For those wondering how it works

http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/db7476f1ef.gif

Click on this link for Tampa Tribune article on the BATFE injustice against the Akins Accelerator and Akins Group Inc. Scroll down to read other people's and Bill Akins' comments under the article. Feel free to post your comments there but realize that the online article will disappear after a week. I was unable to post any more than 3000 letter characters there as a comment so I am posting my full Akins Group Inc public announcement here immediately following the link to the news article.


Here's the link to the online Tampa Tribune article that will also come out in print in tomorrow's Tampa Tribune newspaper.
www2.tbo.com/content/2007/dec/18/pasco-marksmans-invention-leads-him-ruin/



                          Akins Group Inc public announcement


Bill Akins
President Akins Group Inc
(727) 819-8352
e mail    [email protected]


I greatly appreciate Christian Wade's Tampa Tribune article concerning this BATFE injustice against myself and the other people of Akins Group Inc. It is sometimes hard for someone not familiar with automatic verses semi automatic firearms to fully understand the legal differences between what comprises a legal rapid firing device for semi automatic firearms verses a fully automatic (machine gun) firearm.

Christian Wade did an excellent job of conveying the nexus of the injustice and unfairness of the Federal law violating BATFE ruling of 2006-02. I would like to publicy thank him and the staff and editors of the Tampa Florida Tribune for running this article. In an era where the press has been largely unfair to pro firearm issues, it shows that the Tampa Tribune is not part of that cadre and recognizes unfairness when it sees it no matter what the issue is concerning.

Christian Wade's chief nexus here is that no matter what your feelings may be regarding firearms, or legal rapid fire devices for semi automatic firearms or fully automatic firearms, the point he is making is that the BATFE in writing twice approved my already legal rapid fire device based upon its concept and method of operation. Then after two years and hundreds of thousands of dollars of investment by Akins Group Inc, the acting director of BATFE Michael J. Sullivan, changed his mind and in contradiction of Federal firearms law issued a BATFE agency opinion ruling and demanded that that Akins Group Inc turn in our inventory of springs and that all customers turn in their springs and illegally demanded our customer lists for a product that was not even a firearm, which is another violation of federal law and an invasion of privacy of our customers as well as backdoor gun registration.

I would however like to add a few corrections to the online article.
Three in fact.



1. I did not say "I wonder what BATFE would do if I showed up at their offices with my rifle in hand".

Taking a rifle onto Federal property without special permission would be illegal. A rifle stock without the rifle in it would not be illegal since it is not a firearm under federal law. It is just a stock.

What I said was...
"I wonder what BATFE would do if I showed up at their offices with the press with my rifle STOCK only, without a rifle in it and with a newly purchased spring from a hardware store installed in the stock, would the BATFE arrest me and prosecute me, or would they wait until later when the press was gone to come to my home, throw flash bang grenades at my wife and I and haul me away or even kill me?".

It was the spring BATFE required to be surrendered to them rendering the stock non functioning. I am not currently in possession of any springs since they were all surrendered to the BATFE as they demanded.

2. Akins Group Inc was not able to refund their customers. Not only did we not make enough profit to be able to, but the BATFE 2006-02 ruling precluded customers from sending in their rifle stocks in their entirety with all major components included as our refund policy dictated. The BATFE not only made up a Federal law contradicting agency ruling (that is not law but only their opinion) that affected Akins Group Inc, but also affected many customers who had purchased.

3. This last correction is regarding the following statement in the article that is not correct. "The 1968 gun control act that defines a machine gun as a "weapon that, activated by the single pull of the trigger, initiates an automatic firing cycle which continues until either the finger is released or the ammunition supply is exhausted."

I would like it to be very clear that the above statement is what the BATFE agency new opinion 2006-02 ruling says which contradicts what federal law says. It is not what the 1968 gun control act or federal law says. Federal law has this to say stipulating what comprises a machine gun......

"NATIONAL FIREARM'S ACT TITLE 26, UNITED STATES CODE, CHAPTER 53, SECTION 5845B
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."

My patented invention the Akins Accelerator shoots only one shot for each single function of the trigger. Federal law does not say how fast a semi automatic firearm may fire, only that it must only shoot one shot for each single function of the trigger which is what my rifle stock allows the firearm to do.

The BATFE has tried to justify their new 2006-02 ruling by saying that "pull" of the trigger is the same as "function" of the trigger. This is not correct nor what Federal law says. The law framers observed that a firearm trigger may be pushed or rotated and even levered like a bicycle brake lever. That is why they used the word "funtion" in the federal law rather than the word "pull".  

In 1996 I invented the Akins Accelerator. After consulting with the leading firearms attorney of the day Jim Jeffries (since retired) and being apprised that my invention conformed with federal firearms law, I submitted for a U.S. patent which I received in 2000 which cost me approx $10,000.00

My invention was not a firearm. It was only the rifle stock that a firearm fits into. It allowed the barrel and receiver and trigger group of the rifle fit into it to reciprocate rearward under recoil, compressing a spring, whereupon the trigger was removed from the shooters finger on that rearward movement. When the spring decompressed, it allowed the barrel, receiver and trigger group to travel forward where the shooters trigger finger once again engaged the trigger and functioned the trigger to fire again. It fires once for each individual function of the trigger which Federal firearms law stipulates is NOT a machine gun, but is a semi automatic mode of firing.

