PDA

View Full Version : Akins attorney petitions scotus in accelerator rifle stock case.


Bill Akins
May 14, 2009, 01:54 AM
http://www.jpfo.org/images02/bumpfire-akins.gif

In an ongoing effort to seek justice for myself as successor in interest of Akins Group Inc, as well as for my former customers and all Americans,
my attorney John Monroe has petitioned the U.S. supreme court for redress of grievance against the BATFE regarding their ruling
against my accelerator rifle stock.
http://www.fox4now.com/global/story.asp?s=10357890



.

BlindMansBluff
May 14, 2009, 05:59 AM
questions:

If they sound stupid I am sorry, if there are pics well, can't see them so I am trying to understand what this does.

so obviously this goes on the back of a rifle, does the shooter hold the trigger in where the bullets are continuiously stricken by some sort of firing pin?

from the discription of the article how is that "NOT" a Machine gun, or just a modified Auto at the point of the installation of the new Stock?

I am not for either side, I am just curious.

Bill Akins
May 14, 2009, 11:11 AM
I added a moving gif animation of it in action Gabe in my above post. But here it is again. Animation is cutaway view.

http://www.jpfo.org/images02/bumpfire-akins.gif

That should answer your questions. Stationary stock, barrel/receiver/trigger/mag all move to the rear under recoil when gun fires, stock stays stationary, recoil spring pushes gun back forward again in stock, trigger comes into contact with finger and is functioned again. One shot for each separate function of the trigger, just like section 922 of the NFA says is a semi auto, NOT a full auto.

I hope this helped you to understand. Bill.


.

Chipperman
May 14, 2009, 11:21 AM
Best of luck to you, Bill.

ilbob
May 14, 2009, 11:40 AM
So to fire it you just pull the trigger once and hold your finger in place.

The trigger moves back and then up against your finger again so it fires again.

Machinegun. 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, by a single function of the trigger.

It appears to me it is not a MG since the trigger functions exactly once per round fired.

azredhawk44
May 14, 2009, 11:44 AM
Bill:

BlindMansBluff is actually blind. As in "cannot see." He uses a screen reading software product to listen to TFL and interact with us.

I wish you luck in your endeavor. I think that the ultimate result will end up being a win in your particular situation with SCOTUS, followed by a Congressional/Presidential change of section 922 to make your product illegal shortly after, probably with greater restrictions thrown onto us along with it.

I don't consider that your "fault," however. Every man deserves justice. Your product appears to follow the letter of the law as far as I can tell, and is no more illegal in my perspective than a rubber band around the front of an AR mag well or bumpfiring from the hip via a belt loop.

While I question the resultant downrange accuracy of your product... that is not its purpose.

Best of luck!

Wildalaska
May 14, 2009, 11:52 AM
I think the Court and the BATFE were correct in their ruling, good luck anyway

WildsinglefunctionAlaska ™

OuTcAsT
May 14, 2009, 01:40 PM
Your product appears to follow the letter of the law as far as I can tell, and is no more illegal in my perspective than a rubber band around the front of an AR mag well or bumpfiring from the hip via a belt loop.

Except that "bump firing" does not change the mechanical characteristics of the gun, This device does.

Stationary stock, barrel/receiver/trigger/mag all move to the rear under recoil when gun fires, stock stays stationary, recoil spring pushes gun back forward again in stock, trigger comes into contact with finger and is functioned again. One shot for each separate function of the trigger,

I think the key here is what will be defined as the "Trigger."
And, the fact that rate of fire is dependent on the mechanism rather than the tactile ability of a finger.


It may follow the letter of the law, but not the spirit, I expect.

ilbob
May 14, 2009, 02:23 PM
I think the key here is what will be defined as the "Trigger."
The trigger is still the trigger. that has not changed one bit.

And, the fact that rate of fire is dependent on the mechanism rather than the tactile ability of a finger.
Nothing in the law says anything about the tactile ability of the finger. A MG would still be a MG if it was operated with your tongue instead of your finger.

