Legal Eagles: is this letter an admission of guilt?

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

cpileri

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
1,425
Since posession of an unregistered NFA item is prima facie evidence of guilt (or so I hear), is this letter an admission of guilt?
http://www.atf.gov/alcohol/info/revrule/rules/2006-2_q_and_a.pdf
_________________________________________
Questions and Answers for the Akins Accelerator
What should I do if I am in possession of an Akins Accelerator?
You should immediately remove the spring from the Akins Accelerator. This spring should be mailed (with the certification described below) to the Chief, Firearms Technology Branch, 244 Needy Road, Martinsburg, WV 25405. You should be sure to include your name and address with the spring so that ATF can account for all the devices which have been sold. The following certification should be completed, signed, and returned with the spring.
Certification
I, _____________________________________, certify that the enclosed spring was removed from my Akins Accelerator and sent to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives on __________________(date). I understand that replacing the spring on the Akins Accelerator constitutes a violation of law.
_______________________ _________________________
Signature Date
(truncated)
_________________________________________


Also, since most everyone is aware, even if they don't care, of the reversal of the ATF's decision on the Akins Accelerator which reclassified it as an NFA device; then were told not to return, transfer, sell etc. the device but rather to hang on to it until a decision was made; and then yesterday that the decision was made to have the posessors of the device return a spring along with the above referenced letter; it raises a few more questions:

1. There is no requirement to Notarize the proposed certification/affidavit; will either the Akins Group, or the ATF, provide a written statement that no Notarization is required for the certification to be accepted as true?

2. Will either the Akins Group or the ATF provide a written statement that those who comply with the recommended course of action will not be liable for any criminal action related to this issue?

3. What is the suspense date for removal of the spring?

4. What is the suspense date for mailing the spring and certification to the ATF?

5. What is the suspense date for receipt of the spring and certification by the ATF?

6. Will eithe rthe Akins Group or the ATF provide a written statement that former owners of the device who have forfeited the spring will not be considered to be in 'constructive possession' of an unregistered NFA item if that former owner has OTHER types of springs present in his/her home or dwelling coincident with the remaining parts of the (now spring-removed) Akins Accelerator?

7. What is the safest way for an unskilled person to disassemble the device so as not to damage the parts that are currently legal to possess?

8. No alternate language in the proposed certification letter allows for those who have destroyed the device in its entirety. For those, and others who have disposed of the device in ways other than transfer or posession with removal of the spring, will an alternately worded letter be accepted by the ATF?

9. Will either the Akins Group or the ATF provide a written statement that alternately worded letters, as described in question 8 above, will be accepted by the ATF?


Any legally versed individuals care to comment. I deliberately DO NOT want any posts offering to send the ATF a box of Slinkies. I already read that thread. :)

Thanks in advance for you rtime and expertise,
C-
 
Well, IANAL; but my guess is that the ATF is keeping the letters so they can establish the knowingly intent element of the crime of possessing a prohibited item if the user later reinstalls the spring or sends a spring that is not from the Akins Accelerator.

Beyond that I couldn't say and if it were me, I'd consider asking a lawyer to make sure my rights were protected just in case ATF decided to reinterpret something else at a later date.
 
Damn, this makes me mad.

"With this method of compliance, if Akins Group Inc. prevails, we can get our customers running again inexpensively and without months of delays."

"Running again", huh? I'm sorry, there will be no "running again" of an Akins device, ever.

The BATFE capriciously and with intent bankrupted the Akins Group. Anyone who send in a letter is de facto confessing that they committed a Federal Crime, and giving the Feds their name and address.

The BATFE wins, we all lose.

Again.
 
Last edited:
akins

Nah, dont feel dumb. the website and the whole project was so short-lived that if you never heard of it it wouldnt suprise me.

(OK everyone, this is not to start a debate on wether it is or is not a machine gun. Please leave my thread to the question(s) asked!)

But basically the Accelerator was (is?) a little sled-like device that attached to the receiver of a 10/22 in place of the V-block (barrel retaining block) and anchored it to the stock. This sled slid back and forth (and therefore moved the whole receiver/barrel) within the stock powered by the recoil of the gun and a return spring on the sled.
When activated, you pulled your finger back and fired the gun as usual, then held your finger against the immobile stock while the receiver kept recoiling backwards guided by the sled, returned by power of the spring; which pushed the trigger into your finger that you left resting on the stock; which fired the gun again, over and over.

it was essentially an easy way to bump fire (though some may argue. Please don't start!) and to meet the requirement that one action of the trigger launched one projectile at a time. It did meet that requirement, but it did so really really fast at approx 600rpm so they say.

There are pictures all over the net if you google it or look on most of the major forums.

Anyway, the short story is that the ATF sent letters that it was OK, then changed their minds, and the customers were left holding the bag. the customers were left both in posession of an unregistered NFA item from 22 November 2006, the day the ATF reversed its prior decision, to whatever day they sent/send in the spring. The customer gets no working device which they bought in good faith as being legal, and no $$$ compensation from anyone; AND... and this is the worst part... that letter basically says, "Hi, my name is Richard Sukkor and I bought this unregistered NFA device and posessed it from 22 Nov 06 until today."

Of course, the consternation is based solely on mistrust. Mistrust that the (former) owners will not be prosecuted at some future date for which they sent in a signed statement attesting to their illegal activity. its not too hard to imagine why some are not willing to trust that the govt will not decide later to prosecute!

Anyway, hope that answers your question and helps out.
C-
 
Is the Akins Accelerator considered a machine gun if it's not even attached to/installed on a Ruger 10/22?

If not, then I don't think the letter is an admission of guilt. You're not stating that you ever assembled the device to a rifle, just that you removed the spring. You could have bought the thing and never even owned a 10/22.
 
ATF

My take is just this...If the BATFE has decided that the device is a de facto machine gun...Instead of sending in the spring, I'd send the whole thing in with a letter stating that I wouldn't want to be caught up in a legal jam at some point later over a toy...so they're welcome to it. Might be best to just
take a big hammer to it and drop it into a rock quarry.

Yes. It's a travesty. No. it's not worth spending a lot of long green to defend against a federal rap that you may end up pleading down in order to remain at liberty...with your legal right to own a gun forever forfeited.

Remember the old Drop-In Auto Sears...those neat little tricks that were responsible for burning out SP-1 AR15 barrels in the late 70s and early 80s?
A casual aquaintance and sometimes gun show vendor found himself in deep dookey over one of those things that he had forgotten that he had...didn't remember buying, and didn't even own a rifle for it to drop into any more...and hadn't for a few years.

An off-duty Sheriff's deputy from a neighboring county spotted it while rummaging though his junk parts bin at a show, and you can guess the rest. By the time he got through, he spent over 20 grand in legal fees...had his firearms confiscated and held for over a year...and lost his job because of all the time he had to spend tangled up in the system...all because of a part that he couldn't prove was manufactured before November of 1981. This took place in 1986 or '87...can't really recall. It ruined him. 20 large was a helluva lotta beer and pretzels in the 80s, and the last I heard, he was still making payments to the lawyer after Y2K.

And before anyone jumps...No. I don't have documentation, but a deep enough dig can probably turn it up. There were several such busts over those things along about the same time, so take your pick.

RKBA worth fighting for? Worth your activism and dedication? Yes. Absolutely. Worth the right to keep and bear a silly toy? Not by a long shot, IMO.

Just my 2% of a buck.
 
If atf doesn't know you have it, why on earth would you even deal with those snakes by either sending in the spring OR sending in a letter basically begging them to be nice to you?? :confused: If you're scared to keep it, then throw it in the trash. Couldn't a class III dealer buy it?
 
No law abiding citizen has any obligation to follow this ruling.

As the BATFE is not part of the judiciary branch (it's part of the executive) it can't make rulings or interpret laws anyway.

The Akins people specifically asked the BATFE if their device was a machinegun, and the BATFE said no. There was no change in NFA weapon definition, yet the BATFE went back on it's decision and reclassified the Akins device.
 