Other people in Akins Group Inc, myself and our customers have written our elected representatives regarding this violation of Federal firearms law by the BATFE. I was assigned staffers by both Senator Martinez's and Senator Nelson's office. All both Senator's staffers did was write to the BATFE who then wrote them back letters that stated untruths and reinterated the BATFE 2006-02 ruling. I already had received the same untruthful letters from BATFE. I asked my senatorial staffers to ask why BATFE assistant director of enforcement programs and services Lewis P. Raden issued a April 12, 2007 public letter that I have which stated.... "In response to a request from the Akins Group, ATF's Firearms Technology Branch classified a device called the Akins Accelerator as a machinegun."

This letter from Lewis P. Raden of the BATFE is untrue. Akins Group did not request another classification of my patented invention, we already had two BATFE approvals from two years previously. We would not have requested another one.

I also asked the senatorial staffers to ask the BATFE why if my invention was susposedly illegal under the new BATFE ruling, then why has the "hellfire" rapid fire device been allowed to continue production and sales and was approved by the BATFE as a non machine gun two or more decades ago. My rapid fire device works just like the "hellfire" device, as does any bumpfireing type device, it just does it within a stationary stock.

Senator Nelson and Senator Martinez's staffer told me there was nothing more they could or would do. I had the feel it was too hot an issue for Senator Martinez to want to get involved in and Senator Nelson is rated by the N.R.A. as being poor on pro gun issues.

Congresswoman Ginny Brown Waite however not only assigned a staffer to me, but also met with me personally wherein I explained the whole story to her and how the Akins Accelerator is NOT a machine gun. Ginny wrote to the BATFE several times and tried her best to resolve the issue. BATFE wrote her back untruthful letters. I explained this to Ginny and she wrote them back concerning these untruthful letters. On Dec 6, 2007 I received a letter from Congresswoman Waite which included a letter from BATFE asistant director of public and governmental affairs W. Larry Ford which again states mistruths about my device and states that my device is illegal because the finger is never removed from the trigger even though the finger is in fact totally removed from the trigger each time before the trigger is reengaged by the finger and again functioned.

The BATFE fully understood how my device operated when it was first submitted to them for classification and stated in writing in those approval letters that they fully understood its method of operation in two seperate approval letters over two years ago.
W. Larry Ford of the BATFE also stated in his letter to Congresswoman Waite...."We regret that we did not fully appreciate the theory of operation of the device initially submitted for classification."

All the above is the short story. The long story of back and forth with representative's staffers, the administrative review we requested that was denied by BATFE, the personal and corporate loss, customers loss, attorney fees, etc would fill a book.

I invented a rapid fire device that was no different than the "HELLFIRE" rapid fire device that has been approved by the BATFE for decades, except that my device used a stationary stock which would have nothing to do with legality. It was according to noted firearms attorneys Jim Jeffries, Mark Barnes and Stephen Halbrook not a machine gun or machine gun conversion device. Acting BATFE director Michael J. Sullivan knows this and knows it is no different in operation under the law than the "Hellfire" device is. But Sullivan selectively enforces his new illegal ruling against my device and not against the "Hellfire" rapid fire device because it would be too embarrassing for BATFE to say the "Hellfire" device is now banned when the BATFE has approved it for decades. Google up the "Hellfire" device and you will see it is actually outlawed by the wording of the 2006-02 BATFE ruling, yet in an act of selective enforcement BATFE has not shut the "Hellfire" manufacturers down. For BATFE to do so would raise questions of why was the "Hellfire" rapid fire device approved by BATFE for decades and legal under Federal law now being banned by a BATFE ruling opinion. So instead the BATFE selectively enforces this ruling against me and my device the Akins Accelerator since my device is relatively new and hasn't been approved for several decades by the BATFE like the "Hellfire" has been. This way the BATFE only has egg on its face for two years of prior approval of my device before declaring it illegal rather than several decades of approval of the "Hellfire" to answer to.

The public may think...."Sue the BATFE in court Bill", but what the public may not realize is that this was our only product. The small profit the corporation made mostly went towards paying off loans and we had just gotten into the "black" of making profit when the BATFE shut us down. We have spent most of the meager funds we had left after that on attorneys for getting into compliance with BATFE and for those same attorneys to submit requests for BATFE administrative review hoping BATFE would do the right thing and overturn this Federal firearms violating ruling. We have been advised by attorneys that it would take approx $450.000.00 in attorney fees that Akins Group Inc does not have just to get this through the first level of Federal court, not counting Federal appeals court or the U.S. Supreme court. This is how the BATFE destroys people's lives and business's. They financially drain them until they have no funds while the BATFE has unlimited resources. It doesn't matter to BATFE acting director Michael J. Sullivan if my device is legal or not. He is a former maryland anti gun prosecutor who does not like my invention and knows we do not have those kind of funds to pay attorneys for a civil suit estimated to amount to perhaps 1 million dollars all the way through appeals court and perhaps the U.S. Supreme court. The Senate and Congress cannot control the BATFE. This Federal agency is accountable to no one and does whatever it likes whether legal or not. Since no customers have filed civil suit against BATFE for this, and since Akins Group Inc nor myself can afford the funds to file such a civil suit, there are only two possible options left, and they are.....