It may follow the letter of the law, but not the spirit, I expect.
It either violates the law or it does not.

Wildalaska
May 14, 2009, 02:34 PM
It either violates the law or it does not.

It does. A single function of the trigger is involved here.

WildclearlyAlaska ™

hogdogs
May 14, 2009, 02:44 PM
Bump fire from the hip with thumb in beltloop is no different from bump firing with this stock.
You pull the trigger once for each round. How is this changed? The action "floats" rearward on recoil and upon return your finger fires the next round. I think you created a real nice device.
Sorry folks but it is brutally obvious that it still takes one operation of the trigger to discharge one round from the chamber...
Blind mans bluff, I will be sending message via private means...
Brent

Chipperman
May 14, 2009, 04:30 PM
A shoelace is a machine gun, then it is no longer a machine gun.

I think the ruling will remain the same in this case, but ATF has changed positions on more than one occasion.

MrNiceGuy
May 14, 2009, 05:00 PM
It does. A single function of the trigger is involved here.

no more so than with a 1911 or any other semi auto
the trigger is depressed, a shot fires
the trigger then resets forward
then it must be depressed again to fire another shot

the trigger is manipulated for each individual shot, that means it's a semi auto

whereas one movement of the trigger for multiple shots would mean it's a full automatic.


you may be right in spirit, but wrong in reality

csmsss
May 14, 2009, 05:21 PM
Seems pretty obvious to me. One trigger pull, one round fired. How is that a machine gun?

Wildalaska
May 14, 2009, 05:27 PM
you may be right in spirit, but wrong in reality

You misread the plain meaning of the statute. it refers to function, not "pull". There is a factual and mechanical difference between the example you cite and the object in question. Please put aside the gunwoobie and look at it carefully

May I suggest you read the decsion of the Circuit?

WildthenallwillbeclearAlaska TM

vranasaurus
May 14, 2009, 05:46 PM
For the second and subsequent shots the trigger is not actuated by the finger pulling the trigger but by the mechanical action of the receiver coming forward to hit the trigger to the finger.

The finger pulls the trigger once and it will continue to fire as long as the finger is held in that position.

To me that is a machien gun.

csmsss
May 14, 2009, 05:53 PM
For the second and subsequent shots the trigger is not actuated by the finger pulling the trigger but by the mechanical action of the receiver coming forward to hit the trigger to the finger.That is precisely the same mechanism of action as the Hellfire, which was determined to be legal by BATF.

MrNiceGuy
May 14, 2009, 06:02 PM
You misread the plain meaning of the statute. it refers to function, not "pull".

exactly, perhaps it's you that need to re-read the statute

the functioning remains the same with or without the stock, the conscious and deliberate act of the "pull" is what changes

the courts decision doesnt mean their interpretation is reality... it just means they havent been corrected yet.


My idea still stands.
A glove with electrodes on the back of your hand that sends quick pulses to your trigger finger and causes it to spasm rapidly resulting in a rate of fire that is faster than one could consciously pull the trigger on their own.

I could rig this up with some 9volt batteries, a glove, and an old clock

OuTcAsT
May 14, 2009, 07:31 PM
A quote from the appeal decision, bear in mind this was the plaintiff's own description, Emphasis mine.

According to Akins, a gunman pulls the trigger, then "maintains tension against the finger stops," and each time the rifle recoils, it is pushed forward by "tension supplied by the spring," which pushes "the trigger ... into the fInger[] and the rifle."

This describes 1, uno, singular action by the "gunman" which results in multiple rounds being fired without manual reloading, the gun supplies the rest of the "mechanical" function. Thus the ruling.


You misread the plain meaning of the statute. it refers to function, not "pull"

Correct, this mechanism functions by a singular manual application of the trigger, resulting in multiple shots.

Hope he can convince them otherwise but, looks like a machinegun to me, as much as it hurts I must agree with WA :eek: :p :)

MrNiceGuy
May 14, 2009, 07:55 PM
This describes 1, uno, singular action by the "gunman" which results in multiple rounds being fired without manual reloading, the gun supplies the rest of the "mechanical" function. Thus the ruling.