Do we have any lawyers with firearms experience relevant to something like this here even? I'd certainly be cautious with who I take advice from.

I have to question why you would need to send such a form to the ATF anyway? The device was never registered with the ATF, why couldn't you just remove the part that makes it a machine gun (the spring), destroy it, and be done with it?
 
I feel the love

I can feel the rage this topic stirs in people, not suprisingly.

A silly toy?
I agree, for reasons alluded to below; I cannot see why anyone would bother keeping the spring nor any other proprietary part of the thing now that this decree has come down.
I like and may have to spread around the idea of sending in the whole thing! The idea to send in just the spring is predicated on the hope that the reversal will be reversed and then the customers will only have to get a new spring. I believe that to be wishful thinking. I doubt that the reversal will be rescinded.

If the ATF knows youhave it?
Well, they don't know who has one per se. but they know certainly who bought them! Internets and credit cards are wonderful data mining tools for law enforcement. besides, I am sure that Akins Groups' sales reords are either public or able to be subpoena'd.

Is it a machine gun of never assembled?
Well, now THAT'S a great question! According to the letters fromthe ATF posted here:http://www.firefaster.com/documentation.html
(dated 22 Nov 06) "For testing purposes, FTB personnel installed a semiautomatic Ruger 10/22 rifle... into the stock with the Akins device attached. Live fire testing... demonstrated that a single pull of the trigger initiates an automatic firing cycle ... Accordingly, it is the position of this agency that conversion parts that are designed and intended to convert a weapon into... one that will shoot more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single pull of the trigger, are regulated as machine guns..."
and
(dated 29 jan 04) "... prototype shoulder stock assembly does not constitute a 'machinegun'... provided that when the stock is assembled ...the rifle does not discharge more than one shot by a single function of the trigger..."

So, in the Jan '04 evaluation, they were talking about a prototype using an SKS rifle, and an accelerator that broke under testing so that their eval was based on the theory of action alone. But the theoretical action in reality when attached to a 10/22 (and presumably a SKS as well) now is a machine gun.

So if an owner's circumstances were such that (s)he bought it but never assembled it to a 10/22, was it ever a machine gun? Is the device all by itself a machine gun since it is now deemed to be a set of conversion parts? Good question! Liek one fellow here said, any REAL lawyers have anything to add???

Class III dealer?
No, I doubt it. A Class III delaer can only have post-86 machine guns with a LE demo letter or somesuch. I dunno, maybe one will post and answer that one. Then another question becomes: is it legal for a civilian to transfer an unregistered post-86 machine gun to a Class III dealer? Again, i don't know.

No law abiding citizen has any obligation to follow this ruling...
Well sure, but given the history of such disobedience; how many (former) akins owners are willing to 1. go broke defending themselves and even have the $$$ to start, or 2. go to jail on a felony charge; thus giving up their rights to vote, own a firearm ever again, serve in the military, and hol sundry professional liscences that frown strongly on felons of any kind (doctors, nurses, police, etc)?? or, 3. get killed during the raid of an agency, however unconstitutional their authority may be? Dead is still dead.

Send in just the spring?
Risks being in constructive posession of a machine gun if the ATF ever changes its minnd and decides to prosecute and finds other springs in your house. "Hey! What's this?!?!? A slinky? a likely story..."

Yup, we need a lawyer to chime in! And since free legal advice is not exactly putting food on their table- I am not optomistic.

My question is: will the ATF accept a sworn statement signed by a lawyer on retention that the owner sent in the device, having never used it, and never assembled it to a firearm, and desires to comply and cooperate fully etc. etc. rather than the verbage used by the ATF in their template letter????

C-
 
Ask your attorney. Internet law advise is only worth what you pay for.
 