1. Become a victim of an out of control federal agency which is acting illegally in violation of Federal firearms law and slink away from the illegally acting BATFE bully like the whipped kid on the playground just hoping he will let him alone and not hurt him anymore.

OR....

2. Peacefully, civilly, disobey, by sometime in the future purchasing a spring from a hardware store, installing it into the stock, and showing up with the stock ONLY (without the firearm installed) at BATFE offices and demand they arrest and prosecute to get this to court with a public defender since I do not have any personal assets. This would entail me laying my very freedom on the line as the only means to get this to court since a civil suit cannot be afforded financially. The BATFE knows this and also knows that most people would never risk 15 years in jail and a $250.000.00 fine if the defendant lost the case. However, this may in the future be the only option left to me if no pro firearm organizations get involved to help battle this injustice. If that be the case, then I am willing to in the future risk prison to stand up for my Federal firearm rights.

I know this announcement has been very long even though I have only briefly touched upon this injustice. As I said, the entire story would fill a novel, perhaps several of them. One novel alone would be filled with the efforts of a certain individual who tried everything he could to silence me and was only concerned that Akins Group Inc conform to the illegal BATFE ruling rather than fight it with any truly positive efforts other than representative pressure. That same individual even went so far as to have an attorney send me a letter threatening to gag order me if I did not keep silent even though no such gag order would have been enforceable since no case of any kind has been filed. At this time that individual no longer has any power or authority over Akins Group Inc or over my actions in fighting this abuse of BATFE power. But that is a story for another time. The true culprit of this violation of Federal firearms law is the BATFE which intimidates people into submission even though they have broken no law nor done anything wrong, and the mere threat of BATFE action is enough to cower most people into submission. Remember the example the BATFE sent to the American people through their agency's actions at WACO and RUBY RIDGE. Like ancient Rome BATFE crucifies a few Spartacus's for all to see as an example of what will happen to the people if they oppose the BATFE's illegal policies or rulings. They even burn down their houses like the tyrants of old. Nothing has changed except the technology.


In summation there is one very important thing I would like to inform the public about and to close this public announcement by myself on behalf of Akins Group Inc.

The general public and I believe the firearms community itself largely do not understand the wide reaching impact this illegal BATFE 2006-02 ruling will have upon our firearm rights. This will go to court one way or the other even if I have to stake my very freedom upon the case's outcome, and if I lose this case, the BATFE ruling will become a precedent setting law instead of simply an agency opinion ruling that it is now. In reading the BATFE 2006-02 ruling, knowledgeable readers understanding Federal firearms law will understand that this (for now) agency OPINION bans bumpfiring and any firearm capable of bumpfiring. If I receive no help and lose this case this ruling will become precedent law and will outlaw any and all semi automatic firearms capable of bumpfiring. That would be almost all semi automatic weapons. Whether or not the BATFE would selectively enforce this against all semi automatic firearms like they have selectively enforced this against the Akins Accelerator while not enforcing it against the "Hellfire" is unknown. This ruling could become a law that according to its wording outlaws any and all firearms capable of bumpfiring and could be a method used to outlaw all semi automatic firearms without a vote by Congress or the Senate. If anyone doubts this, I invite them to visit the BATFE website and read the ruling for themselves. This is a synopsis of the ruling...."Once the trigger is pulled, this initiates a sequence of automatic fire which continues until the finger is removed or the magazine is empty."
(The BATFE completely ignores the fact that my device removes the finger from the trigger for each function and each shot.)

After reading the BATFE 2006-02 ruling it is clear any semi automatic capable of being bumpfired falls into this catagory. That is almost all semi automatic firearms ladies and gentlemen.


Sincerely

Bill Akins
President Akins Group Inc.
(727) 819-8352
[email protected]

  I wish Akins, KT Ordnance, and a few other folks would have a lunch together.

Is this THE Bill Akins?

This sucks that this happened...

So Bill, tell us. Did Ruger throw you under the bus?

Man, thats a powerful post.

   Our Father, who art in heaven,
   Hallowed be thy Name.
   Thy kingdom come.
   Thy will be done,
   on earth as it is in heaven.
   Give us this day our daily bread.
   And forgive us our trespasses,
   As we forgive those who trespass against us.
   And lead us not into temptation,
   But deliver us from evil.
   [For thine is the kingdom,
   and the power, and the glory,
   for ever and ever.
   Amen.]

What would Henry Bowman do?






Good luck Mr. Akins.



96Ag

Quoted: So Bill, tell us. Did Ruger throw you under the bus?

To my knowledge Sturm Ruger has nothing to do with this.

As far as I know Eric Larsen is the one who "threw us under the bus" when he submitted an accelerator he purchased to the BATFE tech branch for a re-evaluation even though he knew we had two prior approvals from two years previously from the BATFE. Eric Larsen sacrificed Akins Group Inc, our customers and the individuals involved in Akins Group Inc to further his own agenda which was to force a legal issue regarding my invention since he saw it as a possible means of overturning Miller Vs U.S. I have been told there were more individuals involved (possibly 5 or 6 total) but that Eric Larsen is the only one who publicly admitted it.

Although I seriously doubt when at a future time this becomes a court case that it would result in "Miller" being overturned, what Mr Larsen might accomplish from his action of unnecessarily and with a political agenda in mind of asking BATFE for a re-evaluation of my invention, is my political imprisonment since it so far appears the only way to get this to court is for me to peacefully civilly disobey and take a public defender against a BATFE dream team of attorneys and so called expert witnesses.

