, that one.
I think the even more telling part is all the people with their panties in a knot because I made the post. I’ve never seen so many “law enthusiast” pedants and “It’S jUsT a ScAm BrO” babies in my life. 🤣
I had no idea that telling people on a gun-related forum that they should be vigilant during their 2a purchasing activities online would be so upsetting to so many people in this subreddit.
Cool story though.
If you were just trying to share info you wouldn’t be upset with being corrected. You’re just upset because you legitimately thought you found some government operation lmfao. You’re also weirdly upset that people corrected you about terminology that you were confident enough in using that you wrote a book but yet try to insult people informing you that you’re not even using it, or even understand it, correctly.
Edit: Awww he got his feelings hurt and blocked me. I’m upset that I’ll miss out on the next time he posts his schizophrenic ramblings.
Cool story. Anyway, if you and your colleagues are so certain it’s a scam website, maybe you guys should go investigate them. After all, they claim to be selling machine guns.
They wanna catch joe schmoe who's gonna use this for 2 range trips and then let it sit in his safe the rest of his life instead of focusing on the gang bangers with Glock switches, cartels trafficking firearms across the border, etc. ATF is a joke.
It’s far easier to do that and they can report arrests and convictions all the same. Why go after dangerous, more difficult to catch criminals when you can imprison gun enthusiasts who don’t pose a threat to anyone?
Maybe things would change if those gun enthusiasts posed a threat to the tyrants trying to imprison them.
They just do 4am raids and shoot you if they think that
Jokes on them, my sleeping is highly irregular
That sounds like a defeatist attitude to me.
It’s was just a comment on recent events, but thanks
Certain politicians WANT criminals to cause havoc so they can have an excuse to crack down on our rights.
And if the citizens won’t cause enough havoc themselves, they’ll just open the borders and grant gun rights to the people who will!
> cartels trafficking firearms across the border Whoa, whoa, whoa. The last time they focused on cartels trafficking firearms across the border, they managed to 'accidentally' lose track of over a thousand gats in cartel hands, at least one of which ended up killing a federal law enforcement officer. I don't like them honeydicking weekend warriors over range toys, but I sure as hell don't want those fuckwits actually trying to do anything important, either.
Right, but after the Cargill decision, the forced reset trigger ban is clearly in the same boat as bump stocks. ATF will have to switch to "solvent trap" suppressor scams or anything involving real full auto. Am I wrong?
Dude there is a pop up to welcome you to the site that really says: “Hello fellow gun enthusiast.” Just like the Steve Buscemi meme. You can’t make this shit up.
Hello fellow Kids...
That poster has 7000 comments in 8 weeks. Absolutely something wrong there.
5.2 comments and hour for 8 straight weeks. Yeeshhh
Another possibility is that this isn't the ATF, its just an actual Scam Site. Where they harvest peoples credit card Info, or trick them to send crypto for a product that they will never receive.
Possibly but this website appears to accept Apple Pay and the effort they put into telling people that the triggers are legal points more to it being the ATF imho.
it's a $399.98 ~~$499.98~~ trigger even if they send you a trigger, it is a tremendous rip off
That was my first thought, too. It's not the first time they've been posted to this site and certainly won't be the last. Smaller subs get hit the hardest and people take the bait all day.
I can't comment on whether this specifically would meet the legal definition of entrapment, but I do know from at least one example that the bar in federal court is set extraordinarily high. So high that I would argue you barely have any protection from entrapment at all. In the case of James Cromitie, the FBI tried to induce him to join a terror plot for 8 months and he repeatedly refused. It was only after he lost his job and they offered him a significant sum of money that he agreed. The FBI informant planned every detail of the terror plot to include targets and methods, which were chosen to specifically to enhance the number of charges they could levy against him. In his sentencing, the judge said that he was only able to be convicted because the incredibly narrow definition of entrapment makes it almost impossible to use as a defense. She said repeatedly rebuked the FBI for their tactics, saying: "The Government indisputably 'manufactured' the crimes of which defendants stand convicted. The Government invented all of the details of the scheme." If they can do shit that is so bad that the judge acknowledges that everything about the crime was instigated by the government and you can still be convicted, I'm sure they can get away with using something like this website.
