ATF reverses decision.. Akins Accelerator now MACHINEGUN


PDA






CanonNinja
December 11, 2006, 09:33 PM
http://firefaster.com/
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT
ATF DECIDES THE AKINS ACCELERATOR™ TO BE A MACHINEGUN

Akins Group Inc. regrets to announce that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has reversed its position and has decided the Akins Accelerator™ to be a machinegun conversion kit, thereby subjecting it to strict regulation under the Gun Control Act (GCA) and National Firearms Act (NFA).

ATF rescinded its previous determination that the Akins Accelerator™ was not subject to the GCA or NFA (see http://www.firefaster.com/documentation.html). Attorneys for the Akins Group Inc. are seeking reconsideration by ATF of its new position. In the interim, any sale, transfer, or return of the Akins Accelerator™ must be suspended. Akins Group Inc. will advise further after meeting with ATF.

Akins Group Inc. has received no instruction as to the disposition of units in customer hands. Please refrain from public speculation and emotional responses and allow our Attorneys to advocate for everyone's best interests.



Complete and udder bull****

If you enjoyed reading about "ATF reverses decision.. Akins Accelerator now MACHINEGUN" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
lacoochee
December 11, 2006, 09:38 PM
Of course the ATF starts changing the rules now that the Congress has passed into more Gun Control friendly hands.

Bruce333
December 11, 2006, 09:45 PM
So, does this mean that bump firing is now a "conversion to a machine gun"?

$200 tax on each thumb!

carterbeauford
December 11, 2006, 09:49 PM
ATF must have realized that word has finally gotten out that it is illegal for bubba to turn his SKS into a machinegun. They can't throw bubba in jail so they have to go elswhere to prey. They're like coyotes.

AJAX22
December 11, 2006, 09:51 PM
ultimatly they may be seeking to ban or regulate semi automatics, after all, bump firing allows them to be fired 'full auto'. it may be an attempt to lay the groundwork for broadining the scope of guns that the NFA is applied to.

they don't really need to pass any new laws that say we can't have any semi autos, all they have to do is say that any gun which has the potential to be discharged with a high rate of fire is a machine gun and therefore subject to the 1934 law. and wham, no more manufacture of autoloaders. 200 dollar taxes all around, and guns get progressivly more dificult to obtain.

for us in states that don't allow machineguns, they can just confiscate and crush.

anyway, Doom, Doom
its a punk move on the batfe's part

coltrane679
December 11, 2006, 09:58 PM
Timing is everything
Of course the ATF starts changing the rules now that the Congress has passed into more Gun Control friendly hands.

The ATF (actually the BATFE) is an agency of the Dept. of Justice--it is in the executive branch. If Bush wanted a change there it would happen. He and his people just don't care. After six years of ATF antics under this adminstration, that should be obvious enough to everybody. Quit searching around for scapegoats. The buck is supposed to stop at the top--there's just no one home up there.

Glockfan.45
December 11, 2006, 10:12 PM
I wonder how long things like the "Hell Fire", and other trigger activators will stay legal then :uhoh: . On a somewhat related side note Obama visited NH today in an obvious sign of his intentions to run for office in 08 :barf: . Let the assault on semi autos begin.

ServiceSoon
December 11, 2006, 10:13 PM
Are you really surprised at these unfortunate serious of events?

lacoochee
December 11, 2006, 10:13 PM
It's just that the Congress was able to control some of W's excesses and now that they have paid for his ineptitude, we get to pay as well. I agree if the President was a friend of the 2A or even a real conservative (note: did not say member of GOP) BATF would be a distant memory of 6 years ago.

Ray P
December 11, 2006, 10:19 PM
In retrospective; it is amazing how little actually got done for the gun owners in the last 12 years. Even the AWB expiration was actually the result of no action, not a deliberate reversal.

It is going to be tough. Wonder if Wubya will negotiate signing a new AWB with the new Dem Congress? Possible, if he wants to show he's still valid.

Manedwolf
December 11, 2006, 11:14 PM
On a somewhat related side note Obama visited NH today in an obvious sign of his intentions to run for office in 08

Yes, Barack Hussein Obama was over in Portsmouth today, despite an utter lack of message, being fawned over by emigrated former Republik of Massachusetts residents because he has a nice smile or something. Made me sick. :barf:

Lucky
December 11, 2006, 11:22 PM
So if a bump-firing device is illegal, but the laws don't support that, you think they'll re-write your laws? What will that do to ownership of Semi-autos? Not asking incriminating questions, but if they ban semi's, or prohibit import or production of new ones, on a scale of 1-10, 10 being highest, how seriously will citizens take it?

DRZinn
December 11, 2006, 11:22 PM
While I think the whole machine-gun ban is asinine, it's pretty obvious that when you assemble a 10/22 into this stock, what you have is a machine gun.

Probably didn't help that their promo video called it a "good solution to the 1986 problem."

Lucky
December 11, 2006, 11:43 PM
If you're firing 1 shot for 1 pull of the trigger, how is it a machine-gun? It's a semi-auto. If the BATFE can ban 1 semi-auto, doesn't that mean they can ban all of them?

DRZinn
December 11, 2006, 11:48 PM
If you're firing 1 shot for 1 pull of the trigger, how is it a machine-gun?You are pulling the trigger one time, causing the gun to fire multiple times. The gun essentially pulls it's own trigger the rest of the times.

Look, I'm not saying I agree with the rule, just that under the rule, it looks like a machine-gun to me.

DoubleTapDrew
December 12, 2006, 12:06 AM
The unconstitutional NFA says one pull of the trigger per shot (or one function). That's exactly what happens with the Akins. Whether the receiver moves inside the stock (bumpfiring) or attached firmly to it (also bumpfiring) is irrelevant. Ever tried to bumpfire a .22? Not enough recoil to make it happen very easily with a full stock.
What the ATF just did is change the law on their own. This is utter B.S.
I'd like to see the wording of this new law they just decided to think up. It probably makes semi-auto's machine guns. :fire:

Justin
December 12, 2006, 12:09 AM
Look, I'm not saying I agree with the rule, just that under the rule, it looks like a machine-gun to me.

What it looks like is immaterial. Per the letter of the law, the Akins Accelerator is obviously not a machinegun. Now, if Congress wanted to move to ban devices to allow bump-firing, I suppose they could do that, but it strikes me as utterly capricious that the ATF, evidently on a whim, has reversed its previous judgement and chosen to put the purchasers of this product in a legalistic limbo where they weren't felons at the time of purchase, but are felons (or something in between) now.

Lucky
December 12, 2006, 12:16 AM
" A machine gun is defined as 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 machine gun shall
also include 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.
"

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/us_v_doucet.txt

Technically, bump-firing does function the trigger repeatedly, well I've never done it, but I'm cheap and only have 5-round magazines, but still my understanding is clear.

So if a bump-firing rifle is now a machine-gun, that means semi-auto rifles that can be bump-fired are also machine-guns.

http://www.jpfo.org/savage2.htm

This just seems like it could be a big problem.

Outlaws
December 12, 2006, 12:23 AM
If you look closely, the operators finger does not move. The whole reciever, barrel, trigger, and even trigger guard, move back during recoil and upon reset, cause the trigger to get operated again.

Its a f'ing genius system. Probably not accurate for squat, but did I say how genius it is?

Really, its a borderline machine gun IMO. I mean, yes it is having the trigger operated for every single shot, but the operator is not doing anything to make it happen other than moving a finger into position and holding it there.

I don't believe in banning machine guns, but I also don't believe in BS'ing myself. That is a machine gun any way you cut it. BUT...not under the guidelines of the NFA...at least by the description in my book I just got this afternoon from the BATFE. :D

Look, it all boils down to a very thin line. The guy that made it didn't need to market it as someone already posted ("good solution to the 1986 problem") thus more than likely infuriating the ATF. If you ask me, he screwed himself.

Outlaws
December 12, 2006, 12:30 AM
http://www.jpfo.org/savage2.htm
That website is really a bad example. Let me explain.


Example: I submitted an SGMB semi-auto rifle to FTB for classification. They observed that if they removed the safety selector, the sear did not disconnect with every pull of the trigger. (A safety selector, usually called a "safety," is used to render the firearm in a condition to fire if the trigger is pulled, or conversely to prevent it from firing. The sear is the component that releases the hammer.) Upon cursory examination, this configuration appeared to enable the firearm to fire multiple times on one trigger pull, and therefore the ATF declared it a “machine gun” -- without ever test firing it.

They failed, however, to observe that the firearm had a second disconnector that operated independently of the trigger pull. (A disconnector is a component that prevents full-auto function; it is a part that distinguishes a semi-auto from a machine gun.) Operating off of the bolt carrier movement, this second disconnector prevented full-auto fire. Due solely to the ATF's own lack of firearms knowledge and incomplete testing methods, they wrongly classified this SGMB as a machine gun - even though in real-world practice it was incapable of and not designed for full-auto fire.

The problem I see is that an item cannot be "readily" converted to full-auto with a simple modification or two. It sounds like that disconnector could easily be shaved off...thus leaving a full auto firearm and not a semi auto. :D

I am not saying its right...I am just saying. :)

I also see that that site is pointing out the stupidity of outside items that would also have to be classified as a "machine gun", but the author just seems a little biased based on his rejection for poor design.

cslinger
December 12, 2006, 12:43 AM
I had heard rumors that the SKS was the next gun to get this treatment and as soon as I heard this I figured the BATFE would do their worst to put the kabash on this.

You see the 10/22 is just a .22 and sort of inoffensive. As soon as Tom sends in the plans for centerfire rifles things suddenly change.

This will be an interesting case. I hope he is able to fight this as I believe the ruling to be wrong given the letter of the law. It is clearly a loophole type system and clearly a stick poked in the bears side so to speak.

I don't really have a desire to own one of these and I really don't have any huge desire to own any full auto stuff in general but I think the laws prohibiting them are wrong and I hope this turns out well for Tom simply because I want to see the BATFE put in their place for once.

A good lawyer really could argue either side as the device really is a sort of gray area. If nothing else this will be interesting.

FieroCDSP
December 12, 2006, 12:48 AM
Can anyone tell me what possible legitimate reason you'd need something like that? I mean, what reason besides how cool it would be to have (I know I'd like to fire one)? Are you going to hunt a herd of squirrels with it? A rampaging group of killer rabbits? Lets face it, the intent of the system was to circumvent the machine gun laws in a way that slallomed through the wording. You know it, I know it. By doing so (and also flaunting it as stated above) the guy put all of our rights at possible risk. Could the ATF make this a platform for taking our semi-autos? Yes. Will they? Maybe, maybe not.

cslinger
December 12, 2006, 12:54 AM
First need has nothing to do with it. When was the last time you NEEDED a gun. Don't say hunting because you don't NEED to hunt. Fact is you are likely to go your entire life without ever NEEDING A GUN. So therefore we don't need AR15s, Remington 870s, Browning Buckmarks, or single shot Chipmunk rifles. Hell I don't need my toy car and it is likely to hurt more people then any of my guns ever will through emissions and fuel use alone.

Second the inventor absolutely is working a loophole and I think his innovation was commendible. Rolling over and not trying just because you are scared is wrong. What he did was completely legal even in the BATFE's eyes until they "changed their mind." Should we have a legal system where the judge can pretty much say "PSYCHE!!"

Third it isn't about guns its about justice, freedom, control and a government that should be by and for its people. I am not a tin foil guy, I am not a violence is the way kind of guy but I do think we need people such as Tom to test and push back from time to time. What he did is effectively legal civil disobediance and healthy IMO.

That is all I have to say about that.

I am not flaming your opinion as we all have a right to think and express what we want. I am just countering with my opinion. Please do not take offense. Funny though how the PEOPLE in the 1st amendment are so different then those PEOPLE in the second amendment.

Outlaws
December 12, 2006, 12:55 AM
Oh ya....one more thing.

All that has to happen now is our Democratic congress to change the wording of the NFA to state that any firearm capable of being operated continueously under recoil is a machine gun and thus all new firearms need to be designed so that the they can't do that. Who knows what happens to the ones in circulation. 30 days to pay the tax? :D :D :D :D :D :D

DoubleTapDrew
December 12, 2006, 12:56 AM
If you look closely, the operators finger does not move. The whole reciever, barrel, trigger, and even trigger guard, move back during recoil and upon reset, cause the trigger to get operated again.
That's what happens during bumpfiring. This guy was smart enough to allow the stock to stay stationary. It's still bumpfiring. Trigger finger stays stationary, gun oscillates on it. Perfectly legal per the ATF's rules.

That is a machine gun any way you cut it.
No it's not. A real machine gun functions completely differently. Real MG's don't bumpfire and don't require a pull of the trigger for each shot (even if a pull of the trigger is achieved by letting the receiver move far enough rearward to reset it and pulled again by movement of the receiver against a stationary finger).

Is there anyone with political clout we could petition about this? It's not so much about this particular manufacturer (although you gotta love good 'ol American ingenuity), it's about the ATF changing laws as it see's fit and that it TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE!

jlbraun
December 12, 2006, 12:57 AM
Wait wait wait.

Might the classification of this ...thing... as a machinegun actually be a GOOD thing?

Give me a second.

If this thing is a machinegun, then one of two things have to happen. 1) The BATFE opens the NFA registry and admits these devices by grandfathering them in, or by requiring registration and paying a $200 tax. 2) Outright confiscation.

The neat thing about this is it put the BATFE in a legal bind. If option #1 is followed, then it violates 922(o), because you can't transfer or register post-1986 machineguns as a civilian.

If option #2 is followed, it violates due process.

I really really hope that these guys sold twenty thousand of these that the ATF now is stuck with. They can't just easily go confiscate them all, but they can't go and open the registry either.

Interesting...

Outlaws
December 12, 2006, 01:09 AM
No it's not. A real machine gun functions completely differently. Real MG's don't bumpfire and don't require a pull of the trigger for each shot (even if a pull of the trigger is achieved by letting the receiver move far enough rearward to reset it and pulled again by movement of the receiver against a stationary finger).

i am sorry, but you are wrong. It is not a machine gun by the NFA definition...and I even stated that. But the trigger is only being pulled by one movement of the finger. Just because the trigger is "technically" moving back and forth does not mean it is being "pulled" for each shot. To be "pulled" could be argued to require a physical motion of the finger for each shot fired. But the finger does not move for each shot because the action and trigger are all linked together and floated inside the rifle stock. This is not bump firing as we know it. It is based off bump firing, but if you watch a video of someone bump firing, the trigger hand is still moving greatly, even if unintentional. In the video for this gadget, the finger is stationary and only makes one "pull" with no further movement. By incorporation the "bump fire" recoil principle into the stock, it created a "mechanical" means of continuous fire....thus moving from "bump fire" into "machine gun".

Its a giant tap dance. I don't think it should be illegal, but I am just saying it isn't not a machine gun just because the NFA wasn't in the business of designing and/or finding exploits when writing their little dumba$$ law..

CanonNinja
December 12, 2006, 01:11 AM
it WAS legal until the ATF said "No, we don't like you anymore, we're changing our minds." He didn't break the law until some agency made it up as they went along.


He "broke" the law as much as the ATF did

jlbraun
December 12, 2006, 01:15 AM
@outlaws

Consider the following. Given that the BATFE considers machinegun conversion parts to be themselves machineguns, they can't arrest him for selling machineguns if the part in question isn't a machinegun.

So.

Given that the part in question is a machinegun, what to do about the (hopefully) tens of thousands of kits he sold? If they're all machineguns, the owners have to be found and told to turn them in (or get their doors knocked in). Given that the conversion part wasn't even a firearm requiring a 4473 to sell (according to the BATFE before they changed their minds), the firefaster guys likely have no sales records of who bought what.

Therefore.

There are now (hopefully) tens of thousands of now-illegal machineguns floating around that the BATFE has no idea whose hands they are in. This is likely giving them a well-deserved hissyfit. They can't just arrest the one guy and ignore the tens of thousands of new machineguns out there, it's not in their character. They could just pull credit card records and start kicking in doors, but the public backlash would be in proportion to the amount of kits sold. The best option is to open the registry, and (bingbingbing!) invalidating 922(o).

Lucky
December 12, 2006, 01:38 AM
Outlaws, how does 'creating a mechanical means of continuous fire' have any bearing? I think what you are saying, that the Atkins Accelerator was dangerously close to being a machine gun, but it wasn't, and you just want people to admit it was close.


