For those wondering how it works

                                   


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]

What is boils down to is the government is gaining more and more power by the day and even currently can basically do whatever it wants.  

Where is the NRA?

I love this. Not only because it shows exactly how the government interprets things however they want regardless of the law, but it shows in general how ingenious people are at finding ways around bans on concepts of engineering. This is just like a ban on ".50" caliber weapons resulting in people rechambering their guns .499 to get around it. These things are machines, plain and simple, and I can't wait untill man-portable energy weapons are invented so we can open an entirely new chapter of bans. Will we ban energy output, or a certain type of circuit board? Or how about banning people from possessing a certain amount of 9v batteries? I really can't wait for this stuff to happen. I can't wait for someone to realize how to use components from a microwave, unmodified, to create a laser rifle, resulting in all microwaves being ruled as destructive devices. This is what happens when you try to ban simple mechanical devices and machining tolerances and there will always be engineers willing to challenge the stupidity of the very nature of these laws.

This is the sort of catch-22 the ATF is starting to back themselves into a wall with. If trials like this goto court the ruling will either allow a method for everyone to legally own a weapon which functions very similarly to a machine gun or it will result in an extremely unreasonable ban on a staggering amount of firearms that they couldn't even begin to confiscate, all because one man was smart enough to put his engineering abilities to the test in interpreting the wording in the law. It's just a matter of time with cases like this that we will end up with either compete freedom in firearms ownership or total confiscation and violent outrage by a vast percentage of the civilian population.

Quoted: Where is the NRA?

This is not something the NRA gives a shit about.

I haven't renewed my membership either, and will possibly give an NRA rep an ass-chewing at SHOT for this and the Parker case.

Bill, I really wish I could help.  I'm not in any position to contribute anything but best wishes.  I certainly had a good time using my accelerator.  Maybe someday I can use it again.  It sits in its box in my closet awaiting that day.

Bill, you need to put this in the General Discussion forum. Most of the threads we have had about your product and dillemma have been in there and it will get the most exposure on the site that way.

Best of luck and my utmost respect,

Dave

Quoted: Bill, you need to put this in the General Discussion forum. Most of the threads we have had about your product and dillemma have been in there and it will get the most exposure on the site that way. Best of luck and my utmost respect, Dave

He's probably right, but prepare for the shitstorm.  Every akins thread has thus far devolved into an argument over whether your device constitutes a machinegun.

Quoted: Bill, you need to put this in the General Discussion forum. Most of the threads we have had about your product and dillemma have been in there and it will get the most exposure on the site that way. Best of luck and my utmost respect, Dave

                                 

I also posted it at the General discussion forum. I posted it here as well to be sure people in the armory tech section who may not use the general discussion forum as much would see it as well. Thanks very much for your kind words and respect. It means a lot to me. I am willing to risk prison if that is what it takes to get this to court and overturned and yet some posters still revile me for inventing it. It's nice to know I have yours and some of the firearm community's respect.

Bill Akins.

Quoted: Quoted: Bill, you need to put this in the General Discussion forum. Most of the threads we have had about your product and dillemma have been in there and it will get the most exposure on the site that way. Best of luck and my utmost respect, Dave I also posted it at the General discussion forum. I posted it here as well to be sure people in the armory tech section who may not use the general discussion forum as much would see it as well. Thanks very much for your kind words and respect. It means a lot to me. I am willing to risk prison if that is what it takes to get this to court and overturned and yet some posters still revile me for inventing it. It's nice to know I have yours and some of the firearm community's respect. Bill Akins.

Thanks for posting it here. I never venture into the general area.

Quoted: Quoted: Bill, you need to put this in the General Discussion forum. Most of the threads we have had about your product and dillemma have been in there and it will get the most exposure on the site that way. Best of luck and my utmost respect, Dave He's probably right, but prepare for the shitstorm.  Every akins thread has thus far devolved into an argument over whether your device constitutes a machinegun.

                                   

As Christian Wade the reporter for the Tampa Tribune showed in his article, it doesn't matter what a persons stance is on firearms, it doesn't matter if the BATFE and others may consider it a machine gun. What is irrefutable is that the BATFE twice approved it and allowed start up and production costs to ensue and then changed their minds without compensation. I believe anyone, even those who may think it is a machine gun would agree that this was completely unjust and unfair. On that point alone there should be no argument among reasonable people.
Bill Akins

Quoted: Where is the NRA?

Still celebrating the signing of the Firearm Owner's Protection Act, which you know, put an end to BATFE abuse in gun industry....

Quoted: I can see both sides of this dilemma and certainly feel for your situation.  While you don't want something like this falling into the hands of some crazy suicidal maniac our rights are being chipped at little by little.  What is boils down to is the government is gaining more and more power by the day and even currently can basically do whatever it wants.

falling into the wrong hands...?



you know, all other infringements on rights govern only the impropper USE of that right that results in some harm or injustice. they don't "ban" words out of our vocabulary just so some maniac doesn't say something wrong and get our rights chipped away.

it's nice that you can justify things like the import ban and the machine gun ban though...

The only solution I see now is for someone to step-up to be the test case and get arrested in possession of this gun and have a jury determine it is NOT a machine gun.

