The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 14, 2009, 01:54 AM   #1
Bill Akins
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 28, 2007
Location: Hudson, Florida
Posts: 1,031
Akins attorney petitions scotus in accelerator rifle stock case.



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



.

Last edited by Bill Akins; May 14, 2009 at 11:07 AM.
Bill Akins is offline  
Old May 14, 2009, 05:59 AM   #2
BlindMansBluff
Member
 
Join Date: May 4, 2009
Location: Phoenix AZ
Posts: 95
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.
__________________
Gabe Vega

I just started a blog about my experiences being a blind gun owner and a target shooter, check it out at http://theblindmansbluff.blogspot.com
BlindMansBluff is offline  
Old May 14, 2009, 11:11 AM   #3
Bill Akins
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 28, 2007
Location: Hudson, Florida
Posts: 1,031
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.


.
Bill Akins is offline  
Old May 14, 2009, 11:21 AM   #4
Chipperman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 31, 2000
Location: Live Free or Die, Baby!
Posts: 1,429
Best of luck to you, Bill.
Chipperman is offline  
Old May 14, 2009, 11:40 AM   #5
ilbob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 29, 2006
Location: Northern Illinois
Posts: 515
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.

Quote:
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.
__________________
bob

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.
ilbob is offline  
Old May 14, 2009, 11:44 AM   #6
azredhawk44
Junior member
 
Join Date: September 28, 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 6,465
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!
azredhawk44 is offline  
Old May 14, 2009, 11:52 AM   #7
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
I think the Court and the BATFE were correct in their ruling, good luck anyway

WildsinglefunctionAlaska ™
Wildalaska is offline  
Old May 14, 2009, 01:40 PM   #8
OuTcAsT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 1,212
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood

Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska -
OuTcAsT is offline  
Old May 14, 2009, 02:23 PM   #9
ilbob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 29, 2006
Location: Northern Illinois
Posts: 515
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

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

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.
ilbob is offline  
Old May 14, 2009, 02:34 PM   #10
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
Quote:
It either violates the law or it does not.
It does. A single function of the trigger is involved here.

WildclearlyAlaska ™
Wildalaska is offline  
Old May 14, 2009, 02:44 PM   #11
hogdogs
Staff In Memoriam
 
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,069
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
hogdogs is offline  
Old May 14, 2009, 04:30 PM   #12
Chipperman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 31, 2000
Location: Live Free or Die, Baby!
Posts: 1,429
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.
Chipperman is offline  
Old May 14, 2009, 05:00 PM   #13
MrNiceGuy
Junior member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2008
Posts: 919
Quote:
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
MrNiceGuy is offline  
Old May 14, 2009, 05:21 PM   #14
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
Seems pretty obvious to me. One trigger pull, one round fired. How is that a machine gun?
csmsss is offline  
Old May 14, 2009, 05:27 PM   #15
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
Quote:
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
Wildalaska is offline  
Old May 14, 2009, 05:46 PM   #16
vranasaurus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,175
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.
vranasaurus is offline  
Old May 14, 2009, 05:53 PM   #17
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
Quote:
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.
csmsss is offline  
Old May 14, 2009, 06:02 PM   #18
MrNiceGuy
Junior member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2008
Posts: 919
Quote:
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

Last edited by MrNiceGuy; May 14, 2009 at 06:20 PM.
MrNiceGuy is offline  
Old May 14, 2009, 07:31 PM   #19
OuTcAsT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 1,212
A quote from the appeal decision, bear in mind this was the plaintiff's own description, Emphasis mine.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood

Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska -
OuTcAsT is offline  
Old May 14, 2009, 07:55 PM   #20
MrNiceGuy
Junior member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2008
Posts: 919
Quote:
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"

Quote:
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

Last edited by MrNiceGuy; May 14, 2009 at 08:15 PM.
MrNiceGuy is offline  
Old May 14, 2009, 09:49 PM   #21
OuTcAsT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 1,212
Quote:
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
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood

Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska -
OuTcAsT is offline  
Old May 14, 2009, 09:59 PM   #22
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
Quote:
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
Wildalaska is offline  
Old May 14, 2009, 10:29 PM   #23
Csspecs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 21, 2005
Posts: 1,111
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.
Csspecs is offline  
Old May 18, 2009, 10:45 AM   #24
ilbob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 29, 2006
Location: Northern Illinois
Posts: 515
Quote:
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.
__________________
bob

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.
ilbob is offline  
Old May 18, 2009, 11:47 AM   #25
OuTcAsT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 1,212
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood

Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska -

Last edited by OuTcAsT; May 18, 2009 at 02:36 PM.
OuTcAsT is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13131 seconds with 7 queries