But the fact is if the trigger is functioned for every shot, it is not an MG. The BATFE just announced that bump-firing is a machine gun. If you have a gun that can bump-fire, it's a machine-gun. You shouldn't be quibbling over whether the manufacturer was 'asking for it', you should be worried that the BATFE just declared bump-firing to be machine guns and what can be done about it, because you own semi-auto rifles that could be bump-fired and you don't want them taken away by the California Highway Patrol.

If this sets in, and is allowed to go unchallenged, what will Hillary do with it??? Your country is the bastion of firearms freedom, you can't go down like this.



http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+26USC5845

(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.
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
machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be
assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a
person.

Outlaws
December 12, 2006, 01:50 AM
Lucky, if you read the second sentence of my last post you would have seen that I said it is not a machine gun by the NFA definition, but anyone can clearly see it is a machine gun because a mechanical device (the floated action and trigger inside the stock) is what is causing the trigger to get pulled. It crossed the line from bump firing when the guy shoved a spring inside the stock to push the action and trigger forward after recoiling. This makes it automatically fire another round. Normally to bumpfire someone has to use their own force to pull forward on the rifle to make the trigger move again. This removes that.

I do not consider this bump firing as we all know (and some love). I think it is wrong of the ATF to label this a machine gun without first a change to the wording of their definition of machine gun.

Is that a bit more clear on my stance? I am not against people owning this product. I am against the ATF calling it a machine gun based on their definition.

Lucky
December 12, 2006, 02:30 AM
I understand, you think it's not technically an MG under the law, but in spirit it is. But I don't think you have evidence to support that, for what other machine gun requires the trigger to be operated for every shot?

Outlaws
December 12, 2006, 02:57 AM
I understand, you think it's not technically an MG under the law, but in spirit it is. But I don't think you have evidence to support that, for what other machine gun requires the trigger to be operated for every shot?

The ATF has specifically stated before that mechanisms that attach to the trigger and push it for you (not talking about mini gatlin cranks) are considered "machine guns". Thus, IMO, having everything floating inside the stock with a spring pushing it forward after recoil and into your finger is not a far cry from what they have already once deemed illegal...you merely hold your finger in one spot and the rifle fires. It is completely different that a normal bumpfire, even though the idea was concieved with the bumpfire as the foundation.

On another note, I saw this a while back but laughed at it because it was $1000. Now lets see how much it will be worth.

gunny1022
December 12, 2006, 02:59 AM
For $1000.00 each for a .22----doubt they sold very many.

Prince Yamato
December 12, 2006, 03:08 AM
You know why you're all complaining about this? Because it was essentially a way to invent a machinegun with a different action that was not covered in the NFA laws. I think the machinegun ban is stupid, but it would be smarter to work to overturn the existing law, rather than try to circumvent it. Circumventing makes it look like the ownership of machineguns was wrong in the first place and makes US look like the badguys instead of the BARF.

Zedicus
December 12, 2006, 03:12 AM
Ties right in with what Len Savage of Historic Arms LLC told the JPFO in an interview that the BATFE are "Reclassifying" practicaly everything just to entrap smaller manufacturers and thier customers.

this is rapidly going downhill IMHO, and it is likely only a matter of time untill we have a Repeat of Ruby Ridge/Waco, and quite possably several of them.:barf:

Lucky
December 12, 2006, 03:56 AM
Outlaws I suggest that either you go by BATFE definitions, or you don't. There's no point in explaining that it's not really an MG by definition, but it's awfully like other MGs, that aren't really MGs except by BATFE definition.

hammer4nc
December 12, 2006, 07:34 AM
When the dems won back congress in November, who was orchestrating the strategy? Chuck Schumer.

What has been Schumer's #1 overriding issue throughout his political career? Gun confiscation.

Let's say you're a career minded ATF Technical Branch Chief, or Special Agent in Charge seeking promotion. Are you more likely to be punished, or rewarded for creatively rewriting rules to ban more guns, and put gun makers out of business/in jail?

The ends justify the means. ATF has all the tools it needs (rulemaking authority) to reshape the firearms landscape, even without any new laws being passed.

We're at the edge of a new era of gun control, not unlike the start of the Clinton regime, when a stroke of the pen took out 75% of the nations ffls.

Like that announcer guy from the movies said: "A new wind was about to blow...payback; this time its for real".

Get ready.

Michael Courtney
December 12, 2006, 08:03 AM
If I understand our system of checks and balances correctly, the executive branch (BATFE) cannot make or change law by changing their opinion. The judicial branch has the role of interpreting law, so if the legislation hasn't changed (it hasn't), the ultimate determination of whether a particular device is a machine gun under the law belongs to the courts.

The BATFE's opinion is relevant only to whether they intend to prosecute an action as an offense. It should not effect the court's determination, because it should be the courts (not the BATFE) which have the ultimate authority for interpreting whether a given law really restricts a given device.

It seems that the courts are the proper venue for recourse on this one.

Michael Courtney

Molon Labe
December 12, 2006, 08:32 AM
We need to reverse our decision on creating the ATF.

Master Blaster
December 12, 2006, 08:32 AM
When wolves hunt, they circle the herd and pick off the weak one at a time.

Does the finger have to actuate the trigger once for each shot fired???
Then it is not a machine gun.


Why does it matter if the finger moves or the gun moves?
Is my belt loop and my thumb a machine gun?? After all the gun is moving when you bump fire and its a mechanical device.

All semi autos could be banned if this is allowed to stand.

buzz_knox
December 12, 2006, 08:48 AM
Ties right in with what Len Savage of Historic Arms LLC told the JPFO in an interview that the BATFE are "Reclassifying" practicaly everything just to entrap smaller manufacturers and thier customers.

Someone finally gets it. Federal agencies have a habit of "revisiting" their regulations when the political winds blow or when they want to bring another aspect of life within their control. They either determine that something should be covered, or find that a subject was always covered by the regs, even if they had previously claimed it wasn't. EPA did this with New Source Reviews in order to bring fossil fuel powerplants with "unauthorized modifications" within greater restrictions (and forcing them to pay hefty fines to the gov't for noncompliance). It didn't matter that EPA itself had reviewed the mods when they were being considered and found NSR didn't apply. They ignored that ruling and said it had always applied.

ATFE is even worse. The agency is known for stating a requirement called for A, and after years of compliance, stating that B was the correct answer. Dealers either tried to fix the problem, quit, or got rolled up in one of ATFE's operations. That was a technique they used to bust several dealers in Ohio some years ago: create a paperwork violation and then bust one dealer, and use that dealer to bust several others.

As for those who possess these items, I'm sure ATFE will happily accept the devices being turned in rather than prosecute the individuals. Currently, they are in the same position as anyone else who owns an unregistered machine gun: they didn't come into possession knowingly, but they are maintaining possession with constructive knowledge of the law.

LAK
December 12, 2006, 09:11 AM
coltrane679The ATF (actually the BATFE) is an agency of the Dept. of Justice--it is in the executive branch. If Bush wanted a change there it would happen. He and his people just don't care. After six years of ATF antics under this adminstration, that should be obvious enough to everybody. Quit searching around for scapegoats. The buck is supposed to stop at the top--there's just no one home up there.
It is amazing how many people still think that agencies of the Executive Branch are somehow "autonomous" and that there is some mystical hand that prevents the President of the United States from acting directly - exercizing absolute control via direct order to the highest ranking person of the agency - over any aspect of their operations, regulations, etc. Or even to eliminate them as an agency with the stroke of a pen.

G W Bush is a complete fraud; as are his cronies in both "parties". He is a frontman - just like his fraternal brother Kerry.

-----------------------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

fourays2
December 12, 2006, 09:30 AM
GWB could end all this right now if he chose to.

buzz_knox
December 12, 2006, 09:46 AM
If I understand our system of checks and balances correctly, the executive branch (BATFE) cannot make or change law by changing their opinion.

Not quite. Congress passes laws which tend to be somewhat vague. The agencies responsible for implementing said laws have the authority to create the implementing regulations and intepret them. Courts given considerable latitude to the agencies and the agencies' interpretations of the regulations. Basically, courts don't like telling the creator of the regulation what it means, absent clear and convincing evidence.

LAR-15
December 12, 2006, 09:48 AM
[In retrospective; it is amazing how little actually got done for the gun owners in the last 12 years. Even the AWB expiration was actually the result of no action, not a deliberate reversal.


DELIBERATE no action.

By the Republican House Leadership

brufener
December 12, 2006, 09:50 AM
The BATFE's opinion is relevant only to whether they intend to prosecute an action as an offense. It should not effect the court's determination, because it should be the courts (not the BATFE) which have the ultimate authority for interpreting whether a given law really restricts a given device.

I agree that the BATFE's opinion shouldn't affect the court's opinion, but in reality it does. Agency decisions receive deference when they are challenged in federal court. Hence the person challenging the agency's decision has to show that the agency's decision was "arbitrary and capricious" or that the decision was "unsupported by substantial evidence" (depends on how the agency made the decision). These standards of deference give any agency a legup on the challenger.

Keith Wheeler
December 12, 2006, 09:57 AM
If option #2 is followed, it violates due process.

And the BATFE would never ever violate due process. :rolleyes: Don't we wish it were that easy?

Congress passes laws which tend to be somewhat vague. The agencies responsible for implementing said laws have the authority to create the implementing regulations and intepret them. Courts given considerable latitude to the agencies and the agencies' interpretations of the regulations. Basically, courts don't like telling the creator of the regulation what it means, absent clear and convincing evidence.

Exactly, and we end with the stupidity of 922(r). Congress says you can't import non-sporting firearms. So folks import parts and build them on US made receivers, which for decades the ATF has interpreted as being "the gun" as far as the law is concerned. Well, then the ATF comes up with their own regulations on how many US/import parts it takes to determine if the gun is US made or imported, which are byzantine and could easily turn someone trying to follow the letter of the law into a felon with one minor part mistake. That's part of the problem -- some ATF regulations are not federal law! The ATF has the dangerous task of both interpreting and enforcing federal firearms laws, and since the laws are vague (or become vague in actual practice), the ATF then creates regulations...which they can then change when they see fit.

A lot of us wing-nut NFA types were making noise when the whole Len Savage thing went down....but the duck hunters think only weirdos want machine guns, how could it hurt them?

deadin
December 12, 2006, 10:17 AM
To the “Bump-Fire” freaks and those too cheap to buy a real Full Auto.
Did you really think that by circumventing the letter of the law on what is a machine gun would cause the Feds to pack up and go home?

Thank you for marking a clear path to make my semi-auto illegal.:barf:

LAR-15
December 12, 2006, 12:31 PM
For a guy in Washington, you can't own machineguns.

:rolleyes:

Coronach
December 12, 2006, 12:37 PM
All semi autos could be banned if this is allowed to stand.An interesting logical leap. What semi-auto has this decision caused to be banned so far?

I see the point, but I want to cut through the breathless hyperbole. The ATF has ruled that a mechanical contraption violates the NFA by creating a machinegun, and does so on dubious legal grounds. OK, I'm down with the objections surrounding that. However, when the ATF did so it did not rule the host gun to be illicit, merely the contraption attached to it. There is a logical step that is required before one bans semi-autos based upon this decision, and a fairly sizable one at that.

That is not to say that the ATF should not be called on its decision. It should. The letter of the law seems pretty plain to me, one would think that a court case could get it resolved in our favor.

Mike

deadin
December 12, 2006, 12:38 PM
It's not that big a deal to me. If it were, I would move to Oregon and buy a legal one.

quatin
December 12, 2006, 12:52 PM
:confused: I'm confused. It seems like firefaster just puts on an alternate stock that pretty much shakes the gun inside the stock when you pull the trigger? That looks like an automatic to me, except it has a different internal mechanism. It seems like it should be treated as an automatic since it's handled like an automatic. So why the balk? Is it that it shouldn't be catagorized as an automatic or that we shouldn't have the automatic ban in the first place?

jlbraun
December 12, 2006, 01:00 PM
@quatin

Both. The stock is simply a bumpfiring device. It is not a machinegun in any way, shape, or form. The trigger is still pulled once for each shot.

Malum Prohibitum
December 12, 2006, 01:02 PM
Has anybody read the links in the original post? There is no evidence of the ATF changing its mind on this.

:scrutiny:

Really - read it. They got the opinion of a well respected firearms attorney, not the ATF. He said that if the Hellfire POS rip off gimick was acceptable to the ATF, then the Akin's Accelerator should be acceptable, and listed some good reasons why.

Well, it was not acceptable

Does anyone have any evidence that the ATF changed their mind on this overly-expensive device that could be used only on 10/22s?

quatin
December 12, 2006, 01:02 PM
But aren't there 2 triggers? One internal and one external? One that you use like a trigger with your finger and one that's inside the gun and really is a mechanism that you don't have control over? I can't look at the details anymore since they took down their site...

cslinger
December 12, 2006, 01:03 PM
Quatin,

It is a little of both. First I think the ban on full auto is wrong. I have no desire to own them but I don't think the regulation is useful and a waste of time and money.

It is also the fact that by the letter of the law the AA stock is not illegal. Yes it basically skins the automatic fire cat another way but there are no laws against doing what was done and initially the ATF rightfully saw it that way. Suddenly the ATF basically changes their mind possibly putting a business owner out of business, putting any buyers on pins and needles and possibly robbing them of their 1K if the stocks are confiscated etc.

My take is the ATF suddenly realized that this can be applied to any number of firearms and suddenly the MG ban kind of becomes moot in a way. It was a legal loophole but a LEGAL one none the less.

cslinger
December 12, 2006, 01:04 PM
Read the paper trail, the BATFE had sent letters to Tom explicitly stating that it was LEGAL by the definition of the law.

AmbulanceDriver
December 12, 2006, 01:09 PM
I think the real issue (at least for me) is as follows. It's not whether or not the "Akins Accellerator" is an NFA item or not. The back and forth on that could tie up this forum for a long time....

Here's the issue though. The ATF originally declared this item to be perfectly legal for us plebes to own. Then, x amount of time later, they decide, "Ya know, we changed our minds. We don't want you plebes to own this nasty nasty evil device after all. It's now an NFA item."

Never mind that you have a written opinion from them that says "this is perfectly legal for the plebes without any of the NFA transfer issues, or the machine gun registry issues". Never mind that this person has invested x amount of capital into developing, testing, building, marketing, and distributing this item. Never mind that this might possibly bankrupt this company. We are the .gov, and we can change our minds whenever we wish, regardless of the consequences to those who make a living according to our decisions. [snooty british accent]We are not bothered by such things.[/snooty british accent]

Outlaws
December 12, 2006, 01:15 PM
:banghead:

DigitalWarrior
December 12, 2006, 01:17 PM
Jerry Pournelle calls this anarchotyranny. Petty red-tape rulers

DrDremel
December 12, 2006, 01:23 PM
The two issues are as follows.
First, The law says one pull of the trigger, one round fired does not equal a machinegun. This did not "find a loop hole" It followed the letter of the law.

Second and even more important is this.
ATF was sent one of these, tested it and determined that it was not a machinegun almost a year ago! Now ATF wants to change it's mind. This is pure incompentence on the part of ATF. ATF told this company that they agreed it was not a machinegun. Now that it is selling after considerable investments have been made, they want it banned because they realize that this may become popular and pretty soon everyone will have one. ATF does not like firearms in the hands of the subjects. Democrat control of Congress gives them the feeling that they can do whatever they want.

Malum Prohibitum
December 12, 2006, 01:26 PM
Read the paper trail, the BATFE had sent letters to Tom explicitly stating that it was LEGAL by the definition of the law.


WHAT paper trail?

Link?

:confused:

kd7nqb
December 12, 2006, 01:27 PM
How does this work for people who currently own it?

Malum Prohibitum
December 12, 2006, 01:27 PM
Here's the issue though. The ATF originally declared this item to be perfectly legal for us plebes to own.

They did? :confused: Look, I am not calling you a liar; Maybe they did! But would you please show it to me?

jlbraun
December 12, 2006, 01:29 PM
@Malum Prohibitum
http://www.firefaster.com/documentation.html

Outlaws
December 12, 2006, 01:31 PM
I am trying to look this with an open mind. Maybe its a good thing it gets banned. Hold up...stay with me for a second. Would you rather it gets banned, or in 2 years when Emperor Hilary takes charge, someone comes out and says, "Here is a semi automatic weapon. Here is this completely legal kit. Here is this completely legal kit on this completely legal semi-automatic weapon. (start Hilary drill sgt voice) Now its a MACHINE GUN! 5 minutes in a shop and MILLIONS of so-called hunting rifles are military style weapons!"