Quoted: Quoted: I can see both sides of this dilemma and certainly feel for your situation.  While you don't want something like this falling into the hands of some crazy suicidal maniac our rights are being chipped at little by little.  What is boils down to is the government is gaining more and more power by the day and even currently can basically do whatever it wants.   falling into the wrong hands...? you know, all other infringements on rights govern only the impropper USE of that right that results in some harm or injustice. they don't "ban" words out of our vocabulary just so some maniac doesn't say something wrong and get our rights chipped away. it's nice that you can justify things like the import ban and the machine gun ban though...

I don't justify the machine gun ban or import ban one bit but thanks for putting words in my mouth.  I feel it is illegal for the gov to pass these laws. It all pisses me off, what's wrong with saying you don't want crazy people to kill innocents? I didn't imply that meant to limit our rights.  The problem I see is the government is WAY too powerful which was the whole reason our country used to be great.  Notice I say USED to.  Now you have a large part of the population that actually wants to vote on people that will take away more rights.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I can see both sides of this dilemma and certainly feel for your situation.  While you don't want something like this falling into the hands of some crazy suicidal maniac our rights are being chipped at little by little.  What is boils down to is the government is gaining more and more power by the day and even currently can basically do whatever it wants.   falling into the wrong hands...? you know, all other infringements on rights govern only the impropper USE of that right that results in some harm or injustice. they don't "ban" words out of our vocabulary just so some maniac doesn't say something wrong and get our rights chipped away. it's nice that you can justify things like the import ban and the machine gun ban though... I don't justify the machine gun ban or import ban one bit but thanks for putting words in my mouth.  I feel it is illegal for the gov to pass these laws. It all pisses me off, what's wrong with saying you don't want crazy people to kill innocents? I didn't imply that meant to limit our rights.  The problem I see is the government is WAY too powerful which was the whole reason our country used to be great.  Notice I say USED to.  Now you have a large part of the population that actually wants to vote on people that will take away more rights.

reading is fundimental. i read the above sentence as:

"you don't want something like this falling into the hands of ... or our rights will be chipped away..."

my mistake, i apologize.

My only comment to Bill is why didn't you send in to ATF for approval the actual device you intended to market for thier opinion, rather than sending in a concept device on a totally different host firearm that did not work?  An opinion on the actual device marketed might have held more weight, or might have at least saved you the trouble of going into production.

The Hellfires don't work so comparing your product to thier legality is pointless.

Quoted: My only comment to Bill is why didn't you send in to ATF for approval the actual device you intended to market for thier opinion, rather than sending in a concept device on a totally different host firearm that did not work?  An opinion on the actual device marketed might have held more weight, or might have at least saved you the trouble of going into production. The Hellfires don't work so comparing your product to thier legality is pointless.

Akins Group did in fact send in the rifle stock for the device we were intending to market.
We intended to market the Akins Accelerator stock for the SKS rifle first. That was the stock we were working on when we sent a prototype of the SKS stock to BATFE tech branch for approval. Later after the BATFE twice approved it BASED ON ITS CONCEPT AND METHOD OF OPERATION, our engineer came up with a linear bearing assembly that allowed the meager recoil of a 22 caliber to work with the SAME CONCEPT AND METHOD OF OPERATION. So we switched from working on the SKS stock and put it on a back burner til later and centered on producing a stock for the ruger 10/22 rifle since we felt it was perhaps the most plentiful and least expensive gun to shoot on the market for our customers. The key here for you to understand Tommy is that the BATFE twice approved my invention not based on any specific caliber or rifle type, but upon its concept and method of operation.

I must differ with you regarding the hellfires. They do work. Google up "Hellfire device" or "Hellstorm device" and look at the videos of them in operation firing. They work almost exactly like my device does except my device uses a stationary stock where the hellfires move the entire action and stock. I have seen the hellfire in action personally at the range. They do work. Just not as accurate as my device with the stationary stock.

I compare them to my product because they are almost identical except for the stationary stock which would not have anything to do with the law. According to the illegal BATFE ruling the hellfire operates the trigger in the same way that my device does in that once you function the trigger it continues to fire until the finger is removed or the magazine is empty. With the hellfire the finger is actually never removed from the trigger but the finger rides the trigger back and forth as the trigger functions, resets and functions again.
So actually according to the BATFE ruling the Hellfire would be even more illegal under the ruling than my device would be since my device removes the trigger completely from the trigger finger for each and every function of the trigger and shot fired, while the hellfire never removes the finger from the trigger since it rides the trigger back and forth. Therefore according to the illegal BATFE ruling the Hellfire should be even more illegal than my device is. But neither devices are illegal because they both function the trigger once for each and every shot even though the hellfire allows your finger to ride the trigger back and forth and not release from it.

Anyone here who is familiar with the Hellfire knows what I am saying is correct.

But forget my device and the hellfire for a moment. What about no devices? What about the simple fact that according to the BATFE ruling any weapon that does what the BATFE ruling bans (bumpfiring) is a machine gun. That would be the m1 Garand, mini 14, SKS, all AK variants, all AR15 variants and a host of other rifles and shotguns and even pistols.

Like it or not and whether anyone realizes it or not, the illegal BATFE ruling bans bumpfiring whether with any type of rapid firing device attached or not.

I have posted the link for the article to the Tampa Tribune and Akins Group Inc's public announcement. I've answered questions but I do not intend to stay here all day answering questions that the answers should be apparent or common sense related. I have tried to explain this as technically best as I can.  For the people who do not understand, I hope they are never in a situation where they are right but are still being unjustly abused by a federal agency while others that are not knowledgeable ask them ignorant and condescending questions. It is obvious that you do not understand how my device actually works or how the hellfire device works yet you tell me that the hellfire cannot be compared to my device since you believe the hellfire does not work.