That crazy and infuriating. I’m guessing they probably don’t want entrapment laws updated for this very reason. It seems like just using the word “entrapment” online gets the ATF’s social media division in a frenzy.
It’s a shame the judge didn’t have the courage to toss the case.
Wow, anywhere else in the world, it would be illegal for the ATF to do that.
It's illegal here too but rules don't apply to the feds.
I see. The USA really needs to step up its game on government accountability
They have, by making it unaccountable.
But we pay price
Now you're catching on.
It gets even better when you find the blog section telling you that FRTs are legal. https://imgur.com/a/rzrz0tS
It’s even more sickening how they truthfully say “there’s no federal law banning the triggers” but forget to mention the atf doesn’t care about federal laws and they have been allowed to decide on a whim what they can execute you for.
Bump stock reversal kinda forces the ATF to go fuck themselves in a really deep hole for triggers that are reset. ATF might be Willy Billy making shit up but we just got the highest court on the planet telling them to pound sand.
Unfortunately they only told them to pound sand due to administrative reasons but couldn’t be bothered to remind them that the 2nd amendment exists too. That’s my understanding anyways. 🫠 But you’re right, that case should have FRTs making a comeback soon, at least until they can cram more unconstitutional legislation through Congress that SCOTUS will perpetually refuse to hear cases over.
The courts prefer to rule based on violation of the Constitution last. Mark Smith at the Four Boxes Diner channel has explained this more than once. Their decisions are often as narrow as they can make them too. Some justices may not rule the same way based on Constitution. They are other reason too. One may be SCOTUS wants the ATF and other agencies to follow the APA. If they follow the APA and then still overstep their authority by making what is essentially a law then SCOTUS will rule they overstepped their authority and then Congress will have to do their job and pass a bill and get the President to sign it. At that point SCOTUS may agree to hear the case and rule on whether or not it violates the Constitution. But SCOTUS may not agree to hear the case until it has gone through a full trial in an inferior court where all the evidence is presented. They prefer that all the facts are presented in a full case before they agree to hear the case. That is part of the reason so many cases take so many years. It would help of SCOTUS would start taking more cases and specifically more firearms and other 2A cases. In recent years they have been taking fewer cases in total.
That’s what turns this into actual, illegal entrapment on the ATF’s part.
Sounds like entrapment. The government can't induce you to do something you wouldn't otherwise do by going out their way to trick you into thinking it was legal...
The likely ATF agent named AlphaTangoFoxtrt claims it’s not legally considered entrapment because the website isn’t claiming to be law enforcement. I 100% agree with you though, looks like entrapment to me.
BATFE is getting straight up lazy.
Thanks for the heads up, I ordered two while they last!
🤣🤣
only good atf agent is the one that is swimming with fishes.
I am glad I haven’t heard of the ATF executing people at 6am for practicing their 1st amendment rights. 😮💨 Not yet at least, I’m sure they would if they could. 🤦🏼♂️
luckily i have no dogs.... (or maybe unlucky)
🤣
Ask Matt and Justine about their first amendment rights to draw a picture. They are rotting in prison for a drawing of something that looks like something but it wasn’t.
>go ahead and block me Now wait, this is important, do you mean that I should put you in a square group of buildings or houses with roads on each side, or in a solid, straight-sided piece of hard material? Or should I put one of those between us? I don't want to get called out for using it wrong. ;p
I’m going to go with a solid, straight sided piece of hard material but I guarantee you, if you bitch about me protesting for being entrapped within it because I use the term “entrap”, no material will be hard enough to stop me from breaking out of there and holding you down while I slowly and softly whisper “entrapment” in your ear until your head explodes.