If that happens Eric Larsen will be almost as responsible for my unjust political imprisonment as acting BATFE director Michael J. Sullivan would be.

Even if I won such a future case (no case of any kind filed yet either civil or criminal) the best case scenario would be that would allow me to restart sales and would not affect "Miller" and in that case Eric Larsen would only have accomplished bringing hell upon myself, my family, and the other principles of Akins Group Inc both past and present for years until I won such a case wherein all I win is the right to continue doing the business that I was doing years earlier before Eric Larsen decided to sacrifice others for his cause other than himself.

Quoted: Quoted: So Bill, tell us. Did Ruger throw you under the bus? To my knowledge Sturm Ruger has nothing to do with this. As far as I know Eric Larsen is the one who "threw us under the bus" when he submitted an accelerator he purchased to the BATFE tech branch for a re-evaluation even though he knew we had two prior approvals from two years previously from the BATFE. Eric Larsen sacrificed Akins Group Inc, our customers and the individuals involved in Akins Group Inc to further his own agenda which was to force a legal issue regarding my invention since he saw it as a possible means of overturning Miller Vs U.S. I have been told there were more individuals involved (possibly 5 or 6 total) but that Eric Larsen is the only one who publicly admitted it. Although I seriously doubt when at a future time this becomes a court case that it would result in "Miller" being overturned, what Mr Larsen might accomplish from his action of unnecessarily and with a political agenda in mind of asking BATFE for a re-evaluation of my invention, is my political imprisonment since it so far appears the only way to get this to court is for me to peacefully civilly disobey and take a public defender against a BATFE dream team of attorneys and so called expert witnesses. If that happens Eric Larsen will be almost as responsible for my unjust political imprisonment as acting BATFE director Michael J. Sullivan would be. Even if I won such a future case (no case of any kind filed yet either civil or criminal) the best case scenario would be that would allow me to restart sales and would not affect "Miller" and in that case Eric Larsen would only have accomplished bringing hell upon myself, my family, and the other principles of Akins Group Inc both past and present for years until I won such a case wherein all I win is the right to continue doing the business that I was doing years earlier before Eric Larsen decided to sacrifice others for his cause other than himself.

So let me get this straight...

In the hopes of gaining more 2A rights via a clarification of Miller, which in order to do someone would need legal standing, some guy got you, an unrelated party, in legal trouble with BATFE?

Couldn't he have just "filed down a sear" or something and then used his own resulting legal trouble as standing to challenge Miller in some way?

I marked Eric Larsen off my "good guy" list about a year ago.  I know that doesn't help you here and now.

Quoted: On Dec 6, 2007 I received a letter from Congresswoman Waite which included a letter from BATFE asistant director of public and governmental affairs W. Larry Ford which again states mistruths about my device and states that my device is illegal because the finger is never removed from the trigger even though the finger is in fact totally removed from the trigger each time before the trigger is reengaged by the finger and again functioned.

What the ever-loving fuck. Every gun on the planet must be a machine gun then, as you can fire all of them multiple times without removing your finger from the trigger. It might not be practical for single shot guns, but it's possible.

Oh, and it sounds like Eric Larsen is a huge douche-bag.

Quoted: Quoted: So Bill, tell us. Did Ruger throw you under the bus? To my knowledge Sturm Ruger has nothing to do with this. As far as I know Eric Larsen is the one who "threw us under the bus" when he submitted an accelerator he purchased to the BATFE tech branch for a re-evaluation even though he knew we had two prior approvals from two years previously from the BATFE. Eric Larsen sacrificed Akins Group Inc, our customers and the individuals involved in Akins Group Inc to further his own agenda which was to force a legal issue regarding my invention since he saw it as a possible means of overturning Miller Vs U.S. I have been told there were more individuals involved (possibly 5 or 6 total) but that Eric Larsen is the only one who publicly admitted it. <removed for brevity>

If Eric Larsen feels so strongly about this and wants something overturned, he should be the one to go through pain of dedicating his life to the struggle of such a criminal case by getting himself arrested as you suggested!

That said, Eric Larsen isnt the main issue here, obviously.

Quoted: Quoted: On Dec 6, 2007 I received a letter from Congresswoman Waite which included a letter from BATFE asistant director of public and governmental affairs W. Larry Ford which again states mistruths about my device and states that my device is illegal because the finger is never removed from the trigger even though the finger is in fact totally removed from the trigger each time before the trigger is reengaged by the finger and again functioned. What the ever-loving fuck. Every gun on the planet must be a machine gun then, as you can fire all of them multiple times without removing your finger from the trigger. It might not be practical for single shot guns, but it's possible. Oh, and it sounds like Eric Larsen is a huge douche-bag.

Doh, never thought of it like that.  Obviously removing your finger has nothing to do with trigger pull!  Even so, your finger is still removed.

Edit for spelling

I wish you the best in your battle, this is just one step on the "slippery slope"

And who the hell is Eric Larson?

Quoted: there are only two possible options left, and they are.....

I believe there is another option.

The "Heller Vs. Dc" model, where you have standing because you have been notified that you will be arrested if you do something, would permit you to bring your case to trial without you actually being arrested.

...and it would be much less expensive to follow.

-3D

Hopefully, Heller will make this all moot by allowing new MG registrations.

(Yeah, right. )

Quoted: This sucks that this happened...

"sucks" is a bit leniant of a term as we slide closer and closer to tyranny.

eta: was this posted by "the" bill atkins???

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So Bill, tell us. Did Ruger throw you under the bus? To my knowledge Sturm Ruger has nothing to do with this. As far as I know Eric Larsen is the one who "threw us under the bus" when he submitted an accelerator he purchased to the BATFE tech branch for a re-evaluation even though he knew we had two prior approvals from two years previously from the BATFE. Eric Larsen sacrificed Akins Group Inc, our customers and the individuals involved in Akins Group Inc to further his own agenda which was to force a legal issue regarding my invention since he saw it as a possible means of overturning Miller Vs U.S. I have been told there were more individuals involved (possibly 5 or 6 total) but that Eric Larsen is the only one who publicly admitted it. Although I seriously doubt when at a future time this becomes a court case that it would result in "Miller" being overturned, what Mr Larsen might accomplish from his action of unnecessarily and with a political agenda in mind of asking BATFE for a re-evaluation of my invention, is my political imprisonment since it so far appears the only way to get this to court is for me to peacefully civilly disobey and take a public defender against a BATFE dream team of attorneys and so called expert witnesses. If that happens Eric Larsen will be almost as responsible for my unjust political imprisonment as acting BATFE director Michael J. Sullivan would be. Even if I won such a future case (no case of any kind filed yet either civil or criminal) the best case scenario would be that would allow me to restart sales and would not affect "Miller" and in that case Eric Larsen would only have accomplished bringing hell upon myself, my family, and the other principles of Akins Group Inc both past and present for years until I won such a case wherein all I win is the right to continue doing the business that I was doing years earlier before Eric Larsen decided to sacrifice others for his cause other than himself. So let me get this straight... In the hopes of gaining more 2A rights via a clarification of Miller, which in order to do someone would need legal standing, some guy got you, an unrelated party, in legal trouble with BATFE? Couldn't he have just "filed down a sear" or something and then used his own resulting legal trouble as standing to challenge Miller in some way?

Your understanding of the situation is correct 87GN

Quoted: Your understanding of the situation is correct 87GN

Incredible. That is just about the most underhanded thing I have ever heard of. I am really sorry to hear that...though I know my condolences make no difference in your legal situation.

Quoted: Quoted: there are only two possible options left, and they are..... I believe there is another option. The "Heller Vs. Dc" model, where you have standing because you have been notified that you will be arrested if you do something, would permit you to bring your case to trial without you actually being arrested. ...and it would be much less expensive to follow. -3D

How would it be much less expensive to follow. Who are the attorneys who are going to take the case on a contingency or pro bono basis? Who do I talk to and what will they do to help? Do you personally know how to do what you described above. I do not. I co majored in pre law in college but I am not an attorney and have no idea how to do what you described. Akins Group Inc has almost no funds left and I do not personally have the finances to fund a suit against the BATFE. If you can tell me how to do what you stated above given the circumstances I have stated, please tell me.

tag

Quoted: Quoted: This sucks that this happened... "sucks" is a bit leniant of a term as we slide closer and closer to tyranny. eta: was this posted by "the" bill atkins???

Yes I am Bill Akins (not Atkins) President of Akins Group Inc the inventor and patent owner of the Akins Accelerator.

Quoted: Bill: What about licensing your patent for off shore production?  Are there countries where this would be legal and marketable, thus providing capital for you?

No real market outside of the U.S. and I didn't get an international patent just a U.S. patent. That means no other country is susposed to be able to import it into the U.S. but could make it in their own country.

Quoted: Quoted: Bill: What about licensing your patent for off shore production?  Are there countries where this would be legal and marketable, thus providing capital for you? No real market outside of the U.S. and I didn't get an international patent just a U.S. patent. That means no other country is susposed to be able to import it into the U.S. but could make it in their own country.

Any Canadians know if the stock would be legal there?  I know there are a few on this site.

Hey Bill, on a side note, does it drive you nuts that no one notices that your name is NOT "ATkins" even if "Akins" is spelled out right in front of them?

I'm suprised no one has Kerrigan'ed that douchebag Larsen.

I across Pasco from you Bill. If you ever need anything give me a shout.

Quoted: I'm suprised no one has Kerrigan'ed that douchebag Larsen. I across Pasco from you Bill. If you ever need anything give me a shout.

Dunno, I was just thinking of breaking his nose if I happen to run into him at SHOT...

The only thing sadder than this was all the ARFCOM members running around screaming "I told you so!" when the news first broke.

Quoted: How would it be much less expensive to follow. Who are the attorneys who are going to take the case on a contingency or pro bono basis? Who do I talk to and what will they do to help? Do you personally know how to do what you described above. I do not. I co majored in pre law in college but I am not an attorney and have no idea how to do what you described. Akins Group Inc has almost no funds left and I do not personally have the finances to fund a suit against the BATFE. If you can tell me how to do what you stated above given the circumstances I have stated, please tell me.

Like you, I am not a lawyer.

Pro-bono? Probably not, but I suspect it would not cost but a few thousand dollars to bring at least one case before a court for a ruling. Even if it is thrown out, it will be a start and will give a point or reference to gauge further options.