I understand no one wants to sacrific a little liberty for a little security, but we also need to look at all outcomes. I don't think the ATF is going to push for a ban on semi-autos because of this thing (they would do it reguardless), but I can see it staying legal and causing 100x more trouble in a year or two. :cool:

wacki
December 12, 2006, 01:32 PM
link to nongimped webpage

http://www.firefaster.com/pics_video.html

videos of device.

Coronach
December 12, 2006, 01:40 PM
@Malum Prohibitum
http://www.firefaster.com/documentation.html That seems to be a letter giving the official opinion of a privately-retained lawyer as to whether or not he thought it complied with federal law. It is not from the BATFE.

Mike

Edit Oops! There's more down the screen. My bad! Stand by...

Ok. Well, there is still some ambiguity there, but very little of it indeed, and most of it centering around the malfunctioning prototype. That, however, seems to be moot. So, the ATF approved the design, then changed it? OK...did they give a rationale as to why?

deadin
December 12, 2006, 01:44 PM
I'm not pulling the cat's tail! I'm just holding it and the cat's doing the pulling. = I'm not pulling the trigger, the trigger is pushing off on my finger. Bottom line... The gun is continously firing without any further input from the shooter other than the original trigger pull. Sounds like FA to me.:evil:

jlbraun
December 12, 2006, 01:48 PM
http://www.firefaster.com/BATFETech2P1.GIF
http://www.firefaster.com/BATFETech2P2.GIF

DigitalWarrior
December 12, 2006, 01:48 PM
Conarch, read the whole thing, there are actually two letters from the BATFE on their letterhead both from the Chief of the Firearms Technology Branch,

Lucky
December 12, 2006, 02:07 PM
I'm not even in your country and I know that it's bad what happened to this guy, and am sending an email of moral support. I think it's pretty pathetic how people are helping to justify ATF's actions.




Bottom line... The gun is continously firing without any further input from the shooter other than the original trigger pull. Sounds like FA to me.


Wow, that's convincing. The definition of FA that you just made up with no authority whatsoever co-incidentally supports your opinion!


Outlaws- or should I say Mr. Ruger, your tolerance for abuse of others is quite human and quite common, but it's not a positive trait.

Malum Prohibitum
December 12, 2006, 02:09 PM
I do not know why those three letters at the bottom did not come up before, but Tom Bowers is not Mr. Akins. Is this the same device?

Isn't Tom Bowers the guy that runs the Politically Incorrect Machine Gun Page?

Outlaws
December 12, 2006, 02:10 PM
Outlaws- or should I say Mr. Ruger, your tolerance for abuse of others is quite human and quite common, but it's not a positive trait.

Hey buddy, I have stated before in a lot of threads that I fully support full auto. I just don't like people trying to work around the laws, because when they get the spot light on them, it looks like they were doing something wrong....and in the case of circumventing the FA laws, this guy could have screwed us all. Refusing to call a spade a spade is not a positive trait either. ;)

Smurfslayer
December 12, 2006, 02:37 PM
Why on earth anyone would need to ask a question like this:

Can anyone tell me what possible legitimate reason you'd need something like that

jlbraun
December 12, 2006, 02:37 PM
@outlaws

BS. This guy didn't circumvent anything. He got multiple letters FROM THE BATFE saying his device was legal. His device is totally legal and within the law. It is not a machinegun in any sense of the word as the law is written. Need I say it again?

Not a machinegun.

Not a machinegun.

Not a machinegun.

And no, you can't just say "I know a machinegun when I see one!" That breaks the rule of law and creates capricious enforcement. This device is not a machinegun, nor is it machinegun conversion parts. Period, done, end of story.

deadin
December 12, 2006, 02:37 PM
The definition of FA that you just made up with no authority whatsoever co-incidentally supports your opinion

You said it all. It's just my "opinion" and needs no basis or authority at all. My "opinion" is based on the intent of the law, not necessarily on the letter of the law. As stated by others, all I can see coming out of this are changes in the letter of the law to bring it more into alignment with the intent of the law. Unfortunately the changes may involve much more pain than we already are suffering.

PromptCritical
December 12, 2006, 02:39 PM
Malum Prohibitum
I do not know why those three letters at the bottom did not come up before, but Tom Bowers is not Mr. Akins. Is this the same device?

Isn't Tom Bowers the guy that runs the Politically Incorrect Machine Gun Page?

Tom Bowers is president of The Akins Group. Bill Akins designed and patented the device, but Bowers is the guy who is selling them.

Bowers also is a 07/02 SOT who mostly makes suppressors, and also owns SubGuns.com.

Outlaws
December 12, 2006, 02:42 PM
BS. This guy didn't circumvent anything. He got multiple letters FROM THE BATFE saying his device was legal. His device is totally legal and within the law. It is not a machinegun in any sense of the word as the law is written. Need I say it again?

Then why didn't he just get a full auto 10/22? Oh wait, because those are illegal. So he had to work around it. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Oh wait, for the follow up, "You just admitted that this contraption isn't full auto."
Right. I know. Its all a bunch of technicalities that a group of lawyers will sort out...assuming the Dems don't first.

The Grand Inquisitor
December 12, 2006, 02:45 PM
There is a whole mess of things that are going on within this thread, but the two things I am most interested in are the questions of what is going to happen to the owners of this device if it is really defined as NFA?


Also, I really am constantly amazed at the undying, unsupported love many people have for the GOP and all of the incompetants within it, and the undying fear these same people have of the pathetic incompetants in the Democratic Party.

Both of these political parties have shown themselves to be corrupt, petty, childish, and most of all, dangerous, yet still, millions of Americans swear allegiance to these gluttonous wastes.

With the advent of highly biased news and talk radio, (Air America, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, et al.) it seems tome that most people treat the politcal parties like sports teams - rooting for one passionately while waiting for the other to fall on its face---never mind thay sometimes the fall on the face includes trouble for themselves.

We have too much of our individual ego's inversted in these pathetic parties; the people who run them are not representative of "we the people". In fact, they are aristocratic and oligarchic. People came down hard on fish-face Kerry for being married to a billionare, but they flatly ignored the fact G.W. Bush is the son of a billionare who happens to be one of the most powerful and corrupt men on the planet. G.W. Bush wasn't born in a small west Texas town, he was born and raised in New Haven, Conneticut with the sons of other powerful billionaires.

That said, I just don't see the BATFE giving in on this thing - I think that they forsee a future full of stock and reciever devices that will basically make most any gun a "machine gun". Even if this thing is prevented by the courts from being banned outright, I can't imagine that anyone is going to do much to put pressure on the BATFE to stop doing what it does.

Most everyone in politics learned a powerful leason in 1994 - one of the major reasons for the "Republican Revolution" in 1994 was the AWB and other Clinton era anti-gun bills. When hundreds of Congress-things and Senators lost their jobs because of this, they learned that guns were a thing best left alone, or left to closed door, last minute sessions.

That's why the AWB was allowed to expire - no one wants to take a risk on guns ---support them and you get labeled a nut case extremist, and if you try to grab them you get labelled a gun grabbing extremist. There just is not any middle ground anymore.

jlbraun
December 12, 2006, 02:54 PM
"That's why the AWB was allowed to expire - no one wants to take a risk on guns ---support them and you get labeled a nut case extremist, and if you try to grab them you get labelled a gun grabbing extremist. There just is not any middle ground anymore."

Exactly. That why there haven't been any states that went shall-issue since 1994. Because no one wants to support CCW and be labeled a "nut case extremist".

Right.

:banghead:

LAR-15
December 12, 2006, 03:20 PM
It's not a machine gun under Federal law.

I hope this will be fought out.

Henry Bowman
December 12, 2006, 03:21 PM
There just is not any middle ground anymore.Call me an extremist, but there really never was. What would be the middle ground? Half way between what the Constitution says and what they wish it said?

LAR-15
December 12, 2006, 03:22 PM
Ummmmmmmmm the Republican leadership TOOK RISKS in letting the 1993-1994 AWB sunset.

They (PARTICULARLY TOM DELAY) got savaged by the drive by media.

But they let it sunset. :evil:

Guess what?

The Republicans gained seats in 2004 even though they let the ban SUNSET totally.

Outlaws
December 12, 2006, 03:47 PM
Ummmmmmmmm the Republican leadership TOOK RISKS in letting the 1993-1994 AWB sunset.

They (PARTICULARLY TOM DELAY) got savaged by the drive by media.

But they let it sunset.

Guess what?

The Republicans gained seats in 2004 even though they let the ban SUNSET totally.

Yep. And even though Regan gets the blame for the '86 ban, the law he signed wasn't devoted to that. It was to limit the ATF's power that hadn't been made clear in the '68 GCA. We can thank (D) Rep. Charlie Rangel for the lines of text that limit registration to LE and Military. He got it on the bill in the middle of the night and there are reports that it was objected to but attached anyways.

LAR-15
December 12, 2006, 03:52 PM
Rangel is still there and WILL CHAIR THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE NEXT YEAR.

WAYS AND MEANS= CONTROLS NFA ISSUES

:(

Caimlas
December 12, 2006, 05:32 PM
This is just the BATFE playing the "spirit of the law, not the letter of the law" game. Unfortunately, they also play the "letter of the law" game to the dotted "I". They're trying to get you both ways, basically by redefining what a trigger is.

bamawrx
December 12, 2006, 08:48 PM
Edit.

I will wait to see what happens before I comment.

Wes Janson
December 12, 2006, 09:23 PM
That said, I just don't see the BATFE giving in on this thing - I think that they forsee a future full of stock and reciever devices that will basically make most any gun a "machine gun". Even if this thing is prevented by the courts from being banned outright, I can't imagine that anyone is going to do much to put pressure on the BATFE to stop doing what it does.

I concur. I spoke with either Tom or Bill (don't remember which) and he mentioned their future plans...one wonders if the ATF didn't **** a brick upon realizing the intent to expand beyond just .22 LR. Or maybe this really is just a political ploy related to the upcoming change of hands in Congress.

Or maybe someone woke up and decided it had been too long since they'd done something monumentally stupid and wrong.

DoubleTapDrew
December 12, 2006, 10:04 PM
When we are done bashing both political parties maybe we can figure out who we can contact to find out why the ATF is allowed to ignore the law and what is going to happen. I hope this thread doesn't die because this is a very disturbing trend and it's not getting any media attention I've seen (big surprise).
To outlaw the stock they need to redefine the whole "single function of the trigger" (not of the finger, as others have mentioned) issue, and I sure hope they don't have the power to redefine laws at will.

Zedicus
December 12, 2006, 10:36 PM
Here are 2 Interviews the JPFO did with Lenn Savage, the main one is the 2nd one but it is recommended to read/listen to the first before so that you know what they are talking about in the 2nd.

These are rellavant to this issue as it is a case of the BATFE doing the same exact thing.

Interview 1 Mp3 (http://www.jpfo.org/tta051101.mp3)
Interview 1 Transcript (http://www.jpfo.org/tta051101.htm)

Interview 2 Mp3 (http://www.jpfo.org/TTA20060508.mp3)
Interview 2 Transcript (http://www.jpfo.org/tta060508.htm)

I will save my comments for after some of you have red/listened to these.

Prince Yamato
December 13, 2006, 03:15 AM
I'm with Outlaws on this. I think by trying to circumvent the law, we make ourselves look guilty. I too am a fan of machineguns, but running so close to the thin line between legal rapid fire and felony was pretty stupid.

Yes, I know, it all comes down to personal freedom, but honestly, we should just push for full-auto legality and reopening of the NFA registry. Why settle for the Accelerator?

dave_pro2a
December 13, 2006, 03:27 AM
It's not illegal to drive 55, if the speed limit is 55.

It's not illegal to take advantage of tax write offs and deductions, if they are properly codified and documented.

In states that allow private transfers (no FFL paperwork) there's no "gun show loophole."

Don't buy into the anti's logic patterns.

What akins did was legal, they followed the law, as written and interperted by the BATFE.

The BATFE was out of line when they arbirarily changed their ruling -- especially in light of the fact the item was already in production and being sold based on their testing and written determiniation.

Akins SUBMITTED the damn unit to the BATFE prior to production and GOT approval... how much more right can they be.

There's no loophole, there is just some ingenious engineering, and frankly I admire the heck out of it.

.gov is running amok again.

gunsmith
December 13, 2006, 04:19 AM
before, so I could have bought one.

romma
December 13, 2006, 11:41 AM
Imagine what the founding Fathers would have said if you told them this: "One day in the future, there will guns that can fire hundreds of of rounds per minute, but the government you are creating right now will also forbid those guns from everyone but the government themselves." What would our founding Fathers think?

buzz_knox
December 13, 2006, 11:50 AM
I'm with Outlaws on this. I think by trying to circumvent the law, we make ourselves look guilty. I too am a fan of machineguns, but running so close to the thin line between legal rapid fire and felony was pretty stupid

It would be real helpful if people would stick to the facts. They didn't circumvent the laws. They went to ATFE and confirmed that this item was not illegal. ATFE said they didn't circumvent the laws. ATFE then changed its opinion that it circumvented the laws. ATFE thus not only reversed their opinion, but also their established precedent on this issue.

So, rather than discuss the situation as it never existed except in the minds of a few who want to find fault with the manufacturer, let's stick to the facts at they actually are.

Spreadfire Arms
December 13, 2006, 11:58 AM
the most unfortunate thing is that the company who makes the Akins Accelerator will most likely go belly up.

they will have to fight a very expensive legal battle for the rest of the NFA community, one which they will probably not win unless they spend alot of money.

if they do not win, or don't pursue it, they will have to probably refund every Akins Accelerator sold.

their product will only be a valid "post 86 dealer sample" if this is not won in court, and i think law enforcement has a very limited demand on full auto 10/22's.

their investors will lose their money too.

so the question is, are all of the persons who own an Akins Accelerator currently in possession of an unregistered machine gun, or unregistered machine gun conversion part? i wonder if their Akins Accelerators will be confiscated by ATF, deemed contraband, and the owners will lose their investment? wow. sure glad i didnt get one.

jlbraun
December 13, 2006, 02:42 PM
OK, what about getting the NRA, GOA, or JPFO involved? Is there a legal defense fund?

Prince Yamato
December 13, 2006, 02:47 PM
I don't believe any current owners of the Accelerator have anything to fear. I forget which ammendment it is, but isn't the law (summarized):

Once an item is legally owned and then declared illegal, the current owners are automatically grandfathered. So if the item was bought legally, the current owners have to be grandfathered.

examples: Streetsweepers, Pintos, Lawn Darts (Jarts).

Orin
December 13, 2006, 02:53 PM
OK, what about getting the NRA, GOA, or JPFO involved? Is there a legal defense fund?

You can forget the NRA's help with this - Unless you can buy the gun at Wal-Mart they don't want to have anything to do with it!! :banghead:

Orin

buzz_knox
December 13, 2006, 02:53 PM
No, the law doesn't require grandfathering. Items that are declared illegal to possess will either be surrendered or the individuals prosecuted. The Street Sweepers and USAS-12s were registered as destructive devices because 1) ATFE didn't want the political fallout from confiscation; and 2) registration of destructive devices is still legal. Congress has barred any further registration of civilian owned automatic weapons, so grandfathering is prohibited.

And remember that this isn't a case of something being declared illegal after the fact. ATFE's position is that the items were machineguns when made, and thus were illegal when purchased. The agency just failed to recognize the crime that was being committed.

PromptCritical
December 13, 2006, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by all those who say the Akins was a bad idea:
"No, please don't sit at the lunch counter! You're gonna get us ALL in trouble!"

I'm riding in the front of the bus.

buzz_knox
December 13, 2006, 02:55 PM
You can forget the NRA's help with this - Unless you can buy the gun at Wal-Mart they don't want to have anything to do with it!!

Orin

Really? So the NRA didn't push to get kill the manufacturer's liability protection bill when the AWB renewal was attached as an amendment? They didn't help at all in convincing Congress not to extend the ban of these weapons, which if memory serves have never been sold in a Wal-Mart?