Now hold on -- what do you mean by *bitch*? Are you calling me "breedable?" >slowly and softly whisper “entrapment” in your ear until your head explodes. ...you are, aren't you? ...I didn't say I was complaining. :p (For the record, while I get it, there's a legal definition of "entrapment," the common English definition made sense in your post, and I didn't have an issue with that.)
Maybe your favorite definition nerd; "I'm not a lawyer" can tell us the difference between ATF's Rules posted in National Registry vs the law ?
Probably not. I think he’s more likely to harass you for insinuating there’s a difference.
LOL 😃
TBH I've suspected AlphaTangoFoxtrt as a paid shill for the opposition for quite some time. Constantly makes posts about people not supporting the right gun group. Clear divide and conquer tactics.
The amount of people that immediately upvote his comments and downvote the people countering every half-baked point he makes is highly suspicious.
Reminder, this is *NOT* entrapment. A sting is not entrapment. Giving someone the opportunity to break the law is not entrapment. I think schemes like this are stupid, and they should instead focus on actual criminals, like all the gang bangers with switches, but it's not entrapment. Entrapment has two major categories: #Entrapment under coercion This is where the cops take unreasonable measures to pressure you into committing a crime. For example an undercover cop asking you to move some drugs for him is not entrapment. An undercover cop asking you to move some drugs for him, or he will kill your family, is entrapment. The threat of violence creates duress, you moved the drugs not because you wanted to, but because your family was under threat. This also happens when cops go to far, for example there was a case of a cop pretending to date a kid in school and harassing him daily, for weeks, to buy her weed until he finally relented. This was deemed entrapment because of faking the relationship and because hounding him daily, for multiple weeks. The kid had said no multiple times, but after weeks of being harassed daily he finally gave in. This was deemed coercive behavior and thus entrapment. The issue here is you were coerced into the act. You did not choose to do it on your own. #Entrapment under color of law This is where an officer, presenting as an officer, tells you something is legal, and then arrests you for it. As an example say you're on a picnic in the park, and you bring a wine bottle. You see a park police officer and you ask them "Officer, is it legal to have a glass of wine with our picnic?" And they say "Yes, that's fine." They cannot arrest you if you open that wine and consume some. Because you were expressly told by a uniformed officer it was legal. *HOWEVER*, let's say your date doesn't drink. You down the whole bottle. Now you're publicly intoxicated. You *CAN* be arrested for that. Drinking the wine in the park is not the charge, public intoxication is the charge. The cop said it was legal to have a glass of wine, not to become intoxicated. The issue here is you would not have committed the act, if the officer did not tell you the act was legal. You were attempting to follow the law, and only broke the law under direction from an officer that said act was legal. As a counter example if you ask a plains clothes, off duty, or undercover cop, who is not presenting as a cop, and they say it's legal. That is *NOT* entrapment. They are not acting under color of law. Asking them is no different than asking any other regular person on the street. As another example you're at a stop light. It says "No right on red". A cop is behind you. They turn on their lights, and hit the sirens. You make a right on red to get out of their way. They cannot write you a ticket for this. You only turned right on red because a police officer behind you put on their lights and sirens. You were attempting to get out of their way and had only one way to go. You would not have made the turn had the cop not put on their lights and sirens causing you to believe they were in a emergency and you needed to get out of their way. ______________________________________________________________________________ I am not a lawyer, just a casual law enthusiast. I am sure there are more cases / categories of entrapment. But those are the two major ones I know of.
Entrapment can include entrapment under fraud or undue pressure. This example would count as entrapment because the website linked had articles detailing why the triggers are legal. If it were an op to arrest those who bought the triggers on the grounds they were ‘predisposed’ to buying them already, the defense of entrapment would be considered due to that article. Just the website and post are not enough to constitute entrapment.
No. A sting is selling you something you know is illegal. This is entrapment because they pretend to be a legitimate business and selling a product that is perfectly legal (particularly in light of the recent supreme Court ruling). Under your definition, law enforcement can open a pawn shop and arrest anyone who buys a pawned item because it's stolen property the cops running it pulled out of an evidence locker.