Therein lies the disagreement.
The statute clearly states that a machinegun fires with a single action of the trigger, not the "gunman"

Machinegun. 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, by a single function of the trigger.

the trigger still functions with multiple actions in order to fire, like any semi auto weapon.

bumpfiring works the same way and has been ruled legal, so has the hellfire trigger assembly, and last I checked, the same result can be had with a rubber band legally.
This device does nothing but allow the operator to pull the trigger faster on a semi auto weapon

Hell, trigger cranks are legal and you dont even touch the trigger with those. A single crank can fire 10 shots, perfectly legally

OuTcAsT
May 14, 2009, 09:49 PM
A single crank can fire 10 shots, perfectly legally

Correct, but what, pray tell, operates the crank? (this is key)

Do you believe that attaching, say, a cordless drill to operate the crank would be legal ? I don't think so, as it would only take a single action to fire multiple shots due to the fact that the drill mechanism would be operating the trigger.

same/same

Wildalaska
May 14, 2009, 09:59 PM
Hope he can convince them otherwise but, looks like a machinegun to me, as much as it hurts I must agree with WA

Congrats Outcast, you are finally correct:p (and a good analysis by the way)

WildastotherestthereisnoneedtofurtherarguethegunwoobiehastakenoverAlaska TM

Csspecs
May 14, 2009, 10:29 PM
Bill I think I have a solution at least mechanically to your design.

Basically removing the springs and using a paddle trigger that your supporting hand would manipulate (keep just the right tension and it bump fires).

If you remove the spring from the design then its not a machine gun. Add a new way to provide the force to return the rifle to battery and your good to go.

ilbob
May 18, 2009, 10:45 AM
A single function of the trigger is involved here.
Nope. The trigger clearly functions once per shot.

There is a single function of the trigger finger. but the law says nothing about the finger.

OuTcAsT
May 18, 2009, 11:47 AM
Nope. The trigger clearly functions once per shot.

There is a single function of the trigger finger. but the law says nothing about the finger.

OK Lets break this down into simple terms, the Intent, and Spirit of the law is a simple concept, for each round fired, there must be some kind of manual dexterity exerted by the person firing. No, it does not say that in plain English, but, there is no law that is not constructed around such legalese.

There is a single function of the trigger finger

You may choose to try and refute it in any manner you see fit but, this ^^^ is the problem.
The single initial function of the trigger sets the mechanism in motion to complete the firing of multiple rounds without any further human interface. The fact that the finger, or whatever else, remains stationary, and the trigger presses its self against that object is the reason this is a machine gun.

Note: You can try and use the "bump firing" analogy but, the two are in no way the same. a weapon that is bump-fired is not designed to be used in that manner, human intervention is the only way that is accomplished. (in other words, try bump firing with only one hand on the gun) This gun in question was specifically designed to circumvent this human intervention.

There is much more to law than just the literal translation from a document. If it were that simple there would be no need for lawyers or judges.

hogdogs
May 18, 2009, 12:13 PM
There is much more to law than just the literal translation from a document.
And that is exactly what is wrong with LAW as we know it! Up to and including the COTUS!!!
Brent

OuTcAsT
May 18, 2009, 12:28 PM
And that is exactly what is wrong with LAW as we know it! Up to and including the COTUS!!!

No argument on that ! :cool:

hogdogs
May 18, 2009, 12:48 PM
A bit off topic but I would like everyone to think about this a second...
Why can't we expect "Letter of the law" rulings on things such as BATFE laws vut our 7 year old boys can be sent home EXPELLED from school for having a G.I. Joe complete with 3 inch long Garand?
Brent

johnwilliamson062
May 18, 2009, 02:12 PM
Without the finger stop I think this is legal. Otherwise, the action of the spring is pulling the trigger. If you replaced your finger with a piece of tape the gun would fire until empty.
Without a finger stop I think it would be legal. It would take more training to be effective with it, but it would still be easier than bump firing from the hips.
As designed I also think the gun might be quite prone to multiple NDs.