Once Robert Levy is done with Heller, maybe he would be interested. You will need to shop around and ask actual lawyers for advice. All it would take is one pro-2nd lawyer who believes you have a case and would be interested in “giving it a shot” for a nominal fee to at lease bring suit. It is better than nothing.

I understand not having funds for such an endeavor, but I can’t offer any solutions for that other than invent another “widget” and sell it and then use the money to fund your fight.

-3D

Quoted: Had a minute to do some looking.  This Eric Larson fancies himself quite the RKBA activist.  However seeking to advance his cause on another guy's ( in this case large group of guys ) backs, without their consent makes him a serious AZZ worthy of being run out of town.

I've been searching too but all I can come up with is this guy:



Is this the guy? He doesn't look too pro 2A.

Quoted: Hey Bill, on a side note, does it drive you nuts that no one notices that your name is NOT "ATkins" even if "Akins" is spelled out right in front of them?

Smile, sometimes it gets a little annoying. I sometimes wish my name was Jones.
Atkins, Adkins, Aikins, Aikens, Atkens, Adkens, so many ways to misspell it.

Quoted: Quoted: How would it be much less expensive to follow. Who are the attorneys who are going to take the case on a contingency or pro bono basis? Who do I talk to and what will they do to help? Do you personally know how to do what you described above. I do not. I co majored in pre law in college but I am not an attorney and have no idea how to do what you described. Akins Group Inc has almost no funds left and I do not personally have the finances to fund a suit against the BATFE. If you can tell me how to do what you stated above given the circumstances I have stated, please tell me. Like you, I am not a lawyer. Pro-bono? Probably not, but I suspect it would not cost but a few thousand dollars to bring at least one case before a court for a ruling. Even if it is thrown out, it will be a start and will give a point or reference to gauge further options. Once Robert Levy is done with Heller, maybe he would be interested. You will need to shop around and ask actual lawyers for advice. All it would take is one pro-2nd lawyer who believes you have a case and would be interested in “giving it a shot” for a nominal fee to at lease bring suit. It is better than nothing. I understand not having funds for such an endeavor, but I can’t offer any solutions for that other than invent another “widget” and sell it and then use the money to fund your fight. -3D

You don't understand. I have already spoken to one law firm recently and they declined to take the case stated it had merit but they were "otherwise engaged". They also told me there is a time statute wherein my civil case has to be brought or be forever barred. I do not have the time to invent another widget to garner funds. Thanks for the thought though.

Quoted: You don't understand. I have already spoken to one law firm recently and they declined to take the case stated it had merit but they were "otherwise engaged". They also told me there is a time statute wherein my civil case has to be brought or be forever barred. I do not have the time to invent another widget to ganer funds. Thanks for the thought though.

Well, yes you may very well be right and I don't understand. I admit that up front.

Can you just file the case yourself?

Ultimately, it is not unlike a basic "Judge Judy" case in that you simply want an opportunity to present your evidence before a Judge, state your case, and get a ruling.

Whatever the amount of success (or lack thereof) at least it is another rout other than civil disobedience/arrest loss of freedom.

Just trying to help,
-3D

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: How would it be much less expensive to follow. Who are the attorneys who are going to take the case on a contingency or pro bono basis? Who do I talk to and what will they do to help? Do you personally know how to do what you described above. I do not. I co majored in pre law in college but I am not an attorney and have no idea how to do what you described. Akins Group Inc has almost no funds left and I do not personally have the finances to fund a suit against the BATFE. If you can tell me how to do what you stated above given the circumstances I have stated, please tell me. Like you, I am not a lawyer. Pro-bono? Probably not, but I suspect it would not cost but a few thousand dollars to bring at least one case before a court for a ruling. Even if it is thrown out, it will be a start and will give a point or reference to gauge further options. Once Robert Levy is done with Heller, maybe he would be interested. You will need to shop around and ask actual lawyers for advice. All it would take is one pro-2nd lawyer who believes you have a case and would be interested in “giving it a shot” for a nominal fee to at lease bring suit. It is better than nothing. I understand not having funds for such an endeavor, but I can’t offer any solutions for that other than invent another “widget” and sell it and then use the money to fund your fight. -3D You don't understand. I have already spoken to one law firm recently and they declined to take the case stated it had merit but they were "otherwise engaged". They also told me there is a time statute wherein my civil case has to be brought or be forever barred. I do not have the time to invent another widget to ganer funds. Thanks for the thought though.

I believe the time is two years. Not sure where your clock starts though.

I did some more google-ing and found this with shotar' help. it's a page with some correspondence between Mr. Larson and the ATF regarding an NFA amnesty.

It's on Mr Larson's letterhead with his email and everything.

www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/rip/january_2000_larson_kolbe_letter.txt

Mr. Akins,

I read a letter that explained why the accelerator approval was subsequently overturned. In that letter I recall something that the trigger finger(after the initial shot) stayed stationary against the stock while the receiver and trigger group traversed back and forth to simulate the full auto firing. The BATFE ruled that the stock was the trigger and the trigger finger did not move between each shot. Would it be possible to make this part of the stock move some measurable amount between firing to get around this ruling. The LAW states a single function of the trigger. So if the trigger finger and whatever it is touching move between shots(even up/down, sideways) it would be a single function. If you could go this route with your commitment to get a public defender after your arrest, I don't see how a judge would not be forced to throw the case out if it is not a violation of LAW and not rulings. Do your homework first and read the laws for EXACTLY what they say. Take copies with you and leave copies with your family, lawyers, etc.. Then you should be back in Business.