Orin
December 13, 2006, 03:13 PM
Buzz - I was probably a little over the top with the comment regarding the NRA but I really doubt that you'll see them getting involved with this issue.

Have you seen the recent letter from the NRA regarding their thoughts on the ATF? http://www.jpfo.org/alert20061211.htm

Regards,
Orin

Keith Wheeler
December 13, 2006, 03:20 PM
I don't believe any current owners of the Accelerator have anything to fear. I forget which ammendment it is,

You're joking, right? This is an agency that has had people arrested and tried for a federal felony that carries a 10 year imprisonment and $250k fine for having a broken AR-15.

Count me as one of those that says "pay heed ye of the NRA that turn a blind eye to the NFA, for what has happened to us shall happen to your hunting rifle."

Please note: I'm not saying "the NRA is bad". But lets be honest here. The NRA avoids dealing with the whole NFA issue. Sure, they have a right to choose their battles. But the NRA has never been the friend of "stamp collectors". No, they're not the enemy either. But ignoring NFA issues, IMHO, is paving the path for the restriction of all semi autos.

Does the NRA have an official policy statement with regards to the NFA and private ownership of NFA items?

Outlaws
December 13, 2006, 03:21 PM
I hope the company goes out of business just because his product was over priced. Nothing wrong with a little markup, but its a stock when you cut to the chase. Even the highest quality wood stocks for a 10/22 sell for $500. So this is a plastic stock(most of those are like under $200 retail), with 2 rails and a spring. Yep, gotta sell it for $1000.

And to all the people that can't read posts before commenting on a post, I already said it doesn't fit the NFA definition. But my point was that for all intended purpose, it is a machine gun. See, there was only one real basic principle to the operation of a machine gun in 1934, and that is what got tossed into the law. But people are smart and think outside the box. If someone said a train was defined as a multiple box cars pulled with a metal coupler that connects with a C shaped hook, then would we not call any future trains "trains" if someone devised a magnetic system to replace the metal coupler?

Look, the spring this guy added AUTOMATICALLY pushes the trigger INTO your finger FOR YOU. Its two ways to get to the same place, just like there is more than one way to skin a cat.

Lucky
December 13, 2006, 03:29 PM
I'm with Outlaws on this. I think by trying to circumvent the law, we make ourselves look guilty. I too am a fan of machineguns, but running so close to the thin line between legal rapid fire and felony was pretty stupid.

Yes, I know, it all comes down to personal freedom, but honestly, we should just push for full-auto legality and reopening of the NFA registry. Why settle for the Accelerator?


I hope you don't load your magazines fully, but leave a few cartridges out so as not to 'push the limits'.

I think you should thank this guy, he's the front-line in your fight, and if he loses then the line gets re-drawn. And when the next guy gets in trouble, and you don't support him, the line will get re-drawn again. It's really very very predictable.




Look, the spring this guy added AUTOMATICALLY pushes the trigger INTO your finger FOR YOU. Its two ways to get to the same place.


Dude, do us a favour and re-write the law the way you see it in your head. Now look at what you've written, and realize that it makes bump-firing illegal.



And with regular bump-firing it's muscle-tension that AUTOMATICALLY pushes the trigger INTO your finger FOR YOU.

Ergo every rifle that can be bump-fired is a machine gun. If you attached a spring from your torso to the handguard, it would do the same thing as the illegal machine gun Akins stock. Ergo if you use your muscles to replace the spring, you're trying to circumvent the spirit of the definition of machine gun.

No mercy for you! Your SKS is a machine gun, turn it over felon!

LAR-15
December 13, 2006, 03:32 PM
I wonder what Chuck Schumer thinks of this?

buzz_knox
December 13, 2006, 03:40 PM
Buzz - I was probably a little over the top with the comment regarding the NRA but I really doubt that you'll see them getting involved with this issue.

Have you seen the recent letter from the NRA regarding their thoughts on the ATF? http://www.jpfo.org/alert20061211.htm


I've read the letter. And the letter is spot on given that the NRA has been trying to work with the system as is, recognizing that the best that can be achieved is getting ATFE reigned in, not eliminated.

You need to understand that right now, there is a major turf war going on between pro-RKBA organizations. Instead of getting members to work with all the organizations, some are trying to drum up support by drumming on the NRA. "Flock to us and we will protect you" is the cry, yet these organizations haven't done much protecting, at least not in comparison to the NRA.

JPFO does a lot of good, as does the NRA. Unfortunately, both of them screw up at times, and the current grudge match going on is not particularly helpful.

As for NFA items, there is an organization (whose name escapes me) that has been fighting the NFA battle for a while and being quite successful, including making ATFE back down on some issues, and working with ATFE to get others resolved. Hopefully, they will get involved.

buzz_knox
December 13, 2006, 03:42 PM
And to all the people that can't read posts before commenting on a post, I already said it doesn't fit the NFA definition. But my point was that for all intended purpose, it is a machine gun.

As stated above, based on your usage of the term, every weapon which can be bumpfired (including a Mateba revolver) would constitute a machine gun. So, do you really want to keep arguing for an expansion of the term that would ban all autoloading weapons . . . and even one type of revolver?

Machine gun is a term of art, just like "assault weapon." Items that do not meet the legal description do not fit within the category. I presume that you do not own any firearms made during the AWB era that had cosmetic changes to get around the ban. If you did during the ban, how dare you risk all our rights by circumventing the AWB!

Keith Wheeler
December 13, 2006, 03:43 PM
And to all the people that can't read posts before commenting on a post, I already said it doesn't fit the NFA definition. But my point was that for all intended purpose, it is a machine gun. See, there was only one real basic principle to the operation of a machine gun in 1934, and that is what got tossed into the law. But people are smart and think outside the box.

There are guns that function only in semi-auto that the ATF has declared to "readily convertible" to full-auto, so, they too, are "machine guns". Even though as built they will only fire one shot per trigger pull.

In addition to showing ignorance of the wide array of fully automatic weaponry available by 1934, from submachine-guns to automatic cannon, you are failing to see the the danger in the ATF constantly declaring more and more items that aren't machine guns as being them. Eventually if you own a semi-auto and a dremel tool it will be possible to find you guilty of "constructive possession" of a machine gun. By kowtowing to their heavy handed intrepretations of the law you are making it more likely that they declare anything that "could" be a machinegun as one.

Perhaps what you are claiming is rational, if you accept the current state of the law as rational, but think about where you could be steering the entire RKBA.

Outlaws
December 13, 2006, 03:46 PM
And with regular bump-firing it's muscle-tension that AUTOMATICALLY pushes the trigger INTO your finger FOR YOU.

Ergo every rifle that can be bump-fired is a machine gun. If you attached a spring from your torso to the handguard, it would do the same thing as the illegal machine gun Akins stock. Ergo if you use your muscles to replace the spring, you're trying to circumvent the spirit of the definition of machine gun.

No mercy for you! Your SKS is a machine gun, turn it over felon!

Yes, muscle tension is what seperates it from the spring which makes it into a machine.

DoubleTapDrew
December 13, 2006, 03:47 PM
I'm surprised at the number of people here that are agreeing with the ATF.
The ATF also decided the Akins violated the "spirit" of the law (keeping MG's out of the hands of us peons).
I guess we'll have to start registering our fingers or turn them in since "single function of the trigger" should now be changed to "single function of the finger" by you people.

Outlaws
December 13, 2006, 04:00 PM
Some of "you people" need to pull your head out of the sand and see that I didn't say the ATF was a good thing. I merely stated that this guy found a new way to make a firearm fully automatic.

Cut my fingers off if you want, but leave the middle one so your guys have something to look at.

dave_pro2a
December 13, 2006, 04:07 PM
Damn batfe apologists. :fire: :evil:

quatin
December 13, 2006, 04:11 PM
Some of "you people" need to pull your head out of the sand and see that I didn't say the ATF was a good thing. I merely stated that this guy found a new way to make a firearm fully automatic.

Now that I read the FAQ for atkins. They found a loophole. It's a legal loophole, but it's a loophole none the less. It defeats the whole purpose of having the law in the first place. It's the NFAs fault for ever giving the go ahead in the first place. What a big mess....

Ranger 40
December 13, 2006, 04:25 PM
This is about what is to come. The Dems are back, and they are going to go after every firearm they can. The Dems passed the first firearms laws in the south after 1865. They have for years had a plank in their party platform on this issue. If you think they are not a danger you have been asleep for most of your life.

Pres. Johnson a rabid antiguner passed the first mean bills in 1968. He saved the usless Alcohol Tobacco Tax cops by adding firearms to their duty. They were in the process of being disbanded at the time. Pres. Carter, Clinton, well you should know about them. They were all Southern Liberals from the new South?? If you add the Northern Libs. Shumer and his kind, and you don't think the Dems are danger. That light in the tunnel is a train.:(

dave_pro2a
December 13, 2006, 04:30 PM
"Loophole" is a term/tool of the antis to pass more restrictive laws. http://www.flashbunny.org/content/loophole.html

Akins took advantage of no loophole. There was no section of law/code that enabled them to legally create a machine gun even though the creation of a machine guns is against the law. All they did was invent a device that enables a semi-automatic rifle to fire at a fast rate, while OBEYING all aspects of the law (full trigger reset between shots).

.gov cannot say 'you violated the spirit of the law.' That is total bs. What they really mean is that we regret doing such a crappy job writing the law, so instead of adhering to just, due process we're just going to enforce the law as we wished we had written it. That means we might enforce it one way this month, and a different way next month. No you can't anticipate how we'll enforce it, sorry, that's because we've abandoned following the actual letter of the law.

Don't buy into this loophole crap. Next you'll be saying "gee, maybe there is something to this gunshow loophole stuff that Feinswien and the brady camp always talks about." Don't think like an anti.

cslinger
December 13, 2006, 04:58 PM
I hope the company goes out of business just because his product was over priced.

Nice attitude. Lets wish ill will on the company and folks just because of his pricing. Lets not consider research and development, BATFE examinations, labor, parts, and the fact that it is a very niche product. Besides if the product really was overpriced it simply wouldn't sell, its not like he was selling insulin. Geez gun folks really are a fragmented group. No wonder we cannot get anywhere.

Once again I cannot understand how people can not see that one day a ruling like this, will come back to bite every gun owner. Maybe not now, maybe not in 10 years but eventually if we allow creative interpretation of law it will come back to bite us. It is not different then me going to get a drivers license, passing my tests, getting my license, driving for a year and then having the state say.....on second thought we don't think you should have passed those tests, so no more driving for you. Turn in your keys.

Disgusts me actually.

Outlaws
December 13, 2006, 05:17 PM
Once again I cannot understand how people can not see that one day a ruling like this, will come back to bite every gun owner. Maybe not now, maybe not in 10 years but eventually if we allow creative interpretation of law it will come back to bite us. It is not different then me going to get a drivers license, passing my tests, getting my license, driving for a year and then having the state say.....on second thought we don't think you should have passed those tests, so no more driving for you. Turn in your keys.

:D
Our government spends all day everyday banning stuff. Its all gonna get banned sooner or later, and the sooner the government gets around to a flat out gun ban the sooner we can get down to business. (insert revolution icon)

LAR-15
December 13, 2006, 06:34 PM
Machine gun is a term defined by LAW.

The BATFE cannot make up a regulation to define 'machine gun' as they did to define the term 'pistol' for implementing the NFA and GCA.

Machine gun has been defined in Federal law since 1934 and even since 1932 when dealing with Washington DC

EasternShore
December 13, 2006, 06:36 PM
Definition of a machine:

http://m-w.com/dictionary/machine

.govs exact wording:

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.
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
machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be
assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a
person.

Ok I am gonna get flamed here but Outlaw has been right all along. Under the wording of the law the original interpertation of the NFA was incorrect. Read the bold again.

read it again aloud...

now muscle tension does not count as a part of a modification or conversion. However setting a firearm in a new part (ie stock) with parts to increase the rate of fire and only have the operator of the weapon make one movement means, machine.

This does not mean semi-automatics will get banned. It means a HUMAN OR HUMANS made a mistake on the original decsion.

But I guess on THR no mistake has ever been made.

LAR-15
December 13, 2006, 06:43 PM
Person from Maryland's Eastern Shore you are not making any sense.

:confused:

EasternShore
December 13, 2006, 07:16 PM
My post is two parts, first technical definitions.

Second, everyone has been comdemning the ATF and Outlaw for his posts in saying that the ATF was right to reverse it's position.

In reading the definitions one can see that there is a vague and broad wording in the second part of the definition of a machine gun in the NFA. This is common in most laws and allows for interpretation from time to time.

While I don't like it this is the truth of the matter. The ATF like any other organization or individual can change it's mind from time to time without changing laws or regulations.

My interpretation of the wording of the law and the physical action of firing the AA device is that it falls in the second part of the definition and has from day one. The ATFs original interpretation was incorrect.

Rumble
December 13, 2006, 07:33 PM
EasternShore:

"Machinegun" is defined in the first portion of that legalese as "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."

As I understand it, the second portion doesn't present an alternate definition of the term "machinegun;" it's not an "or"--it's an "also." It appears to say that as far as .gov cares, an assembly of disarticulated parts that can be turned into "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" falls into the same definition. It doesn't say that any assembly of parts which can make a gun effectively "full auto" counts, it says that any group of parts that can make the gun fire 2+ rounds with one action of the trigger mechanism counts.

With one of these devices, your gun is still firing one round per trigger action. It just helps you pull the trigger really fast. Therefore, IMNSHO, this device doesn't fall into the expanded definition.

Wes Janson
December 13, 2006, 07:35 PM
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. 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 machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.
Taken from http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00005845----000-.html

Ok, so I'm nowhere near a lawyer, but let me try to interpret what this is saying in regards to the Accelerator.
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.
Does it shoot automatically more than one shot by a single function of the trigger? No-provided that we define "function" as being the motion of the trigger and not that of the user's finger. I cannot comment on what the legal definition of the word "function" is, but assuming that it does not refer to the act of pulling a trigger, let's continue.

Is it designed to shoot more than one shot by a single function of the trigger? No.
Can it be readily restored to shoot automatically more than one shot by a single function of the trigger? No (or at least, no moreso than any other semi-automatic 10/22).

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 machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

This really doesn't apply, because while the Atkins Accelerator is a part of a firearm, when combined with the host 10/22 the resulting rifle is not a machinegun by the definition set forth in the preceding sentence. Is it designed solely or exclusively for converting a weapon into a machinegun? Obviously no, both because the resulting weapon isn't one and is infact designed for converting the weapon into something which is specifically not a machinegun. Does it count as "any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled"? Again, no, because the resulting weapon isn't a machinegun.


I don't see any vague or broad wording in this particular law. It all comes down to the definition of trigger "function", and apparantly the definition has always been defined as the movement of the trigger back and forth (it's probably worded more accurately than that, but hey). If all of this is true, and the ATF has just simply decided to re-define it as a machinegun without any legal justification...then it would definitely seem to me that the consequences are potentially far-reaching not only for owners of the Accelerator, but for any gun owner in America. This isn't an issue of "spirit" of the law or any such nonsense, it comes down to the fact that if this is true, then it would seem the ATF has decided to throw out the law and take matters into their own hands. I cannot see any concievable way this could possibly be anything but a disaster for gun owners.

Caimlas
December 13, 2006, 07:56 PM
Oh wait, for the follow up, "You just admitted that this contraption isn't full auto."
Right. I know. Its all a bunch of technicalities that a group of lawyers will sort out...assuming the Dems don't first.

If you recall, the NFA was decided on something much less than a 'technicality' - it was decided on an infactuality.

Hopefully, maybe, this will make it to the Supreme Court and we can get that bullsh*t decision wiped out of the records before a Dem President puts more liberals in the SC.

jlbraun
December 13, 2006, 08:13 PM
@EasternShore

"This does not mean semi-automatics will get banned."

Wrong, and dangerously so. The US already considers semiautomatics that are "readily restored to shoot" full auto as machineguns, and bans them from import. This includes certain versions of the UZI 9mm, the FAL, and the G3.

If this bastardized, extra-legal definition of "machinegun" is allowed to stand, the Akins device means that ALL semi-automatics are "readily restored to shoot", regardless of their interior configuration. All you have to do is mount the reciever in a bumpfire stock and you have a "machinegun".

