ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags ATF issues , gun control , lawsuits , machine guns

Reply
Old 4th March 2008, 01:22 PM   #1
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,873
Atkins suing USA over ATF ruling on rifles.

William Atkins developed a device for the Ruger 10/22 rifle to increase the rate of fire. It consisted of a special stock that allowed the barrel and receiver to rock back and forth (bump fire) while shooting, greatly increasing the rate of fire. Rates as high as 650 rpm were claimed. The BATFE ruled in 2003 that the device when used with a 10/22 was not a machine gun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumpfire

In 2006 the BATFE changed their mind and classified it as a machine gun. Parts (a spring) of the stocks were seized from the manufacturer and other owners to make the rifle legal to own. The only machine guns that can be owned by civilians in the USA are those registered by May 1986.

Here is a link to the complaint; http://www.georgiapacking.org/docs/a...h_exhibits.pdf

Does anyone think the plaintiff has a chance to receive just compensation from the government for property taken? Thanks.

Ranb
Ranb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2008, 01:48 PM   #2
madurobob
Philosopher
 
madurobob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Blue Heaven
Posts: 7,401
Doubtful given the safety and public policy aspects of the ruling.

FWIW - I own a couple of 10/22s. They are fantastic trainers: accurate, cheap to operate, no recoil. I know from talking with other 10/22 owners that bump-fire kits can be found easily. But, its a quick way to find your way to prison.

And who wants a full-auto .22?
__________________
I love you and I vote.
madurobob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2008, 02:08 PM   #3
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Central Scrutinizer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 52,968
We fully support the US government on this one.
__________________
If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer
The Central Scrutinizer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2008, 02:41 PM   #4
Gagglegnash
Graduate Poster
 
Gagglegnash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,445
Hi
Originally Posted by madurobob View Post
... clip ...

And who wants a full-auto .22?
Seems like a lot of people.

I've no desire to own a full-auto anything... errr... well...
[daydream] that FN P90 is kind of cute, but I couldn't afford to feed it, so JUST for the cute and the engineering... [/daydream]
ok... but a lot of people do.

Go figure: A few hundred dollars and what amounts to Secret-level security investigation to be allowed to buy one, then a sizable per-item tax and fairly rigid storage and inspection requirements... to possess one. All that just to be able to go out and dump $5 bills per second on the shooting range.

On the other hand, it's actually kind of interesting to go to a full-auto shoot and watch members of white supremacist, black militant, Jewish Self Defense and Neo-Nazi organizations standing around talking with each other happily about the differences between the Sterling and Sten guns they just shot.

Ah, well.

I wonder why we can only all get along when we're all blowing stuff up?

Oh. And. Yeah - any mechanical device that changes the mechanical definition of a weapon... well... changed the mechanical definition of the weapon! A bolt-on crank that pulls the trigger quickly when you turn said crank doesn't change the definition. A different stock that makes a weapon full-auto does.

[air | water]-cooled,
[magazine | clip] fed,
[automacic | semi automatic | auto-and-semi automatic | selectable fire rate],
[blowback | delayed blowback | gas] operated...


THAT kind of definition., right?
__________________
But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-----Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.
-----Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

Last edited by Gagglegnash; 4th March 2008 at 02:52 PM.
Gagglegnash is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2008, 02:55 PM   #5
madurobob
Philosopher
 
madurobob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Blue Heaven
Posts: 7,401
Originally Posted by Gagglegnash View Post
All that just to be able to go out and dump $5 bills per second on the shooting range.
I guess thats the best reason for wanting a .22 auto... cheap ammo. But, I think the cool factor would wear off very quickly. And what must it do to that little barrel? It'd be a branding iron after one 50 rd magazine.

Originally Posted by Gagglegnash View Post
On the other hand, it's actually kind of interesting to go to a full-auto shoot and watch members of white supremacist, black militant, Jewish Self Defense and Neo-Nazi organizations standing around talking with each other happily about the differences between the Sterling and Sten guns they just shot.
I used to attend cowboy action shooting events.., never felt safer, even knowing the lunatics there with loaded weapons in their hands. There must be a psychological term/concept that describes that.
__________________
I love you and I vote.
madurobob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2008, 03:36 PM   #6
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,873
A 10/22 with the Atkins Accelerator kit installed still shoots one round for each pull of the trigger, so it should not be a machine gun as defined by the NFA of 1934.

Ranb
Ranb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2008, 03:44 PM   #7
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,873
Originally Posted by madurobob View Post
.....It'd be a branding iron after one 50 rd magazine.

I used to attend cowboy action shooting events.., never felt safer, even knowing the lunatics there with loaded weapons in their hands. There must be a psychological term/concept that describes that.
I do not think the 22lr cartridge is going to heat up a 10/22 barrel that fast.

Some rifle ranges are much more strict during competitions. The one I use in Kitsap County says; if the safety officer says you broke a rule, you pack up and leave; no talking, just leave. One club in Hawaii actually held an impromptu meeting and voted to kick a member out of the club after he went down range six feet pick up brass. A normal person would have said sorry, this moron said he was doing nothing wrong and got kicked out of the club as a result.

Ranb
Ranb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2008, 03:49 PM   #8
madurobob
Philosopher
 
madurobob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Blue Heaven
Posts: 7,401
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
A 10/22 with the Atkins Accelerator kit installed still shoots one round for each pull of the trigger, so it should not be a machine gun as defined by the NFA of 1934.

Ranb
That may depend on how you define "pull of the trigger". I've seen them in action and I can say for sure that one "squeeze" of the trigger sent 50 rounds out of the barrel in about 3 seconds. The mechanism itself may make it appear as if individual pulls on the trigger are required to fire each bullet, but thats not really the case in practice. I've seen some fast trigger fingers before, but 50 individual "pulls" in 3 seconds in simply not believable.
__________________
I love you and I vote.
madurobob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2008, 03:52 PM   #9
madurobob
Philosopher
 
madurobob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Blue Heaven
Posts: 7,401
Check out the close-ups of the trigger when you can - you think thats a single "pull" or 50 individual pulls?
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
I love you and I vote.
madurobob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2008, 03:52 PM   #10
Gagglegnash
Graduate Poster
 
Gagglegnash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,445
Hi

Here's a video of a fellow firing the Akins Accelerator:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9P8AbTKvykE
He's DEFINATELY pulling the trigger all the way back, and only once. Check at about 24 seconds in. He's clamping it down.

Maybe the TRIGGER SEAR is being activated, one per round, but the trigger itself, and I believe that's what's cited in the regulation, is being pulled only once.
__________________
But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-----Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.
-----Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787
Gagglegnash is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2008, 03:53 PM   #11
madurobob
Philosopher
 
madurobob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Blue Heaven
Posts: 7,401
Jynx

ETA: Also, surely thats a .22 magnum to have that kind of recoil and make that much noise..?
__________________
I love you and I vote.

Last edited by madurobob; 4th March 2008 at 03:57 PM.
madurobob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2008, 03:57 PM   #12
Gagglegnash
Graduate Poster
 
Gagglegnash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,445
Hi

Can you point me to where I can find out about the YouTube embedding???

ETA: Yes - I believe you're right. I froze the video at 0:26 and it does look like a mag.
__________________
But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-----Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.
-----Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

Last edited by Gagglegnash; 4th March 2008 at 03:59 PM.
Gagglegnash is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2008, 04:01 PM   #13
madurobob
Philosopher
 
madurobob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Blue Heaven
Posts: 7,401
Originally Posted by Gagglegnash View Post
Hi

Can you point me to where I can find out about the YouTube embedding???
Nothing to it: put yt in brackets, just as with quote coding. Then, between the yt and /yt (in brackets) put the youtube code (the bit that comes after "v=" in the youtube url).

If you quote my post with the embedded video you should be able to see how I did it.
__________________
I love you and I vote.

Last edited by madurobob; 4th March 2008 at 04:02 PM.
madurobob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2008, 04:04 PM   #14
Gagglegnash
Graduate Poster
 
Gagglegnash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,445
Originally Posted by madurobob View Post
Nothing to it: put yt in brackets, just as with quote coding. Then, between the yt and /yt (in brackets) put the youtube code (the bit that comes after "v=" in the youtube url).

