gunsmith
member
so the people that own them
are now 10,000 dollars richer or will they have to dispose of them?
are now 10,000 dollars richer or will they have to dispose of them?
ATF reverses decision.. Akins Accelerator now MACHINEGUN
- Thread starter CanonNinja
- Start date
- Status
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
Member
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
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
Member
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
Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2003
- Messages
- 1,676
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
Moderator Emeritus
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.
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
Member
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.
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
Member
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:
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
Member
Its very diturbing how many people like to use that phrase like they are somehow soooo much more "High Road" than everyone else.
madmike
Member
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.
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
Member
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
Member
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.
"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?
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
Member
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.
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
Member
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.
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.
I love machine guns and NFA weapons.
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.
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
Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2006
- Messages
- 1,962
Reading the second ATF letter dated as recieved Nov 22nd, I see the critical language as being:
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?
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?
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
Member
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.
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
Member
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
Member
- Joined
- May 3, 2005
- Messages
- 1,117
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
Member
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.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked