Posted on 12/13/2006 12:22:37 PM PST by DCBryan1
BATFE DECIDES THE AKINS ACCELERATOR™ TO BE A MACHINEGUN
Akins Group Inc. regrets to announce that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has reversed its position and has decided the Akins Accelerator™ to be a machinegun conversion kit, thereby subjecting it to strict regulation under the Gun Control Act (GCA) and National Firearms Act (NFA).
ATF rescinded its previous determination that the Akins Accelerator™ was not a machinegun subject to the GCA or NFA (see http://www.firefaster.com/documentation.html for original documentation).
Attorneys for the Akins Group Inc. are seeking reconsideration by ATF of its new position. In the interim, any sale, transfer, or return of the Akins Accelerator™ must be suspended. Akins Group Inc. will advise further after meeting with ATF.
Akins Group Inc. has received no instruction as to the disposition of units in customer hands. Please refrain from public speculation and emotional responses and allow our Attorneys to advocate for everyone's best interests.
(Excerpt) Read more at firefaster.com ...
Thank you very much!, I'll be more careful next time.
LL :))
That is all fine but the general knowledge of this was quite restricted.
Then how is this not a machine gun conversion kit?
Depends on the definition of "machine gun" ... and the fact that prohibition legislation must have limits, which creative people usually manage to do interesting things just outside of.
Personally I'm not going to get nailed down on either side of the "it is / isn't" argument. Arguments over whether "it's your finger pressing the trigger" vs. "it's the trigger pressing your finger" arguments are so finely nuanced that language, practically speaking, breaks down. Methinks the BATFE _cannot_ let this thing by without a fight, the nature of the BATFE being what it is, and this thing emptying a mag based on a single finger motion.
The ultimate problem isn't the BATFE changing its mind over this, as the issue is fuzzy enough. The ultimate problem is law 922(o) which bans new (post-'86) machine guns - which is flatly unconstitutional.
I take it that you missed the part where BATF initlally approved the device as "not a machine gun". So why would they not advertise (on their webpage, from whence the video made it's way to YouTube.
BTW, it's not a machine gun, appearences aside, it's just a device that aids you in pulling the trigger, really quickly. Thus, it does not meet the legal definition of machine gun, which you allude to:
TITLE 26 > Subtitle E > CHAPTER 53 > Subchapter B > PART I > § 5845
§ 5845. Definitions
(b) 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 term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.
(Emphasis added)
No, that's the Federal Bureau of Incineration. BATFE was long gone by the time any toddlers were burned. Some were probably killed by the BATF assault on the Wackos in Waco (Being a Wacko is not in itself against the law, and the manifestation of wacko-ness that do run afoul of the law, are out of BATFE's bailiwick)
BATFE is more into shooting dogs, stomping kittens, and shoving pregnant women into walls.
Which THEY Did not do, unless the YouTube poster "footpounds" is the owner or an employee *acting in his capacity as an employee*. They put it on their own website.
Are you saying they shouldn't advertise their product, of which they had BATFE's written assurance of legality?
Not quite, the definition of machine gun is perfectly explicit in the US Code. BATFE's job is to determine if a device meets that definition or doesn't. The line is not fuzzy, and this device, which requires the trigger be manipulated once for each round fired, does not meet the definition. The fact that it may give one the capability of rapid fire similar to that achievable with a machine gun as defined by the law, does not make it a machine gun under that law.
Absent specific definitions in the law, then the common definitions hold (walks like a duck..etc), but when the law defines something, then that is the definition for purpose of the laws. The same law defines "firearm", for purposes of only that law, and that definition does not include common pistols, rifles or shotguns which other parts of the law as well as common usage do include under the term "firearm", unless they meet specific requirements in the law (short barrel, or short overall length, or are a machine gun as defined in that law,for example).
Firearms Act. As originally drafted it would have included handguns. How'd you like to pay the $200 transfer tax on your $200 .22 handgun? Fortunately the NRA, in one of it's first lobbying actions against gun laws, managed to get that provision out of the bill.
You haven't been able to register a machine gun since 1986. Ignoring the issue may get you raided, you cat stomped and your house ransacked, as well as becoming Bubba's new roomie. That leaves turning it in and begging for forgiveness, which you may or may not get depending on how much BATFE is trying to curry favor with the new Congressional Gun Grabbers.
Remember they probably have the list of folks who bought the things.
Sorry, you're SOL.
The line is not fuzzy, and if the device is on the legal side for a 10/22, it's on the legal side for an SKS, or any other semiautomatic firearm.
You mean the one where the NRA and other pro arms rights groups, and maybe FR, are more or less silenced by CFR, and the new law making it's way through the Senate as we type? After that one the question might be "what elections?
Ref: photo in #31
A close look shows that the clown has his finger on the trigger! If his finger were on the trigger guard, it would be lying straight and not curved as the picture shows. Total Doofus!
I've often wondered how that affects folks, and I know some, who have one or two M-2 Carbines, with the tax stamp and everything legal, and several M-1 Carbines as well. Any spare, or loose, "critical" parts for the M-2, would be "illegal machine gun parts" when in association with the M-1s.
Figures...;-)
That's life under such bureaucratic oppression.
Hence the importance of full RKBA restoration: nobody should have to know such obscurities.
Now that the Republicans are being "punished" you will see more of such things I am sure.
Depends on the strict & nuanced definition of "machinegun". As the BATFE _had_ defined it, this wasn't such a conversion: your finger presses the trigger individually for every round fired ... it's just that your finger stays still while the trigger bounces back & forth (a mechanically sound version of legal "bump firing"). Faced with people suddenly having 700 rpm semi-autos, the BATFE was motivated to redefine things a bit.
Something similar happened with switchblades a few years ago. The legal definition keys off the user pressing a button which activates the blade; the new Kershaw design gets the same results by slight pressure on the blade directly, evading the legal definition but getting the same results. Result is a fully legal "assisted opening" knife. Fortunately the definition is not subject to bureaucratic whim, so they're still legal.
Mechanically the AA was just barely this side of legal due to a novel design legislators & bureaucrats hadn't considered; unfortunately, the full definition was left up to a bureacracy which could redefine the term on short notice.
(oops, addressing the wrong message - already covered that one.)
Great info thanks.
The line IS fuzzy if there's confusion over the "finger presses trigger" vs. "trigger presses finger" issue, garnering rationally different results.
Now that I understand the device's history better: seems the original device submitted to the BATFE broke; didn't work, so it was legal. Being an obscure non-functioning experimental gizmo, BATFE didn't have much to worry about. Subsequently faced with a broad advertising campaign pushing "full-auto performance in a BATFE-approved semi-auto package" and multiple people sending letters asking "is this thing really legal?", they reversed their verdict and redefined the legal term.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.