3DVR_M4,
Patenting another 'widget' would probably be a lot more uncertain than battling the BATFE. Patent approval is a very subjective process. And very expensive.

Quoted: Mr. Akins, I read a letter that explained why the accelerator approval was subsequently overturned. In that letter I recall something that the trigger finger(after the initial shot) stayed stationary against the stock while the receiver and trigger group traversed back and forth to simulate the full auto firing. The BATFE ruled that the stock was the trigger and the trigger finger did not move between each shot. Would it be possible to make this part of the stock move some measurable amount between firing to get around this ruling. The LAW states a single function of the trigger. So if the trigger finger and whatever it is touching move between shots(even up/down, sideways) it would be a single function. If you could go this route with your commitment to get a public defender after your arrest, I don't see how a judge would not be forced to throw the case out if it is not a violation of LAW and not rulings. Do your homework first and read the laws for EXACTLY what they say. Take copies with you and leave copies with your family, lawyers, etc.. Then you should be back in Business. 3DVR_M4, Patenting another 'widget' would probably be a lot more uncertain than battling the BATFE. Patent approval is a very subjective process. And very expensive.

The biggest problem here is one that JPFO (and others) have been about for years:

The ATF has no set rules for examination for decision making,
no rules for appeals of those decisions,
no guarantee that something can't be found "legal" one day and "illegal" the next,
they have people who don't know a gun from a gnu making "decisions",
they use irreproducible methods,
they have no oversight other than congress (who doesn't care about gun owners)
and they allow speculation as factual evidence.

And, barring a federal court appearance (with jury nullification) or congressional intervention, ATF has "the last word".

Quoted: Quoted: Mr. Akins, I read a letter that explained why the accelerator approval was subsequently overturned. In that letter I recall something that the trigger finger(after the initial shot) stayed stationary against the stock while the receiver and trigger group traversed back and forth to simulate the full auto firing. The BATFE ruled that the stock was the trigger and the trigger finger did not move between each shot. Would it be possible to make this part of the stock move some measurable amount between firing to get around this ruling. The LAW states a single function of the trigger. So if the trigger finger and whatever it is touching move between shots(even up/down, sideways) it would be a single function. If you could go this route with your commitment to get a public defender after your arrest, I don't see how a judge would not be forced to throw the case out if it is not a violation of LAW and not rulings. Do your homework first and read the laws for EXACTLY what they say. Take copies with you and leave copies with your family, lawyers, etc.. Then you should be back in Business. 3DVR_M4, Patenting another 'widget' would probably be a lot more uncertain than battling the BATFE. Patent approval is a very subjective process. And very expensive. The biggest problem here is one that JPFO (and others) have been about for years: The ATF has no set rules for examination for decision making, no rules for appeals of those decisions, no guarantee that something can't be found "legal" one day and "illegal" the next, they have people who don't know a gun from a gnu making "decisions", they use irreproducible methods, they have no oversight other than congress (who doesn't care about gun owners) and they allow speculation as factual evidence. And, barring a federal court appearance (with jury nullification) or congressional intervention, ATF has "the last word".

The BATFE can only make regulations that are backed by the laws. We know that does not always happen. The only way to get things changed is to meet them head on in court. Judges are somewhat more accountable and have rules they are supposed to  follow. Who has the time and resources for all this? Especially something as TABOO as machine guns. My best suggestion would be for the C3 owners to offer some pro bono mag dumps for some of the namby pamby's out there. That kind of fun could win over a lot of fence sitters.  

Best wishes of luck & success Mr. Akins.

 Best of luck Mr. Akins. If there's any help you might need, don't hesitate to post here. There are A LOT of people that are willing to help you out on this board, myself included.

Quoted: Quoted: You don't understand. I have already spoken to one law firm recently and they declined to take the case stated it had merit but they were "otherwise engaged". They also told me there is a time statute wherein my civil case has to be brought or be forever barred. I do not have the time to invent another widget to ganer funds. Thanks for the thought though. Well, yes you may very well be right and I don't understand. I admit that up front. Can you just file the case yourself? Ultimately, it is not unlike a basic "Judge Judy" case in that you simply want an opportunity to present your evidence before a Judge, state your case, and get a ruling. Whatever the amount of success (or lack thereof) at least it is another rout other than civil disobedience/arrest loss of freedom. Just trying to help, -3D

I know you are just trying to help 3D and I do appreciate it.

Quoted: Mr. Akins, I read a letter that explained why the accelerator approval was subsequently overturned. In that letter I recall something that the trigger finger(after the initial shot) stayed stationary against the stock while the receiver and trigger group traversed back and forth to simulate the full auto firing. The BATFE ruled that the stock was the trigger and the trigger finger did not move between each shot. Would it be possible to make this part of the stock move some measurable amount between firing to get around this ruling. The LAW states a single function of the trigger. So if the trigger finger and whatever it is touching move between shots(even up/down, sideways) it would be a single function. If you could go this route with your commitment to get a public defender after your arrest, I don't see how a judge would not be forced to throw the case out if it is not a violation of LAW and not rulings. Do your homework first and read the laws for EXACTLY what they say. Take copies with you and leave copies with your family, lawyers, etc.. Then you should be back in Business. 3DVR_M4, Patenting another 'widget' would probably be a lot more uncertain than battling the BATFE. Patent approval is a very subjective process. And very expensive.

