Akins Sues BATFU

The inventor of the Akins Accelerator, the replacement stock for a Ruger 10/22 that allows controlled bump firing, is suing the United States over the BATFE's ruling that the Accelerator wasn't a machine gun, but now is. Here's the complaint.

And here's the "Cliffs Notes" version:

Dear BATFU,

I just invented a gizmo, put a lot of work into it, even got a patent, and before I commit myself and invest massive amounts of time, effort and money beyond what I've already put into it, I'd like a ruling from you on whether or not it will run afoul of any regulations. Once I get your OK, I'm going to manufacture and sell it.

Awaiting your green light,
William Akins

---------

Dear Mr. Akins,

We've checked it out and understand the concept and function, and can tell you with certainty that your design is compliant with all laws and runs afoul of none. If you were wating for a clean bill of health from us before investing your life into this, you now have our unqualified approval.

Yer pals,
BATFU

---------

Achtung,

Guess what? Now that it's over three years later and you've put everything you've got into manufacturing your device, I've decided our previous approval was "wrong" (HA! PSYCH!), even though I can't tell the difference between a trigger function and a trigger pull. Anyway, you're now making machineguns, which means we're going to destroy you even further than we have already if you don't stop it immediately, plus render what you've made to date functionally useless, that is, valueless.

Basically, I'm telling you I won't allow you to own a spring.

Hey, what's a little expost facto screw-over between master and...what's that you people call yourselves again...? Oh, yeah, "citizens" [SNORT]--Good one!

Say, you don't have any kittens we could stomp if we decide to do a raid, do you?

Ha ha,
Maximum Mike

[Via Matt Knighten]

Classified by the Oblivious

In 2003, Akins Group Inc. developed the Akins Accelerator, a bumpfire stock for a Ruger 10/22 that can produce about 650 rounds/minute. The company received classification letters from the BATFE agreeing that the stock was not a firearm and therefore unregulated.

Akins performed approximately 18 months of testing, built injection molds based on the results, and began offering the Accelerator to the public in December of 2006.

True to form, the BATFE suddenly decided that the plastic stock was in fact a machine gun. The considerable time, effort, and of course money Akins invested into the project has been rendered essentially useless.

JPFO gives us the lowdown on the latest BATFU outrage. That approval letter ought to be grounds for a lawsuit to recover all costs incurred based on relying on it. And whoever signed it should be found personally liable.

[Via Wm H]

Another Red's Trifecta

From Ryan Horsley:

The posts today are to guest posts, the first from Bill Akins of Akins Accelerator.

The other is from a customer of ours about his ATF experience.

Here is the latest story on our fight.

Have a great weekend and a happy new year. Thank you for your friendship and support this year,

Ryan

FOIA Seeks ATF Documents after Technical Expert Admits ‘Machinegun’ Ruling Political

"...However, Acting Director Sullivan decided, against the advice of the Chief Counsel’s Office, to declare the Akins Accelerator a machinegun." [More]

So, per a sworn declaration, the genesis of this latest experiment in tyranny is because several years back Maximum Mike ignored the technical and legal experts and abused his (appointed) authority to impose his will. And that history was deliberately buried in this latest round of "rulemaking."

Akins Accelerating Claim

I got so wrapped up yesterday I neglected to mention this. Of Arms and the Law links to the complaint.

Standard Fare

Given the lack of criminality associated with silencers, it is reasonable to conclude that they should not be viewed as a threat to public safety necessitating NFA classification... [More]

But everybody "knows" bump stocks were used because they were found on some of the guns. Besides, people have heard the audio. And all the "news" stories say they were.

And those of us pointing out the inconvenient truths that on-scene ATF personnel were not ALLOWED to examine the firearms for internal components and that no technical examination report has been produced have taken no small amount of heat for being straw-grasping conspiracists. That's despite the fact that our claim is not that they weren't used, which we have no knowledge to make, but that it has not been proven that they were -- yet the rule was issued and is being defended in spite of that.

On the other hand, we have direct sworn testimony showing the initial decision against Akins was political and overrode technical and legal counsel.

But we're the tinfoil kooks because we're looking for the answer to one simple, easy-enough-to-answer question: Why no report?

‘Bump Stock’ Lawsuit Makes Unique Points to Seek Injunction against Ban

One other factor makes this complaint unique, and that involves a “bump stock” I own that started life as an Akins Accelerator. [More]

Once more unto the breach, dear friends...

Debate Settled

Had a discussion going on what constitutes a machine gun over at my post about the guy who rigged cap guns to fire when rotated by a drill.

I was still unconvinced that this would have qualified, so I asked Len Savage.  Here's what he had to say:

In US v. Fleischli held that an electronic on-off switch to be a trigger if it is used to initiate a firing sequence....

Red Jacket Firearms registered their drill powered 12 ga version as a post dealer sample.

Under US v. Staples you have to "knowingly possess"....A clever US Attorney could overcome "Knowingly" since the author claims that real guns would work....

Technically speaking, in Akins the ATF claimed the "spring" because it stored energy to initiate a continuous firing sequence to be a "machinegun"....I don't see how a battery does not "store energy" to initiate a firing sequence....through the use of a switch...

By my calculations it fires 6 rounds per revolution, firing for the first 6 revolutions for a total of 36 rounds....

ATF would call it a machinegun if my company sent it in for evaluation...

Now if you rigged 36 revolvers to fire at once, that's NOT a machinegun (heavily regulated) but a volley gun....Which is regulated like any gun you buy from WalMart....(or regulated under the GCA or Gun Control Act)

Go figure???

Logic? You will not find that definition in the NFA meaning of terms. (where the commenter quoted from).

So having limited tools myself, if I used some guy's carpentry equipment to make what started this conversation off, would ATF's newest ruling apply?

OMB Issues Rulemaking Restrictions

From Len Savage:

OMB just issued M07-13
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/fy2007/m07-13.pdf
Which follows on M07-07
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/fy2007/m07-07.pdf
and EO13422
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/eo12866/fr_notice_eo12866_012307.pdf

All of this is intended to curtail agencies regulating through opinion letters rather than notice-and-comment rulemaking.This is germane in that: ATF opinion letters have been contradicting themselves frequently.

Len adds:

I love this part:

"Experience has shown, however, that guidance documents [ATF determinations] also may be poorly designed or improperly implemented. At the same time, guidance documents may not receive the benefit of careful consideration accorded under the procedures for regulatory development and review.4 These procedures include: (1) internal agency review by a senior agency official; (2) public participation, [Akins Ruling...not] including notice and comment under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)"

Gee, do think a written set of testing procedures qualifies as a "guidance document"?

This is the Executive Branch documenting the fact there are problems, and stipulating policy that is not being upheld by ATF. This could do some serious damage both in Federal Court and Court of public opinion.

"The phenomenon we see in this case is familiar. Congress passes a broadly worded statute. The agency follows with regulations containing broad language, open-ended phrases, ambiguous standards and the like. Then as years pass, the agency issues circulars or guidance or memoranda, explaining, interpreting, defining and often expanding the commands in regulations. One guidance document may yield another and then another and so on. Several words in a regulation may spawn hundreds of pages of text as the agency offers more and more detail regarding what its regulations demand of regulated entities. Law is made, without notice and comment, without public participation, and without publication in the Federal Register or the Code of Federal Regulations."

Yupp, they know it is happening....

David Hardy has more.