If you can do no more than get 2 shots out of a hellfire then it works and according to the BATFE ruling is a machine gun.

I don't mean to lose my patience with you Tommy but please educate yourself before you tell me something doesn't work and is pointless to compare with. I have enough on my plate without having to be your teacher.

Quoted: I can see both sides of this dilemma and certainly feel for your situation.  While you don't want something like this falling into the hands of some crazy suicidal maniac our rights are being chipped at little by little.  What is boils down to is the government is gaining more and more power by the day and even currently can basically do whatever it wants.

WTF?!?!?!??????

This kind of logic is what the antis use to outlaw whatever flavor of gun they hate today.

Punish the Evildoer, NOT the inanimate piece of machinery.  How hard is that?

.

Quoted: Quoted: I can see both sides of this dilemma and certainly feel for your situation.  While you don't want something like this falling into the hands of some crazy suicidal maniac our rights are being chipped at little by little.  What is boils down to is the government is gaining more and more power by the day and even currently can basically do whatever it wants.   falling into the wrong hands...? you know, all other infringements on rights govern only the impropper USE of that right that results in some harm or injustice. they don't "ban" words out of our vocabulary just so some maniac doesn't say something wrong and get our rights chipped away. it's nice that you can justify things like the import ban and the machine gun ban though...

WTF so you see the BATFE  illegal acts as a side in a dilemma?  You need to be on the Brady's website not here.


It's for the children.....

Quoted: The key here for you to understand Tommy is that the BATFE twice approved my invention not based on any specific caliber or rifle type, but upon its concept and method of operation.

No, the key is they never approved the product you actually sold. Inventions are irrelevant. It is the product that matters. I have no horse in the race ,but when I first saw that "approval letter" and saw it was not based on a 10/22 (you know, the letter where SKS was redacted to hide that fact from buyers), I knew trouble was coming.

Quoted: I must differ with you regarding the hellfires. They do work. Google up "Hellfire device" or "Hellstorm device" and look at the videos of them in operation firing.

That is about the only place they are shown to work. I have never seen them work in real life. Would not surprise me if the video is is doctored, or it took 100 takes till they could get one magazine to work.

It is unfortunate this happened to you, but IMO, it was totally predictable. In fact, many did predict it.

Quoted: Quoted: Where is the NRA? This is not something the NRA gives a shit about. I haven't renewed my membership either, and will possibly give an NRA rep an ass-chewing at SHOT for this and the Parker case. Bill, I really wish I could help.  I'm not in any position to contribute anything but best wishes.  I certainly had a good time using my accelerator.  Maybe someday I can use it again.  It sits in its box in my closet awaiting that day.

Well the NRA is going to file an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in support of the Parker decision so while they may have not been supportive of it at first they are now doing as much as they can.

The NRA or GOA is probably his only hope, because this case is going to be expensive to fight. An attorney would have to be pretty wealthy or retired to take on this big of a case pro bono and even then the cost for expert witnesses and other expenses would be significant.

I guess instead of buying close to a million dollars in inventory he and his investors should have hired or retained an attorney.  Obviously it is foreseeable that in this type of business the BATFE could screw you by changing how they interpret federal laws.  I've seen them issue simple opinion letters on 922r builds and then reverse themselves a month later.

ATF boned all semi auto owners with this one.

Quoted: Where is the NRA?

It's duck season, er... rabbit season.

No wait, DUCK season!

Quoted: Quoted: The key here for you to understand Tommy is that the BATFE twice approved my invention not based on any specific caliber or rifle type, but upon its concept and method of operation. No, the key is they never approved the product you actually sold. Inventions are irrelevant. It is the product that matters. I have no horse in the race ,but when I first saw that "approval letter" and saw it was not based on a 10/22 (you know, the letter where SKS was redacted to hide that fact from buyers), I knew trouble was coming. Quoted: I must differ with you regarding the hellfires. They do work. Google up "Hellfire device" or "Hellstorm device" and look at the videos of them in operation firing. That is about the only place they are shown to work. I have never seen them work in real life. Would not surprise me if the video is is doctored, or it took 100 takes till they could get one magazine to work. It is unfortunate this happened to you, but IMO, it was totally predictable. In fact, many did predict it.

You just don't seem to get it. The SKS rifle stock the BATFE twice approved operated, functioned, worked, etc, etc, etc, and was the exact same concept as the ruger 10/22 stock we sold. On what authority do you base your statement that inventions are irrelevant and that it is only the product that matters? Is this a new ruling of yours personally? Upon what law do you base your statement upon?

I have seen the hellfire videos. I have also been right next to someone using a hellfire on a semi AK variant at the range. He consistently was firing triples on purpose and several times cut loose with a long string. I know they work. Have you personally tried one or personally seen one in real life in action like I have? Oh, that's right, you've only seen the videos that you claim might be doctored. Since you think they are doctored then of course that must be the case right?

You say on the one hand that it is unfortunate this happened to me, yet you say it was predictable and your post seems geared towards gleefully telling me "told ya". What will you say if I get this reversed? It is people like you that are the problem in the firearms community. People who are so ready to accept defeat that they become like a contagion to others around them and are the naysayers who spread defeatism. I'm sure there were people just like you around during the founding father's time, telling them they didn't have a chance against the might of England and that they should have known not to try and they couldn't win. Luckily the founding fathers were not like you. Slink back to your comfortable corner in the rear of the combat area. Us guys on the front lines do not need your defeatism.