Let me lay it out for you.
1. BATFE deems all "multiburst trigger activators" like the Akins device "machinegun conversion parts", and any Akins-stocked gun is a "machinegun"
2. Under this definition... with the Akins, ANY SEMI-AUTO can easily be made into a "machinegun", from a lowly 10/22 all the way up to a .50BMG M2. In fact, it's literally not possible to have a semi-auto you couldn't convert into a "machinegun".
3. Semi-auto guns that are "readily restored to shoot" are considered machineguns themselves. (For example, a rifle composed of a full-auto FAL reciever with semi-auto parts inside).
4. All that is required to make a "machinegun" out of a semi-auto is changing the stock under this new definition. No machining required at all. Sounds pretty "readily restored to shoot", and all that.

...and hey presto...

5. Your AR-15 is now a machinegun. Your 10/22 is now a machinegun. Your WASR-10 is now a machinegun. Your semi-auto shotgun is now a machinegun. Your 1911 is now a machinegun. Your Glock 17 is now a machinegun.

Are you getting it yet?

Lucky
December 13, 2006, 08:38 PM
Exactly!

But you're wasting your breath, Outlaws will just come back and tell you it's Akins' or Bowers' fault for 'stirring the pot'.

They don't believe that the BATFE is planning to confiscate all firearms eventually and they will use any tactic. And that's why they don't believe in resiting the BATFE at every step, but try to appease it.

DoubleTapDrew
December 13, 2006, 11:22 PM
Some people just like to argue online. Ignore them. I don't want to see this thread get closed. People need to see what's happening, this is extremely important because it may be a sign of things to come.

bamawrx
December 13, 2006, 11:56 PM
I suspect the "readily convertable" issue is at play here. With the AA device one can use something as simple as a cork or some rubber bands to allow the rifle to fire more than once. And BINGO its a machine gun.

Remember the shoe string machine gun? The shoe string became the trigger, so don't get stuck on the action of the actual mechanical trigger of the original mechanism. The cork or rubber bands can become the new "trigger" and with a single application result in more than one shot. See how this logic works?

You may not like it, but it can be made to do this with no trouble and with no hard modifications. Any firearm or device like this will be classified a machine gun due to the "readily convertable" clause. Its a technicality and its also stupid to split hairs like this. We need to spend our energy getting this rediculous law fixed and not worry about trying toys and gimmicks to simulate automatic fire.

Lucky
December 14, 2006, 12:05 AM
You can modify an AK to fire auto with a twist-tie. I'd suggest you not try to reason with the ATF, but plan a vicious legal challenge.

The cork or rubber bands can become the new "trigger" and with a single application result in more than one shot. See how this logic works?

Yes. Apparently if you are in possession of an SKS and a rubber band or a cork, you've got a machine-gun.

I suggest that you think BIG, think about what your ATF could do with this new policy, where they could go with it. Do you believe they REALLY care about a .22? What if they're thinking BIG and see a way to get all semi-autos? They're trying to do it up here, they did it in Australia, you know as well as I that anti-gunners are an internationalist group and follow the same game-plans. That means they WANT your semi's. If the ATF gets away with taking the Akins Accelerator they'll feel able to go after them.

Prince Yamato
December 14, 2006, 12:26 AM
Look, the NFA laws are dumb. People should be able to own new machineguns, sbrs, sbs, pen-guns, whatever you can think of that goes on the list, tax-free. These laws however, need to be struck down, not skirted. I like the John Lockeish spirit of the AA, and I understand where everyone's anger comes from, but I overall find the implemtation of the AA tacitcally (at least from the political end) unsound. In exploiting an NFA loophole, FireFaster opened another loophole for the BATF to go after semi-automatics.

Lucky
December 14, 2006, 02:22 AM
But the entire case is proof that the BATFE will ignore laws, violates them. If they're going to go after semi-autos they're going to do it, period, regardless of legalities. They're breaking the law here, and for that reason you can expect them to do it again later.

If you don't support this guy, now when it matters, then you are signing a death warrant on your own rkba.

bamawrx
December 14, 2006, 12:10 PM
"Yes. Apparently if you are in possession of an SKS and a rubber band or a cork, you've got a machine-gun."

Correct

WayneConrad
December 14, 2006, 12:13 PM
In exploiting an NFA loophole, FireFaster opened another loophole for the BATF to go after semi-automatics.
Here's that logic in another setting: "Well, he shouldn't have raped her. But she was dressed like she wanted it. She invited it on herself."

Brad Johnson
December 14, 2006, 12:29 PM
At the risk of getting totally roasted...

The device is installed on a weapon, becoming, essentially, an integral part of the weapon. If the device causes, through any means other than the pressure of the operators trigger fingers, the firing of more than one cartridge per depression of the operating lever, trigger, or button, then the entire assembly is now, by definition, a fully automatic weapon and, therefore, subject to the NFA.

Even though the original gun still operates as a semi-automatic, the addition of this device (which upon installation becomes part of the total mechanical assembly) enables the user to fire multiple shots with a single press of the operating lever (trigger). In short, they've created a machine gun.

Do I like the decision? No. But I'm not surprised by it and can clearly see the logic behind it. Someone tried to push the envelope too far and it ended up biting all of us.

Brad

Henry Bowman
December 14, 2006, 12:35 PM
enables the user to fire multiple shots with a single press of the operating lever (trigger).Actually, it is a single movement of the operator's finger and multiple presses of the operating lever. That is a difference with a distinction that the BATFE would rather ignore.

Someone tried to push the envelope too far and it ended up biting all of us."We" have not been "bitten" by Atkins. BATFE did the bitting and the only ones suffering are the company who made and sold the (previouly BATFE approved) product and those who actually (and legally) bought one.

Brad Johnson
December 14, 2006, 12:45 PM
Actually, it is a single movement of the operator's finger and multiple presses of the operating lever. That is a difference with a distinction that the BATFE would rather ignore.

I would contend that it's a difference with a distinction we gun owners have created and rabidly asserted, but that doesn't really exist except as a technical footnote. Whether it's an external device or an internal sear, a single press of the operators finger is resulting in multiple shots.

We want the technical distinction of the add-on device to be a defining element when, in reality, it is the net result being used for final assessment. Even though it the external device is completely unrelated to the original manufacture of the gun, the addition of the device results in a weapon assembly capable of multiple shots with a single press of the operator's finger. That is, by definition, a fully automatic weapon.

Brad

bamawrx
December 14, 2006, 12:54 PM
Bowman,

I think your missing the point. The device isn't a machine gun because it will fire more than one shot per pull of the trigger. Its a machine gun because it can be "readily converted" to fire more than once per pull of the trigger. Put a tapered cork in the trigger guard and you can get 2 shots, so its a machine gun by definition. I hate it too, but that is what the law says.

I know you can make anything into a machine gun, so its a judgement call by the atf. That is part of the problem naturally as they have no written guidelines or standards.

atf could classify this as a DD and avoid all these problems.

quatin
December 14, 2006, 01:21 PM
I think what the "single action of the trigger" means is that pulling the trigger is one action and releasing the trigger is a second action. With the Akins accelerator, you don't have control of the second action, so do you still quantify it as two seperate actions?

Henry Bowman
December 14, 2006, 01:45 PM
capable of multiple shots with a single press of the operator's finger. That is, by definition, a fully automatic weapon.Now you're changing your definition, which had been:
enables the user to fire multiple shots with a single press of the operating lever (trigger).

Put a tapered cork in the trigger guard and you can get 2 shots, so its a machine gun by definition.:confused: So every firearm in the world is readily convertable? I don't follow.

deadin
December 14, 2006, 02:00 PM
So every firearm in the world is readily convertable?

Depends on how you want to define "readily".
The Aussies converted a bolt action SMLE to a gas operated semi-auto (and maybe FA) during WW2. (See the "Sword-Guard Model"). You could even convert a muzzle-loader to FA by using the "Roman-Candle" technique.:evil:

johnster999
December 14, 2006, 02:43 PM
Riddle me this.

If you pull the trigger twice and nothing happens but you pull the trigger a third time and the gun fires a 3-shot burst. Is it a machine gun?

What if you pull the trigger 30 times and nothing happens but on the 31st pull, it fires automatically until you release the trigger or until 30 rounds are expended. Is it a machine gun?

In both cases, 1 trigger pull = 1 shot fired. Essentially you are storing up trigger pulls to go with rounds fired later. Timing doesn't seem to be addressed by the law.

(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.
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
machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be
assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a
person.

buzz_knox
December 14, 2006, 02:51 PM
If you pull the trigger twice and nothing happens but you pull the trigger a third time and the gun fires a 3-shot burst. Is it a machine gun?


Yes. Any weapon designed to fire or capable of firing multiple rounds with a single trigger actuation constitutes a machinegun. A malfunctioning weapon must be, and can be, repaired (although manufacturers were at one time nervous about accepting them for repair) but if you keep it in its unrepaired condition, you have a machinegun.

If memory serves, ATFE tried to put someone in prison not too long ago based on a malfunctioning FAL. That helped lead to the discovery that ATFE has no manual governing its testing procedures. They make it up as they go along, as evidenced by this case.

johnster999
December 14, 2006, 03:10 PM
The gun can only fire one round each for each seperate pull of the trigger. No single trigger pull can cause the gun to fire more than once.

So anyway let's say the gun has 30 triggers and a bolt release. The 30 triggers are are each pulled and nothing happens. Then when the bolt release is actuated the gun fires automatically 30 times. Is it a machine gun?

In another case, let's say the gun has no trigger at all. It merely starts firing full auto as soon as the bolt is released.

In yet another even odder case, A gun consists of a fixed barrel and receiver mounted on a tripod. There is a funnel on top the receiver which allows the user to drop handfuls of a specially shaped cartridge directly into the action. Each time a round drops into the chamber (it's an open bolt gun) a lever is tripped causing the bolt to slam forward and fire the gun. The gun rattles off constant stream of fire as the user "manually reloads" the action by dumping handfuls of ammo into it. Is it a machine gun?

:)

Brad Johnson
December 14, 2006, 03:18 PM
Now you're changing your definition, which had been:

Quote:
enables the user to fire multiple shots with a single press of the operating lever (trigger).

I'm not changing the definition. By "single press of the operating lever (trigger)" I mean the operator pressing the device which initiates the action of the entire weapons system, be it lever, trigger, button, or otherwise. Even though the device in question is, technically, an add-on to an already existing weapon, it is still an alteration to the overall function of the weapon resulting from a device physically and semi-permanently attached to the weapon. As such, it becomes part of the overall device itself. Now you have a weapon that, with a single action by the operator, fires multiple rounds. That is a machine gun. It has always been a full-auto weapon and will always be a full-auto weapon, no matter how much we wish for it not to be.

Yes, the device is removeable, but so is a full-auto sear. It is a mechanical device added to the weapon which allows the user to discharge multiple rounds with a single action. How the device is installed or removed is irrelevant as the end result is still a weapon system that is capable of full-auto fire.

Brad

bamawrx
December 14, 2006, 03:24 PM
Bowman,

"or can be readily restored to shoot" This is the sentence in the law that is being used to classify the AA as a machine gun or in combination with a 10/22 a machine gun.

You have to read the entire paragraph of the law to avoid missing this detail. IF this sentence were struck from the law then the AA would be legal as it only fires one shot per pull of the trigger in its original configuration. I think this is where you were getting confused. It DOES only fire once per pull of trigger. OK, now can it be readily made to shoot twice? YES, OK then its a machine gun.

Henry Bowman
December 14, 2006, 03:25 PM
I understand what you are saying. It's just that the trigger is actually actuated multiple times by a single movement of the finger when the modification is installed.. Obviously, BATFE saw it that way when looking at the plain language of the law (the first time). It was when someone realized the implications of folloing the law that they decided to reverse themselves (and not follow the law).

Underlying all of this is the fact that FA is no big deal. It simply has been demonized for about two generations and accepted by the masses as such.

Keith Wheeler
December 14, 2006, 03:37 PM
It simply has been demonized for about two generations and accepted by the masses as such.

And unfortunately those "masses" include the gun masses. Well, maybe not demonized, but I'm still stunned by how so many gun owners mystify FA. Kind of an "and they all moved away from me on the Group W bench" kind of thing.

I think somewhere here I made a comment about "one of the worst implications of the whole NFA is that it has allowed far too many gun owners to be ignorant about machine-guns" or something of that nature. I mean seriously, what's more dangerous, a full auto Vz61 Skorpion or a semi-auto AK?

Brad Johnson
December 14, 2006, 03:52 PM
It's just that the trigger is actually actuated multiple times by a single movement of the finger when the modification is installed.

My point, exactly. Except now the trigger is no longer the initiation point for activation of the weapon. The initiation point is the device which presses said trigger multiple times. As a result, the attached Accelerator is now a part of the overall device just like the sear, bolt, firing pin, or safety. It cannot be used as a standalone technical point when the net effect is the creation of a full-auto weapon.

It still stands that attaching the Accelerator results in a weapon where a single press of a lever/button/switch by the operator results in a constant discharge of rounds by the weapon. Firing does not cease until the operator is no longer depressing the lever/button/switch or until the firearm runs out of ammunition. Full-automatic fire.

Brad

Henry Bowman
December 14, 2006, 04:01 PM
Brad, my distinction is linguistic, not mechanical. we agree on how the device works. The point is the language of the law which was written with respect to a single movement of the trigger -- not the finger.

My point is that technology surpasses the law all the time. Think, for example, copyright law and digital technology. If the legislature wants the law to "catch up" to technology, they have to change the law, not just allow the executive branch to stand it on its ear to "interpret" it to mean what they wish it said. In this case, however, they don't mind because they, too, fear commoners with effective weaponry.

Brad Johnson
December 14, 2006, 04:11 PM
Brad, my distinction is linguistic, not mechanical. we agree on how the device works. The point is the language of the law which was written with respect to a single movement of the trigger -- not the finger.

Agreed. Unfortunately, in application the connotation has become one of overall function, not function initiation (sort of a wierd version of the chicken-or-egg quandry). The emphasis has become one of considering the function of the original gun and the add-on devices as a complete system, however temporarily or permanently the non-original devices are attached. As a result we are now faced with the situation at hand. I wish it were different, but it isn't.

Brad

Henry Bowman
December 14, 2006, 05:28 PM
Again, I understand your point. Gun + add-on = system. That is the relevant inquiry.

My point is that we operate on the rule of law, not connotations.

Outlaws
December 14, 2006, 05:33 PM
So then we all agree that by law it is not a machine gun, but for all intended purposes it is? Its nice it only took 7 pages for that. :D

Brad Johnson
December 14, 2006, 05:51 PM
So then we all agree that by law it is not a machine gun, but for all intended purposes it is? Its nice it only took 7 pages for that. :D

Agree... AGREE!?

NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!
I won't and you can't make me!

Brad

LAR-15
December 14, 2006, 06:14 PM
So then we all agree that by law it is not a machine gun, but for all intended purposes it is? Its nice it only took 7 pages for that.


No we don't.

At least I don't.

A 10/22 can never be a machine gun.

It's a rifle

cslinger
December 14, 2006, 06:24 PM
A 10/22 can never be a machine gun.

Just playing devils advocate but their are actual 10/22 "machine guns" as defined by law. Ie, you hold the trigger down and she rocks and rolls etc. Norell made a bunch IIRC.

LAR-15
December 14, 2006, 06:25 PM
As defined by law........sure.

Wes Janson
December 14, 2006, 11:08 PM
Ok, so can we all agree that the important distinction is the issue of what constitutes trigger movement? And can we all agree that according to the letter of the law, the Accelerator looks by all means to be legal (to the best of our knowledge)? That said, what I'd really, really, really like is to see a copy of the actual BATFE letter reversing their decision, in order to see specifically what language they use.

deadin
December 14, 2006, 11:53 PM
Now Wes, you are going to ruin everything by asking for facts instead of conjecture:neener: :evil:

Otherguy Overby
December 15, 2006, 11:10 AM
Here's the bet: Anyone here wanna bet I can't spend a pleasant afternoon with some friends at a fabrication shop and NOT get a double action Ruger 44 mag to cycle and fire all the rounds in the cylinder with one initial pull of the trigger?

Bring beer!

Seriously, would you all disbelieve someone couldn't come up with a way to make a Remington 700 to cycle the bolt and fire 'til the magazine is empty?