If you quote my post with the embedded video you should be able to see how I did it.
Thanks very much.

Oh. And...

D'OH!! (_8(|)
__________________
But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-----Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.
-----Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787
Gagglegnash is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2008, 05:50 PM   #15
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Oooh, I have a 10/22, this looks fun!
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2008, 06:24 PM   #16
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,873
Originally Posted by madurobob View Post
That may depend on how you define "pull of the trigger". I've seen them in action and I can say for sure that one "squeeze" of the trigger sent 50 rounds out of the barrel in about 3 seconds. The mechanism itself may make it appear as if individual pulls on the trigger are required to fire each bullet, but thats not really the case in practice. I've seen some fast trigger fingers before, but 50 individual "pulls" in 3 seconds in simply not believable.
The Atkins device is the stock with a few other components. The barrel and receiver move back under recoil upon firing. While the trigger finger stays still, the trigger moves against the finger when the receiver is moved forward by the spring. Since there is no auto sear to release the hammer as soon as the bolt goes forward, the trigger must be pulled each time to fire a shot. While it appears to operate like a machine gun, the trigger is pulled for each shot, very fast.

While it seems to be a good way to increase the rate of fire, you can see the sights moving so fast they seem to vibrate, so precise aiming is out of the question unless sights or a scope is mounted to the stock. Either way, a group at 25 yards is going to look like a shotgun made it.

Ranb
Ranb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2008, 07:03 PM   #17
ServiceSoon
Graduate Poster
 
ServiceSoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,487
Hint: Read the complaint to become familiar with the case before making an educated comment.

Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
Does anyone think the plaintiff has a chance to receive just compensation from the government for property taken? Thanks.
Ranb
If there is anywhere in the world that akins has a chance it is in America.

Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
Oooh, I have a 10/22, this looked fun!
Fixed it for you.
ServiceSoon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2008, 08:20 PM   #18
madurobob
Philosopher
 
madurobob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Blue Heaven
Posts: 7,401
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
The Atkins device is the stock with a few other components. The barrel and receiver move back under recoil upon firing. While the trigger finger stays still, the trigger moves against the finger when the receiver is moved forward by the spring. Since there is no auto sear to release the hammer as soon as the bolt goes forward, the trigger must be pulled each time to fire a shot. While it appears to operate like a machine gun, the trigger is pulled for each shot, very fast.
Again, it seems to fall on a definition of pulling the trigger. In the video the shooters very definitely make one single pull on the trigger if you define that as moving your trigger finger to actuate the trigger. How the action moves within the stock makes no difference if the intent of the law is to limit how the shooter uses the weapon (one pull = many shots).


Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
While it seems to be a good way to increase the rate of fire, you can see the sights moving so fast they seem to vibrate, so precise aiming is out of the question unless sights or a scope is mounted to the stock. Either way, a group at 25 yards is going to look like a shotgun made it.
Sure, I've used hellfire triggers that are even worse... and a bit more scary to operate.
__________________
I love you and I vote.
madurobob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2008, 09:25 PM   #19
Gagglegnash
Graduate Poster
 
Gagglegnash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,445
Hi

Wrong, oh, wrong!

Withdrawn.
__________________
But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-----Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.
-----Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

Last edited by Gagglegnash; 4th March 2008 at 09:36 PM.
Gagglegnash is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2008, 11:10 PM   #20
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,873
Originally Posted by madurobob View Post
Again, it seems to fall on a definition of pulling the trigger. In the video the shooters very definitely make one single pull on the trigger if you define that as moving your trigger finger to actuate the trigger. How the action moves within the stock makes no difference if the intent of the law is to limit how the shooter uses the weapon (one pull = many shots).
I do not use (the ATF did not in 2003) motion of the finger to define a machine gun. The trigger, relative to the receiver is pulled for each shot. The definition of a machine gun is in the link for the lawsuit.

Ranb

Last edited by Ranb; 4th March 2008 at 11:11 PM.
Ranb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2008, 06:09 AM   #21
madurobob
Philosopher
 
madurobob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Blue Heaven
Posts: 7,401
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
I do not use (the ATF did not in 2003) motion of the finger to define a machine gun. The trigger, relative to the receiver is pulled for each shot. The definition of a machine gun is in the link for the lawsuit.