Quoted: Quoted: The key here for you to understand Tommy is that the BATFE twice approved my invention not based on any specific caliber or rifle type, but upon its concept and method of operation. No, the key is they never approved the product you actually sold. Inventions are irrelevant. It is the product that matters. I have no horse in the race ,but when I first saw that "approval letter" and saw it was not based on a 10/22 (you know, the letter where SKS was redacted to hide that fact from buyers), I knew trouble was coming. Quoted: I must differ with you regarding the hellfires. They do work. Google up "Hellfire device" or "Hellstorm device" and look at the videos of them in operation firing. That is about the only place they are shown to work. I have never seen them work in real life. Would not surprise me if the video is is doctored, or it took 100 takes till they could get one magazine to work. It is unfortunate this happened to you, but IMO, it was totally predictable. In fact, many did predict it.

Mini 30= Easily dumped mags after you get used to pulling the weapon forward
AK= Never worked real well for mine, but I had a pretty crappy build with a terrible trigger
AR= So easy it was kind of sickening, just tug forward on the VFG, keep trigger finger stable, 30 rounds downrange

I got bored with it because aimed fire is far more effective and ammo is too pricey to piss away now. I don't have a horse in the race, though I hope Bill wins this one, I just can speak from my firsthand knowledge, after a little time getting used to it, the Hellfire did work.

I almost bought one of the Akins stocks when they were on the market, but I just could not bring myself to shell out $1100 for one.

Quoted: I must differ with you regarding the hellfires. They do work. Google up "Hellfire device" or "Hellstorm device" and look at the videos of them in operation firing.

That is about the only place they are shown to work. I have never seen them work in real life. Would not surprise me if the video is is doctored, or it took 100 takes till they could get one magazine to work.

It is unfortunate this happened to you, but IMO, it was totally predictable. In fact, many did predict it.

I have seen a hellfire work. I bought it for my AK, tried to set it up, it didn't work, threw it in my junk box. Tried again a year or two later, got a few bursts out of it, tweaked it a bit more, went thru 5 or 6 magazines that day doing complete dumps. Realized the futility of spraying unaimed automatic fire and sold it to a buddy who was impressed.

Quoted: Quoted: I can see both sides of this dilemma and certainly feel for your situation.  While you don't want something like this falling into the hands of some crazy suicidal maniac our rights are being chipped at little by little.  What is boils down to is the government is gaining more and more power by the day and even currently can basically do whatever it wants.   WTF?!?!?!?????? This kind of logic is what the antis use to outlaw whatever flavor of gun they hate today. Punish the Evildoer, NOT the inanimate piece of machinery.  How hard is that?

Wow, more than 1 person can't read in here apparently. It's easy to take something the wrong way over the internet so I can excuse your comment as well.

"I don't justify the machine gun ban or import ban one bit but thanks for putting words in my mouth. I feel it is illegal for the gov to pass these laws. It all pisses me off, what's wrong with saying you don't want crazy people to kill innocents? I didn't imply that meant to limit our rights. The problem I see is the government is WAY too powerful which was the whole reason our country used to be great. Notice I say USED to. Now you have a large part of the population that actually wants to vote on people that will take away more rights."

I hope they are never in a situation where they are right but are still being unjustly abused by a federal agency while others that are not knowledgeable ask them ignorant and condescending questions.

Last year, the Federal Government "confiscated" over $45K of my personal earnings, and my mother in law repeatedly espouses Demon-cratic propoganda against "rich people" who make over $100K per year and create job opportunities for others....all while I am providing her daughter with a lifestyle better than what she was accustomed to growing up.    

You mean like that?  

This is how the BATFE IRS destroys people's lives and business's. They financially drain them until they have no funds while the BATFE IRS has unlimited resources

Hey...it could be worse.  "They" could just pick you up and lock you away in a psych ward.  Gotta love living in a "free" country...

My advice?  Take the money you'll save on suing them, and put it into a cash more profitable business like a car wash.  It's easier to sell a $9 car wash to a million idiots, and their politics and hobbies don't matter one bit.  That, and machines don't steal.  

   

Quoted: I can see both sides of this dilemma and certainly feel for your situation.  While you don't want something like this falling into the hands of some crazy suicidal maniac our rights are being chipped at little by little.  What is boils down to is the government is gaining more and more power by the day and even currently can basically do whatever it wants.

I wonder, when was the last time a crazy suicidal maniac was deterred by a gun law or any other law?

I have posted this here many times over the years and guess it bears repeating again here in this thread; here is what our own Senators and Congressmen had to say in the "Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate of the 97th Congress, Second Session", published in February 1982 by the US Government Printing office.

excerpt:


Complaint regarding the techniques used by the Bureau in an effort to generate firearms cases led to hearings before the Subcommittee on Treasury, Post Office, and General Appropriations of the Senate Appropriations Committee in July 1979 and April 1980, and before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Senate Judiciary Committee in October 1980. At these hearings evidence was received from various citizens who had been charged by BATF, from experts who had studied the BATF, and from officials of the Bureau itself.

