Under US law, a short-barreled rifle is “a rifle having one or more barrels less than sixteen inches in length and any weapon made from a rifle (whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise) if such weapon, as modified, has an overall length of less than twenty-six inches”.
Ok, and what is a rifle? It is (emphasis added) “a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of an explosive to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger”.
Last Thursday, the mad scientists at Franklin Armory launched the Antithesis. It is, as far as we can tell, a bog-standard AR-15 that comes in 7.5-12.5” barrel configurations.
One day later, Franklin Armory pulled the Antithesis off their site under threat from the ATF. Here’s what happened.
Franklin Armory noticed the bold section in the definition of “rifle” above. They built an Antithesis that, like well-known combination guns such as the Taurus Judge, fires both .45 Long Colt ammo and .410 shot shells. They argued that because the shot shells contain multiple projectiles, the Antithesis is not a rifle. Therefore it can’t be a short-barreled rifle and isn’t subject to NFA regulation. After lengthy litigation, the ATF issued a letter this August agreeing with Franklin Armory’s contention that the Antithesis isn’t an SBR.
Two weeks and change after that letter, Franklin Armory announced the Antithesis in 5.56mm, for sale immediately. Turns out they had secretly designed a 5.56mm duplex round, and were now arguing that because that consists of multiple projectiles, the same logic that made the .45LC/.410 Antithesis a not-SBR also makes the 5.56mm Antithesis a not-SBR.
Logically sound, but what is the purpose of government if not to insert illogic where it shouldn’t be inserted. So the ATF issued a new statement saying that their previous letter “only applies to the two models listed in the letter, in the specific configuration that was the subject of the settlement agreement”.
In the short term, that’s a loss for Franklin Armory. But it’s one they led the ATF into on purpose. Franklin Armory have been doing this long enough to know that federal agencies keep their determination letters as narrow as possible. No agency will voluntary let you extend the meaning of a letter one word beyond what they wrote. No other examples, no extrapolation.
That’s especially true in this case. Any rifle can fire duplex ammo. So if being “designed or intended” to fire duplex ammo means a gun is not an SBR, then no gun is an SBR. The ATF endorsing that position is the bureaucratic equivalent to turkeys voting for Thanksgiving. They won’t do it.
Except they already did. They’re on record that an AR that can fire a multi-projectile round isn’t an SBR. Franklin Armory is just applying that logic consistently, and the ATF has two choices:
- Rule that all ARs are not-SBRs.
- Dig the hole deeper, and go through contortions to explain why the law doesn’t mean what the words in the law plainly say.
Franklin Armory probably engineered this whole thing to force the ATF into option 2. That’s clever in the current political environment.
— Open Source Defense in The ATF shot itself in the foot with Franklin Armory’s new gun
One of my favorite hobby horses is that the rule of law is really a myth covering up the rule of men.
* All laws are interpreted by men.
* Appeals court and Supreme Courts splits, and Circuit splits, show laws aren’t nearly as clear as claimed by rule of law proponents.
* The last thing any lawyer wants is clear and objective laws which make quibbling obsolete.
This is just another example.
Can’t argue Felix, can’t argue.
Playing Chess with Franklin Armory is probably not a good idea.
I have also read that the barrel of the antithesis is not rifled to impart spin, but has straight grooves that result in tumble. Can you source confirm or deny?
The letter from the ATF (that denies the acceptance of the 5.56) says it has a 7.5″ barrel with a 1:9 twist.
This case was not about the Constitutionality of the NFA (it’s not constitutional – but was not being chalenged). Franklin Armory used the very specific wording of the NFA to win their case.
We need to see the wording of the settlement of that case – to see if ATF can turn around and do the exact same thing back at Franklin Armory.
Without seeing the words of the settlement – we’re all just farting in the wind and saying “But we WANT to be able to have short barrels on 5.56, so ATF must be wrong here.” And that makes us all sound as stupid as the Democrats in Congress who don’t know anything about the Constitution or about guns/
Well done, fellas!