Ranb
I won't open the complaint because it is a PDF and I am boycotting that bloated POS that is Adobe Acrobat. Once I get one of the superior alternatives installed I'll check it out.

However, it is my understanding that the intent of the law banning machine guns is clearly violated by the 10/22 with the Akins Accelerator. The ATF realized its mistake and corrected the error. If Akins is suing under the claim that their product should be legal because it does not violate the intent of the law then I don't think they have a leg to stand on.

But, they may have a valid claim for damages since their product was apparently approved and they started production only to be shut down by that same approving body. I'm not sure how sovereign immunity comes in to play for the ATF.

I'm also not sure just how much of an approval Akins ever had. The ATF never had an operating weapon to test; the test weapon was an SKS and malfunctioned. It looks like he may have played fast and loose with an"approval" that said basically "the test weapon you gave us didn't work. But, as long as it doesn't break the law, its legal". Not quite a ringing endorsement of a 10/22 retrofit mechanism (and a terrible way to put your customers at risk).
__________________
I love you and I vote.

Last edited by madurobob; 5th March 2008 at 07:08 AM.
madurobob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2008, 07:44 AM   #22
madurobob
Philosopher
 
madurobob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Blue Heaven
Posts: 7,401
FWIW here are a couple of links to the BATF initial "approval" letter:
http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/ima...bc8ff2917a.jpg
http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/ima...0e4d182d54.jpg

Relevant text from page 2:
Quote:
The action of a semiautomatic SKS-type 7.62X39mm rifle from our firearms reference collection was placed within the submitted stock. The weapon was test fired. Both of the adjustable screws fractured, breaking away from the underside of the stock. These fractures occurred on the second test firing. The weapon did not fire more than one shot by a single function of the trigger.
That bit in bold is the key, as it directly references the law ("any weapon that shoots... automatically more than one shot... by a single function of the trigger"). As soon as the ATF was presented with a working model (by a concerned citizen) they agreed it met the definition of "machine gun" and ordered Akins to stop production. Why this took ten years is beyond me and reprehensible.

Now, if I were going to invest all my money along with money from other investors in a product for a heavily regulated and politically sensitive market I would make damn sure the governing body had a fully functioning model to test. I would be there as they tested it and give a thorough demonstration. Then I would get a clear written approval and have it vetted by my lawyers. How can you in good conscience go to market based on the governing body's test of a prototype that doesn't work?
__________________
I love you and I vote.

Last edited by madurobob; 5th March 2008 at 07:45 AM.
madurobob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2008, 08:24 AM   #23
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,873
I will try to get the relevant information on a text file later.

The ATF claims that the prototype sent to them for testing failed on the second test firing. They do not say how many rounds were fired on each test fire. When Mr. Bowers wrote back to the ATF questioning their position after the prototype failed, the ATF claimed they knew the theory of operation and that the movement of the counter recoiling rifle to initiate a rapid succession of SEMI-AUTOMATIC fire did not constitute a machine gun.

I have no idea what other legal advice was obtained by Atkins lawyers. But the statements made by the ATF claiming they understood the theory of operation of the device and their insistence that it was not a machine gun was probably convincing to Atkins.

It only took 2-3 years for the ATF to change their mind.

Ranb

Last edited by Ranb; 5th March 2008 at 08:25 AM.
Ranb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2008, 08:43 AM   #24
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,873
Originally Posted by madurobob View Post
.....However, it is my understanding that the intent of the law banning machine guns is clearly violated by the 10/22 with the Akins Accelerator. The ATF realized its mistake and corrected the error. If Akins is suing under the claim that their product should be legal because it does not violate the intent of the law then I don't think they have a leg to stand on......
I think the intent of federal law is to control those guns that shoot more than one cartridge with one pull of the trigger. If the law can not keep up with technology, then the law needs to be changed. If the Feds wanted a rate of fire limitation, then they might have worded it more like the law in Washington State. Part of the definition of a machine gun in WA is the ability to fire at a rate of more than five rounds a second.