Based upon these hearings, it is apparent that enforcement tactics made possible by current federal firearms laws are constitutionally, legally, and practically reprehensible. Although Congress adopted the Gun Control Act with the primary object of limiting access of felons and high-risk groups to firearms, the overbreadth of the law has led to neglect of precisely this area of enforcement. For example the Subcommittee on the Constitution received correspondence from two members of the Illinois Judiciary, dated in 1980, indicating that they had been totally unable to persuade BATF to accept cases against felons who were in possession of firearms including sawed-off shotguns. The Bureau's own figures demonstrate that in recent years the percentage of its arrests devoted to felons in possession and persons knowingly selling to them have dropped from 14 percent down to 10 percent of their firearms cases. To be sure, genuine criminals are sometimes prosecuted under other sections of the law. Yet, subsequent to these hearings, BATF stated that 55 percent of its gun law prosecutions overall involve persons with no record of a felony conviction, and a third involve citizens with no prior police contact at all.

The Subcommittee received evidence that the BATF has primarily devoted its firearms enforcement efforts to the apprehension, upon technical malum prohibitum charges, of individuals who lack all criminal intent and knowledge. Agents anxious to generate an impressive arrest and gun confiscation quota have repeatedly enticed gun collectors into making a small number of sales — often as few as four — from their personal collections. Although each of the sales was completely legal under state and federal law, the agents then charged the collector with having "engaged in the business" of dealing in guns without the required license. Since existing law permits a felony conviction upon these charges even where the individual has no criminal knowledge or intent numerous collectors have been ruined by a felony record carrying a potential sentence of five years in federal prison. Even in cases where the collectors secured acquittal, or grand juries failed to indict, or prosecutors refused to file criminal charges, agents of the Bureau have generally confiscated the entire collection of the potential defendant upon the ground that he intended to use it in that violation of the law. In several cases, the agents have refused to return the collection even after acquittal by jury.

The defendant, under existing law is not entitled to an award of attorney's fees, therefore, should he secure return of his collection, an individual who has already spent thousands of dollars establishing his innocence of the criminal charges is required to spend thousands more to civilly prove his innocence of the same acts, without hope of securing any redress. This of course, has given the enforcing agency enormous bargaining power in refusing to return confiscated firearms. Evidence received by the Subcommittee related the confiscation of a shotgun valued at $7,000. Even the Bureau's own valuations indicate that the value of firearms confiscated by their agents is over twice the value which the Bureau has claimed is typical of "street guns" used in crime. In recent months, the average value has increased rather than decreased, indicating that the reforms announced by the Bureau have not in fact redirected their agents away from collector's items and toward guns used in crime.

The Subcommittee on the Constitution has also obtained evidence of a variety of other misdirected conduct by agents and supervisors of the Bureau. In several cases, the Bureau has sought conviction for supposed technical violations based upon policies and interpretations of law which the Bureau had not published in the Federal Register, as required by 5 U.S.C. Sec 552. For instance, beginning in 1975, Bureau officials apparently reached a judgment that a dealer who sells to a legitimate purchaser may nonetheless be subject to prosecution or license revocation if he knows that that individual intends to transfer the firearm to a nonresident or other unqualified purchaser. This position was never published in the Federal Register and is indeed contrary to indications which Bureau officials had given Congress, that such sales were not in violation of existing law. Moreover, BATF had informed dealers that an adult purchaser could legally buy for a minor, barred by his age from purchasing a gun on his own. BATF made no effort to suggest that this was applicable only where the barrier was one of age. Rather than informing the dealers of this distinction, Bureau agents set out to produce mass arrests upon these "straw man" sale charges, sending out undercover agents to entice dealers into transfers of this type. The first major use of these charges, in South Carolina in 1975, led to 37 dealers being driven from business, many convicted on felony charges. When one of the judges informed Bureau officials that he felt dealers had not been fairly treated and given information of the policies they were expected to follow, and refused to permit further prosecutions until they were informed, Bureau officials were careful to inform only the dealers in that one state and even then complained in internal memoranda that this was interfering with the creation of the cases. When BATF was later requested to place a warning to dealers on the front of the Form 4473, which each dealer executes when a sale is made, it instead chose to place the warning in fine print upon the back of the form, thus further concealing it from the dealer's sight.

The Constitution Subcommittee also received evidence that the Bureau has formulated a requirement, of which dealers were not informed that requires a dealer to keep official records of sales even from his private collection. BATF has gone farther than merely failing to publish this requirement. At one point, even as it was prosecuting a dealer on the charge (admitting that he had no criminal intent), the Director of the Bureau wrote Senator S. I. Hayakawa to indicate that there was no such legal requirement and it was completely lawful for a dealer to sell from his collection without recording it. Since that date, the Director of the Bureau has stated that that is not the Bureau's position and that such sales are completely illegal; after making that statement, however, he was quoted in an interview for a magazine read primarily by licensed firearms dealers as stating that such sales were in fact legal and permitted by the Bureau. In these and similar areas, the Bureau has violated not only the dictates of common sense, but of 5 U.S.C. Sec 552, which was intended to prevent "secret lawmaking" by administrative bodies.

These practices, amply documented in hearings before this Subcommittee, leave little doubt that the Bureau has disregarded rights guaranteed by the constitution and laws of the United States.

It has trampled upon the second amendment by chilling exercise of the right to keep and bear arms by law-abiding citizens.

It has offended the fourth amendment by unreasonably searching and seizing private property.

It has ignored the Fifth Amendment by taking private property without just compensation and by entrapping honest citizens without regard for their right to due process of law.