I've concluded that the atf ruling is totally illegal. The atf is rewriting the law as if it had ANYTHING to do with your "finger." It does not. It's about trigger pull and the law in this case does not mention or care as to what is specifically pulling the trigger. The atf is committing what I call "opportunistic" fraud. They're hoping people won't look at the law, that they'll just look at the APPEARANCE of full auto. What they don't want people noticing is that it STILL requires one trigger pull per round. Not two not three. The guns sear has to let off EACH time a round discharges and THAT requires force of a separate trigger pull (albeit not by the finger). The atf, like the irs, plays fraudulent word games, mixing the ORDINARY usage of a word with the LEGAL definition. Ordinary usage is very very broad. Legal usage HAS to be specific or it's void for vagueness. Atf is hoping that no one will notice that the law says nothing about what your finger does, with regards to "trigger pull" and the number of shots per pull.

Atf is also being intentionally misleading when they call this a "automatic cycle." Of course it's a cycle, every semi auto uses a cycle, but it's not "automatic" (meaning one "pull" of the trigger, regardless of what's pulling it, for multiple shots), and they KNOW IT because they have ruled as such already in the initial application. Do you think for two seconds that on the initial application, they didn't try EVERY MEANS POSSIBLE to call it a machine gun? Of course they did, but they just couldn't. They had to rule it was legal.

Proof of what I'm saying is that the atf HAD to rule it legal when they were first sold, and they used the same logic and legal facts that I am using, because they HAD to at the time. Now, they are trying to pull a sleight of hand, seeing an opportunity to add words by IMPLICATION, like "finger" to the law, because they KNOW that most people will conclude that "shucks, I see one trigger pull [of the finger, never mind that the law atf is using doesn't care WHAT is pulling the trigger] and lots of bullets coming out, therefore, yep she be a machine gun."

Atkins better pursue this because this is an EASY case. What the atf is trying to pull is very easy to see once you either notice it, or someone points it out to you.

Synopsis: the trigger IS being pulled only one time per discharge. Atkins lawyers hopefully won't be afraid to stand on truth and ADMIT that the finger muscles are only making one pull, and that it's irrelevant. There's no mention in the law of fingers let alone your finger muscles and what they're doing. It is the physics of inertia and the force being bounced off the gun that is pulling the trigger after the initial pull by the finger muscles. Just because it's a different force than your finger that is pulling the trigger does not change the fact that force is being applied to the trigger for EACH individual discharge!

I knew the atf's opportunistic and flawed logic was contradicting the law in a fundamental way, but I had to set aside my 1. fear of admitting what the trigger finger was doing (i.e. only pulling once), and 2. what my eyes, mixed with an ASSUMPTION about the law (that trigger pull must=finger pull) fraudulently put forth by atf, were telling me. Once I did, the truth just got clearer clearer.

Once you see how clear this is, and what the atf is trying to pull, your blood will most likely go into a rolling boil.

I don't feel comfortable saying whether I'm an attorney or not because I don't think that's relevant. The law either says something or it doesn't. I'll just say that I have received extensive training on how to read law (something that should be begun in 4th grade or we're going to see government pull more crap like this). That and anybody can claim to be ANYTHING.

Atkins needs to counter sue for conspiracy to defraud plaintiff of his constitutional rights. He has a hell of a case given A. the obvious legal fraud (and legal fiction) being perpetrated and promulgated by atf, and B. the fact that atf ruled CORRECTLY the first time (thus making them knowing conspirators). We're talking punitive damages are possible big time here. The only reason I can figure that atf would pull such a weak stunt and try to add words (by implication) to the law, is they're confident in the corrupt, pro government federal judiciary, and probably that they're confident that Atkins lawyers will be too scared to stand up in open court and say "yea we admit you only have to pull the trigger once with your finger to cause multiple rounds to discharge, but that doesn't matter and here's the LAW that is on our side. The LAW says one trigger pull per shot and that's what's happening, it's just not via the FINGER, which the LAW does not take into account."

Sadly, I think atf gambled correctly on this one. I think america has reverted to her pre revolutionary days, where we are government by a quasi king, and by arbitrary fiat, not by law.