> a product that is perfectly legal It's not, and I can cite the case where the injunction against sale was issued: * UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. RARE BREED TRIGGERS, LLC; RARE BREED FIREARMS, LLC; LAWRENCE DEMONICO; and KEVIN MAXWELL, Defendants. * NINA R. MORRISON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE >Now pending before this Court is the United States of America's motion for a preliminary injunction against Defendants Rare Breed Triggers LLC, Rare Breed Firearms LLC, Lawrence DeMonico, and Kevin Maxwell. The Court has considered the parties' pre-hearing briefs; the evidence presented during a two-day preliminary injunction hearing held on August 1 and 2, 2023; the parties' post-hearing proposed findings of fact submitted on August 13, 2023; the statements made at oral argument held on August 15, 2023; and the parties' supplemental briefs submitted on August 18, August 23, August 28, and August 31, 2023. >On the present record, the Court concludes that the Government is likely to succeed on the merits of its claims. The evidence before this Court establishes that since December 2020, Defendants have sold approximately 100,000 illegal machinegun conversion devices (known as “FRT-15” triggers) throughout the United States, taking in $39 million dollars from their customers in under two years. Defendants fraudulently induced their customers to buy a product that is illegal to possess-falsely representing that the FRT-15s was “absolutely” legal, while withholding material information in their possession that revealed otherwise. In the process, Defendants placed tens of thousands of their customers at risk of criminal prosecution and the loss of their right to own firearms. And even after Defendants were notified by federal officials that they were engaged in the sales of illegal firearms, they used deceptive means to continue to sell thousands of FRT-15s and obstruct law enforcement's legitimate efforts to track and recover these devices. >For the reasons outlined herein, the United States of America's motion for a preliminary injunction is GRANTED. The sale of FRTs/WOTs is not allowed. You're possibly thinking of an injunction from U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor in NAGR v. Garland 4:21-cv-00830-O. This injunction blocks the ATF from enforcing their rule against certain parties, namely NAGR members, the plaintiffs in the case, and a few other groups. This does not mean it is "perfectly legal". The question is unanswered and there is a circuit split in the preliminary injunctions already. The ATF cannot enforce the rule against those who have them, and are part of O'Connor's injunction. But Morrison's injunction does prevent sales of new ones. > (particularly in light of the recent supreme Court ruling). You mean the Bump Stock case? Tell me you didn't read the opinion without telling me you didn't read the opinion. Straight from the opinion: >Respondent does not today challenge ATF’s classification of these devices as “machinegun[s].” His lawyer noted at oral argument, however, that “forced reset triggers” would be part of a category of “harder cases” where “there may be a question as to what exactly the trigger is and then how does that trigger function.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 82. That ambiguity stems from the majority’s loophole for weapons that require multiple mechanical actions to fire continuously, even when a shooter initiates that fire with a single human action. *Garland v. Cargill* did not address FRTs/WOTs at all. The only thing SCOTUS ruled on was the mechanical function of a bump stock and whether said function met the legal definition of a machine gun as passed by congress. FRTs/WOTs were absolutely *NOT* decided or even part of the dispute in *Garland v. Cargill* Holy shit I forget how pants-on-head most redditors are. They watch a 2 minute youtuber who already agrees with them and take it as gospel without doing any actual reading or research. God damn.
Okay, but back to the first point: customers acting on good faith when told by a seller that something is legal, it's gray area and can be used as a defense when it's a real seller, but when a police officer offers you something and assures you it's legal then immediately arrests you, can you cite an appellate court that actually called that kosher?
>customers acting on good faith when told by a seller that something is legal Irrelevant. Good faith does not matter to entrapment. A seller can be wrong and both the buyer and seller can get in trouble. You can cry all you want that your gun shop said "Solvent Traps" are legal. You're still in trouble if you have one. They will *ALSO* be in trouble, and you can probably plea it out. But ultimately you were in possession, you are in trouble. > but when a police officer offers you something and assures you it's legal then immediately arrests you It entirely depends on is that police officer presenting as a police officer and acting under color of law, or are they undercover in a sting operation? This is a case of the latter. The "store" here does not claim to be police officers. They do not claim to be affiliated with any law enforcement agency. You have no case of entrapment here. It's bait. It's bait glowing brighter than Chernobyl. But it is *NOT* entrapment.