The rebuttal presented to the Subcommittee by the Bureau was utterly unconvincing. Richard Davis, speaking on behalf of the Treasury Department, asserted vaguely that the Bureau's priorities were aimed at prosecuting willful violators, particularly felons illegally in possession, and at confiscating only guns actually likely to be used in crime. He also asserted that the Bureau has recently made great strides toward achieving these priorities. No documentation was offered for either of these assertions. In hearings before BATF's Appropriations Subcommittee, however, expert evidence was submitted establishing that approximately 75 percent of BATF gun prosecutions were aimed at ordinary citizens who had neither criminal intent nor knowledge, but were enticed by agents into unknowing technical violations. (In one case, in fact, the individual was being prosecuted for an act which the Bureau's acting director had stated was perfectly lawful.) In those hearings, moreover, BATF conceded that in fact (1) only 9.8 percent of their firearm arrests were brought on felons in illicit possession charges; (2) the average value of guns seized was $116, whereas BATF had claimed that "crime guns" were priced at less than half that figure; (3) in the months following the announcement of their new "priorities", the percentage of gun prosecutions aimed at felons had in fact fallen by a third, and the value of confiscated guns had risen. All this indicates that the Bureau's vague claims, both of focus upon gun-using criminals and of recent reforms, are empty words.

In light of this evidence, reform of federal firearm laws is necessary to protect the most vital rights of American citizens. Such legislation is embodied in S. 1030. That legislation would require proof of a willful violation as an element of a federal gun prosecution, forcing enforcing agencies to ignore the easier technical cases and aim solely at the intentional breaches. It would restrict confiscation of firearms to those actually used in an offense, and require their return should the owner be acquitted of the charges. By providing for award of attorney's fees in confiscation cases, or in other cases if the judge finds charges were brought without just basis or from improper motives, this proposal would be largely self-enforcing. S. 1030 would enhance vital protection of constitutional and civil liberties of those Americans who choose to exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.


This is the monster being dealt with here in this thread and IF it was that bad back in 1982 one can easily see that things haven't changed that much in the last 25 years - the BATF is still making up it's own enforment rules....

mike

ps - color, bold and text sizes added by the poster and one can see a copy of this information here: www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm

Quoted: Quoted: I must differ with you regarding the hellfires. They do work. Google up "Hellfire device" or "Hellstorm device" and look at the videos of them in operation firing. That is about the only place they are shown to work. I have never seen them work in real life. Would not surprise me if the video is is doctored, or it took 100 takes till they could get one magazine to work. It is unfortunate this happened to you, but IMO, it was totally predictable. In fact, many did predict it. I have seen a hellfire work. I bought it for my AK, tried to set it up, it didn't work, threw it in my junk box. Tried again a year or two later, got a few bursts out of it, tweaked it a bit more, went thru 5 or 6 magazines that day doing complete dumps. Realized the futility of spraying unaimed automatic fire and sold it to a buddy who was impressed.

The OtherDave.

Did you realize that the quotes in your post that you attributed to RenagadeX were mine and the quotes of  RenagadeX you attributed to yourself?

Somehow you got what RenagadeX, myself and yourself said all mixed up in your quote section.  I'm the one who said..."I must differ with you regarding the hellfires..."

Could you please edit your post to correct that. It might confuse a lot of folks. It confused me at first. Thanks. Bill Akins.

Hi Bill.... can one of your stocks be purchased..... without the special spring/guts/banned items?

Quoted: Hi Bill.... can one of your stocks be purchased..... without the special spring/guts/banned items?

Yeah, and if you put a spring in the other end, you could call it the Akins De-accelerator.

Quoted: You just don't seem to get it. The SKS rifle stock the BATFE twice approved operated, functioned, worked, etc, etc, etc, and was the exact same concept as the ruger 10/22 stock we sold. On what authority do you base your statement that inventions are irrelevant and that it is only the product that matters? Is this a new ruling of yours personally? Upon what law do you base your statement upon?

No Bill, I do get it. You are the one who does not get it, and that is why YOU are in this predicament, and not me. You seem to NOT GET inventions and concepts DO NOT matter actual products (weapons) that can be submitted into evidence in a court of law matter. On what authority do I base this? Simple the law. The MG law does not deal with inventions or concepts. It clearly states: The term `machinegun' means any weapon... See that? It says "weapon". Not "invention" or "concept".

BTW, the letter I saw BATFE clearly stated screws fell out and it DID NOT WORK. That letter also clearly stated their ruling only applied to "...an otherwise unmodified SKS semiautomatic rifle..."

In order to clear up this confusion, PLEASE POST THESE APPROVAL LETTERS YOU SPEAK OF.

Quoted: I have seen the hellfire videos. I have also been right next to someone using a hellfire on a semi AK variant at the range. He consistently was firing triples on purpose and several times cut loose with a long string. I know they work. Have you personally tried one or personally seen one in real life in action like I have? Oh, that's right, you've only seen the videos that you claim might be doctored. Since you think they are doctored then of course that must be the case right?

Wrong again Bill. I do have a Hellfire (and a BMF activator) and the BMF activator works and the Hellfire does not. At this point, whether the Hellfire works or not moot.

Quoted: You say on the one hand that it is unfortunate this happened to me, yet you say it was predictable and your post seems geared towards gleefully telling me "told ya".

NO, there is no glee at all. I think it sucks what happened to you. I think you got some really bad advice from the usual places. Everything I post relevant to this is intended to prevent the next person from making the same mistakes you did.

