The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > NFA Guns and Gear

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old December 16, 2006, 04:42 PM   #26
shaggy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 2004
Posts: 1,519
Quote:
True 100 bucks is allot for a stock. However a registered FA 10/22 will run you at least three to four times that. The ones that where already sold will most likely get some type of grandfather clause as they where legal when sold and even came with a copy of the BATF approval letter. Of course this will at least double there value.
A registered 10-22 conversion (Norrell, S&H etc.) will run about $9k-10k, so it was a great savings and they did work very well...maybe too well. Akins will fight this, but if they lose there will be NO grandfathering. BATFE doesn't have the authority to grandfather them; that BATFE issued a prior advisory opinion on their legality is irrelevant to the issue of grandfathering. Any units already sold will be contraband, unregistered machineguns, and thus worthless (...or worth up to 10 years).
shaggy is offline  
Old December 16, 2006, 08:40 PM   #27
TNT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 4, 2006
Location: Back in glorious Nebraska
Posts: 606
see now here is the problem if the company was told that they were illegal in the first place and they made and sold them any way it is one thing now if ATF told them 10 yr ago that it is ok and now they reverse their standing that could be seen as entrapment and thrown out I don't see how they can just make up rules in the middle of the game as they go that is illegal to begin with. This would get thrown out in court I can see them saying you can produce no more from here on out and Grandfathering the ones in circulation but not confiscating them.
__________________
"In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man and brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."
TNT is offline  
Old December 16, 2006, 09:13 PM   #28
shaggy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 2004
Posts: 1,519
Quote:
This would get thrown out in court I can see them saying you can produce no more from here on out and Grandfathering the ones in circulation but not confiscating them.
That would be the fair thing to do, but unfortunately thats not the way the law works; there is no way they could be grandfathered without Congress amending the law. And FWIW, BATFE will try to track down individual owners. They've done it in the past with improperly demiled Uzi kits, improperly imported PPSH41 kits, the SOCOM Mfg. RPD and M249 M11-9 uppers, etc.
shaggy is offline  
Old December 16, 2006, 10:30 PM   #29
Travismaine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 19, 2006
Posts: 147
Quote:
That would be the fair thing to do, but unfortunately thats not the way the law works; there is no way they could be grandfathered without Congress amending the law.
Not true. The ATF ruled them not a MG and allowed them to be sold. There fore the ones sold before the change are not MG'S. They will be grandfathered in. They cant simply say turn them in we changed out mind. My last post I said 100 It was supposed to be 1000.
Travismaine is offline  
Old December 16, 2006, 10:53 PM   #30
p99guy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 4, 2004
Location: Haslet,Texas(DFW area)
Posts: 1,506
Its not unlike ATF to change its mind after the fact...remember the striker and streetsweeper shotguns? they sold them for a year or more before ATF
changed thier mind and declared them "Destructive Devices"
__________________
Lighten up Francis!.....;Actor Warren Oats, in the movie "Stripes"
p99guy is offline  
Old December 17, 2006, 07:58 AM   #31
shaggy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 2004
Posts: 1,519
Quote:
Not true. The ATF ruled them not a MG and allowed them to be sold. There fore the ones sold before the change are not MG'S. They will be grandfathered in. They cant simply say turn them in we changed out mind. My last post I said 100 It was supposed to be 1000
.

With all due respect Travis, you are completely wrong. First, just because an agency renders an advisory opinion does not mean they cannot later change their mind or revisit the subject. This is why advisory opinion letters from BATFE are almost meaningless; they give only you a sense of BATFE's stance on an issue at that particular moment in time. It does not forever bind their hands on the matter, so a change in administration can have huge consequences. Now, remember also that machineguns are regulated by two sets of federal statutes - the National Firearms Act (in title 26 of the US Code) and 18 USC 922(o). The effect of 922(o) was to permanently close the National Firearms Registry and Transfer Record to registrations of new machineguns. Had 922(o) not been enacted, or if this was prior to 1986, BATFE could issue a tax amnesty on the ones already in private hands (as they did with the Streetsweeper ands USAS12 when they got reclassified as DD's - you have to register, but pay no $200 tax). However, with the Registry now closed to new machineguns, no amnesty can occur since no new registrations can occur under 922(o). And unfortunately there is nothing in either the NFA or in title 18 which allows BATFE to exempt certain machineguns from the law based upon their date of manufacture or their (BATFE's) error.
shaggy is offline  
Old December 17, 2006, 10:29 AM   #32
VUPDblue
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 18, 2005
Location: Central Indiana
Posts: 1,981
I'm glad you could put that 'on paper' so to speak. The ATF itself cannot allow new MG's on the register, but it can however change its mind a third time. Seems to me that the legal wrangling here would have to be over the very defintion of a MG as it appears in 922(o) and how that applies to the Akins device. You know, if we take the case against the Ill state trooper where parts of the NFA were ruled void for vagueness and then add a possible positive outcome (that is relative) to this Akins decision fiasco, the pendulum could very well begin to swing the other way on the entire body of 922(o). These types of cases are what shape our laws. I may be a dreamer here, but I am going to watch this thing very closely. If there is a way any of us can lend our voices or support, I suggest we find that avenue and approach it with vigor.
__________________
Silencers have NEVER been illegal !
VUPDblue is offline  
Old December 21, 2006, 03:12 PM   #33
VUPDblue
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 18, 2005
Location: Central Indiana
Posts: 1,981

