More thought on the Akins Accelerator
Reader Unix Jedi (here's his blog) has this thought:
"As much as I hate to...
ATF's got a damn good case here.
Let me point you to Mike Williamson who detailed why, it changed my mind:
"This evaluation is valid provided that when the stock is assembled with an otherwise unmodified SKS semiautomatic rifle, the rifle does not discharge more than one shot by a single function of the trigger." (emphasis ATF)"
It occurs to me that the difference may lie in the definition of the undefined "single function of the trigger." Does that mean (a) its literal meaning, that the trigger itself must move once for each shot or (b) that the trigger finger must press the trigger for each shot or (c) the trigger finger MUST MOVE and press the trigger for each shot?
Under (a) and (b) the Akins is not a full auto; with it the trigger cycles once per shot and is pressed by the trigger finger once per shot. Under (c), it is a full auto; the trigger finger moves once and multiple shots are fired.
Where is the government given the authority to decide what arms the people may not possess and use? Is it hidden in here somewhere?:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Posted by: David E. Young at October 12, 2008 10:35 AM
Actually, the problem that I (and many others) had with the ATF's case isn't the definition; it's that they issued a ruling ONE way and then reversed that ruling years later and evidently on bueraucratic whim. ATF does not feel itself to be bound by its own rulings, does not feel itself to be bound by any court's rulings, does not feel itself to be bound by the letter of any law they disagree with: why, in a nation of the rule of law, do we have a bueraucracy that may make totally arbitrary decisions without any repercussions? After this case, is any manufacturer with a letter of approval from the ATF safe from reversal?
Posted by: DaveP. at October 12, 2008 11:27 AM
The desired outcome drives the definition.
Recall the hellfire and others to simulate full auto and no finger required.
In a free and democratic country the government and the people would always err on the side of freedom particularly when no articulatable harm ensues.
Until the '40's the rights under the constitution were generally expanded - What happened? Hint; progressives.
The people are now paying for their own demise.
Posted by: Tom Gunn at October 12, 2008 11:53 AM
There is huge political support for the ban on machine guns. If the Akins Accelerator were allowed then it would eventually become popular among gang members, and a law WOULD (not might) be passed to ban it. Unfortunately other restrictions on our rights would likely be tacked on to such a law. The fewer laws congress makes about guns the better off we are. We're lucky this Akins Accelerator is banned.
Maybe someday when concealed carry becomes more popular and Assault weapon style semi-autos become more normal, then we can push for legalizing machine guns. But the way civilization seems to have been moving until recently, we're lucky to retain our semi-autos. A militia is arguably actually better off with only semi-autos anyway. Ammo supplies can be a challenge even for a government military. A militia may have a much tougher time maintaining sufficient quantities of ammunition.
Posted by: Critic at October 12, 2008 01:37 PM
I see this in a slightly diferent manner. The Akins Acceleraor is NOT a machinegun; it does not fire bullets in and of itself. It is a component which can be used in a machinegun. So is a wooden stock. Literally speaking, the ATF has no authority to regulate wood, so they have no (lawful) authority to regulate the accelerator. For me, this decision highlights the irregularities common to the practice of law by the ATF, and indicates that their practices aree subject to the RICO ACt.
Posted by: CarlS at October 12, 2008 02:27 PM
My thoughts about this are that the device should not have been banned. In my personal opinion here (I'm not a lawyer), it's just a device which makes "bump firing" easier. For those that don't know what bump firing is, you put a finger in the trigger guard, keep it in one place, and pull the firearm forwards. The pressure on the trigger causes the weapon to fire with the resulting recoil pulling the weapon back which resets the trigger. As long as you keep the forward pressure on the weapon, it keeps going. I know - I've done this with my rifle in the desert. I've also seen videos of people using a board and dowel to do the same thing with a pistol.
From what I've seen, the BATFE needs to be realigned or something. Some action needs to be taken. The trouble is that they make capricious decisions, follow no prescribed testing practices, and fail to follow their own standards.
In this case, they have reversed a previous ruling which caused financial harm to a citizen. They should pay to make him whole financially. Had the ruling gone the other way initially, this citizen would not have invested that money.
But that's just me.
