Quoted: 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...

I got your back if you do.

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

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!

The BATFE does not make the law that defines what is the trigger. That is the function of congress.

A firearm can use an electrical switch to fire one shot per each function of the electrical switch which would be in that case the trigger which is what I stated earlier. You may have assumed I meant electrical motor, but that is not what I said. I said "operated electrically"
I didn't say attach an electric motor to fire the trigger rapidly gatling gun style. "Operated electrically" by one function of the electrical switch per shot.

You mentioned that with my device you believed it is "the finger touching at least two different places to start the firing sequence that was the issue"

The finger touching both finger stops of opposing sides of the stock's pistol grip  is irrelevant. I can touch both finger stops of the stock without functioning the trigger by curving my finger so that it does not contact the trigger. Only when I straighten out my finger curve does my finger come into contact with the trigger. So the fact that my finger middle and finger tip is first touching the finger stops before my finger functions the trigger is irrelevant. I can also function the trigger without touching my fingertip against the finger stop on the other side of the pistol grip and with a little practice anyone can do that. There are firearms that have a stock support for the middle of the trigger finger so your finger is better supported. This is irrelevant and has nothing to do with .......
SINGLE FUNCTION OF THE TRIGGER

If I was the stretchman called Mr Fantastic from the movie The Fantastic Four, and I had the ability to stretch my finger out to where I could actually coil my finger around the stock 10 times before my finger contacted the trigger, it would still be irrelevant because whether the finger touches the stock is irrelevant to the finger functioning the trigger.

The point at where the finger interacts and "functions" the actual normal, factory, ruger trigger, is the "function" point.

So as you can see, it wouldn't matter if I had my finger supported at its middle and tip by squeezing it in two vices. Until my finger comes into contact with, and "functions" the trigger (which is the normal factory ruger trigger) no function occurs.

The only thing that is required is that the trigger (normal factory ruger trigger) functions once for each shot. Finger supports are irrelevant.

Again, the BATFE is making new law by an illegal regulatory ruling that contradicts what congressional law says.

Obviously BATFE wants this to go to court as a test case. Because if the BATFE loses, no harm to them and they lose nothing, they just didn't get the law changed and nothing gets done to punish them for a spurious ruling that they lost the case of in court. However if they win, they outlaw bumpfiring of any kind and can actually outlaw almost all semi automatic firearms by saying they are capable of bumpfiring and are all machine guns.

Do you understand? This is not about mechanics. We all know what the law says about the mechanics of what comprises a machine gun and we all know my device mechanically conforms to existing Federal firearms law. This is about politics.

Quoted: 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! The BATFE does not make the law that defines what is the trigger. That is the function of congress. A firearm can use an electrical switch to fire one shot per each function of the electrical switch which would be in that case the trigger which is what I stated earlier. You may have assumed I meant electrical motor, but that is not what I said. I said "operated electrically" I didn't say attach an electric motor to fire the trigger rapidly gatling gun style. "Operated electrically" by one function of the electrical switch per shot. You mentioned that with my device you believed it is "the finger touching at least two different places to start the firing sequence that was the issue" The finger touching both finger stops of opposing sides of the stock's pistol grip  is irrelevant. I can touch both finger stops of the stock without functioning the trigger by curving my finger so that it does not contact the trigger. Only when I straighten out my finger curve does my finger come into contact with the trigger. So the fact that my finger middle and finger tip is first touching the finger stops before my finger functions the trigger is irrelevant. I can also function the trigger without touching my fingertip against the finger stop on the other side of the pistol grip and with a little practice anyone can do that. There are firearms that have a stock support for the middle of the trigger finger so your finger is better supported. This is irrelevant and has nothing to do with ....... SINGLE FUNCTION OF THE TRIGGER If I was the stretchman called Mr Fantastic from the movie The Fantastic Four, and I had the ability to stretch my finger out to where I could actually coil my finger around the stock 10 times before my finger contacted the trigger, it would still be irrelevant because whether the finger touches the stock is irrelevant to the finger functioning the trigger. The point at where the finger interacts and "functions" the actual normal, factory, ruger trigger, is the "function" point. So as you can see, it wouldn't matter if I had my finger supported at its middle and tip by squeezing it in two vices. Until my finger comes into contact with, and "functions" the trigger (which is the normal factory ruger trigger) no function occurs. The only thing that is required is that the trigger (normal factory ruger trigger) functions once for each shot. Finger supports are irrelevant. Again, the BATFE is making new law by an illegal regulatory ruling that contradicts what congressional law says. Obviously BATFE wants this to go to court as a test case. Because if the BATFE loses, no harm to them and they lose nothing, they just didn't get the law changed and nothing gets done to punish them for a spurious ruling that they lost the case of in court. However if they win, they outlaw bumpfiring of any kind and can actually outlaw almost all semi automatic firearms by saying they are capable of bumpfiring and are all machine guns. Do you understand? This is not about mechanics. We all know what the law says about the mechanics of what comprises a machine gun and we all know my device mechanically conforms to existing Federal firearms law. This is about politics.

