Akins Accelerator folks file second suit

As if there could be any doubt that our government is out of control. Bureaucracy run amok, indeed. I find this beyond annoying. It is downright criminal. Forget Second Amendment and Due Process, what about an uncompensated taking of private property?

It's also absurd because the plain, unambiguous langauge of the statute requires that a single activation of the trigger discharge more than one shot to be a machine gun. The Accelerator fired one shot with each trigger pull, period. Ergo it cannot legally be considered a machine gun. If ATFE doesn't like that result, the answer is to lobby Congress to change the law and re-define what a machine gun is.

I'll cross my fingers for them.

Here is a vid of it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9P8AbTKvykE

more discussion:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=108026

Is this an MG?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVfwFP_RwTQ&feature=related

Well, at least they didn't file this one with the Claims Court.

i've been in the firearms industry since 1982 - i agree with the comments that this action was capricious on ATF's part, but this is the norm for BATFE and mild compared to some of their conduct -

i could write volumes on their demonstrated lack of professionalism, consistency or even intregity

I possess a device which will actuate any firearm's trigger so that it is capable of rapid fire. Like the Atkins device it is capable of causing any normally working semi-auto fire arm to spray bullets indiscriminately and is probably considered by the idiots at BATF@&K a machine gun.

I call it an index finger.

You activate the weapon by putting your finger into the firing position, and as long as you hold your finger in the firing position it sends out a stream of shots. The Akins Accelerator uses a single pull of the "trigger" to initiate multiple shots. The fact that it transforms the standard trigger mechanism into just a part of a novel and strange firing mechanism shouldn't obscure the fact that it is a machine gun.

In the Soviet Union freedom of the press was constitutionally guaranteed. Which meant that the presses were "liberated" from their evil capitalist owners and freed up for use by "the people" under the care of the people's government. If we condone this kind of word fraud when it suits us then how can we criticize those who twist our Second Amendment the same way?

Critic I am not sure I fully understand what you are trying to say. Are you merely arguing that the atkins accelerator converts a ruger 10/22 into a fully automatic rifle?

If so I am not sure that I follow your connection with the USSR. From what I have read it seems that people are mostly upset with the BATFE for, on more than one occasion, telling the company that the atkins accelerator was not a machine gun conversion. (Despite the fact that they had been given a prototype to test.) Then after producing them going back on what they said, not only stopping the company from making any more but, apparently, making people turn in the ones they have.

I guess I just threw the Soviet Union thing in there because I thought it was interesting and because It's an example of trying to twist the law to mean something else.

It looks like the BATFE made a mistake in approving the device in the first place. I guess they have to correct their mistake. But Akins shouldn't be punished, since they had permission. I'm not sure what they should do with the devices.

This device is playing on the confusion caused by the reuse of a part (called the trigger in the original 10/22) for a different and yet very similar function in the modified weapon. By adding this device to the Ruger 10/22 Akins has created a weapon (call it the Akins22) that has a quite different firing mechanism. Just as a Gatling gun has a crank rather than a typical trigger, the Akins22 doesn't have a typical trigger. Yet confusingly it still has that machined metal part from the Ruger 10/22 called the "trigger" which serves a confusingly similar function. In a Gatling gun you don't pull the trigger, you pull the crank. In the Akins22 you don't pull the trigger, you pull your finger into the firing position and the presence of your finger in the firing position causes the automatic firing mechanism to discharge the ammo continuously until your finger is removed from the firing position.

This action sort of reminds me of the .50 Browning Machine Gun and the Colt 1911, except there the recoiling barrels are used to feed new rounds into the chamber instead of triggering the firing mechanism.

For those who have never seen one, the AA is a stock for a Ruger 10/22 that holds the barrel, action/receiver, trigger group, and magazine in a kind of spring-loaded state so that when you pull the trigger the first time, the recoil impulse moves the barrel, action/receiver, magazine, and trigger group back and forth in the stock/chassis so that the trigger essentially bounces back and forth against your finger. In short, it replicates bump firing.

"The term 'machinegun' means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than
one shot, without manual reloading, [b]by a single function of the trigger[/b]."

You can get creative all you want, but the "trigger" of a 10/22 does not suddenly become something other than a "trigger" by attaching a spring to it. The plain wording of the statute is if you get one shot each time the trigger "functions", it's not a machine gun. With an AA, you get one shot with each function fo the trigger. The AA simply makes it possible to repeatedly function the trigger rapidly. The mechanism itself does not fire more than one shot with a single trigger function.

A technicality? Yup, probably. But it clearly is the way the law is written. BATFE doesn't like that? As I said ealier - then ask Congress to fix the problems with the law. That's Congress's job, isn't it?

We have had far too much delegation of legislative authority to the executive branch. Such arbitrary and capricious legislative re-defining as is going on here is unconstitutional and criminal. The Framers of the Constitution would be horrified at what has become of their creation.

The AA does nothing that can't be done by holding a semi-auto loosely and allowing it to bounce (or bump) off of your shoulder and rebound into your trigger finger causing it to fire "automatically" as long as you hold your trigger finger in the "firing position".

If the AA turns a semi-auto into a MG, then *every* semi-auto is a MG.

My thanks to everyone who realizes what Federal law states. Unfortunately I cannot comment on any particulars of either case on advice of my attorney. John Monroe who deserves the credit for taking and filing these cases in my behalf.