Posted by: Parrothead Jeff at October 12, 2008 04:50 PM
>The Akins Acceleraor is NOT a machinegun
It doesn't matter what you call it. The vast majority of voters will consider it to be a device that deserves to be banned just like a machinegun or full auto sear. If ATF doesn't ban it, Congress will.
I also don't think the court should have upheld the ban, because when a law is vague, the decision should go in favor of the citizen, especially when the citizen isn't a criminal but rather a businessman who got approval first. The fact that the ATF approved the device is conclusive proof that the law is vague.
On the other hand, you've got to understand the risks when you invest money in a scheme to violate the spirit of the law. Even if the courts kept Akins in business, Congress would have shut him down soon.
Posted by: Critic at October 12, 2008 05:36 PM
If the Akins Accelerator is a machinegun, than the same logic could be applied to redefine almost ALL unmodified semi-automatic rifles as machineguns, and that is the ultimate danger here. That would fit right in line with some of the anti-gunners who have been hot to outlaw all so-called "assault-weapons" by reclassifying them as NFA regulated firearms.
The fact is all that the Akins device does is provide a means of greater accuracy; it does not make simulating auto fire possible, as that possibility is already inherent in the 10-22 rifle if you know the right handling trick. Using a standard semi-auto AK clone with a sling I can easily use the same principle as the Akins device to simulate full auto-fire from the hip. Does that mean any old semi-auto AK with a standard sling is a machinegun? Of course not!
Posted by: Brad at October 12, 2008 06:14 PM
Do we live in a Democracy?
Last I checked it was a Constitutional Republic.
If 51% of the population said that people of a cerain pigment have no rights and should be enslaved, would that be right?
Where is the difference?
Posted by: Gregg at October 12, 2008 07:54 PM
If it becomes common for gang members to bump fire their semi-autos during drive bys, then the voters probably will redefine all semi-autos to be machine guns. But I doubt that will happen because it looks to me like bump firing is just a stunt. The Akins Accelerator looks to be much more accurate, reliable, easier, and practical.
I haven't suggested that it's right for the voters to ban machine guns, I'm just pointing out the political reality. The fact that the Swiss don't have any significant problem with widespread machine gun ownership, casts doubt on the justifications for banning them. But we can't even get a lot of REPUBLICANS to support the right to own semi-autos that LOOK like machine guns, let alone actually work like machine guns.
The big problem with politicians and semi-autos that look like machine guns is that a politician's opponent can say they support people being able to have Uzis or "assault weapons". Maybe the solution to this is for all candidates to be against Uzis, AK-47s, M-16s, and "assault weapons". I think that about covers all the machine guns lay people recognize by name. The candidate can then say that he supports people's right to have guns that LOOK like those guns as long as their "assault weapon" or machine gun functionality has been disabled so they work like normal guns (normal semi-auto guns that is).
Posted by: Critic at October 12, 2008 10:59 PM
The problem with this is the flexible definition of "trigger" if it benefits them ATF will use the noun, if it benefits them they will use the verb.
Ah, if gun owners would just take to the streets like the illegals did think of what could be accomplished. I have a dream that one day....
Posted by: Tom at October 13, 2008 01:01 AM
The reality of criminal violence is that gang bangers do not use longarms of any type in any significant quantity to commit murders, let alone the phony category of "assault weapons". Pistols and knives are the weapon of choice, not rifles. So fear of gang bangers running amuk with Akins Accelerater equipped rifles is silly.
And the political reality is that despite the best efforts of the press to give them cover, the Democrats paid the price the last time they were stupid enough to ban "assault weapons". The Akins Accelerator will make no difference in the long dirty fight the press, the democrats and the anti-gunners have waged against "assault weapons". Hell, even after twenty years of debate the press still can't tell the difference between a reapeater, a self-loader and a machinegun.
Posted by: Brad at October 13, 2008 01:52 AM
There are several valid points of contention that can be discussed here WITHOUT questioning the patriotism of anyone who cares to present a contrary point.
So, I will present mine. The 900# gorilla in the room is the fact that this "riflestock" was invented for the specific reason to try to "get around" the accepted definition of a full-auto firearm. The mechanics of the device are the engineering equivalent of sophistry in that regard. By causing the recoil action of a "machine gun" to happen within the riflestock, the system then firing the action installed within until empty with a finger placed on the trigger, the inventor hoped to split hairs on the definition and have a court agree with him. The court did not, preferring the wider and more obvious definition based on the actual operation of the firearm, rather than a micro-examination of what the trigger-finger did or did not do.