OuTcAsT
May 18, 2009, 02:34 PM
Otherwise the action of the spring is pulling the trigger.

BINGO ! We have another winner! :D

This is the simple reason that several people seem to miss :confused:

zukiphile
May 18, 2009, 02:56 PM
I don't believe most of the posts here have correctly identified the issue.

Whether or not you believe this arrangement is "clearly" a machinegun, that isn't BATF's position if they originally ruled otherwise.


The issue here should be whether a citizen is entitled to rely on a government opinion letter, just as he would with internal revenue. A revenue ruling on a specific case is a very strong defense to the service's later change of heart.

Why should BATF be different?


Akins, if that describes what has happened here, best of luck to you.

ilbob
May 18, 2009, 03:01 PM
There is much more to law than just the literal translation from a document.
so now you are advocating that the law should not mean what it actually says and instead should mean what a judge later decides the congress wanted it to mean? or what they should have written instead of what they did write down as the codified law?

i agree that for practical purposes it is a machine gun. but the bottom line is the trigger functions exactly once for each round fired. it is very hard to get around that fact for me.

OuTcAsT
May 18, 2009, 03:08 PM
I don't believe most of the posts here have correctly identified the issue.

Whether or not you believe this arrangement is "clearly" a machinegun, that isn't BATF's position if they originally ruled otherwise.


The issue here should be whether a citizen is entitled to rely on a government opinion letter, just as he would with internal revenue. A revenue ruling on a specific case is a very strong defense to the service's later change of heart.

Why should BATF be different?


So, if I submit a mechanical drawing, specifications, etc. on a proposed design, and they say , " Produce a prototype "
Then it is produced, tested, and found to be non-compliant
that somehow changes things ?

IF he produced a working prototype, and allowed the BATFE to examine it, then yes, I could see that as a factor. The article, nor the brief support that, unless I missed something.





William Akins of Hudson, Fla., near Tampa, says the ATF at first approved his Akins Accelerator, then reneged after he went into production.

zukiphile
May 18, 2009, 03:22 PM
So, if I submit a mechanical drawing, specifications, etc. on a proposed design, and they say , " give it a go for now"


I don't believe the bolded terms are implied when the government issues a ruling or opinion that your behavior or item are within the law.

If the government issues an opinion that your device is not a machine gun, it is reasonable for a fellow to rely on that opinion.

If we cannot rely on BATF opinions, why does it issue them?

If the IRS is bound by its rulings, why wouldn't the BATF be?

OuTcAsT
May 18, 2009, 03:40 PM
so now you are advocating that the law should not mean what it actually says and instead should mean what a judge later decides the congress wanted it to mean? or what they should have written instead of what they did write down as the codified law?

I 'Advocate" no such thing, I certainly feel that law should be in plain enough English that everyone could understand it, and negate a lot of the necessity for legal wrangling.

The less I have to align myself with the legal sharks the better. :D

Sadly, in reality your description is closer to the truth.

I sincerely hope that Akins prevails in this case, I was merely pointing out why the BATFE deemed it a machine gun.

OuTcAsT
May 18, 2009, 03:45 PM
So, if I submit a mechanical drawing, specifications, etc. on a proposed design, and they say , " give it a go for now"
I don't believe the bolded terms are implied when the government issues a ruling or opinion that your behavior or item are within the law.



I fixed it for ya ! ;) ^^

Sorry if my intent was unclear, sometimes my fingers work faster than my brain. :)

alloy
May 18, 2009, 04:10 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9P8AbTKvykE

I imagine they would rewrite the law before they let a mechanical design like the accelerator be taken into any other calibers or be used as an engineering springboard. Good luck on the suit, i see where they stiffed you big with a temporary go ahead.

johnwilliamson062
May 18, 2009, 05:15 PM
The opinion was wrong. Maybe the design, as submitted, should be accepted as an exception due to the erroneous opinion(10/22 only). I agree an ATFE opinion should be reliable. This was clearly a mistake or a misunderstanding of how it functions from the diagram. I would have made a prototype and hade them look at that after having the schematics approved.