All ya have to do is add beer... :)

Hk91 Fan
December 15, 2006, 11:27 AM
This is the first time I have ever been saddened by a discussion on THR. In fact, I am sickened by some of the comments here. A select few of you may want to consider heading over to the ASHA forums - they support incrementalist firearm regulation, as well. Additionally, I'm sure some of them also maintain feelings of wealth envy...

I have never wanted to pull out the "WildputafewofyouonmyignorelistcauseyousuckAlaska" button before now. Thankfully, most of the members here are able to discuss this issue logically, and are concerned for their fellow firearm enthusiasts rights and property.

Outlaws
December 15, 2006, 01:23 PM
*zapped*

Otherguy Overby
December 15, 2006, 07:59 PM
Outlaws :

I think Hechler & Koch support a lot of that regulation too. Maybe you might wanna find something else to be a fanboy of. Some of us might think "wrong" in your opinion, but you are the one supporting it with your money. Now who is the bad guy?
Today 08:27 AM

Give the guy some credit, he didn't wander in here on a gimpy leg praising Glocks... :)

Prince Yamato
December 15, 2006, 09:39 PM
So, do you all think there'd be this much hullaballoo if the ATF decided to ban Hell-Fire Triggers? :neener:

harvester of sorrow
December 15, 2006, 09:45 PM
Maybe you might wanna find something else to be a fanboy of.

Although, to his credit, he says he is an "HK91fan," not an "HK'scorporatepolicyfan."

but you are the one supporting it with your money

Unless he's only buying them on the secondary market.

Outlaws
December 16, 2006, 03:02 AM
I would like to with draw my last comment on the account he seems to be a level headed person actually.

wetwrks
December 16, 2006, 07:00 AM
Adding fuel to the fire:

Akins uses a mechanical means of accelerating the rate of fire.

How is this any different from a gattling system. It also uses a mechanical (but different) means of accelerating the rate of fire. The ATF has for years declaired that a gattling gun is not a MG.

tyme
December 16, 2006, 07:48 AM
This ruling is ridiculous. It doesn't matter whether the gun (trigger) is moving towards the shooter's finger or whether the finger is moving towards the trigger. That just depends on frame of reference. Either way something is pressing on the trigger (and the trigger presses on something in return) for each shot fired; therefore this thing is not a machine gun.

ATF idiots need to learn basic physics and basic English.

BamBam-31
December 22, 2006, 05:31 AM
Funny. This whole thing sounds SOOOOO much like CA's off-list lowers issue, what with the DOJ trying to write...er, interpret law to cover its butt.

cpileri
December 22, 2006, 05:59 AM
Update 12/15/06--

Allegations are being posted on the Web about ATF Agents showing up on customer doorsteps and confiscating product. This is not happening. Please consult the company webpage http://www.firefaster.com/ regularly and treat it as your only reliable source of information. All updates will be made to this page first.

Attorneys for Akins Group Inc. have submitted a written Compliance Plan which is under review by ATF. Upon agreement on the details by all parties, those instructions will be posted here.

If accepted by ATF, that Compliance Plan will contain instructions which, if followed by consumers, will eliminate the need for any face-to-face interaction with any law enforcement people from any agency.

Orthonym
December 22, 2006, 06:35 AM
Reminds me of Beretta's latest autoloading shotgun, with the funny spring in the bolt. It seems to use the resiliency of the shooter's shoulder as part of the operating system. I betcha if you held the butt of one of those against a solid wall, it wouldn't cycle the action. Anybody tried that?

Orthonym
December 22, 2006, 06:41 AM
Or Bennelli, maybe.

gunsmith
December 22, 2006, 06:42 AM
are now 10,000 dollars richer or will they have to dispose of them?

crunker
December 22, 2006, 01:58 PM
Most likely they will either be confiscated, or that owners will have to register their accelerators and can't transfer them, and when they die the accelerators will be confiscated.

buzz_knox
December 22, 2006, 02:04 PM
They can't be registered due to the '86 ban on ATFE's accepting the tax stamp funds. So, the owners will either be in possession of unregistered (illegal) submachine gun parts, or will turn them in to Akins (for a refund that will probably bankrupt the company) or to ATFE.

madmike
December 23, 2006, 12:04 AM
THe final sentence in the letter is the disclaimer. "Provided it does not fire more than one round per pull of the trigger."

The operator is only pulling the trigger ONCE. That the trigger is cycling is not legally relevant. The finger isn't moving. With the mechanism recoiling, what you have is a recoil-operated auto. You are not providing any impetus to cycle the trigger. The weapon is. Machine gun. I don't like it, but I guarantee you will never win in ANY court.

As to opening the registry, get real. It'll be like drop ins or M16 parts. "Sure you can own it, as long as you don't own as 10-22/SKS as well."

So, owners will be more than welcome to get rid of the matching guns, or to sell it to someone who qualifies. End of story.

I don't see any party machinations behind it. All I see is someone in tech branch, who has generally been VERY favorable to gun owners (cartridge conversions to blackpowder weapons, home-made Browning 1919s, other stuff all legal), realizing that it bears the same resemblance to bump-firing that a Vulcan does to a Gatling.

Sorry I don't have better news:(

DoubleTapDrew
December 23, 2006, 05:06 PM
THe final sentence in the letter is the disclaimer. "Provided it does not fire more than one round per pull of the trigger."


I see your point but the law states "one round per function of the trigger". The ATF is trying to change the wording of the law. If the law said one round per pull of the trigger or one round per pull of the finger they would have a strong argument, but it doesn't. Also if it said that, it could be linked pretty easily to bumpfiring since holding your finger in one spot and letting recoil reset the trigger accomplishes the same thing as this.
He made a bumpfiring device. It's as simple as that. Those legal trigger cranks don't fire more than one round per function of the trigger (there is no "pull" involved there) either. Put an electric drill on it and you have a machinegun because the trigger on the drill becomes the trigger, one function of that trigger will fire more than one shot.

carpettbaggerr
December 23, 2006, 06:13 PM
The operator is only pulling the trigger ONCE. That the trigger is cycling is not legally relevant. The finger isn't moving. With the mechanism recoiling, what you have is a recoil-operated auto.So why aren't Hellfire devices illegal under the same principle?

And what about bump-firing? Will that be illegal? Or will it be constructive intent to own pants which have beltloops if you have a semi-auto rifle? Or shall they just ban semi-autos entirely?

Justin
December 23, 2006, 06:20 PM
The Akins Accelerator is no more a machinegun than Jerry Miculek's trigger finger.

This ruling is asinine, and doubly so in light of the fact that they're backtracking on earlier statements giving the AA the seal of approval.

madmike
December 23, 2006, 08:07 PM
I have to disagree. I don't approve of bans on autos, but that thing is an auto. The stock does not move. The shooter does not move. The mechanism moves and fires repeatedly. Automatic.

I guarantee you the courts will rule that way. I'm even willing to ask a Pro 2A advisor to our state supreme court. $50 says he concurs.

If the shooter or finger moved, it would be bump firing. But a weapon equipped like that is like taking a crank trigger and hooking it to a power drill...sure, the trigger operates repeatedly, but the firer does not.

In fact, that's the perfect comparison. If you cam your trigger and put a motor on it, is it "bump firing"? Nope. It's a machine gun.

Is this powered by an external electric motor? Nope. It's powered by the weapon. That makes it...a machine gun. If the former is illegal, and it is, then the latter is. The only hitch is that they didn't notice it at first.

PromptCritical
December 23, 2006, 08:47 PM
UPDATE!

From www.firefaster.com
-- Update 12/22/06--

Counsel has approved updating the documentation link: http://www.firefaster.com/documentation.html to include the reclassification letter. Everything is in chronological order. The reclassification letter and accompanying photographs are below the two previous classification letters. Note: though marked "Hand Delivery" and dated Nov 22, it came via US Mail and was signed for at 9:24 AM on December 8, 2006.



No new info on this "Compliance Plan" yet...

jlbraun
December 23, 2006, 08:49 PM
It is truly disturbing for me to see members here who:
a) don't know what the legal definition of a machinegun is
b) know what the very clear legal definition of machinegun is, but still say "well, even though it doesn't meet the legal definition of machinegun, it still is one!"
c) are willing to "go along to get along" and agree with the BATFE when they effectively ignore the law as written
d) don't see where this is going in terms of an eventual ban on semi-autos that can be bumpfired

Look. I don't own any NFA items. But I see what will happen if the firearms community lets the BATFE ignore the law as written. Machinegun owners are a small small set of firearms owners, but if we don't draw the line now when they start enforcing things capriciously, your semi-autos will be "interpreted" into oblivion.

:banghead:

Outlaws
December 23, 2006, 09:29 PM
It is truly disturbing for me to see members here who:

Its very diturbing how many people like to use that phrase like they are somehow soooo much more "High Road" than everyone else. :mad:

madmike
December 23, 2006, 09:33 PM
jlbraun: it's not "capricious."

I am not "going along with them."

If it were up to me, you'd be able to own nukes.

As it is, new autos have been illegal since 1986. Existing autos have been controlled since 1934. These are facts.

Attaching a powered device to a weapon to operate the trigger makes it a machine gun for all practical and legal purposes. This is a fact.

Using the weapon to operate the trigger in lieu of an external motor drive does not make it less a machine gun. This is a fact.

It is a fact that this is not the first device to be assessed in such a fashion. For example, a tight string from the bolt handle to the trigger of an AK will autofire the weapon if you pull on it. The trigger is only cycling once per operation, but the string becomes a secondary trigger that is only operated once. There have been previous mechanical devices that attempted to circumvent this.

It is obvious from the videos that the trigger on weapons equipped with this are HELD DOWN and DON'T MOVE from the POV of the operator. That the mechanism does the moving in lieu is the critical FACT that makes it "Automatic."

You can argue semantics and law until you are blue in the face. There is not a snowball's chance in Arabia that this device is going to be found legal, or that any existing pieces are going to be allowed to operate. This is a fact.

I don't like it, either. I'd love to have a gadget like this.

Actually, I take that back. In lieu of some overpriced bubba-engineered toy, no matter how ingenious, I want a REAL full auto. I want several. I believe I am legally and morally entitled to such. However, the courts do not agree with me, and are unlikely to change that position in the foreseeable future.

That is also a fact.

How do you suggest I disagree or not "get along" with the ATF, keep the rights I have, not make a bad example to be held against other gun owners and stay out of jail? I'd love to do so.

It doesn't matter what anyone on this forum or 10,000 others thinks. It matters what the Tech Branch and courts think. I'm telling you the rationale they are using. It is a CONSISTENT rationale and has been for a great many years (violations by local fascistas not falling under "Tech Branch" or "court" definitions). By existing precedent, definition and mechanics, this thing is an automatic weapon. You can disagree with the law of gravity or the speed of light. Those aren't going to change either. Whether or not we like or agree with them, that's the facts.

Had they caught the technical bits the first time, the device would have been rejected, and it's unlikely anyone here would know of it to be upset. The reason people are upset is (Being perfectly honest here), they thought they'd found a way to own an automatic weapon without the legal paperwork. If it WASN'T an effective auto, no one would be complaining, would they?

It was ALMOST clever enough to pass. But not quite.

madmike
December 23, 2006, 09:37 PM
On that matter, I'm curious, has anyone tried, and how effective and accurate is a light trigger (2lbs or so) with a recoil attachment? Can one get close to a reasonable cyclic rate and the "Accuracy" of a full auto? Would it be possible to have a second, light trigger setting to do this with? (Since I've had occasional legal doubles with a light trigger on an AR as the weapon rebounds, while on a bipod.)

madmike
December 23, 2006, 09:42 PM
thereby compressing a short recoil spring whose energy then drives the receiver back into its normal firing position

I feel that language is the nail in the coffin.

It's a recoil operated auto. Game. Set. Match.

Let's look back at early attempts to cycle weapons--you take a bolt action, drill the barrel for a gas tube, install a piston and have it drive the bolt. It's a "bolt action rifle with a mechanical enhancement," right?

Nope. It's a self-loading rifle.

This is not a bump-fired semi. It's a semi with a recoil spring to cycle the action AUTOMATICALLY.

I think we're done here. Sadly, but true.:(

jlbraun
December 23, 2006, 11:30 PM
"it's not "capricious."

Yes, it is.

"Attaching a powered device to a weapon to operate the trigger makes it a machine gun for all practical and legal purposes. This is a fact. Using the weapon to operate the trigger in lieu of an external motor drive does not make it less a machine gun."

Yes, it does. A motor drive is COMPLETELY different than the Akins device. The "single operation of the trigger" refers to the switch that turns on the motor. The Akins device requires that the shooter's finger actuate the trigger Every. Single. Time.

It is a fact that this is not the first device to be assessed in such a fashion. For example, a tight string from the bolt handle to the trigger of an AK will autofire the weapon if you pull on it. "

Right. The function of the string is now the trigger. Again. Single pull on string = multiple shots = machinegun. Akins device = multiple pulls on trigger = multiple shots.

"The trigger is only cycling once per operation, but the string becomes a secondary trigger that is only operated once. "

Right. The string is the trigger. You pull the string once, multiple shots - machinegun.

"It is obvious from the videos that the trigger on weapons equipped with this are HELD DOWN and DON'T MOVE from the POV of the operator. That the mechanism does the moving in lieu is the critical FACT that makes it "Automatic.""

Wrong. The trigger is still actuated once every shot by the shooter. Period. The law as written says nothing about POV.

And did you read the letter? "Legislative history of the National Firearms Act indicates that the drafters equated "single function of the trigger" with "single pull of the trigger". Don't you get it? The BATFE is rewriting the law.

Indeed, their intent shows when they quote the law, but slip in "pull" instead of "function".

Consider. If we accept this, when one bumpfires, you're "pulling" the stock forward (which is now the trigger) and leaving your trigger finger in place. You've pulled the "trigger" once for multiple shots. Your formerly legal AK, because it has the ability to be bumpfired, is now a machinegun. Your light trigger pulls creating doubles are machineguns if we accept the substitution of "pull" for "function" in the NFA.

The law refers to "single function of the trigger" specifically, and bceause of that the Akins cannot be a machinegun. If it said "pull", then the Akins is a machinegun. If the BATFE wants to round up Akins devices, the law must be changed - they can't just say what it was "supposed" to mean!

Can they?

PromptCritical
December 24, 2006, 12:21 AM
Man, every thread on this subject, on every board devolves into an argument over whether the Akins is a machinegun.

The facts:

The ATF said it's not a machinegun.
Production was started and many of these were sold (no one seems to know how many).
ATF changed it's mind.

No one knows what to do now.

I only want to know two things:

What current owners will have to do to avoid breaking this BS interpretation of a BS law.

And who the moronic "individual" is who asked the ATF to examine the Akins again.

VARifleman
December 24, 2006, 12:30 AM
jlbraun covered the letter aspect of the law fairly well. I really don't think I need to add to that anymore. The trigger of the gun has not been shifted, it is actuated individually every single time. Period. Look at the drawings, figure out how it works.

To those that say he violated the intent of the law, why does your or anyone's opinion on this matter? The prinicples of our justice system do not dictate that we should be convicted if we violate the intent, only the letter. Intent of the law comes up as when an ambiguous part of the letter may have been broken, and trying to follow the intent of the law but falling short on the letter is used as a mitigating circumstance after a conviction.

jlbraun
December 24, 2006, 12:37 AM
I really hope their compliance plan incorporates registering these... things in the NFA registry. Can someone say LOOPHOLE!

Gewehr98
December 24, 2006, 12:52 AM
I even have an NFA shorty Krinkov, with proper tax stamp.

However - I've been watching that Akins Accelerator from the get-go and always wondered how it ever passed BATFE scrutiny in the first place. The shooter pulls the trigger once, recoil moves the barreled action in the "glider" stock back and forth against a spring while dispensing more than one round and running the trigger into the shooter's trigger finger, and it all happens while the stock and shooter remain immobile and fixed on target. If it looks like a machine gun, runs like a machine gun, and smells like a machine gun...

Hellfire and bump-firing have a completely moving firearm (not a recoiling action) working against a fixed trigger finger that's putting just enough tension on the lockwork to reset and trip the sear during recoil and return to battery. The shooter's non-trigger hand is doing the pulling forward to milk the trigger, vs. a recoil spring in a trick stock with reciprocating barreled action. The trigger is still being pulled one time for one round being discharged. That's the difference.