Last edited by VUPDblue; December 22, 2006 at 10:35 AM.
VUPDblue is offline  
Old December 21, 2006, 03:16 PM   #34
buzz_knox
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 1999
Location: Knoxville, in the Free State of Tennesse
Posts: 4,190
Quote:
Not true. The ATF ruled them not a MG and allowed them to be sold. There fore the ones sold before the change are not MG'S. They will be grandfathered in. They cant simply say turn them in we changed out mind. My last post I said 100 It was supposed to be 1000.
As stated above, ATFE has no authority to register new MGs pursuant to the '86 MG ban. Once it determined that the Accelerators were MGs, the items became contraband. Given ATFE's reversal, the items were essentially contraband the moment they were sold and the owners have to turn them over or be prosecuted.
buzz_knox is offline  
Old December 21, 2006, 04:13 PM   #35
JLelli
Member
 
Join Date: October 2, 2006
Location: Rochester, MI
Posts: 44
Quote:
As stated above, ATFE has no authority to register new MGs pursuant to the '86 MG ban. Once it determined that the Accelerators were MGs, the items became contraband. Given ATFE's reversal, the items were essentially contraband the moment they were sold and the owners have to turn them over or be prosecuted.
Unless a federal court has determined the AA to be a machine gun, then the AA is not a machine gun. The Executive Branch, of which the BATFE is a part, has no authority to interpret law. The Akins folks ought to sue the BATFE, if they are not already taking the sateps to do so.
__________________
"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it away."
-Thomas Jefferson
JLelli is offline  
Old December 21, 2006, 04:22 PM   #36
buzz_knox
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 1999
Location: Knoxville, in the Free State of Tennesse
Posts: 4,190
Quote:
Unless a federal court has determined the AA to be a machine gun, then the AA is not a machine gun. The Executive Branch, of which the BATFE is a part, has no authority to interpret law. The Akins folks ought to sue the BATFE, if they are not already taking the sateps to do so.
Congress delegated the authority to implement the NFA to ATFE, and that gives ATFE the authority to say what does or does not fit within the definition of machine gun. Because ATFE was granted the authority to make those determinations and issue the implementing regulations, federal courts give considerable deference to ATFE's decisions as to what the regs mean.

Atkins can sue, but it will need to convice the court that ATFE's decision was effectively unsupportable and arbitrary.
buzz_knox is offline  
Old December 22, 2006, 12:14 AM   #37
JLelli
Member
 
Join Date: October 2, 2006
Location: Rochester, MI
Posts: 44
Quote:
Congress delegated the authority to implement the NFA to ATFE, and that gives ATFE the authority to say what does or does not fit within the definition of machine gun. Because ATFE was granted the authority to make those determinations and issue the implementing regulations, federal courts give considerable deference to ATFE's decisions as to what the regs mean.
That may be true, but the Constitution, the highest law in the land, grants judicial power solely to the Supreme Court and her inferior courts. Giving the BATFE judicial power is exactly like giving a prosecutor judicial power; in other words, it is Unconstitutional.

Quote:
Atkins can sue, but it will need to convice the court that ATFE's decision was effectively unsupportable and arbitrary.
Either the Akins Accelerator is a machine gun, or it is not a machine gun. There is no middle ground. If they can prove the AA is not a machine gun, they will have by definition proven the BATFE's stance to be unsupportable.
__________________
"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it away."
-Thomas Jefferson
JLelli is offline  
Old December 22, 2006, 02:39 AM   #38
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 22,098
I think it's reprehensible that they have reversed their initial ruling. However, I'm not surprised. I never really understood how they let this one by in the first place.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old December 22, 2006, 01:07 PM   #39
MisterPX
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 25, 2006
Location: Amerika's Doyleland
Posts: 809
They "let it by" because it's not a machine gun.
However, it seems that they've got their panties in a bunch because it bumpfires (simulating the appearance of a MG) easily; at least in theory, as I could never get any of the AA's I've played with to run worth a damn. Some uppity bigwig paniced when he saw one being used and probably used his influence to try to ban them.
MisterPX is offline  
Old December 22, 2006, 10:02 PM   #40
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 22,098
Quote:
They "let it by" because it's not a machine gun.
The definition they use is pretty wide open, and I can see how the Akins could easily fit.

Unlike bump-firing when the entire gun moves--thus destroying any chance at accuracy and requiring a delicate touch--with the Akins, you just pull the trigger and hold it until you wish the gun to stop firing (just like you would with a machine gun). The only difference between the Akins and a typical machine gun is that instead of the just the bolt reciprocating, the entire action reciprocates as well.

I'm not saying that the current definition per the BATF is a good one, only that I think that Akin fits it.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old December 22, 2006, 10:54 PM   #41
Gewehr98
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 30, 2000
Location: Token Creek, WI
Posts: 4,068
More than one round fired with just one pull of the trigger?