ATF will be wiped out in front of a jury, which is probably why they're trying to intimidate people into mailing in springs (which is utterly shameless, because it saves them having to prosecute a LOSING case in front of a jury, and prevents the jury altogether because there has to be an enforcement action to en panel a jury).

Let me translate the atf's actions into plain english: "Don't ask too many questions, we've ruled, that's the end, just mail them in with this convenient little form we've provided and we won't prosecute." People need to notice that atf is scared ess-less of prosecuting and having to defend this especially in front of a jury. Their behavior is proof of their fear. They're banking that WE are more scared of them than they are of a jury. They're playing "chicken" is all they're doing, and trying to QUICKLY take advantage of everyone's fear. Talk about terrorism 101.

Edit: I feel obliged to disclose that atf did the legal work in the first ruling, and I don't think I'm super smart for figuring this out. Basically folks, I'm plagiarizing their INITIAL legal work. Atf made this so easy it's scary. I just retraced their legal steps while paying ATTENTION to what the law says, and not what my eyes see in some video (by the way, in the video, you can clearly see the force being applied to the trigger ONCE and only once per discharge, and that the finger does it once, and the force of inertia reflected off the unit does it once per discharge after that. Basically, this device is saying to your finger "you pull once, and I'll pull the trigger ONCE per discharge using the inertia reflected off me" I think the light just went on in some of your minds now, because some of you are probably saying "this is no different than using my right finger and my left finger to pull the trigger, or my finger and a stick, or my finger and my toe etc etc."

If you bought a "Tac Trigger" you have a vested interest in legal TRUTH (vs legal fiction) winning here or you're device is next to be on the chopping block of atf's lies.

I'd call atf on the stand and grill the hell out of them asking where it says you HAVE to pull the trigger with only your finger. Damn that would be fun. "Mr _____, is it legal to pull the trigger with a right finger and a left finger?" He'll say "yes." "Mr _____, is it legal to pull the trigger with your finger and a stick?." He'll say "yes." "Mr _____, is it legal for the owner to use reflected force as the second trigger pull for the second discharge?" He'll either say "yes," or evade which will cause me to petition the judge to force him to answer under threat of contempt, because the answer is clear. "Mr ____, in this video, what force is being acted upon the trigger for the second discharge, is it NOT reflected force?" He'll either say "yes" or evade the question, which will cause me to petition the judge to force him to answer the question under thread of being in contempt. It would be a bloodbath. Knowing these snakes, they'd probably beg for a recess so they could reverse their ruling, to avoid the inevitable loss in court. Hence the counter suit. They'd be wiping their foreheads with squeegees.
 
Last edited:
Law

Quote: (Several time

>I've concluded that the atf ruling is totally illegal.<
************

And most of use agree, me included...but that doesn't change anything. Though the BATFE is part of neither the legislative nor the judiciary branch of government, and has no power to make law...both those branches seem to be willing to accept, enact, and enforce their rulings on these matters. (After all...They ARE professionals...Right?)

Many income tax laws are unconstitutional and illegal, and the IRS makes rulings and changes its definitions seemingly at whim, without the restraints of having to go through the legislative process. Many people have refused to comply and have withheld, and they have property seized...without due process...every day.

So, while you may feel as though you're making a political statement by taking a stand...refusing to comply, and hanging onto your toy...be prepared for it to cost you dearly. I can't presume to speak for anyone else, nor can I
give you legal advice, nor can I give anyone orders or directives...but for me...if I owned one that had a paper trail back to me and my residence...I'd box it up and send it in, and if I had one that came from untraceable sources, it would very soon be sleeping with the fishes.

Now...at some point in the future...should the all-powerful BAT-men decide that all my multi-round firearms are "Machineguns"...then we might have a problem with my compliance. But toys? Not a chance.
 