Quoted: It is people like you that are the problem in the firearms community. People who are so ready to accept defeat that they become like a contagion to others around them and are the naysayers who spread defeatism. I'm sure there were people just like you around during the founding father's time, telling them they didn't have a chance against the might of England and that they should have known not to try and they couldn't win. Luckily the founding fathers were not like you. Slink back to your comfortable corner in the rear of the combat area. Us guys on the front lines do not need your defeatism.

Nice rant. They broke you, financially and monetarily, and it shows - it sucks. I look forward to you continuing the fight. Get yourself and your device in front of a jury of your peers and let them decide if it is a MG or not. I strongly urge you to get better legal representation than the Sea-Lawyers you had in the past though.

hello.  as i posted before, did you really think the government was going to allow this? everyone knows this was an atempt to sneak in a device that would allow full auto fire without being registered. to be honest, i personally shot one ( or tried to ) never ever could get it to run more than 10rds without jamming! on the other hand, my bmf activators work 100% of the time.

i said from day one, it was an over-priced gimmick!  dont think for a minute people didnt piss off the batf by rubbing their noses in it. you cant blame eric larsen, as sooner or later they were going to ban them.

you can sit there and cry all you want about how the government doesnt follow the law and such, but WAKE UP!  they ARE the government and they MAKE the law as they see fit! since when is the government bound by any law? when is the last time they actually abided by the constitution?

if you didnt see this one coming, you live in a box. its a sad deal that akins lost alot, but i think he had an idea that this could happen.  kirk


 

Quoted: Quoted: I can see both sides of this dilemma and certainly feel for your situation.  While you don't want something like this falling into the hands of some crazy suicidal maniac our rights are being chipped at little by little.  What is boils down to is the government is gaining more and more power by the day and even currently can basically do whatever it wants.   I wonder, when was the last time a crazy suicidal maniac was deterred by a gun law or any other law?

Never my point exactly.

RenegadeX you are being a jackass.  If you have no expert knowledge on this subject then please get the fuck out of this thread.  Seriously man, gun rights are taking a beating and you are hear boasting your support for the ATF.

Quoted: Quoted: I must differ with you regarding the hellfires. They do work. Google up "Hellfire device" or "Hellstorm device" and look at the videos of them in operation firing. That is about the only place they are shown to work. I have never seen them work in real life. Would not surprise me if the video is is doctored, or it took 100 takes till they could get one magazine to work. It is unfortunate this happened to you, but IMO, it was totally predictable. In fact, many did predict it. I have seen a hellfire work. I bought it for my AK, tried to set it up, it didn't work, threw it in my junk box. Tried again a year or two later, got a few bursts out of it, tweaked it a bit more, went thru 5 or 6 magazines that day doing complete dumps. Realized the futility of spraying unaimed automatic fire and sold it to a buddy who was impressed.

(I deleted my animation gif of the accelerator at the top of each of my posts except for my first post which started this thread, if you want to see it go to the first post, I was afraid it might be taking up too much bandwidth.)

TheOtherDave, you fixed your post to correct your quote of what I said, but you left the other posters comments about he believed the hellfire did not work in with your text so it appears you were saying that even though further on you said you had used a hellfire and gotten several bursts out of it. You need to correct your post to accurately reflect what the other guy said verses what you were saying. As it is now, it appears you were stating what  RenegadeX said about the hellfire not working and the videos being doctored, even though you were not.

TheOtherDave, you stated that you got a few bursts out of the hellfire rapid fire device. That proves my point. If anyone can get so much as two shots in sequence out of a hellfire, then it works. The hellfire operates under the illegal BATFE ruling just like my device does. The BATFE ruling says that "once the trigger is pulled that initiates a sequence of automatic fire which continues until the finger is removed or the magazine is empty." Although the hellfire is no more illegal under federal law than my device since both my device and the hellfire function the trigger once for each and every shot, by looking at the BATFE illegal 2006-02 ruling that I quoted part of above, the hellfire would be even more illegal than my device according to that illegal ruling, because....the finger is NEVER removed from the hellfire trigger. The finger RIDES the hellfire trigger and never releases from it although it allows the trigger to reset and function once for each shot. But my accelerator completely removes the finger totally from the trigger for each function and shot.


TheOtherDave, you told me in your first response in this thread that I had your "utmost respect". Where was that respect last year Dave when you were gleefully telling everyone here how you were going to infringe on my patent and make your own copy and that "it would really suck if plans wound up on the internet."

How can you say and assure me I have your "utmost respect" when you treated me that way? Are you now sorry or something for what you said? Has my diligence and willingness to sacrifice and fight for firearm rights made you ashamed of what you said and did and now you respect me whereas you didn't before? If I do in fact have your utmost respect as you said TheOtherDave, don't you think I deserve an apology for your previous posted behavior from last year?



You clearly stated here that you were going to make your own infringments of my patented invention and gleefully with smiley faces said.... "Thanks Akins for the idea, I'll make my own, it would be a shame if it got posted on the internet for others to make their own". I saved the screen shots of what you said and of the other ethical and good members in here telling you how wrong you were for what you were doing. Here they are below for you to see. Since you stated you were making your own infringing copy of my patented invention, I wonder did you turn in your spring from your infringing copy to the BATFE?


Dave, I'm the kind of guy who saves screenshots of other people's posts for years in case I need to use them. I never said anything to you about this. I saved all the online posts from people threatening to, or stating that they had made infringing copies of my patented invention.