The BATFE did not rule that the stock was the trigger and it does not matter that the finger does not move between each shot. All that matters is that the trigger is "funtioned" once for each and every shot just as Federal firearms laws dictates and just as my device operates. Federal law does not say the finger has to "move" or "pull" the trigger, but only that the trigger must be "functioned" once for each and every shot. That means the trigger could be pushed, pulled, rotated, levered, manipulated in any manner or even electrically operated as long as it functioned once for each and every shot. This is the nexus of my invention, this is the Federal law, and this is what BATFE is violating.
Do not be deluded into thinking the BATFE would view your moving stock piece any different than they already view my accelerator. It is clear Michael J. Sullivan is making a  political statement in the hopes that it will keep him in power (if he gets confirmed) under what may well next be a democratic administration. You are thinking with a rational mind of a mechanical way to conform to the BATFE ruling. I already did that when I conformed to Federal law with my accelerator. The BATFE does not care what is rational or what is the law. That is only for us commoner peasants to worry about conforming to. They make it up according to the director's whim or political agenda and are unaccountable. If the BATFE was rational it would enforce its illegal ruling against the Hellfire device as well as mine. If the BATFE followed the law it would not enforce it against either of us. Michael J. Sullivan is a former anti gun Maryland prosecutor with a political agenda, a good friend of John Kerry and Ted Kennedy and praised by the Brady bunch. Your idea is logical but logic is not present here. What is needed is a court decision.  

Any help from the NRA or GOA??? kinda a long shot but maybe worth talking to???  Worst thing that could happen would be them telling you no...

Maybe if we posted this on a few sites and had everyone email them they would listen

Quoted: The BATFE did not rule that the stock was the trigger and it does not matter that the finger does not move between each shot. All that matters is that the trigger is "funtioned" once for each and every shot just as Federal firearms laws dictates and just as my device operates. Federal law does not say the finger has to "move" or "pull" the trigger, but only that the trigger must be "functioned" once for each and every shot. That means the trigger could be pushed, pulled, rotated, levered, manipulated in any manner or even electrically operated as long as it functioned once for each and every shot. This is the nexus of my invention, this is the Federal law, and this is what BATFE is violating. Do not be deluded into thinking the BATFE would view your moving stock piece any different than they already view my accelerator. It is clear Michael J. Sullivan is making a  political statement in the hopes that it will keep him in power (if he gets confirmed) under what may well next be a democratic administration. You are thinking with a rational mind of a mechanical way to conform to the BATFE ruling. I already did that when I conformed to Federal law with my accelerator. The BATFE does not care what is rational or what is the law. That is only for us commoner peasants to worry about conforming to. They make it up according to the director's whim or political agenda and are unaccountable. If the BATFE was rational it would enforce its illegal ruling against the Hellfire device as well as mine. If the BATFE followed the law it would not enforce it against either of us. Michael J. Sullivan is a former anti gun Maryland prosecutor with a political agenda, a good friend of John Kerry and Ted Kennedy and praised by the Brady bunch. Your idea is logical but logic is not present here. What is needed is a court decision.

I fully understand where you are coming from. And if I go way out on a limb, I can see where the BATFE is coming from also. The hellfire and most of its variants have the trigger and trigger finger move between each shot. I know you are probably flustered more than I can imagine but please just step back and look at what I have proposed. I am like you some times in that I know I am right and fail to look at things from a different perspective.

As far as the trigger function issue it all depends what the BATFE defines as the trigger. On an electric motor hooked up to actuate the gun trigger, the electric switch becomes the trigger as you already probably know. If it does not have any movement between shots it is an illegal machine gun. This switch is the only thing that is touched that would cause the gun to fire. With your device I believe the trigger finger is touching at least two different pieces to start the firing sequence. As I understand, this is the issue. Which one is the trigger? If you could make them both move between shots then it really shouldn't matter.

Good luck!

So some wanna-be RKBA crusader was "valiant" enough to use your company as cannon fodder in his personal quest?  He loses nothing, and you lose everything?

Unbelievable.

Is this Larson guy daft?  Or just that inconsiderate?

Dupe?

Quoted:    Our Father, who art in heaven,    Hallowed be thy Name.    Thy kingdom come.    Thy will be done,    on earth as it is in heaven.    Give us this day our daily bread.    And forgive us our trespasses,    As we forgive those who trespass against us.    And lead us not into temptation,    But deliver us from evil.    [For thine is the kingdom,    and the power, and the glory,    for ever and ever.    Amen.]

Vater unser
der Du bist im Himmel
Geheiligt werde Dein Name
Dein Reich komme
Dein Wille geschehe
Wie im Himmel als auch auf Erden
Unser täglich Brot gib uns heute
Und vergib uns unsre Schuld
Wie auch wir vergeben unsern Schuldigern
Und führe uns nicht in Versuchung
Sondern erlöse uns von dem Übel
Denn Dein ist das Reich und die Kraft und die Herrlichkeit in Ewigkeit
Amen