The BATFE should have applied their final logic when they first evaluated the system, but they didn't, so some were sold and had to be recalled.
The common sense solution will usually sell to everyone, whereas hair-splitters usually only sell their goods to other hair-splitters.
Posted by: Rivrdog at October 13, 2008 05:02 AM
Rivrdog, you might just as well insert the word "loophole" instead of "get around" into your above comment. That is exactly what people call something they do not like when it conforms with the law.
Further, when you stated..."By causing the recoil action of a "machine gun" to happen within the riflestock, the system then firing the action installed within until empty with a finger placed on the trigger"...
You misrepresented what the device does.
For starters, "recoil action" is not exclusive to machine guns. Recoil action is present in many semi automatic firearm. So your reference to "recoil action" in this instance is irrelevant.
You misrepresent what the Akins device does when you say it "fires until empty with a finger placed on the trigger".
In the Akins Accelerator bumpfire stock, the finger completely disengages from the trigger for each and every shot. Conforming to federal machine gun law. The trigger rides back into the pistol grip under recoil and then is pushed back forward again by a counter recoil spring.
What has happened here is that an anti gun judge has just ignored ATF abuse of federal law and is rubberstamping everything ATF has done. It is clear from reading the courts opinion that the court is afraid of this device even though it conforms to federal law. The inventor came up with a way to conform with federal law, and now the ATF and the district court judge as well do not like it. So the judge rationalizes his opinion to conform with ATF opinion. I read that they are appealing the decision.
Posted by: Esquire at October 13, 2008 06:39 AM
Unix jedi does not seem to understand federal law regarding single function of the trigger vs the non legal definition of single function of the trigger finger.
He states..."Under (a) and (b) the Akins is not a full auto; with it the trigger cycles once per shot and is pressed by the trigger finger once per shot. Under (c), it is a full auto; the trigger finger moves once and multiple shots are fired."
I concur with Unix jedi on both (a) and (b). However he is incorrect on (c). Federal law does not say "single function of the trigger finger". It says "single function of the trigger".
Posted by: Read Federal NFA law. at October 13, 2008 06:48 AM
Dear Unix jedi regarding your comment.
You said you based you opinion on Mad Mike Williamson's takes on the Akins Accelerator. After going to the links you provided and reading Mr Williamson's takes, I find them in error as I am an owner of a now springless Akins accelerator stock. I can tell from Mr Williamson's comments at the links you provided, that he obviously does not own one and has no idea how the stock actually works.
First of all, Mr Akins did not submit the initial test device to ATF as Mr Williamson stated. His partner Mr Bowers of Akins Group Inc submitted it. That is evident in the court record I just read.
Further, Mr Williamson only addressed the first classification letter ATF sent and accused Mr Akins of going into production based soley on that letter. There was a second ATF classification letter sent to Akins Group before production was initiated. Mr Williamson completely ignored that second ATF classification letter wherein ATF stated that their decision that the device was not a machine gun was rendered DESPITE the fact that some screws broke and that they fully understood the method of 0peration.
Mr Williamson stated..."So, in the case of the "Akins Accelerator," one pulls the trigger back inside the stock...
The weapon fires. A MECHANICAL SPRING CYCLES THE ENTIRE ACTION AGAINST THE STOCK and it will fire again, until you remove your finger.
Recoil operated machine gun."
Mr Williamson is not legally correct according to federal NFA laws regarding his assertion that the Akins stock is "a recoil operated machine gun", neither is he correct in describing the mechanical action of the Akins stock either.
One does not pull the trigger back inside the stock as Mr Williamson stated.
That would be impossible to do. Since the trigger finger cannot pull the trigger back inside the stock, because the pistol grip will not allow the trigger finger to pull the trigger past the point of the pistol grip where the finger bottoms out against the pistol grip. Further, Mr Williamson is incorrect when he states that a mechanical spring cycles the entire action against the stock. The spring does not cycle anything. To cycle something means it completes the cycle completely by itself. That is not what the stock does. The spring simply returns the barreled receiver and trigger group back forwardly after it recoils to the rear. That is one motion, not a "cycle" and it does not return the barreled receiver and trigger group "against the stock". It does it "within" the stock.
