Comments on: Akins Accelerator Update

By: T

Tue, 04 Dec 2007 22:55:54 +0000

Unfortunately, Mike, that’s par for the course with the ATFE. An instructive case to see how the ATFE deals with people other than gun-owners is the Tripoli Rocketry Assn. case. ATFE makes up their own testing and standards in contravention of accepted industry practice, uses people with no detectable expertise as witnesses, lies when giving testimony, and moves the goal posts when convenient for them. Sound familiar?

By: Mike M.

Mike M. — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 18:01:25 +0000

I’m not sure that will fly in front of a jury…but the real issue was that Atkins & Co. got a ruling from the ATF that their stock was NOT a machine gun. They invested money on that basis…and then ATF jerked the rug out from under them by changing the ruling.

It’s not the first time they’ve done this sort of thing, either.

By: Rivrdog

Rivrdog — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 00:01:25 +0000

I don’t know if this was covered here back when the BATFE made it’s determination that Akins Accelerators were classified as a machine gun, and closed down Akins and confiscated some Accelerators, but isn’t the technical principle involved the same as bump-firing?

Unless bump-firing is ruled to be a “machine gun”, and I doubt if it could be, since it is a matter of physiology and not the physics of the weapon, the case against the Accelerator ought to be shitcanned.

The only way, physically, that BATFE can win the appeal is to prove that somehow the rulez say that the action of a weapon MUST be fully restrained in a stock, or else it must be defined as a recoil-operated weapon. To my knowledge, there is no such rule. Since the Accelerator works by having the action reciprocate within the stock, but triggering the loaded round is still a function of the finger, shot by shot, the BATFE has badly mis-interpreted the rules of what a full-auto action is.

This is where bump-firing comes in. It is exactly the same physical action as the Accelerator uses, except that the Accelerator is designed to facilitate bump-firing and a Glock is not. Design or no, the rapid-fire capability of both weapons depends on the PHYSIOLOGICAL principle of bump-firing.

As to whether any weapon that is bump-fired becomes a machine gun by definition, the answer is obvious: NO! There is no bumpfiring without the physiological manipulation of the weapon and it’s trigger, both actions of which are controllable as single-fire.

The bottom line is that the Accelerator (and bump-firing) catches the BATFE with their rulez down, and no amount of King Canute attitude will change that.

By: Sebastian

Sebastian — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 16:28:28 +0000

I’m not sure you’re going to be able to get a damage award because of Sovereign Immunity. The government can’t typically be sued for damages arising out of it’s functioning as a government. You can sue on the basis of law to have the determination reviewed by a court, but I don’t see how he overcomes Sovereign Immunity for damages.