ATF reverses decision.. Akins Accelerator now MACHINEGUN

[jlbraun]

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]

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]

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]

@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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

For $1000.00 each for a .22----doubt they sold very many.

 

[Prince Yamato]

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]

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.

 

[Lucky]

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]

Political fallout...connect the dots.

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]

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]

We need to reverse our decision on creating the ATF.

 

[Master Blaster]

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]

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]

coltrane679

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.

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]

GWB could end all this right now if he chose to.

 

[buzz_knox]

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]

[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]

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]

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

And the BATFE would never ever violate due process. 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]

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.

 

[LAR-15]

For a guy in Washington, you can't own machineguns.