ATF reverses decision.. Akins Accelerator now MACHINEGUN

[Novus Collectus]

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]

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]

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]

For those that haven't had the time to read all the documents, here is a summary:

#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]

I'm done here. Go ahead and congratulate yourselves on your legal brilliance. Let me know when you win.

 

[antarti]

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]

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.

, Art