Here's your posts from 2006 gleefully stating you were going to make your own infringing copies of my patented invention and the posts of other members telling you how wrong and unethical it was for you to do so.

I'm not posting this to argue patent law with you, I am posting this to show to you how you treated me and my patented invention and now you say I have your "utmost respect".

If I do indeed now have your "utmost respect" perhaps an apology from you would allow me to let my resentment of what you did go so that I might be able to forgive you and believe you when you say you respect me.

All I get are red X's

Quoted: RenegadeX you are being a jackass.  If you have no expert knowledge on this subject then please get the fuck out of this thread.  Seriously man, gun rights are taking a beating and you are hear boasting your support for the ATF.

+1

What you really need to do is to "Re-think" this device.Bumpfiring using your body parts is perfect legal "As of now".What you need to do is to create your bumpstick so a part of your body is involved in the sequence (not just pulling your finger) but having a notch cut out in your stock to where your forward finger is involved in the "Bump" sequence.Think it about REAL hard for awhile and you will be able to come up with something.Remember the crown jewel is if you can pull with one finger and have the action bump off the forward finger just as you bump fire using your finger and hip.Nevermind the spring use the body parts they cant ban those.

Quoted: All I get are red X's

Plus +1

Even still, Bill-take a valium.

I like to jerk people's chains. If I wanted to make one of your devices, I would have-in fact, I have the professional capability to make them for myself and the contacts to get where you are at with inventory in a matter of two or three months. Aside from the part that it WAS someone's patent and that I didn't believe it was going to be legal, I didn't waste the time. We aren't talking rocket science here, just a gimmick that works well for what it is supposed to do.

I was having fun at the expense of the people in those threads, and boy did it ever work. Haven't you ever jerked anyone's chains, Bill?

For your part, it didn't help in those threads when it got around that you chose to gouge people to the tune of $1100 for a plastic stock with a rod/bearing assembly in it because you "didn't want to get them in the hands of gang-bangers". Look, I understand business, I understand profit motives, and I understand a steaming load of bullshit when I hear it. It comes off as being two faced to me that you were willing to stick it to the average Joe gunowner because you know he lives under unfair and unconstitutional laws about ownership of Machine Guns, yet when you get *your* dick slapped down by ATF you want to come crawling to us for support?

Bill, you gambled and it didn't pan out. Were you really expecting ATF to allow a working, complete facsimile of a full-auto weapon into the hands of the public without having to see the inside of the courtroom? For crying out loud dude, ATF has gotten convictions for suppressor possession for people with tubing and fender washers in their garage. I'm not saying it's right how they are dealing you, but c'mon man!

Dave

P.S. You put way too much thought into this shit-my earlier post that you wanted fixed is a great example.. You asked me (a typical gun forum poster) to correct a post that me made. So I did, glancing over it, changed what I thought was wrong with it, buttoned it up and moved on to something else. I had about as much thought in the process as I would wiping my nose. So I revisit the thread again to find that you are now hostile and treating me as some kind of enemy because I didn't jump to dot every line and cross every "T" in a thread that was originally intended to be supportive of you. I'm not glued to my computer, I'm not glued to this thread-in fact, I almost didn't click on it because there is no way this issue is going anywhere unless you do something with your idea that lands your ass in the klink, and I don't think you are going to do that or you already would have.

Any chance of getting this topic moved to the legal forum?

Quoted: Where is the NRA?

They've been busy working with the Brady Bunch pushing the PTSD bill through congress.

Quoted: ...For your part, it didn't help in those threads when it got around that you chose to gouge people to the tune of $1100 for a plastic stock with a rod/bearing assembly in it because you "didn't want to get them in the hands of gang-bangers". Look, I understand business, I understand profit motives, and I understand a steaming load of bullshit when I hear it. It comes off as being two faced to me that you were willing to stick it to the average Joe gunowner because you know he lives under unfair and unconstitutional laws about ownership of Machine Guns, yet when you get *your* dick slapped down by ATF you want to come crawling to us for support? Bill, you gambled and it didn't pan out....

I am inclined to agree.  Bill, what would have happened if you would had sold 50,000 or 100,000 at a reasonable price?  You f-cked yourself with your greed.

Quoted: Where is the NRA?

With their collective heads up their asses, compromising our gun rights away.

The NRA could care less about your right to own a MG, or any other military
style rifle.  It is for this reason that the NRA can go straight to Hell in my book.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I can see both sides of this dilemma and certainly feel for your situation.  While you don't want something like this falling into the hands of some crazy suicidal maniac our rights are being chipped at little by little.  What is boils down to is the government is gaining more and more power by the day and even currently can basically do whatever it wants.   I wonder, when was the last time a crazy suicidal maniac was deterred by a gun law or any other law? Never my point exactly.

No but you sound like Rudy or Mitt.  You sure wouldn't want one of those evil blah blah blah's falling into the hands of a crazy suicidal maniac.  Dude, you need to figure out what side of the 2A you are on.  This BS could have come from the mouth of Sara Brady.

Let me give you a hint.  The GUN or in this case the STOCK (I can't even believe I just typed that second part) is NEVER the problem.  Ban the behavior not the device.

A look back at the Akins  *video*

Get it legal again and reprice it at $300-$350 range and I will buy one. At what to me seems an unreasonable price when they were available, I don't have a dog in the fight either way.