Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« Inspiring story | Main | More thought on the Akins Accelerator »

Akins Accelerator district court ruling

Posted by David Hardy · 10 October 2008 04:52 PM

Pdf of ruling here. As I understand it, the Akins involves letting the action slide in the stock so that the trigger essentially pushes itself against the finger, firing as fast as the device can cycle. ATF initially ruled that an Akins-equipped firearm was not a Title II since the trigger is pulled once for every shot. Then, after Akins began production, ATF reconsidered and ruled that it was a Title II since once the trigger is first pulled, it will continue firing until it runs out of ammo or you consciously "release" the trigger by moving your finger away. The court rules with ATF's last position.

· National Firearms Act

13 Comments

straightarrow | October 10, 2008 5:09 PM

bfs

Deavis | October 10, 2008 5:15 PM

Did anyone expect them to rule differently? Again, this is an example of the problem with government regulation of a right. You get all sorts of creative attempts to outsmart a law that shouldn't be there in the first place.

jon | October 10, 2008 5:32 PM

so is my belt loop on my pants also a title II?

Chuck | October 10, 2008 5:50 PM

No, your belt loop is not, but the ATF has ruled that your shoe string is if you tie a loop in each end. Of course then they reversed that. Made them look silly...go figure.

Jim | October 10, 2008 6:24 PM

To me the bigger issue is that the Atkins people relied upon the original ATF written opinion and invested money, only to have ATF put them under by reversing themselves.

Ken | October 10, 2008 6:32 PM

While I absolutely no hard evidence to support it, I wouldn't be the least surprised if some higher up at ATF looked at the original application and said to himself, "this guy is trying to find a legal way to do an end run on us; let's show him and the rest to just get with the program. We'll approve his application, then when he's in hock up to his eyeballs producing these, we'll reverse our position, cause problems for all his customers (since they're part of the problem), and bankrupt him." As I said, no evidence, but a still sneaking suspicion.

Sevesteen | October 10, 2008 7:32 PM

I agree with Jim--I would have no problem if the Accelerator was initially banned, or if they had begun manufacture without getting a ruling first and had trouble. I do have a problem with getting a ruling to have it changed by the same people who made it in the first place.

Black | October 11, 2008 9:10 AM

Ken, that was my first thought as well--that he was set up to fail.

Though it could still be attributable to sheer incompetence.

Either way, the ATF needs a thorough F5 housecleaning.

straightarrow | October 11, 2008 3:22 PM

Housecleaning my aching ass, they need to be disbanded and their personnel need to be barred from any association with law enforcement employment for life.

Bill | October 12, 2008 6:11 AM

"ATF reconsidered and ruled that it was a Title II since once the trigger is first pulled, it will continue firing until it runs out of ammo or you consciously "release" the trigger by moving your finger away."

Your above quote of the ATF ruling, just described any semi automatic firearm capable of bumpfiring. The case is being appealed.

Brad | October 12, 2008 6:21 PM

If you think the courts are hostile to gun-rights now, you haven't seen anything yet. Just wait until Obama has a chance to pack the federal judiciary.

joe | December 29, 2008 3:00 PM

Come on give me a brake guys. Not everyone can be perfect like all of you are. This is what happened. They looked the application in and went “It’s just another gimmick that will kind of work”. Then latter realized it functionary makes a machinegun. They did what all of us have done at work. They messed up.

O and don’t give me any of that your just a liberal blanket statement. I love my guns just as much as the next guy. The fact is that they knew the devices approval was a mistake and was trying to purposely get around a law. They knew this was part of the risk.

Harry trumann | July 14, 2009 12:04 PM

What a shame that bill sent the gooberment a purposely broken AA device. It is the very reason why he is incurring this problem now. Had he been honest and forthright by sending a working model intended for resale,he would have saved the overhead he claims to have lost.You see, if the atfe had their hands on a legitimately working model,it would have been turned down much sooner and elvis could have started from scratch! see what dishonesty gets you. It's a part of karma.