Wouldn't an exception for this exact design be an awesome outcome. I can't believe anything less restricting is a possibility, but I think and exception for the design is a possibility. I would buy one ASAP if it was legal. How much fun would that be? The things would be more popular than ARs and might even be more reliable:)

Csspecs
May 23, 2009, 10:41 PM
Hmm thought I had subscribed to this one..

I had a design of something with the same basic idea of the accelerator back in around 03-04. Drawings of the basic idea including springs and all just like what he made. It was far more involved then I could have built at the time so I never bothered with it. Besides I did not have a semi rifle anyway.

So couple years ago or so I see the atkins and as soon as I did I noticed that it was also pretty much a machinegun as it fired itself (I did not think it would work that well). So I figured I'd wait a bit and see what happened before I bought one (plus I did not have the money at the time they came out).

Anyway I saw the ruling one day on here. After reading it I did feel that the ATFs major failure was the initial approval. They approved without getting it to work.

So after reading all the rulings that they gave I came up with something that is far more basic, does not really do anything but give you a good grip. Sent a copy off to BATFE tech branch and they looked at it tested it described its function in detail and stated clearly that it was OK provided no springs rubber bands or any other form of return mechanism are used with it.

I have no plans to sell it. I only really built it to play with. But I do feel that it meets the letter of the law and still somewhat with the spirit of the law (you have to push JUST right or it stops shooting)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcnwGpLZnL0&feature=channel_page

Bill if your interested in my offer for a minor redesign send me a PM.

JohnKSa
May 24, 2009, 12:30 AM
I think it's reprehensible for the BATF to change its mind and leave Akins & his customers in the lurch.

I also think they goofed on their original decision--again reprehensible.

I agree with their second decision as much as it hurts to agree with the BATF. The device is clearly a machinegun.

The reason this gun is different from bump-firing is because in bump-firing the shooter operates the trigger for every shot. By pulling the gun forward (using the weak hand) into the trigger finger the shooter is actuating the trigger one time for each shot. It's just that he's holding the trigger finger still and moving the whole gun forward with his weak hand.

The Hellfire trigger is just a bump-firing facilitator. It still depends on the shooter to push the gun forward into the trigger finger, it just tunes things so that the normal forward rebound off the shooter's shoulder is sufficient to make it work (or at least sort of work :rolleyes: ).

In the Akins device the device takes the place of the shooter's weak hand (or shoulder) which means that the Akins device pushes the trigger forward into the stationary finger and therefore the Akins device is what is actuating the trigger, not the shooter.

Anytime you have something firing the gun more than once without the shooter having to move more than once it's going to be ruled a machinegun. That's clearly the intent of the law and that's how the courts are going to rule.

I think that the BATF should remunerate all of Akins' customers and pay him some sort of damages for what their "change of mind" has cost him.

madmag
May 24, 2009, 11:34 AM
Just curious, what is the rate of fire?

Added: BTW, your mechanism looks very similar to how my Browning Auto 5 works. The barrel & breech move together under recoil to operate the bolt and complete the cycle. The only difference is that on the Auto 5 the trigger stays in position and must be pulled again for each shot.

Csspecs
May 24, 2009, 02:20 PM
The akins device was advertised with a rate of fire of 700 rounds per min. Meaning that it could empty a 30 round mag in 2.50 secs.

madmag
May 24, 2009, 03:14 PM
with a rate of fire of 700 rounds per min.

Thanks, that's a high rate of fire. As I remember the BAR (for comparison) on high has about 600 rpm. My old .45ACP grease gun I carried had about 450/500 rpm.

That (700) seems high for all the moving mass involved, but I have no reason to dispute.

Thanks again.