I didn't say I "had the toy," I merely pointed out, that on legal grounds this is what I call a "confident" case, EVEN taking into account the corrupt judiciary and the bullying (terrorism) of atf. Again, a little proof of that is how quick atf just wants these returned. They DON'T want to prosecute this and that's obvious, or they would have already (do you think these are even remotely nice people?), let alone a determined citizen who will look forward to the jury and who looks at the law. ATF has built up the first hurdle (prosecution), hoping that everyone will cave and want to avoid prosecution. Once past that, atf find themselves in a dilemma. They'd probably stall because they DO NOT want to take THIS one to a jury, even a firearms ignorant current american jury. Proof? They would have already. Not many people own these. If they had the LAW on their side, they would prosecute somebody, then watch as everyone else threw their "toy spring" in the garbage (hoping of course for a second prosecution, that is IF they had the law on their side). Sir, just look at the historical record of the atf vis a vis what they did to owners of drop in auto sears. They didn't play games of "mail them in so we don't have to face putting on a prosecution or face a jury with this, if someone won't buckle under our terrorism." They picked up their new bat and started swinging because a drop in auto sear really DOES make it a machinegun (i.e. ONE trigger pull by whatever force, and MULTIPLE discharges). I think their ruling went way too far in 1981, but they knew they had/have an unconstitutional law on their side. Not so in this case where they're playing word games hoping no one will notice.

Don't misunderstand me. I never said people should "keep them." I never said people "should" do anything. I'm merely making a legal observation here, one that I believe to be amazingly clear.
 
Sorry about being long winded. I think I've got a better way to word my legal observation.

1.What we have here with this device is TWO forces acting to pull the trigger: your finger, and then the force of the bounce. People are used to only talking about ONE force hitting their trigger (unless they put it in a vice and use both fingers).

2.Using multiple forces to pull your trigger (such as the left finger and say a stick, or whatever, the law is silent on WHAT pulls the trigger) is legal, and everyone knows that because you can legally pull your trigger as fast as you're able, using as many fingers, sticks, strings, your buddy's finger, or whatever as you wish.

3.As long as the trigger has to be pulled (by whatever force) for each discharge, you have a legal semi auto.

4.Atf's sleight of hand with words is saying that one pull sets forth a cycle of full auto fire. They know they're lying because it's STILL one trigger pull per discharge. Any jury could understand this. It's not technical.

5.What caused atf to drool that they could make a new ruling, is the fact that the finger only does ONE thing. It fires the first round and then it transfers the trigger pulling work (still one pull per discharge) to the force of the bounce. It's no different than trading fingers. Atf is trying to have it both ways. They're calling this an "automatic cycle" knowing full well what the LEGAL definition of "automatic" is (one actuation of the trigger be it by your finger or a branch resulting in multiple discharges). You know what, this is EXACTLY like hiring a super fast trigger puller to pull your trigger while you hold it. It doesn't make the gun a "machine gun" for petes sake, it makes your buddy REALLY fast!

6.The law only cares that one trigger pull=one discharge.

7.Atf probably would try to say that "well you don't have to DO anything after the trigger is pulled except hold it, thus it's a machine gun, because in every movie, the actor just holds the trigger and the gun goes," thus trying to set up an apparent conflict between what you see in movies and what you [hopefully] KNOW the law says. The law does not care what you SEE the gun doing, it only cares what the internal parts are ACTUALLY doing. Atf is trying to turn this on it's head.
 
Probably one of the things that upsets me the most is the fact that these "toys" certainly weren't cheap. Who knows how many people paid out over a grand each based on the written opinion that these things were legal?

I see it like the DOT bouncing the speed limit up and down, on a whim. The rules and laws we live by are supposed to serve us. They're supposed to make our lives easier, by limiting behavior that might impact us in a negative manner. This ruling does nothing for us but stir up more resentment. Shooters resent the BATFE for being authoritarian Jello-heads, and non-shooters resent the shooters for wanting to stir up (as they see it) trouble.

It's obscene. I can't fault those who don't have the resources to fight this ruling, as I can't even afford to buy this "toy" in the first place. I can't help but think, though, that this would make a helluva case for a class-action lawsuit against the BAT-men...
 