The most important thing Mr Williamson misrepresents is when he states....
"and it will fire again, until you remove your finger."
This is not correct. Mr Williamson ignores the fact that the trigger and the trigger finger are completely disengaged from each other when the trigger recoils back into the pistol grip of the stock. Therefore the finger IS disengaged and completely removed from the trigger for each and every shot. Just as federal law dictates. The trigger functions once for each and every shot.
It is worthy of note, in reading your links to Mr Williamson's opinons, that Mr Williamson not only has his facts wrong regarding his lack of knowledge of the second ATF classification letter, as well as Mr Williamson obviously does not understand how the accelerator stock works, but Mr Williamson also obviously believes it is a machine gun simply because it looks and sounds like a machine gun. So does a Gatling gun, hellfire device, tac trigger, and many other rapid fire devices.
Finally, Mr Williamson's unfair characterization of Mr Akins as "whining Poor me!" Shows an obvious bias against Mr Akins who is simply conforming to federal NFA laws and is fighting for all our firearm rights.
A final note to remember, is that whenever anyone does not like something that conforms to the law they call it a "loophole".
It would be best if you based your own conclusions on federal law rather than on Mr Williamson's erroneous opinions.
I understand they are appealing the case. I look forward to hopefully being able to legally put a spring back into my accelerator stock.
Posted by: Anonopotamus at October 13, 2008 08:49 AM
Testing.. Dave, everything I try to post is getting blocked.
Posted by: Unix-Jedi at October 13, 2008 09:26 AM
Well, maybe I had to delete my email and URL...
"Anonopotamus", or "esquirenemo" (As you replied to my post):
You bring up 1 good point, a couple of minor points of no relevance, and overlook quite a lot. As I said, I'm not speaking for Mike Williamson, but you totally ignore that he deals with all but one of your objections.
That was the existence of the 2nd ATF letter, which is news to me, and I don't recall when Akins and Williamson were in a comment thread together that was mentioned. (And I look forward to seeing that, if you can link to it)
(and apparently trying to put ANY URL gets you blocked..)
Posted by: Unix-Jedi at October 13, 2008 09:28 AM
"Read Federal NFA Law":
I think you're missing a big part of what changed my mind in Williamson's analysis. That is that the way it works changes the definition of "trigger" from the piece of metal on a normal 10/22.
Don't forget that I (and I think Mike) agree with you. I want the NFA scrapped. I also think that the 16th Amendment wasn't properly ratified. But I pay my taxes.
Posted by: Unix-Jedi at October 13, 2008 09:29 AM
Show me where that trigger definition change is in the federal NFA law Unix-Jedi.
The Akins stock does not change the congressional definition of "trigger". Trigger is defined in the NFA law. Nothing has changed about that. Also the stock 10-22 trigger is the same trigger used with the Akins stock. Nothing about the 10-22 trigger or the 10-22 is changed other than it is inserted into the Akins stock. Just because you think it changes the definition of what a trigger is, doesn't mean the NFA law changed.
Posted by: Ready Federal NFA Law at October 13, 2008 09:53 AM
"Read Federal NFA Law":
Do you pull the "Trigger" on an AA once, or many times?
If *you* pull it *once*, then you've got a MG. If it pulls itself using recoil, then it's a recoil-operated MG. The "trigger" is now an auto-sear. It's using the recoil energy to trip itself. Repeatedly.
That's the point that Mike Williamson made, and I have to agree with him. You're pulling the trigger ONCE, and it's from that point on firing full-automatic.
If it pulls itself from then on, it's illegal. Like the famous shoestring.
Posted by: Unix-Jedi at October 13, 2008 10:41 AM
There is no "pull" of the trigger under NFA law. There is only "function" of the trigger under NFA law. The unmodified standard 10-22 trigger when installed into an accelerator stock is functioned once for each shot fired. Exactly as NFA law stipulates. So to answer your question, the trigger is functioned many times for as many shots fired. NFA does not say the trigger has to be "conciously" functioned. Only that it must be functioned once for each shot fired.
FYI, the ATF has done away with its shoestring ruling. They took too much heat over it.
