ATF reverses decision.. Akins Accelerator now MACHINEGUN

[Lucky]

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.

 

[madmike]

Yes, Lucky. I hate guns. In fact, I'll go burn all of mine right now, and weep for the children.

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]

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]

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]

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]

lets face it

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

For people who SUPPORT them, only:

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.