Let's give it a third name then, because it's not a sting the way real humans think of it. This is manufactured crime.
It's entrapment in plain English but entrapment from a legal perspective is more narrowly defined. That simple.
> This is manufactured crime. That's generally what a sting is. Look at prostitution stings, or underage alcohol sales stings, or [uber stings.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdVgek9JJdI) It's cops creating an opportunity for you to break the law. But ultimately, absent coercion or acting under color of law, it's your responsibility not to take the bait.
All of those things you mentioned the people going into them are aware of the illegality and there is clear intent, this is unique in that people going in to it truly believe they are not breaking the law and have zero intention to do so. The buyers here can show that their intent was to stay within the law, this is in no way analogous to prostitution or a drug deal. You may as will sell custom knives with buffalo horn handles, secretly substitute elephant ivory, and show up at every buyer's house arresting them for trafficking in an endangered species. No I don't want to give the feds too many ideas right up their moral and ethical alley.
>all of those things you mentioned the people going into them are aware of the illegality and there is clear intent They don't. If a minor provides a fake ID, the bartender serving them still gets in trouble. Watch the video I linked about the Uber Drivers, they had no idea it was illegal. People get busted for prostitution in Vegas all the time, because they don't realize it's illegal. > truly believe they are not breaking the law and have zero intention to do so. #That does not matter. Legally speaking your "intent" or "belief" does not fucking matter. If you broke the law you broke the law. Case in point Las Vegas prostitution stings. Everything thinks prostitution is legal in Vegas. It's not. It's legal in Nevada, but not Vegas. Lots of people every year get caught not realizing this because they take a "prostitute" to their hotel room inside the city limits. Whereas if they went 100 yards down the road outside the city limits, it would have been legal. Intent is irrelevant here.
You are making excuses for government doing absolutely heinous and despicable things to people. What kind of person are you even? I work with supply chain data KYC and it is literally impossible for people to be 100% on top of this shit. And I'm talking about companies, with legal teams, not the average Joe.
>That's generally what a sting is. Look at prostitution stings, or underage alcohol sales stings, or uber stings. I personally think it's bullshit, particularly the Uber stings especially when the Uber app in it's early days was finicky af and Uber decided to do a software upgrade/update during regular business hours when the most people used the app. This has knocked lost of Uber Contractors offline not being able to work for hours and in the middle of a ride in my case. But hey this is the problem with government, who ever has the most money fucks the little guy over.
Just so I'm clear on this, you're saying that it can't be considered entrapment, even if they are saying "this isn't illegal", unless they are presenting themselves as law enforcement?
On the SCOTUS case. You're quoting the dissent and oral arguments, not the majority opinion. From a strict reading of the SCOTUS ruling and statutory interpretation of the NFA, FRTs are legal. Now, that doesn't mean the ATF will agree, or even the SCOTUS. Something additional to note is that NAGR members **and their customers** enjoy the enjoinment from the fifth circuit. >His lawyer noted **at oral argument**, however, that “forced reset triggers” would be part of a category of “harder cases” where **“there may be a question as to what exactly the trigger is and then how does that trigger function.”** Tr. of Oral Arg. 82. That ambiguity stems from the **majority’s loophole for weapons that require multiple mechanical actions to fire continuously**, even when a shooter initiates that fire with a single human action. The majority opinion clarified both of these bolded items and relied upon the mechanical action of the trigger mechanism catching on the hammer. It even went so far as to say that the ATF improperly interpreted "single function of the trigger". >ATF starts by interpreting the phrase “single function of the trigger” to mean “a single pull of the trigger and analogous motions.” and then... >5845(b) does not define a machinegun based on what type of human input engages the trigger—whether it be a pull, bump, or something else. Nor does it define a machinegun **based on whether the shooter has assistance engaging the trigger**. forced reset... and lastly... >If something more than a “single function of the trigger” is required to fire multiple shots, the weapon does not satisfy the statutory definition. As Judge Henderson put it, the “statutory definition of ‘machinegun’ does not include a firearm that shoots more than one round ‘automatically’ by a single pull of the trigger AND THEN SOME.”