Wes Janson
December 24, 2006, 01:54 AM
Reading the second ATF letter dated as recieved Nov 22nd, I see the critical language as being: Legislative history for the National Firearms Act indicates that the drafters equate "single function of the trigger" with "single pull of the trigger." National Firearms Act: Hearings Before the Comm.. on Ways and Means, House of Reprsentatives, Second Session on H.R. 9066. 73rd Cong., at 40 (1934). Accordingly, it is the position of this agency that conversion parts that are designed and intended etc etc..

Ok, so the BATFE is claiming that ever since 1934 the original wording "single function" has always been interpreted by the courts to mean "single pull". If that's true, then I suppose they're right, the first letter was in error and it's their fault for approving it in the first place.

But if that's incorrect, and the legal system does not and has not interpreted it in that way, then it would seem clear the BATFE is pulling this out of their ass for their own purposes.

So the question is...what's the truth?

antarti
December 24, 2006, 03:08 AM
Now that it is selling after considerable investments have been made, they want it banned because they realize that this may become popular and pretty soon everyone will have one. ATF does not like firearms in the hands of the subjects.

It's not odd in the least that ATF would take this route:
1) Issue a letter that allows somebody to invest their capital, time, etc.
2) Let them get to production.
3 ) Revoke your blessing, force them into bankruptcy, confiscate all the product.
4) Possibly go after the buyers too.

Should have a mighty chilling effect on future "legal full auto" developers. What good are patents and blessings from ATF in mitigating risk now? Anybody anxious to try another stab at it, and throw their life savings into it?

What if they criminalize the buyers? Anybody going to be lining up for the next FA gimmick?

The inventor followed the letter of the law, any way you want to cut it. Simple high-speed photography can reveal that.

This isn't "capricious enforcement", this is fraud, and I hope (but seriously doubt) the company can get this reversed or sue over it.

madmike
December 24, 2006, 07:43 AM
Sheesh, paranoid much?

My dealings with ATF field agents have varied from "prompt and helpful" to "jack-booted thug."

The Tech Branch, however, has generally been our friend--we HAVE Hellfires that are described in marketing as "Full auto simulators." We HAVE crank-operated belt-feds at 400 rpm. We HAVE home-built weapons. We have all kinds of toys the antis claim are "obviously banned by any interpretation of the law."

Tech Branch's job, which they generally do, is to allow stuff that passes the criteria of the law through and restrict that which doesn't. A look at some of the stuff they've cleared shows they're the same kind of gun nuts some of us are. "Oh, boy! A new trick! How does THIS one work?"

The language of both letters is clear. The first device they tested sheared the retaining screws. They added a caution that "As long as it only fires once per operation of the trigger" they'd allow it. Then they retested a WORKING one and said, "Nope, sorry, that's a machine gun."

Seems to me Akins was obligated to make sure their test was complete before proceeding to marketing. Looks to me like he got overeager and didn't read thoroughly before selling.

OTOH, if I thought I could knock out $1000 per unit for something that looks to have about $50 worth of CNC time in production, I'd be selling as fast as I could while the going was good, too...

And as I said, they WILL NOT reopen the registry. It creates no loophole or problem from a judiciary POV. You may have the Akins, OR you may have the weapon it attaches to. Just not both. You will be welcome to decide which you prefer. Which I think totally sucks. So? How many states have prohibited possession of existing weapons within their borders? You don't have to sell the weapon. You just have to "remove it from the state." Perfectly legal to store it in another state. How? Why, that's your problem, not the government's.

But again, it doesn't matter how any of us on any forum read the law. You can call it "capricious" or "unfair" or even "George." That's how they've taken it. No court is EVER going to dispute them. Whining won't affect anything.

Let me know when you change their mind and I'll run right out and buy one.

Lucky
December 24, 2006, 08:27 AM
The Tech Branch, however, has generally been our friend--we HAVE Hellfires that are described in marketing as "Full auto simulators." We HAVE crank-operated belt-feds at 400 rpm. We HAVE home-built weapons. We have all kinds of toys the antis claim are "obviously banned by any interpretation of the law."

One question - do you want to be part of the problem, or part of the solution?

Last month you also 'HAD' the Accelerator. And your 'HAVE' list will continue to grow shorter over time. A retarded monkey on drugs could follow that pattern. The question is whether you will decide to defend the manufacturers, eventually, or not.

Canadian gun owners tried the 'just leave us alone please' approach for a long time - it doesn't work. if you can't be bothered to even write a letter of support to Akins, or of dismay to a publication or a bureaucrat, then you're essentially part of the problem.

redneckrepairs
December 24, 2006, 08:34 AM
I find it interesting that in the second letter ( the reconsideration letter with photos ) the atf went so far as to list the dementions and a real complete discription of the device. Just what the lazy home machinest needs to be able to build same LOL . I dont know if this was intentional on thier part but am shure its an aid for anyone with the (im)proper bent of mind, and a drill press .

madmike
December 24, 2006, 09:00 AM
Last month you also 'HAD' the Accelerator.

And the month before that, I didn't.

Yawn.

My question, after an extensive look at Akins' site, is, is he REALLY that naive, or is he a fraud?

That's the REAL question here.

Lucky
December 24, 2006, 09:13 AM
The ATF receives a device called 'The Accelerator', with a website www.firefaster.com, calling itself the solution to the '1986 problem'. They examine the device, test and break the device.

Are you really so naive as to suggest the BATFE was confused as to what the device was?

At best, the very best, they couldn't find a law against it so they claimed the test was inconclusive, to give time to find the slimmest loophole to use against it.

If you don't support embattled manufacturers, then it's only polite to do so quietly, out of shame. Bragging about it is quite impolite.

On THR.

You might find more agreement here. (http://www.democraticunderground.com/)

madmike
December 24, 2006, 09:26 AM
Yes, Lucky. I hate guns. In fact, I'll go burn all of mine right now, and weep for the children.:rolleyes:

The ATF wasn't able to perform a conclusive test and said so. Akins said, "Good enough for me!" and started selling how many HUNDREDS of units at $1000 a pop?

Oh, yes, he's a HERO!

Now that they did a test and have said, "No go," any bet he's going to say, "Oh, well, not my problem!"?

Either that, or he suffers from the democratic fallacy--that being American, his opinion is as good as anyone else's. Read his posts. "Well, I'm not a lawyer, but (Which is where anyone with any brains stopped listening) it's obvious my device is legal. After all, I'm completely unbiased, and it's not as if law is difficult to understand or anything. Those 8 year degrees don't really mean anything."

Right.

madmike
December 24, 2006, 09:28 AM
And as far as I'm concerned, if anyone who disagrees with you is automatically a member of dummycrap underground, there's nothing you have to say that I have to listen to. So post away, 'cuz you're ignored:)

deadin
December 24, 2006, 09:54 AM
The trigger of the gun has not been shifted, it is actuated individually every single time. Period. Look at the drawings, figure out how it works.

You might say the same thing about an auto-sear. After all, it's nothing but a secondary trigger.

Lucky
December 24, 2006, 10:09 AM
Yes, Lucky. I hate guns. In fact, I'll go burn all of mine right now,

That's the problem, your guns are o.k. (for now). The next step is to help others, even if it doesn't benefit you directly.

(it is Christmas afterall)

Besides, it does benefit you, by vitue of engaging the anti's on grounds farther away from what you treasure. If you let the BATFE win this one, they'll be a step closer to taking your toys away.

ProficientRifleman
December 24, 2006, 10:21 AM
Lets face it, the intent of the system was to circumvent the machine gun laws in a way that slallomed through the wording. You know it, I know it. By doing so (and also flaunting it as stated above) the guy put all of our rights at possible risk. Could the ATF make this a platform for taking our semi-autos? Yes. Will they? Maybe, maybe not.

The answer to the above question is, yes. If they can, then they will. Power corrupts.

The first problem is that the American people submitted to this law in the first place.

The second problem is, actually a question...What kind of person would want to, zealously, enforce a law such as this?

madmike
December 24, 2006, 10:29 AM
The second problem is, actually a question...What kind of person would want to, zealously, enforce a law such as this?

Someone who is knowledgeable of firearms and hired to do the job?

Must everyone who works for the government be part of some overarching conspiracy?

HEY! LET'S GO SHOOT PEOPLE! THAT WILL SOLVE THE PROBLEM![/sarcasm]

I don't see anyone offering a legal solution, because we are still faced with the FACT that autos are restricted and the FACT that this thing is clearly an attempt to circumvent that law that failed.

Lacking a legal solution, why the name calling for everyone who says, "This is why they ruled that way. This is what you need to avoid in future attempts"?

"NO, NO! THEY'RE FASCISTS! YOU'RE ALL FASCISTS! ANYONE WHO DOESN'T SAY IT'S LEGAL IS A COMMIE!"

I really don't think that's going to help.

Novus Collectus
December 24, 2006, 11:20 AM
Ok, so the BATFE is claiming that ever since 1934 the original wording "single function" has always been interpreted by the courts to mean "single pull". If that's true, then I suppose they're right, the first letter was in error and it's their fault for approving it in the first place.

But if that's incorrect, and the legal system does not and has not interpreted it in that way, then it would seem clear the BATFE is pulling this out of their ass for their own purposes.

So the question is...what's the truth?If it is really defined as a single pull of the trigger, then let me pull a Clinton here. What is "pull"?
It can be argued that the finger providing resistance against the rebounding trigger is a "pull" because after all, who is to define how much of a finger's muscle movement and depression of flesh constitutes a "pull"? Must they also regulate that a light trigger pull on a semi auto be limited to certain pounds of pressure? I don't see it and it can also show that they are inconsistent in their definitions since they claim gatling gun is not a machine gun because it takes more than one function of the "trigger" to fire another shot.

madmike
December 24, 2006, 11:29 AM
A Gatling, a crank, a Hellfire all require constant physical motion to keep working.

This does not.

Sort of like a machine gun.

Again, whether you agree or not is immaterial. That's what they saw. I see the consistency. I can't help it if you don't.

This does not mean I like it. I'm just neither surprised by it, nor think it is some conspiracy, nor believe they will ban semis tomorrow based on it.

VARifleman
December 24, 2006, 11:35 AM
The trigger of the gun has not been shifted, it is actuated individually every single time. Period. Look at the drawings, figure out how it works.
You might say the same thing about an auto-sear. After all, it's nothing but a secondary trigger.
The trigger you operate is actuated once and an internal trigger is actuated every time after that. That fits the description in the law of what a machinegun is. The description in the law does NOT state that it's per pull of the trigger, it says per function. PERIOD. That trigger is functioned ever single shot, just like bump firing. That by all thoughts about it, should be legal under the current law.

madmike
December 24, 2006, 11:43 AM
That by all thoughts about it, should be legal under the current law.

Well, that's good enough for me.

I wonder how the firearms industry, ATF, lawyers and courts can POSSIBLY have different opinions?

A: They are all fascists

B: They are all communists

C: They are all part of the anti-gun conspiracy started by Bill Ruger

D: They are all morons

E: All of the above

Our solution should be:

A: ignore their fascistic legal opinion which is invalid, and tell the government to go screw.

B: A, plus keep making and selling these devices

C: Simply disband the ATF

D: If Congress refuses to go along with our reasonable position, stage a revolution for reasonableness.



I'm at a loss here. "I'm right and they're wrong! I've read A LETTER THAT WAS POSTED ON A WEBSITE!!!!" is really not going to change things.

I know it's frustrating, but we're not going to win this one. Nor is it the end of the world as we know it.

VARifleman
December 24, 2006, 12:01 PM
Whether or not we're going to win this battle is irrelevant to the fact that for their interpretation they had to knowingly misread the law to apply it to this.

Novus Collectus
December 24, 2006, 12:02 PM
A Gatling, a crank, a Hellfire all require constant physical motion to keep working. But what is "physical motion"? Does it not take a change in muscle presure whenever the trigger rebounds against the finger? Does not the flesh "move"? Even if it is not apparent to the naked eye or the movemnent is too fast for the eye, it does not mean there is not constant "physical motion"........semantics goes both ways in law and when the ATF starts reading in between the lines of the written law, then they open up the whole game to opposite interpretations that have just as much credibility.
"One function" of the trigger is straight forward, but "pull of the finger" is open to broad interpretaion here.

Even though the finger is colloquially said to be motionless, physically it is not and it requires force or "pull" to keep working on the trigger. Unless any part of the finger, it's flesh, muscle, tendon or bone did not move and did not recquire the muscle or bone to reposition even a fraction of a milimeter, then it can be said to be "pulling". So by even their loose definition of the written law it could be argued to be more than one pull by the finger, and with the literal definition it is more than one function of the trigger.
This is not an obvious case of "fully automatic" by a long shot.

madmike
December 24, 2006, 12:11 PM
This is not an obvious case of "fully automatic" by a long shot.

What are your credentials as an expert in the field?

semantics goes both ways in law and when the ATF starts reading in between the lines of the written law, then they open up the whole game to opposite interpretations that have just as much credibility.

Ditto.

You keep insisting that it's obvious they're wrong. Case law, precedent, chapter and verse of Title 18 USC, please. We'll toss this right out in court. Anyone should be able to, if it's so "obvious."

Novus Collectus
December 24, 2006, 12:26 PM
What are your credentials as an expert in the field?And what does that have to do with the pirce of tea in China? Where have I ever said or implied I was an expert? I probably have only as much credentials in this area as you do.

You keep insisting that it's obvious they're wrong. Case law, precedent, chapter and verse of Title 18 USC, please. We'll toss this right out in court. Anyone should be able to, if it's so "obvious." Calm down and read without so much emotion please. I never said they were "obviously wrong", I said it is not an obvious case of fully auto which means that it is not the open and shut case just because some beurocrat at the ATF said it is.
If it was such an obvious open and shut case that it is a full auto, then we wouldn't need judges and laweyers now would we? It would be advisable if you applied your logic to yourself as well before you type.
If you will go back and read my posts I was simply offering a differing position to express that it is not the obvious definition making it "full auto" by either "one function of the trigger", "one pull of the finger" or "not a constant physical motion". If you want to get emotional and constantly flame, then keep it up and this thread will be locked very quick.

Lucky
December 24, 2006, 12:33 PM
dconway [at] firefaster.com


I'm sure that someone being harassed by a federal agency could use a few supporting letters any time, especially around Christmas.

Again, PLEASE do not write hate-mails to gloat about his misery. Supporting letters only, please.

madmike
December 24, 2006, 01:00 PM
If you lock it in a vise and pull ONCE on the trigger, it will continue to fire until you release it.

And that makes it an auto. It doesn't take a rocket scientist.

From the docs on the site, Akins was selling them WITHOUT an approval letter. He got a letter that said, "we couldn't do a proper test with a broken device, but as long as it complies, etc, etc."

Then he started selling.

Then, in no uncertain terms, they POLITELY told him to cease and desist selling. They COULD, LEGALLY have kicked in his door and hauled him off--he's selling a full auto WITHOUT a letter.

At the best, he's a naive fool. At worst, he's a con artist. He sold how many hundreds of thousands of dollars worth? The only recourse those people will have is to sell them to dealers as Post May Samples, and attempt to collect in court from Akins.

I fail to see why Sterling Nixon is the bad guy in this. I fail to see why everyone who disagrees, who are clearly not versed in firearms law, don't have a sample to examine, and aren't clear on the difference in operation between bump fire and automatic, is convinced that they somehow are right, the lab is wrong, it's a conspiracy and we'll all be arrested tomorrow.

Especially as I haven't seen anyone who actually owns one log in yet.

But after all, what do lawyers and scientists know? Seen that on this forum before. Lawyers and scientists don't live in the real world and don't know anything. Better to talk to someone with "real experience." You know, someone who wears camo and takes an M4gery to the range on Sundays.

I say the misplaced anger should be directed at Akin. And I'm glad he doesn't have a grand of my money.

Novus Collectus
December 24, 2006, 01:15 PM
If you lock it in a vise and pull ONCE on the trigger, it will continue to fire until you release it. Locking it in a vice would be adding another part and is not the same thing as firing while holding it, and that is even if your hypothetical even applied. The idea that the trigger finger is still moving back is still an issue.
If someone added a part like put a bar in front of the trigger that locked in place, then it would be a machine gun, but in the case of the Atkins the trigger finger moves and the trigger also performs more than one function probably making it just another bump fire and not full auto.

But after all, what do lawyers and scientists know? Seen that on this forum before. Lawyers and scientists don't live in the real world and don't know anything. Better to talk to someone with "real experience." You know, someone who wears camo and takes an M4gery to the range on Sundays.WHich lawyers? The ones that challenge the ATF decisions based on their scientists and their lawyers and the challenging lawyers sometimes win? If you really think you know so much about the firearms law, then take the bar and work for the ATF if you pass. If not, then your opinion about firearms law is just a layman's opinion.

Outlaws
December 24, 2006, 01:24 PM
WHich lawyers? The ones that challenge the ATF decisions based on their scientists and their lawyers and the challenging lawyers sometimes win? If you really think you know so much about the firearms law, then take the bar and work for the ATF if you pass. If not, then your opinion about firearms law is just a layman's opinion.

If you know so much why don't you go make this legal for us all and get rid of the stupid NFA altogether. The fact is you don't, and neither does anyone else.

But what do I know, I just drink the Kool-Aid.

And IMO a vise is no different than a finger, because if I lock a normal semi auto into a vice it won't continue to fire, this one will. But then that is just my opinion.

Novus Collectus
December 24, 2006, 01:33 PM
If you know so much why don't you go make this legal for us all and get rid of the stupid NFA altogether. The fact is you don't, and neither does anyone else.

But what do I know, I just drink the Kool-Aid.See, I don't know jack **** about firearms law, but the difference is that I am not throwing around a bunch of bull making claims that it is a FACT that the Atkins is a full auto machine gun like someone here is and they obviously are making it up as they are going along.

I wish the NFA was gone through either a SC ruling or legislation, but that has absolutley nothing at all to do with what I was saying about the Atkins. I was simply stating that the Atkins is possibly a bump fire device and not full auto according to the way the law is written and how the law can sometimes be ambiguous. Just because some beurocrat at the ATF decided it probably was full auto, simply does not make it full auto, it still has to go to the courts and they may yet reverse themselves before it even gets that far. The ATF has been proven wrong in their initial interpretations before, and it can easily happen again. To make the claim that it is FACT it is a full auto device at this point is ridiculous.

redneckrepairs
December 24, 2006, 01:36 PM
Especially as I haven't seen anyone who actually owns one log in yet.

I do not own one nor have I ever seen one " in the flesh " . That being said IMHO you wont see anyone who owns one chime in. Folks who can afford to drop about a thousand dollars on a 10-22 toy are far too smart to post on a public board that they now apparently have a NFA felony setting around due to BATFEs inability to decide the legality of the dingus and stick to the decision .

No one owns one until the case is sorted out in court or otherwise .

madmike
December 24, 2006, 01:41 PM
Locking it in a vice would be adding another part and is not the same thing as firing while holding it, and that is even if your hypothetical even applied. The idea that the trigger finger is still moving back is still an issue.

The finger does not move on the Akins equipped rifle. Nor does the other hand. The shooter pulls the trigger, it fires until the shooter releases the trigger. Automatic. It simply turns the stock into the trigger. A trigger that operates ONCE for multiple discharges.

Locking a weapon in a vise is a standard way of testing accuracy, function, etc, adds nothing to the weapon and is a valid test.

Just because some beurocrat at the ATF decided it probably was full auto, simply does not make it full auto, it still has to go to the courts and they may yet reverse themselves before it even gets that far.

Sterling Nixon is a scientist who likes guns, not "some bureaucrat." He approved the Hellfire. No legal challenges face the Hellfire, the Tac Trigger or other devices.

The courts have reversed none of his decisions that I'm aware of.


making claims that it is a FACT that the Atkins is a full auto machine gun like someone here is and they obviously are making it up as they are going along.

No, I'm repeating what Tech Branch said, and following the logic they used. You are welcome to disagree. However, I don't think your opinion will change things.

Of course, if you believe Tech Branch are "making it up as they go along" as a personal slight to you, there's not much I can offer.

madmike
December 24, 2006, 01:45 PM
BTW: the ATF did not "reverse a decision."

They never cleared it in the first place.

Stripped of the legal speak and tech talk for those who were confused, the letter he got said, "We tried to use it but it broke. We don't have a clear instruction manual. However, if it works like a bump fire device and doesn't violate existing code "Here" it would be okay."

That was NOT approval.

Akins proceeded to sell lots.

They then said, "You misunderstood. If you thought that was approval, you were mistaken. We won't jail you for it, but you need to stop AT ONCE and follow this procedure. These are people who can help you comply without going to jail."

I certainly hope the attitudes I see here aren't the same ones people use with IRS auditors...

Outlaws
December 24, 2006, 01:54 PM
See, I don't know jack **** about firearms law, but the difference is that I am not throwing around a bunch of bull making claims that it is a FACT that the Atkins is a full auto machine gun like someone here is and they obviously are making it up as they are going along.

I wish the NFA was gone through either a SC ruling or legislation, but that has absolutley nothing at all to do with what I was saying about the Atkins. I was simply stating that the Atkins is possibly a bump fire device and not full auto according to the way the law is written and how the law can sometimes be ambiguous. Just because some beurocrat at the ATF decided it probably was full auto, simply does not make it full auto, it still has to go to the courts and they may yet reverse themselves before it even gets that far. The ATF has been proven wrong in their initial interpretations before, and it can easily happen again. To make the claim that it is FACT it is a full auto device at this point is ridiculous.

I have said it is not a machine gun....by law. But a lot of people are so resentful of the ATF, they refuse to even look at it with an open mind. Its just "the ATF said this, so I have take the other side." Same thing with politics. Notice both politcal party takes the opposite side of every issue no matter how dumb...and if its not PC to take the other side, they just try to find one thing in what the other side says that they can kind of disagree with just so as not to admit anything. That seems to be what is happening here.

A shark might not technically be a fish, but anyone who takes the time to correct someone calling it a fish is either A) a lawyer or B) has something to gain or lose based on the definition.

Novus Collectus
December 24, 2006, 02:06 PM
The finger does not move on the Akins equipped rifle. Nor does the other hand. The shooter pulls the trigger, it fires until the shooter releases the trigger. Automatic. It simply turns the stock into the trigger. A trigger that operates ONCE for multiple discharges. Define "move" and "pull". If it moves at all, then it moves even if it is just a fraction of an inch and if it needs muscle movement to go back in position at all, then it is pulling again and this definition of "pull" may be taken by the court as far as either of us know.

Locking a weapon in a vise is a standard way of testing accuracy, function, etc, adds nothing to the weapon and is a valid test. But if locking it in a device makes it a full auto, then once someone locks it in a vice they have made a full auto firearm. If it is not full auto when not in the vice, then it is not full auto. If one has to lock it into the vice to make it full auto, then when it is not in the vice it is not full auto.
See a pattern here?

No, I'm repeating what Tech Branch said, and following the logic they used. You are welcome to disagree. However, I don't think your opinion will change things.

Of course, if you believe Tech Branch are "making it up as they go along" as a personal slight to you, there's not much I can offer.You said it was a FACT he was trying to circumvent the full auto law and that it was a FACT that he failed thereby making a full auto device. You do not know if it is a FACT of any of those details.

Novus Collectus
December 24, 2006, 02:19 PM
BTW: the ATF did not "reverse a decision."

They never cleared it in the first place. Read the Nov 22 letter again. Not only did they admit they made a determination that it was not a full auto device previously, but they even used the words "they are hereby overruled". They wouldn't overrule a non-determination now would they?
They reversed their previous decision.

madmike
December 24, 2006, 02:46 PM
They reversed their previous decision.

They tested a non-functional one and expressed an opinion that IF it was what it appeared to be, it would be legal. They then tested a functional one and said it was not lawful.

Had they not "reversed" the decision, you would complain it was ambiguous with both an approval and denial.

You're clutching at straws.

But if locking it in a device makes it a full auto, then once someone locks it in a vice they have made a full auto firearm. If it is not full auto when not in the vice, then it is not full auto. If one has to lock it into the vice to make it full auto, then when it is not in the vice it is not full auto.
See a pattern here?

The pattern I see is that you are not familiar enough with this field to offer an opinion. You are again clutching at straws.

Especially as, using your language, if a person picks it up, it becomes a full auto. An argument like that could be used against any EXISTING bumpfire device. Please don't try to help. Don't try to "explain" or point out any "flaws" or "patterns." You will, at best, be arguing what Akins argued. That didn't work.

You said it was a FACT he was trying to circumvent the full auto law and that it was a FACT that he failed thereby making a full auto device. You do not know if it is a FACT of any of those details.

I do, in fact, know these facts.

To start with, ANYONE bumpfiring is trying to circumvent the full auto ban, in a legal way. The goal is a cyclic rate of fire well above that normally attainable by hand. That is de facto full auto, while attempting to remain semi de jure.

His method did not meet the criteria required by law, and has been declared full auto by the ONLY OFFICE IN THIS COUNTRY WITH LEGAL STANDING TO SAY SO. Therefore, de facto and de jure it is a full auto.

It is remotely possible a team of lawyers will be able to argue against de jure. But it ain't going to happen.

So those are the established facts.

No amount of nitpicking you attempt to make is going to prove or accomplish anything.

We are limited to a post facto discussion of where he went wrong. In simplest terms, he turned the stock into the trigger, and a single operation of said device makes it full auto.

Now, everyone trying to find a more effective bumpfire device: see what he did? Don't do that. Do something else.

Novus Collectus
December 24, 2006, 03:06 PM
They tested a non-functional one and expressed an opinion that IF it was what it appeared to be, it would be legal. They then tested a functional one and said it was not lawful.

Had they not "reversed" the decision, you would complain it was ambiguous with both an approval and denial.

You're clutching at straws. They made a determination in two previous letters that his device was legal. I saw no where that it was a requirement the device be successsfully tested by the lab first. He was acting on good faith that the letters were determinations they were legal up until the recent letters.

They reversed their determinations based partly on the device being more accurate than the hellfire and the grip of the other hand, it was not determined on the function of the trigger alone like with the Hellfire determination. Their application of their own definitions is not consistent and they have added so much to the interpretation of the NFA that Allito, Thomas, Roberts, and Scallia will go back to the origional wording of "function of the trigger" and not "pull of the finger" since they are Textualists for the most part. All they will need is one other judge to join them in their decision and it will be overturned just like the Tomson Contender pistol/SBR decision did.
The ATF has had their interpretations overturned before (and that was under a more liberal court too) and it is extremely premature to imply it is a FACT that it will stand.
If anything, if it goes to the SC and there is a decision, then one of two things will probably happen IMO. Either the Akins is found not to be a MG, or it is and all bump trigger devices like the Hellfire will be found to be full auto devices as well.

Especially as, using your language, if a person picks it up, it becomes a full auto. An argument like that could be used against any EXISTING bumpfire device. Please don't try to help. Don't try to "explain" or point out any "flaws" or "patterns." You will, at best, be arguing what Akins argued. That didn't work. Having an M1 Grand and wearing a shoestring on your shoes is not an machine gun, but as soon as the shoestring is attacked to the M1 Garand to make it full auto, then it is a machine gun. Same with the vice. Without the vice or any other item it is not full auto, but putting it into the vice is what makes it full auto.

To start with, ANYONE bumpfiring is trying to circumvent the full auto ban, in a legal way.
You are cojntradicting yourself. He followed the letter of the law by seeking a determination on the legality of his device from the very beginning. He circumvented nothing and he followed the law.
Anti's love to use the expression "cricumventing" the law. It implies something decieving by someone and it is rhetoric. This man tried to follow the law and the ATF screwed up by telling him it was legal. He followed the law in good faith the entire way.

Lucky
December 24, 2006, 03:11 PM
#1) Bowers (Akins' associate) receives a reply from a lawyer, advising him that his device is, in the lawyers' opinion, completely legal.


#2) Bowers receives an official letter from the BATFE, saying that they tested his device and understood the principles of it, and it is not a machine gun. Two screws fractured (as this was an SKS not the .22), but the device is not a machine gun.


#3)Bowers communicated by telephone with BATFE to confirm that the device was not a machine gun. He didn't want there to be any ambiguity because the screws broke. Bowers then sent a letter, to follow up the telephone call and to have a written record.


#4)Bowers receives an official letter from the BATFE to confirm in writing what was discussed on the telephone, that the operating principles of the Accelerator are not a machine gun, and that the device is completely legal, with no ambiguity.


#5)Bowers receives an official letter from the BATFE, telling him that they changed their minds. Period.

All the letters are available to be viewed, as well as detailed pictures of the device for you to examine, right here:
http://www.firefaster.com/documentation.html


And here are excerpts from the letters:

BATFE#1)"The proposed theoryof operation of this stock involves the application of the movement of the counter recoiling rifle to initiate a rapid succession of semiautomatic fire...

...Our examination has determined that the submitted stock assembly does not constitute a machinegun as defined in the NFA. It is not a part or parts designed and intended for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun."

Bowers to BATFE)"Due to having no instructions on use, you related in our phone call that the apparatus never functioned as intended during two test firings and did in fact break upon the second attempt. However, you related that yoour examination of the apparatus was sufficient to convey the proposed theory of operation, as you described in #3311/2004-096, in that the application is intended to apply the movement of the counter-recoiling firearm, in relation to the shooter's fixed trigger finger, thereby initiating a rapid succession of semi-automatic shots.

My confusion relating to the above-referenced letter stems from page 2, paragraph2, sentences 3 and 4, "Both of the adjustable screws fractured, breaking away from the underside of the stock. These fractures occurred on the second test firing."

The placement of those two sentences referring to the broken screws and second test firing cast ambiguity on the determination, in that the reader can not be certain if the intent of the letter is to approve the broken prototype which did not function as intended, or for the principle in general. In our phone conversation, you informed me that your intent had been to approve the principle in general."


BATFE#2) "The proposed theoryof operation of this stock involves the application of the movement of the counter recoiling rifle to initiate a rapid succession of semiautomatic fire...

Our classification of the stock assembly was rendered despite the fact that the screws dislodged from the frame. The theory of operation was clear even though the rifle/stock assembly did not perform as intended.

...Our examination has determined that the submitted stock assembly does not constitute a machinegun as defined in the NFA..."



BATFE#3)"We note that by letters dated November 17, 2003, and January 29, 2004, we previously advised you that we were unable to test-fire a prototype of the Akins device that you sent in for examination. However, both letters state that the theory of operation is clear, and because the device is not a part or parts designed and intended for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, it is not a machinegun as defined under the National Firearms Act. The previous classification was based on a prototype that fractured when this office attempted to test fire it. Nonetheless, the theory of operation of the prototype and the Akins Accelerator is the same. To the extent the determination in this letter is inconsistent with the letters dated November 17, 2003 and January 29, 2004, they are hereby overruled."


After reading for yourselves, you will see that what Mike and Outlaws are telling you are lies. Once you read the letters you will not believe their lies, because they are contrary to all facts.

madmike
December 24, 2006, 03:14 PM
I'm done here. Go ahead and congratulate yourselves on your legal brilliance. Let me know when you win.

antarti
December 24, 2006, 04:03 PM
I'm done here. Go ahead and congratulate yourselves on your legal brilliance.

I agree with you that almost all of the banter is a waste of time. Where we disagree is that I see your banter as a complete waste.

It doesn't require a lawyer at all to sort this out.

Put the device in a vice, as you say. Take the photography of a full mag being fired in whatever manner you like. You will see the trigger (the one in the triggerguard) being operated each time. Period.

In fact, if the vice DOES make it "full auto" (which it doesnt, the vice is not a new trigger) then the vice could be classified as a machinegun right beside the shoelace.

Your reasoning (legal or functional about the device) isn't on thin ice, it's on no ice at all, because you refuse to understand the mechanical principle by which it operates, and the simple sentences in the law that describes how "a machinegun" is classified.

Art Eatman
December 24, 2006, 04:09 PM
Ten pages? You kidding me? And so, in the spriit of the Season, to All:

Hey! Got any friends? Family? Eggnog? Got a gun? Got a place to shoot?

After taking a friend or a sib out shooting, drink some eggnog and enjoy life.

Come back to the Errornet when your nervous system is all calmed down.

Life will indeed be better.

:D, Art

If you enjoyed reading about "ATF reverses decision.. Akins Accelerator now MACHINEGUN" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!