So I cannot debate merits of the device nor the cases. Please do not ask me to. For folks who have never seen my patented rifle stock, the URL I am posting is for a cutaway view of a gif animation of the Akins Accelerator stock in operation using an unmodified factory original Ruger 10/22 receiver, trigger group and barrel.

From my end, it appears the URL did not show up. I am trying it again. It may not show up since it is a gif animation.

[img]http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/db7476f1ef.gif[/url]

http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/db7476f1ef.gif

Bill has it right. Too much delegation of authority (abrogation of responsibility) by the legislature to non-legislative bodies. I also agree that it is unconstitutional.

In the case of BATFE, Congress forgot to write down the "rule making" rules in sufficient detail so you have the agency making up its own rules for how to make up rules. This is the definition of rule by fiat rather than rule of law.

My feeling is that, whether it is a machine gun or not, once BATFE classified it and, based upon that classification Atkins went out and invested time and money, then that letter ought to constitute a safe harbor. I realize that there is no statute for that, and that there are complications, but here is an honest business man who made a good product, did all he could to make sure it was legal, and the BATFE slams him. At the very least, BATFE should have to compensate him for his development and lost market opportunity if they refuse to let him market it.

You've got a good attorney in Mr. Monroe, aka The Sledge Hammer. He does tremendous volume of work for GeorgiaCarry.Org.

Recent victory for The Sledge Hammer was his defeat of the City of Atlanta's guns in park ban.

The ATF is going to wonder what hit them.

ITS HAMMER TIME

Critic seems to be implying that a Gatling gun is a "machine" gun. It is _not_ a machine gun and is not regulated as one. Cabela's even sells a kit.

That is correct. A standard Gatling type gun is, boiled down its pertinent parts, just a mechanical hand crank that pulls the trigger and reloads as fast or slow as you turn the crank handle. However, attach an electric motor to the handle's spindle and you have a mini-gun that is a machine gun.

At one time there was a device available with a crank that you could clamp onto the trigger guard of a semi-auto and it would rapidly operate the trigger as you turned the crank. How about if instead of a trigger you use a knob that when turned to the on position would fire in full auto until turned off. Would that fall under the definition of a "trigger" as in the law? I have serious doubts if congress meant "trigger" in such a broad sense to include cranks and knobs. And I've been under the impression that when the law is unclear then it should be interpreted in favor of the defendant. However if the defendant's interpretation is in obvious and serious conflict with the spirit of the law then I don't know if that rule of interpretation will hold. Certainly trigger can be used in a much more broad sense. For example a tripwire can be used to "trigger" a booby trap without having anything resembling the typical curved metal finger lever used on guns.

Bill wrote:

the "trigger" of a 10/22 does not suddenly become something other than a "trigger" by attaching a spring to it.

If for some strange reason you decide to use the trigger of a Ruger 10/22 as a balance weight by embedding it in epoxy inside the stock then it's no longer a "trigger" or at least it no longer has that function. Once you add a spring or embed it in a different firing mechanism then it's no longer the same thing.

BRCARLS Wrote:

The AA does nothing that can't be done by holding a semi-auto loosely and allowing it to bounce (or bump) off of your shoulder

...
If the AA turns a semi-auto into a MG, then *every* semi-auto is a MG.

I feel bad enough having to cut loose the Akins Accelerator, please lets not try to convince the courts of this! I think the two methods of firing can be distinguished. Unlike the Akins22 a typical semi-auto is not at all designed to fire full auto by this bump method. And a typical semi-auto doesn't have parts installed especially to enable it to be used in full auto. Also, this method of firing is probably rather unreliable and inaccurate.

I feel sorry for Akins lost investment, but when you're working right on the edge of legality you have to assume some risk. If the ATF had kept the device legal, Congress might have just passed a law to ban it and he would have been out the investment anyway. Also it may not be a good idea to place legal liability with the ATF for rendering these opinions or they may just stop rendering them, or just declare anything close to be illegal.

Bob R Wrote:

Critic seems to be implying that a Gatling gun is a "machine" gun. It is _not_ a machine gun and is not regulated as one. Cabela's even sells a kit.

Perhaps this is a replica of an antique and therefore not regulated. Cabelas even sells replica revolvers mail order, without a background check. My dad likes to joke that the reason criminals don't use them more is that they're not smart enough to figure out how to load a black powder revolver.

Critic: Perhaps this is a replica of an antique and therefore not regulated.


Perhaps you should actually click on the supplied link and then easily find that it is not a "replica" of anything; it is a modern design, specifically designed to work with the very same rifle that fits the Akins stock.

I thought hand crank Gatling guns were banned. It looks like maybe they're not. That may blow my whole theory out of the water.

No. Handcrank Gatlings are not banned...at least not by the federal government. I do not pretend to know the laws of the 50 States. In fact, if you have the money, there is at least one company that still makes a great little .22 LR version of the Gatling.

http://www.bwefirearms.com/gatling.html

I would really like to have one. But took the money and bought a real machine gun instead. If I ever get enough discretionary money laying around, though, a .22 Gatling would be a hoot.

It seems like the gist of this whole story is that the government doesn't want anyone to be able to fire a lot of ammo in a rapid fashion. Perhaps the silly NFA definition of "machinegun" needs to go away, and be replaced with a cap on the rate of fire instead of the method of functioning. And this cap should be set at the absolute fastest rate of fire a human being is able to achieve with a semi auto gun. (Over 600 rpm).