ATF reverses decision.. Akins Accelerator now MACHINEGUN

[Rumble]

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]

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]

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]

@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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

So every firearm in the world is readily convertable? I don't follow.

 

[deadin]

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.

 

[johnster999]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.