Posted by: Read Federal NFA law at October 13, 2008 10:55 AM
Here are the links to the two pages of the 2nd ATF approval classification letter on the accelerator.
You will note ATF says it completely understands the method and theory of operation and is rendering its classification DESPITE that several screws dislodged. Some people have tried to say this approval was only good for the sks rifle and not a 10-22. If that were true then Akins would still be able to produce an accelerator stock for the sks right? But ATF's 2006-02 ruling outlawed the method of operation which by the way actually outlaws any semi automatic firearm capable of bumpfiring. Both the sks and the 10-22 used the exact same method of operation, just the sks stock was a bit larger. So you cannot argue that approval of the method of operation was ok for the sks but not for the 10-22. Here's the links.
Posted by: Anonopotamus at October 13, 2008 11:11 AM
As I replied to you at my site...
That's the letter Williamson quoted *in it's entirety*.
You'll have to read the rest there, since I can't post much here without running afoul of the spam protection.
Posted by: Unix-Jedi at October 13, 2008 01:16 PM
Lets see just where does the 2nd or the rest of the Constitution say the government can ban automatic weapons? If you say "reasonable", then the question is where does the Constitution state "reasonable" as applied to Arms?
Oh yes and since the 2nd is latter law while the power to tax is prior law, the standard is that latter law overrides prior law when the prior law conflicts with the latter law, so much for the power to constitutionally tax Arms.
If only they who think they grasp reality could grasp reality and not cling to the nonreality of their past.
Posted by: FWB at October 13, 2008 02:19 PM
I've had a lot of go rounds on this and other issues.
Now, I believe that under the Second Amendment, I can own a nuclear device. It's unambiguous.
It doesn't matter what I believe, or what you believe. It matters what the COURTS say it means.
You can go into court and tell the judge he's wrong. It won't do you any good. You have to appeal to another judge.
I've seen people on many issues state, "The Supreme Court is wrong..." and in some cases, I don't like the ruling myself. However, the Supreme Court is, by Constitutional definition, infallible. If they ever reverse a decision, it just means the new decision is even more infallible.;-)
Quoting the Constitution to the cop arresting you will get you laughed at, tazed, or clubbed. This is utterly wrong. It's also the way it is, and has been, pretty much since Day One. It took from 1791 to 1958 (IIRC) to get SCOTUS to decide the Kama Sutra was protected by the First Amendment and couldn't be banned. Even now, both right wing christofascist @#$s and left wing statist @#$%s are trying to pass laws with a statement that "no provision of this law shall be subject to judicial review."
Luckily, said phrase is part of the law that is subject to judicial review. So unless the courts decide to delegate that power to the legistraitors, it won't happen. I dread the day it does, though.
So, first let me address Mr Akins' situation. The second letter was not available to me for a long time. In light of the second letter, ATF is changing the rules after the fact. This is not the first time they have done that. In this case, the downside is that he, and customers, were screwed over economically. I wish something could be done about it, but I don't know what. I did not realize I was lacking that second document, and suspected erroneously that he'd been either too eager, or schemed to make what he could while he could. I publicly apologized, but I think he'd left the debate before reading it. I'll say it again: He got hosed.
On the other issue, the "Trigger" is not something the manufacturer gets to define, any more than the receiver is. I could start building AR15s, and claim for example, that the pivot pin is the "numbered receiver," and sell "kits" that do not contain a "numbered receiver." ATF would decide that such were too easy to complete as weapons with no 4473, and shut me down. GIVEN THE EXISTING LAW (please note that language), they would be correct.
As far as I'm concerned, I can own a nuke. I can manufacture Browning M2s in my garage. I regard the firearm laws as utter, outrageous despotism. And it doesn't matter what I think. If I violate those laws, they will stick me to the wall.
Now, let's say I take a self loading rifle, chock it in a vise, stick a lobed paddled into the trigger guard, attach that paddle to a shaft running from a power drill. The weapon only fires once for each pull of the trigger, right?
Wrong. The moment I added mechanical accessories, the trigger is no longer a trigger FOR LEGAL PURPOSES. The trigger is the drill I'm holding. It's what activates the firing cycle.
Thus it is with Akin's device. The spring moves the weapon in the stock, causing it to fire. No, don't try to argue. The moment you admitted that it won't cycle without the spring, you lost in court. There are things never to admit in court. That's one of them.