Then it's a machine gun. ATF oopsed the first time by letting it slide.
__________________
"Bother", said Pooh, as he chambered another round...

Neural Misfires
Gewehr98 is offline  
Old December 27, 2006, 05:20 AM   #42
mxwelch
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 17, 2006
Posts: 379
Quote:
Then it's a machine gun. ATF oopsed the first time by letting it slide.
Not unless they changed the definition of a few words. The trigger is depressed for each shot. I don't know how it could be any clearer.
mxwelch is offline  
Old December 27, 2006, 09:15 PM   #43
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 22,098
Quote:
The trigger is depressed for each shot.
The trigger moves back away from the finger and then back forward along with the entire action.

It would be far more accurate to say that the trigger depresses itself for each shot.

The trigger finger and the stock do not move.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old December 27, 2006, 09:56 PM   #44
Csspecs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 21, 2005
Posts: 1,111
But the thing to keep in mind is THEY HAD IT IN THERE HANDS AND SAID IT WAS OK!!! There is no getting past that part in my book.

If the ATF does not have a clue what the law is how can they enforce it. Their whole purpose for existing is to know and enforce the law, what they are admitting by revoking their prior statement is that they neither know the law nor how to enforce it. So why is it they keep getting tax payers money to fail the only task they exist for? (Maybe they need a name change BATE)
Csspecs is offline  
Old December 27, 2006, 10:09 PM   #45
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 22,098
Quote:
But the thing to keep in mind is THEY HAD IT IN THERE HANDS AND SAID IT WAS OK!!! There is no getting past that part in my book.
I agree 100%.

If they're going to enforce stupid, illogical laws, at the VERY least, they need to do it consistently.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old December 28, 2006, 08:04 AM   #46
mxwelch
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 17, 2006
Posts: 379
Quote:
The trigger moves back away from the finger and then back forward along with the entire action.

It would be far more accurate to say that the trigger depresses itself for each shot.

The trigger finger and the stock do not move.
Irrelevant. The sear is disengaged by activation of the trigger against the finger for EACH SHOT. It doesn't matter that the finger doesn't move. If it did bump firing would be illegal.
mxwelch is offline  
Old December 28, 2006, 09:42 AM   #47
VUPDblue
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 18, 2005
Location: Central Indiana
Posts: 1,981
It is far easier to use than the Tac or Hellfire triggers, but still, in the end they are devices to accomplish the same thing. ATF even compared them (the Accelerator) to the Tac's and Hellfires in their letter to Mr. Bowers. In my book, this means that ANY device to aid in bump-firing would have to be illegal according to this reversal.
__________________
Silencers have NEVER been illegal !
VUPDblue is offline  
Old December 28, 2006, 10:46 AM   #48
deadin
Junior member
 
Join Date: September 6, 2005
Location: Ocean Shores, WA
Posts: 1,052
In a FA the auto sear (or secondary trigger) is tripped by the moving bolt. In this case the trigger has become the auto sear and is tripped by the moving action. I think the only place all this discussion may lead to is a rewording of the regulation to cover the supposed "loophole". (And they don't "have to" grandfather anything if they don't want to. I'm afraid that those that spent their $1000 may have just learned the lesson of what can happen when one skates on thin ice.)
deadin is offline  
Old December 28, 2006, 04:22 PM   #49
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 22,098
Quote:
The sear is disengaged by activation of the trigger against the finger for EACH SHOT. It doesn't matter that the finger doesn't move. If it did bump firing would be illegal.
In bump firing, the weak hand pulls the gun back forward against the trigger finger for each shot. In effect, the ACTION required to be performed by the shooter for each shot is done by the opposite hand while the trigger hand/finger doesn't move. But there is still an action done by the shooter for each shot or the gun will stop firing.

In the Akins device, deadin has it exactly correct. There is no ACTION by the shooter that fires all shots other than the first one, the gun does everything. They effectively made the whole action reciprocate and the trigger becomes an autosear as a result.

Bump-firing is still legal, but if you make a device that bumpfires without needing any help from the shooter (other than a single trigger pull), that clearly crosses the threshold of legality as far as I can see.

Did the BATF reason it out that logically? Dunno. Anyway, the main issue is the reversal, which I think everyone agrees is messed up.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?

Last edited by JohnKSa; December 28, 2006 at 11:02 PM.
JohnKSa is offline  
Old December 29, 2006, 03:46 AM   #50
mxwelch
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 17, 2006
Posts: 379
Quote:
In bump firing, the weak hand pulls the gun back forward against the trigger finger for each shot. In effect, the ACTION required to be performed by the shooter for each shot is done by the opposite hand while the trigger hand/finger doesn't move. But there is still an action done by the shooter for each shot or the gun will stop firing.

In the Akins device, deadin has it exactly correct. There is no ACTION by the shooter that fires all shots other than the first one, the gun does everything. They effectively made the whole action reciprocate and the trigger becomes an autosear as a result.
That's a strong argument. I might even agree except the ATF, as stated, gave it's approval and classified it as a non-NFA accessory.
mxwelch is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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 04:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.10726 seconds with 8 queries