Legal

LocalFFL...I agree 100% with that. The problem lies in the expense and hassle to convince a grand jury that STILL may not care about technicalities, no matter how well-founded in fact, nor how well presented and explained. All they see is a video of the gun rockin' and rollin'...and all they see is a "Machinegun." Willing to risk it? Willing to get onto the ATF's "Hit List"
even if you win? Best to avoid hassles with any of the lettered gub'mint entities if ya can. (ATF...DEA...IRS, etc.) Bulldogs they are, and they don't take a defeat lightly. Are we living under tyranny? I think the answer to that is pretty clear. These agencies act with impunity, very often suspending due process while they make their case...and even if they lose, you lose too.
Like a nuclear war. There are no winners or losers. There are only survivors. I think that they know that they're operating out of bounds of law, but forge ahead anyway because they also know that the average Joe doesn't have the money or the desire to go head to head with'em.

ceetee...The thousand bucks lost on one of these devices is C-H-E-A-P in comparison to havin' to fight it.
 
I'm a law student, not a lawyer, so this isn't legal advice.

That said, you should comply with the ATF's determination and mail off your spring as soon as possible.

The criminal law doctrine of ex post facto will then shield you from prosecution for illegal possession of an unregistered NFA machinegun. I didn't see any deadlines listed, so the default rule of "knew or should have known" applies. You now know that the status of the AA is in doubt and have made statements acknowledging as much on a public discussion forum. You have no excuse for noncompliance.

You may eventually get your spring back. As someone mentioned earlier, the ATF doesn't make law. Will a court agree with ATF technology division's finding? The celebrated "Chevron" doctrine dictates that when a statute is silent or ambiguous, courts should defer to an administrative agency's interpretation so long as it is "reasonable." I have no idea whether the ATF's classification of the AA as an MG is reasonable or not, but at some point there will be a definitive judicial ruling on the status of bump-fire stocks. Either Akins (or the ATF) will obtain a declaratory judgment, or some hapless owner will be criminally prosecuted. Holding onto the spring in the meantime isn't worth the risk, and I expect the ATF's amnesty to grow progressively less forgiving as time passes.

Even if you don't recover the spring, you might still be eligible for compensation. Contact Akins' general counsel and see if you can't join the class action suit for governmental taking that I'm sure is brewing.

Good luck.
 
Last edited:
Actually, I never did admit to owning one...

Thanks for the responses, all. Here's one thing I am not afraid to admit in public:

I, the real-life person who posts as cpileri, certify that there is no spring from an Akins Accelerator assembled to said device in my posession, nor in my home nor holdings, neither readily nor reasonably accessible to me, and not in my direct nor extended control.

There, that's pretty complete. I don't want the spring at all. Even if former owners of the Akins device start getting springs back at some point I still wont be sorry that i don't have one! Way too much trouble, if you ask me!

Thanks again!
C-

p.s. so ex post facto protections are not indefinite, but how long are they? a day? until the weekend to get to the post office? until some deadline is posted? Just curious. C-
 
The constitutional prohibition of ex post facto prosecutions guarantees that you will never be criminally liable for possession of your AA prior to the BATF's ruling. In that sense, it is indefinite.

You are responsible, however, for complying in a timely manner with the BATF's request to surrender or destroy the spring. I can't say how long the grace period will last other than to suggest that the longer you wait, the more tenuous your position becomes. Dispose of it ASAP.
 
Last edited:
p.s. so ex post facto protections are not indefinite, but how long are they? a day? until the weekend to get to the post office? until some deadline is posted? Just curious.
Click to expand...
Well, under the constitution, ex post facto protection is permanent. However, since the constitution was overthrown in 1933 by F.D.R. and his handlers, that isn't even a "protection" anymore. It's a tool the government uses arbitrarily to simultaneously keep public outrage under control, while enforcing tyranny. We don't have rule of law anymore, so if the government is scared of public outcry, there will be a published deadline that is made to look "reasonable." In this case, the government is not afraid of the constitution being enforced, and not afraid of any organized public anger (calling NRA, anyone home?), so we have to operate as if it's ZERO DAYS.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top