The proof remains that if it was "only" bump firing, there are $25 gadgets that do so. Why pay $1000ish?
Answer: Because it works.
Because it works, it wasn't going to be allowed.
I think it sucks, too. I saw it and hoped it was the "torsion assist is not a switchblade" of the firearm world. It isn't.
But it's close, so let's find something else that passes muster.
Posted by: Michael Z. Williamson at October 13, 2008 08:52 PM
Esquire, you have committed an ordinary debater's trick when you try to put words in my mouth which I did not utter:
"Rivrdog, you might just as well insert the word "loophole" instead of "get around" into your above comment. That is exactly what people call something they do not like when it conforms with the law."
Actually, it's a sophist's trick. Not acceptable in polite debate.
What I was trying to do is illustrate my point that this case is/will be decided not on the fine points of what the definition of "is" is in the NFA law, it will be decided on the common sense aspects. The appeals will then try to reconcile the common sense to the NFA law, and if NFA law strays too far from common sense, an appeals court might strike down all or part of the NFA law. We may always hope.
There are a lot of good points on law and how the law does/should relate to the operation and design of full-auto weapons in these comments, but the overall tendency is to jump right into the NFA law and forget common sense. That's all I was trying to point out here, and that criticism is NOT political.
Posted by: Rivrdog at October 13, 2008 10:43 PM
A spring loaded stock is not necessary to simulate full-auto fire with a semi-auto rifle, anyone can do it just by holding the gun loosly and letting it bounce off of his shoulder into his trigger finger.
The bottom line is that if a semi-auto in a spring loaded stock is a MG under the NFA, then any reasonable person would have to conclude that *all* semi-autos are MGs.
Posted by: Brian at October 14, 2008 08:00 AM
>However, the Supreme Court is, by Constitutional definition, infallible.
Actually, that's from Marbury v. Madison. The Constitution specifically gives Congress a variety of powers with which to twist the arm of the Court.
Posted by: MicroBalrog at October 14, 2008 11:12 AM
Mr Williamson. I see that you admitted that you were previously wrong about Mr Akins once you had the facts of the 2nd ATF classification approval letter. In reviewing the links provided by Unix-Jedi to your "take" on Akins and his bumpfire stock, it is unfortunate that you slandered his name by calling him a scumbag and accused him of trying to rip people off and not doing due dilegence and did damage to his name before you had the information you should have had before you typed your erroneous opinions.
Does your apology now that you realized you were wrong make everything ok now? Did your apology reach everyone who read your previous slanderous and wrongful statements? Let's see if you are equally big enough to admit you are wrong again when I prove to you that you are.
Let's examine closely what you wrote.
"Now, let's say I take a self loading rifle, chock it in a vise, stick a lobed paddled into the trigger guard, attach that paddle to a shaft running from a power drill. The weapon only fires once for each pull of the trigger, right? Wrong. The moment I added mechanical accessories, the trigger is no longer a trigger FOR LEGAL PURPOSES. The trigger is the drill I'm holding. It's what activates the firing cycle.
Thus it is with Akin's device. The spring moves the weapon in the stock, causing it to fire. No, don't try to argue. The moment you admitted that it won't cycle without the spring, you lost in court. There are things never to admit in court. That's one of them."
In the situation you described. Once you put the drill on the firearm, the drill did not become the trigger, the TRIGGER ON the drill became the trigger. Not the drill itself. Since the trigger on the drill is what interacts with the human and initiates the firing sequence it replaced the normal, standard, firearm trigger. If you are going to try and be technical about things, then do so correctly please.
Then you say..."Thus it is with the Akins device. The spring moves the weapon in the stock, causing it to fire. No, don't try to argue. The moment you admitted that it won't cycle without the spring, you lost in court. There are things never to admit in court. That's one of them."
This is where you are totally WRONG. The Akins stock does not use the trigger of a drill to replace the normal ruger 10-22 trigger. It does not replace the ruger 10-22 trigger in any way. The normal, standard, Ruger 10-22 trigger is what interacts with the human and is what is functioned to fire the rifle.