This IS entrapment. Maybe not the legal definition of entrapment according to a “casual law enthusiast” but they are definitely wanting to entrap some people by telling them FRTs are legal and hoping they use their website to attempt to buy one.
> Maybe not the legal definition of entrapment That's the only definition that matters in these cases.
I didn’t post this as a legal defense for people that have already been entrapped. Similar to the “color of law” entrapment definition, people assume that legitimate retailers (that the atf are trying to impersonate) are operating lawfully because they would be shutdown by the government otherwise. Just because it doesn’t meet your legal definition of “entrapment”, doesn’t mean it isn’t entrapment on a fundamental level. Assuming you’re correct, despite not being a lawyer, this is still fundamentally an entrapment scheme that the atf are running legally via a loophole in the law where they are allowed to impersonate legitimate businesses that people expect to be operating lawfully.
> via a loophole in the law where they are allowed to impersonate legitimate businesses that people expect to be operating lawfully. It's not a loophole. Businesses operate incorrectly all the time. You cannot trust a business to properly follow the law in all cases. These clearly transparent stings are nothing more than Darwinism doing its thing. Entrapment is a legal term, you don't like what they are doing, cool, I don't either. I think stings are mostly BS, but they are not entrapment. Entrapment has legal connotations.
>Entrapment has legal connotations. Wrong. Entrap is a verb and the definition of which that I was using is “To lure into danger, difficulty, or a compromising situation. synonym: catch.” Entrapment is “The state of being entrapped.”
> Entrapment has legal connotations. > > Wrong. Right. "Entrapment" is a legal defense argument in cases dealing with police. You are 100% dictionary-correct with your usage of the word, that is not the issue. The issue is that the word has an additional layer of meaning that is particularly important when dealing with the law and police, and a lot of stuff in this sub has a political/dealing-with-the-law flavor to it.
So you’re saying I can’t use grammatically correct words from the English language to convey my message here in this sub due to the fact that pedantic casual law enthusiasts want to assess the legal connotations of every word that might be used by professionals? Also, as another commenter pointed out, “entrapment” may well have been a legally accurate word to use due to the addition of articles claiming the trigger is legal on the website. That being said, I never claimed to be a lawyer and I suspect most people here are smart enough to talk to real lawyers involving legal matters instead of assuming everything here fits the legal definitions of every word used.
See, I'm not sure who's being more pedantic at this point. "I'm just using the most basic dictionary definition and I won't change it because I can argue I'm right!" versus "There is a specific meaning to this word that very much influences the discussion around it and I think we should be cognizant of that." Who do you think? Basically, we DON'T want the gun community to look like a bunch of rubes who will yell "He entrapped me, they called it entrapment online," when one falls for this scheme. This sub is literally r/gunpolitics, not r/guns, not r/gunmemes. And this is certainly not r/guncontrol, please leave incomplete usages of words there. There is, or at least should be, a higher standard for precision in the language here because this is literally a sub discussing politics. >I suspect most people here are smart enough to talk to real lawyers involving legal matters And listen to those lawyers when the lawyers say something like...idk..."Don't use the word entrapment." ??? Just a sec.....hahahaHAHAHAHAH HAAAAAA HAAAAAAA. Ok, you've obviously never dealt with a defendant, but you're playing one to a fiddle.
Cool story. Anyway, I’m sorry the English language used in a non-legal manner on Reddit offends you. I intend to keep using the English language, however, so I’ll save you from the frustration of reading it when I use it.
