Akins attorney petitions scotus in accelerator rifle stock case.

[Bill Akins]

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]

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]

I added a moving gif animation of it in action Gabe in my above post. But here it is again. Animation is cutaway view.



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]

Best of luck to you, Bill.

[ilbob]

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]

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]

I think the Court and the BATFE were correct in their ruling, good luck anyway

WildsinglefunctionAlaska ™

[OuTcAsT]

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]

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]

It either violates the law or it does not.

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

WildclearlyAlaska ™

[hogdogs]

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]

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]

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]

Seems pretty obvious to me. One trigger pull, one round fired. How is that a machine gun?

[Wildalaska]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[MrNiceGuy]

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]

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]

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 (and a good analysis by the way)

WildastotherestthereisnoneedtofurtherarguethegunwoobiehastakenoverAlaska TM

[Csspecs]

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]

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]

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.