The spring in the stock does not cause the rifle to fire as you stated. The normal, standard, Ruger 10-22 trigger being functioned for each shot is what causes the rifle to fire. You can grab the barrel and move the barrel and receiver rearward within the stock and then let the spring in the stock drive the barrel and receiver back forward, all you want. By doing that without functioning the 10-22 trigger that does not fire the rifle does it? So the spring in the stock is not what fires the rifle. It is the normal, standard, Ruger 10-22 trigger that has to be functioned to fire the rifle for each and every shot.
Please do not presume to tell me not to try to argue with you when you are mechanically incorrect sir.
You wrote..."No, don't try to argue. The moment you admitted that it won't cycle without the spring, you lost in court."
I don't know who you think you are talking to, but I never "admitted" it will not work without the spring in the stock either in court or otherwise and neither did Akins. It WILL work without the spring. I own one of the Akins stocks. I had to surrender my spring to the ATF. But I still have my 10-22 in the stock without the spring. I can point the rifle downward at a 45 degree angle and it will rapidly empty a magazine using GRAVITY in place of the spring in the now springless stock.
Just like I can take a Ruger 10-22 in a standard Ruger stock, and point the barrel downward and let the recoil bounce the stock and the entire gun back upwards and then gravity pulls the trigger against my finger again. Same thing. Just the Akins stock makes it more controllable and accurate being in a stationary stock and letting the barrel and receiver bounce back and forth.
It is obvious you do not understand how the Akins stock works. Just like it is obvious you admitted that you were previously wrong about Akins. You have appointed yourself as an "expert" but you admit you were wrong before when you slandered him. Did you apologize to him? Or did you just do the internet equivalent of accusing him of rape in headlines, and when you found you were wrong, retract it in small print on the back page? I have an Akins stock. I KNOW how it works. Do you have one?
He just posted yesterday on AR15 all the briefs and pleadings of the district court case. He is appealing it. Here's the link he provided.
Why don't you try reading it and get your facts straight before you further malign Akins and his device. Then you will see his attorney even talked about how you can bumpfire downwards without a spring using gravity. His attorney never said it wouldn't work without a spring. Just that it made it unmarketable. That is a BIG difference that you being such a technical "expert" should realize. And the reason it wasn't marketable is because without a stock spring, it will only work using gravity pointing downward at a 45 degree angle. But it makes no difference in NFA law if something is or isn't a machine gun when only pointed downward. It either is a machine gun or it isn't. So it shouldn't make any difference if it ISN'T pointed downwards. It is bumpfiring within a stationary stock. And you sir, have slandered and maligned Mr Akins previously and are continuing to do so and do not have a clue as to the mechanics of what you are talking about.
Posted by: Anonopotomus at October 14, 2008 01:37 PM
Rivrdog. First you said "get around", then you state you didn't say it and that I am putting words into your mouth and that I am using a sophist's trick not acceptable in polite debate. I didn't put words into your mouth. They came OUT of your mouth. Here is what you said. "The 900# gorilla in the room is the fact that this "riflestock" was invented for the specific reason to try to "get around" the accepted definition of a full-auto firearm."
Your use of the word "get around" is the same as if you had called it a "loophole". So I put no words into your mouth that did not come out of your mouth. That's about as polite as I can be when I'm called a liar by you when you clearly did in fact say what I quoted you as saying. No Sophist trick here. I just quoted exactly what you said. By the way, regarding your referring to "common sense" and or, vs the NFA law. There is no common sense in 2nd amendment rights restrictions. Just as there is no common sense when ATF rules that a single function of the trigger, equates to a single function of the trigger FINGER. Unless you can show me where NFA law talks about a finger being part of a firearm or the NFA law.
Posted by: Esquire at October 15, 2008 02:22 AM
but I never "admitted" it will not work without the spring in the stock either in court or otherwise and neither did Akins.
Actually, yes, yes he did.
36. The Akins Accelerator is non-functional and has no value without the
spring that was confiscated by Defendant.
Now we'll see if you can apologize and admit error.