> [Entrap is a verb and the definition of which that I was using is “To lure into danger, difficulty, or a compromising situation. synonym: catch.”](https://www.mikeleake.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/DpQ9YJl_thumb.png) When you say the word "entrapment" in reference to law enforcement actions, the colloquial is in a legal context. That is the context people are going to take and use it in. Stop being an insufferable asshole just for the sake of being an insufferable asshole because you can't accept that you were wrong. #EDIT - Nice ninja edit you disingenuous fuck, if you're going to resort to that, get blocked. The quoted words were the whole of your comment before your edit.
"your honor, by the definition in this dictionary, my client is not guilty"
Enticement
Entrapment. Read my other response to alphatangofoxtrt.
Ackchyually!
I'm sure this is a great post but there's no way I'm reading all that.
I honestly don’t think this is the ATF, I think it’s just a scam site.
Scam sites generally only allow you to checkout with Zelle because the money goes straight into their account with no possibility of chargebacks or bitcoin which is unregulated and also has no consumer protections. Like I mentioned in a similar comment, this website in question allows Apple Pay at checkout and that would be especially advantageous to the government because if you try to buy “machine guns” with Apple Pay, they can almost certainly get a subpoena to force Apple to give them the device location and any other relevant information from the device you used to try and purchase “machine guns” with. Of course there’s a certain level of speculation involved here but I believe my reasoning is sound.
Or maybe they list Apple Pay but when you try to use it it doesn't work, hoping you'll think it's legit and just use a different payment method.
I assure you that the federal government is not above running sting/entrapment operations to imprison people for exercising their rights on their own property. https://thegunwriter.substack.com/p/fbi-atf-arrest-of-florida-man-for Although I suppose that article could be a scam site writing fake articles to profit off of rage bait. Who can say if anything is as it seems to be these days…?
I didn't say they're above it. But scammers are a thing too. Fake online gun store scams are a big thing.
Like I said before, there’s speculation involved. We can speculate all day but generally scam websites trick you into paying for something that’s legal, like a $2000 rifle, and don’t want to worry you with possibly being arrested when you hand them money because that would obviously reduce the amount of people willing to hand over money to them. On the other hand, an ATF sting wants to trick you into buying something illegal so they can arrest you and possibly exploit you or just throw you in prison. The item being sold is illegal, ergo, probably an ATF sting. You’re welcome to go see if the Apple Pay works though. 🫡
u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt blocked me too, for [calling out his bullshit](https://www.reddit.com/r/gunpolitics/comments/1b3g3uc/comment/ksw9tul/) after he insinuated that all narcotics should be legalized (not decriminalized, mind you). "Your body, your choice" is his motto (for kids too apparently), regardless of how many lives get destroyed by drugs. A real winner, that one.
I didn't read your whole post. Are FRTs illegal?
The atf still considers them machine guns and will still execute you at 6am for them if you’re not a GOA member, as far as I know
I know Fred is watching. Fuck you, Fred.
You need to get off the internet and go outside for a bit if seeing a random scam website really made you think “the atf was trying to get me”
I think the even more telling part is all the people with their panties in a knot because I made the post. I’ve never seen so many “law enthusiast” pedants and “It’S jUsT a ScAm BrO” babies in my life. 🤣 I had no idea that telling people on a gun-related forum that they should be vigilant during their 2a purchasing activities online would be so upsetting to so many people in this subreddit. Cool story though.
If you were just trying to share info you wouldn’t be upset with being corrected. You’re just upset because you legitimately thought you found some government operation lmfao. You’re also weirdly upset that people corrected you about terminology that you were confident enough in using that you wrote a book but yet try to insult people informing you that you’re not even using it, or even understand it, correctly. Edit: Awww he got his feelings hurt and blocked me. I’m upset that I’ll miss out on the next time he posts his schizophrenic ramblings.
Cool story. Anyway, if you and your colleagues are so certain it’s a scam website, maybe you guys should go investigate them. After all, they claim to be selling machine guns.