Citizens should only have to obey the letter of the law, not the "unwritten intent". If I read and understand the law, I should not be held accountable because I never had the opportunity to have an in depth conversation with the lawmaker on what they "actually" meant. It is immoral for a government official to expect that from their constituents. A law should mean what is says and say what it means.

Ranb
Ranb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2008, 10:23 AM   #25
madurobob
Philosopher
 
madurobob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Blue Heaven
Posts: 7,401
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
I think the intent of federal law is to control those guns that shoot more than one cartridge with one pull of the trigger. If the law can not keep up with technology, then the law needs to be changed. If the Feds wanted a rate of fire limitation, then they might have worded it more like the law in Washington State. Part of the definition of a machine gun in WA is the ability to fire at a rate of more than five rounds a second.
I disagree.
I can add a hand crank to any of my semi-auto weapons that continuously actuates the trigger and fires the weapon as I crank the cam. Thats legal in most states. But, if I replace that hand crank with an electric motor it is clearly illegal in all states. The issue is NOT how often the trigger moves or the rate of fire, it is in the interface between the shooter and the weapon. A single action (pushing a button, pulling a trigger, etc..) that fires multiple rounds is illegal. That is clearly the intent of the law.

Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
Citizens should only have to obey the letter of the law, not the "unwritten intent". If I read and understand the law, I should not be held accountable because I never had the opportunity to have an in depth conversation with the lawmaker on what they "actually" meant. It is immoral for a government official to expect that from their constituents. A law should mean what is says and say what it means.
Thats silly - most laws require interpretation. or, are you saying that, for instance, the 2nd amendment is perfectly understood simply by virtue of the words it contains and any ongoing debate is meaningless? Just because you read and *think* you understand a law does not mean you are free to do whatever you interpret the law as meaning. Thats exactly why we have things like BATF testing procedures. Interpreting the law is what we have courts for. Akins suit may be groundbreaking in how it creates a new and better interpretation of the law.. but I very much doubt it.

And tell me, based on that "approval" letter from the BATF, would you have started production?
__________________
I love you and I vote.

Last edited by madurobob; 5th March 2008 at 10:24 AM.
madurobob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2008, 11:10 AM   #26
kallsop
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 755
Nothing less than a Gatlin gun will do for me and my homies. The deer don't stand a chance.
kallsop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2008, 11:10 AM   #27
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,873
The law clearly states that a gun that shoots more than once with one trigger pull is a machine gun. No one is disputing this. The ATF also claims that the Atkins device fires one round with each trigger pull. It should be that simple. I think the ATF just does not like the gun and wants to ban it.

When I was speaking of written law and intent of the law, I was not thinking of the poorly worded 2nd amendment or of other laws that are vague. There really is nothing vague about the definition of a machine gun.

If I had two letters from the ATF that said I was good to go, then I probably would have started production.

Ranb
Ranb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2008, 11:35 AM   #28
madurobob
Philosopher
 
madurobob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Blue Heaven
Posts: 7,401
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
The law clearly states that a gun that shoots more than once with one trigger pull is a machine gun. No one is disputing this. The ATF also claims that the Atkins device fires one round with each trigger pull. It should be that simple. I think the ATF just does not like the gun and wants to ban it.
Clearly. I can understand why they don't like it - its a deliberate attempt to do an end-run around the law using a technicality.

The machine gun definition says "...by a single function of the trigger". My guess is the difference between your interpretation and the BATF's is what is meant by "function". The BATF is saying that the shooter pulls the trigger once and the rifle fires repeatedly - thats one "function" regardless of how many times the action bounces in the stock and presses the trigger back against the shooter's finger. I'd be wiling to bet that any jury would agree.

I could make a similar case for my electric motor driven crank attached to a semi-auto rifle. Surely the trigger "functions" 1:1 with the number of rounds fired. Still, I haven't seen anyone suing the BATF claiming that this should be legal.

Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
When I was speaking of written law and intent of the law, I was not thinking of the poorly worded 2nd amendment or of other laws that are vague. There really is nothing vague about the definition of a machine gun.
"Single function" is vague. Does my two-stage target trigger not count because it has multiple stages? What if I had a five step trigger and each step shot one round, so when I fully squeeze it five rounds shoot almost simultaneously (I need to patent that...)? Hell "trigger" could be vague. If in my schematic I call the device a "plotz" does that mean its not a "trigger"?
__________________
I love you and I vote.
madurobob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2008, 11:41 AM   #29
JoeEllison
Cuddly Like a Koala Bear
 
JoeEllison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,270
I don't see a second trigger pull in that video. I see one squeeze and the entire magazine emptying. That makes it a fully automatic weapon... I can't see how they can get around it.
JoeEllison is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2008, 11:56 AM   #30
madurobob
Philosopher
 
madurobob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Blue Heaven
Posts: 7,401
Originally Posted by JoeEllison View Post
I don't see a second trigger pull in that video. I see one squeeze and the entire magazine emptying. That makes it a fully automatic weapon... I can't see how they can get around it.
That is exactly the point. For all intents and purposes it is a fully automatic weapon. It was designed to take advantage of a technicality and thereby defeat the intent without running afoul of the letter of the law.

What is scary to me is that people purchased these with no guarantee they were legal. Compare that to the legal document you get when you buy a Hellfire trigger. It states specifically that the trigger has been tested and fully approved by the BATF.

Akins gave its customers no such guarantee - and pretty much left them out in the cold. No refunds, even. Technically the BATF could prosecute every purchaser as possessing an illegal firearm - fortunately they're not that stupid and agreed to a disabling routine.
__________________
I love you and I vote.
madurobob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2008, 02:02 PM   #31
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,873
Originally Posted by madurobob View Post
.....What is scary to me is that people purchased these with no guarantee they were legal. Compare that to the legal document you get when you buy a Hellfire trigger. It states specifically that the trigger has been tested and fully approved by the BATF.

Akins gave its customers no such guarantee - and pretty much left them out in the cold. No refunds, even. Technically the BATF could prosecute every purchaser as possessing an illegal firearm - fortunately they're not that stupid and agreed to a disabling routine.
Well, Atkins did have two letters from the ATF stating his device was legally not a machine gun. I have a letter from the ATF telling me that a ported barrel on my Enfield is not a silencer part. I hope they do not show up at my door before letting me know in writing that they changed their mind; I do not think that will happen though.

From what I have read, I do not think Atkins could afford a refund to his customers as development costs were not even paid for with the units he sold. It is the ATF that screwed people over with their "we changed our minds" tactics. If the sample they had malfunctioned, then they should have not just settled for theory of operation when they decided it was not a machine gun and sent the letters to Atkins stating so.

I have never received any guarantee from any manufacturer that their semi-automatic rifles will not dump a magazine with one pull of the trigger. Those kinds of malfunctions if heard by the wrong person can put a person in prison for owning an unregistered machine gun.

I have heard little about the hellfire trigger, other than that they are not legally available anymore.

Ranb
Ranb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2008, 02:09 PM   #32
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,873
Originally Posted by JoeEllison View Post
I don't see a second trigger pull in that video. I see one squeeze and the entire magazine emptying. That makes it a fully automatic weapon... I can't see how they can get around it.
Like Obi Wan Kenobi said, “Some things are true only from a certain point of view”.

The trigger finger is moving in relation to the rifle receiver as it moves back and forth under recoil and spring pressure.. The trigger is pulled against the sear (linkage between the trigger and hammer) for each round fired. Although the trigger finger is pulled once for each burst, the trigger itself is rocking around the trigger pin in the receiver just as it does in a standard 10/22 rifle. The receiver and trigger finger are still moving relative to each other even though the trigger finger is not moving from the camera's point of view.

Ranb
Ranb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2008, 02:13 PM   #33
JoeEllison
Cuddly Like a Koala Bear
 
JoeEllison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,270
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
Like Obi Wan Kenobi said, “Some things are true only from a certain point of view”.