Posted by: Unix-Jedi at October 15, 2008 08:17 AM
Since the "Akins accelerator" (Trademark) stock was sold with a spring, it was part of it. By removing the spring, it is no longer an Akins accelerator stock under the ATF ruling since ATF only required the springs be surrendered. Without a spring, it is a modified Akins accelerator stock at best or not even an Akins accelerator stock at all anymore. So his attorney was technically correct by saying "the Akins accelerator is non functional and has no value without the spring". As the trademarked "Akins accelerator" it no longer functioned as it was originally intended to function without the spring. I.E. it was not intended to function using gravity or isometric muscle tension. And as the trademarked "Akins accelerator" intended to work with a spring, it no longer had value as it was originally designed. However: this does not mean that as a modified, springless, bumpfire stock that is not an original Akins accelerator, that it cannot operate using gravity or isometric tension. So as an original "Akins accelerator" his attorney was not wrong and neither am I.
When you modify something, it is no longer the original thing it was. The original Akins accelerator IS non functional as it was originally designed, without a spring in the stock. But a Akins accelerator stock that is modified to not have a stock spring, is now no longer an original Akins accelerator stock. It is something else.
That modified stock or a stock made originally to not include a spring, IS functional to bumpfire by using either isometric tension with the offhand forwardly against the barrel, or by using gravity.
When you take the spring out of the Akins accelerator to do that, it is no longer an Akins accelerator as originally intended and designed. But Akins' attorney pointed out that springless, gravity bumpfiring of a firearm either in an Akins style stock or just in a normal Ruger factory stock, does the same thing as the Akins accelerator did, only without a spring. So the point is, does that make any semi automatic capable of normal bumpfiring horizontally or only if used vertically using recoil (with or without a spring to make the action move back and forth in the stock) a machine gun? Of course not. Otherwise all semi automatic firearms capable of bumpfiring would be machine guns.
Posted by: Anonopotomus at October 16, 2008 08:01 AM
(one further comment I forgot to add to my above comment)
But according to the verbage used in the ATF ruling, ANY firearm capable of bumpfiring in any way, is a machine gun. Here is what the 2006-02 ATF ruling says...."Once the trigger is pulled, it initiates a sequence of automatic fire that continues until the ammunition feeding device is empty or the finger is removed".
That just described exactly what occurs when you bumpfire ANY semi automatic firearm. It does not matter if you use recoil and gravity to do it, or if you bumpfire normally in the horizontal using only recoil and isometric tension. When you bumpfire ANY semi auto...."once the trigger is pulled, it initiates a sequence of automatic fire that continues until the ammunition feeding device is empty or the finger is removed". That's what the ATF ruling says.
So whether the ATF will equally enforce the verbage of their ruling against all semi autos, or just selectively enforce it against Akins, is irrelevant. The fact is, the ATF ruling says what it says. And what it says outlaws anything capable of bumpfiring whether they enforce it that way or not. It is horribly worded ruling whether you believe the Akins stock is a machine gun conversion device or not. Look it up on the ATF website. You will see the 2006-02 ATF ruling by its very wording, outlaws all semi autos that can be bumpfired. That would be almost all semi autos.
Actually the Akins stock according to the ATF ruling's verbage, is even MORE legal than any standard semi auto being bumpfired would be. Because, when you bumpfire a semi auto using recoil, your finger stays on and rides the trigger back and forth as the trigger pulls and resets. However when using the Akins stock, the trigger is completely disengaged from your finger for each shot. According to the ATF ruling it says..."or until the finger is removed". But ATF does not say WHAT the finger is removed from. If they did not say, but meant removed from the trigger, then the Akins device removes the finger from the trigger completely for each shot, while in bumpfiring a normal semi auto NOT in an Akins stock, the finger is NEVER removed from the trigger and the finger rides the trigger back and forth as it trips and resets.
What this boils down to is the ATF writing a very badly worded ruling that makes all semi autos capable of bumpfiring illegal, while they only selectively enforce it against the Akins stock.
But who knows how they will enforce it against ALL semi autos later on down the road?
Posted by: Anonopotomus at October 16, 2008 08:26 AM
Without a spring, it is a modified Akins accelerator stock at best or not even an Akins accelerator stock at all anymore. So his attorney was technically correct by saying "the Akins accelerator is non functional and has no value without the spring".
Wow. You could just say "Oh, so he did, whoops" or something to that effect. It would be OK.
Posted by: Unix-Jedi at October 17, 2008 12:58 PM
Any comparison that equates a functioning Akin's accelerator stock to a recoil operated machinegun is absurd...
Posted by: Bob Shirley at June 21, 2009 02:09 PM