The trigger finger is moving in relation to the rifle receiver as it moves back and forth under recoil and spring pressure.. The trigger is pulled against the sear (linkage between the trigger and hammer) for each round fired. Although the trigger finger is pulled once for each burst, the trigger itself is rocking around the trigger pin in the receiver just as it does in a standard 10/22 rifle. The receiver and trigger finger are still moving relative to each other even though the trigger finger is not moving from the camera's point of view.

Ranb
Ummm... no.
JoeEllison is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2008, 02:15 PM   #34
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,873
Originally Posted by madurobob View Post
.....The machine gun definition says "...by a single function of the trigger". My guess is the difference between your interpretation and the BATF's is what is meant by "function"....
Yes, I guess it is kind of vague now that I read it again. Anyway, it is going to be an interesting case to follow. While the few ATF agents I have dealt with over the years have always been nice, I have to say I really disagree with some their ideas.

Ranb

Last edited by Ranb; 5th March 2008 at 02:22 PM. Reason: edited for grammer
Ranb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2008, 02:17 PM   #35
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,873
Originally Posted by JoeEllison View Post
Ummm... no.
What part of my explanation do you disagree with?

Ranb
Ranb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2008, 02:27 PM   #36
madurobob
Philosopher
 
madurobob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Blue Heaven
Posts: 7,401
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
Well, Atkins did have two letters from the ATF stating his device was legally not a machine gun.
That is where I have a problem with Akins. They had those two relatively vague letters and they knew that the BATF never had a fully functioning test version. Its just piss-poor business practice to move forward on such a weak foundation. If he was confident of the legality he would have pushed for proper testing with a functioning version.

Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
From what I have read, I do not think Atkins could afford a refund to his customers as development costs were not even paid for with the units he sold. It is the ATF that screwed people over with their "we changed our minds" tactics. If the sample they had malfunctioned, then they should have not just settled for theory of operation when they decided it was not a machine gun and sent the letters to Atkins stating so.
I agree with you somewhat here. Following the chain of letters it is clear to me that Akins knew he was getting away with something so he didn't pursue proper testing and approval. But, the BATF did not conduct themselves fairly either - it almost looks like they were setting Akins up for failure by offering such vague opinions.

Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
I have heard little about the hellfire trigger, other than that they are not legally available anymore.
They were legal, but difficult to use and downright dangerous on some rifles. But, they did come with a guarantee that they were fully tested and certified legal by the BATF. In other words, Hellfire was removing from the customer any risk/liability in ownership related to BATF legality. Thats the proper way to do business in this market.
__________________
I love you and I vote.

Last edited by madurobob; 5th March 2008 at 02:28 PM.
madurobob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2008, 02:31 PM   #37
madurobob
Philosopher
 
madurobob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Blue Heaven
Posts: 7,401
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
The trigger finger is moving in relation to the rifle receiver as it moves back and forth under recoil and spring pressure.
While technically true, it obfuscates the fact that the trigger finger does not move. Sure, if moves in relation to the receiver. But, it does not move in relation to the shooter.
__________________
I love you and I vote.
madurobob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2008, 02:37 PM   #38
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,873
The law says by single function of the trigger, not by single function of the trigger finger. I guess we need a better law. In this political climate, the Atkins Accelerator would be a machine gun.

Ranb
Ranb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2008, 02:50 PM   #39
madurobob
Philosopher
 
madurobob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Blue Heaven
Posts: 7,401
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
The law says by single function of the trigger, not by single function of the trigger finger. I guess we need a better law. In this political climate, the Atkins Accelerator would be a machine gun.

Ranb
See my post about using a technicality to subvert the law. Governing bodies are never going to look favorably on that. Neither are juries.
__________________
I love you and I vote.
madurobob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2008, 04:54 PM   #40
Gagglegnash
Graduate Poster
 
Gagglegnash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,445
Hi

FINALLY! A definitive answer.


The finger stays in one place, held by the upper-left margin of the pistol grip, and everything but the stock reciprocates, causing the trigger to bump against the finger, causing one trigger-pull per round.

It still leaves us with a Letter-of-the-Law vs. Spirit-of-the-Law problem.

Someone at the BATF dropped the ball on this one, I think. I hope Akins recovers.
__________________
But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-----Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.
-----Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787
Gagglegnash is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

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 -7. The time now is 04:13 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.