Mr. Akins, this whole situation sounds fubar, is their anything that can be done short of you getting arrested and putting your butt on the line/facing jail time to get your case heard in court? Is there anything we can do?

Quoted: Quoted: 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! The BATFE does not make the law that defines what is the trigger. That is the function of congress. A firearm can use an electrical switch to fire one shot per each function of the electrical switch which would be in that case the trigger which is what I stated earlier. You may have assumed I meant electrical motor, but that is not what I said. I said "operated electrically" I didn't say attach an electric motor to fire the trigger rapidly gatling gun style. "Operated electrically" by one function of the electrical switch per shot. You mentioned that with my device you believed it is "the finger touching at least two different places to start the firing sequence that was the issue" The finger touching both finger stops of opposing sides of the stock's pistol grip  is irrelevant. I can touch both finger stops of the stock without functioning the trigger by curving my finger so that it does not contact the trigger. Only when I straighten out my finger curve does my finger come into contact with the trigger. So the fact that my finger middle and finger tip is first touching the finger stops before my finger functions the trigger is irrelevant. I can also function the trigger without touching my fingertip against the finger stop on the other side of the pistol grip and with a little practice anyone can do that. There are firearms that have a stock support for the middle of the trigger finger so your finger is better supported. This is irrelevant and has nothing to do with ....... SINGLE FUNCTION OF THE TRIGGER If I was the stretchman called Mr Fantastic from the movie The Fantastic Four, and I had the ability to stretch my finger out to where I could actually coil my finger around the stock 10 times before my finger contacted the trigger, it would still be irrelevant because whether the finger touches the stock is irrelevant to the finger functioning the trigger. The point at where the finger interacts and "functions" the actual normal, factory, ruger trigger, is the "function" point. So as you can see, it wouldn't matter if I had my finger supported at its middle and tip by squeezing it in two vices. Until my finger comes into contact with, and "functions" the trigger (which is the normal factory ruger trigger) no function occurs. The only thing that is required is that the trigger (normal factory ruger trigger) functions once for each shot. Finger supports are irrelevant. Again, the BATFE is making new law by an illegal regulatory ruling that contradicts what congressional law says. Obviously BATFE wants this to go to court as a test case. Because if the BATFE loses, no harm to them and they lose nothing, they just didn't get the law changed and nothing gets done to punish them for a spurious ruling that they lost the case of in court. However if they win, they outlaw bumpfiring of any kind and can actually outlaw almost all semi automatic firearms by saying they are capable of bumpfiring and are all machine guns. Do you understand? This is not about mechanics. We all know what the law says about the mechanics of what comprises a machine gun and we all know my device mechanically conforms to existing Federal firearms law. This is about politics. Mr. Akins, this whole situation sounds fubar, is their anything that can be done short of you getting arrested and putting your butt on the line/facing jail time to get your case heard in court? Is there anything we can do?

Thank you very much for your asking what you and others can do to help LuvBushmaster.

There are several things you and others can do to help.

1. Write your senators and congresspersons and ask them to oppose Michael J. Sullivan's confirmation to director of the BATFE until he cleans up the BATFE abuses of federal law, until he establishes a written, consistent, standardized program of how firearm classifications are done by the tech branch at BATFE, until he stops harrassment and shutdown of gun shops and FFL's like Red's Trading Post for so called "willful" records mistakes that are insignificant and not willful at all, until he stops his illegal lobbying for the likes of Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and the Brady group, until he stops his harrassment of Len Savage for doing nothing more than telling juries the truth about BATFE abuses in court cases, and until he recinds this illegal 2006-02 ruling that illegally violates Federal Firearms law and attempts to ban the Akins Accelerator, bumpfiring in general and possibly all semi automatic firearms capable of bumpfiring.

2. Contact all the pro second amendment, all the pro firearm and pro civil liberties organizations you can in writing and inform them of both this abuse against my device and the other abuses by BATFE that I have mentioned and ask them to help me file a case either by their own legal teams or any legal defense funds they may have available for paying attorneys for cases like this.

3. Contact any attorneys you may know and see if you can interest them in taking my case on a contingency basis for a large damage suit and or pro bono if it is determined that sovereign immunity precludes any damages against BATFE and give them my phone number and e mail and ask them to contact me. (727) 819-8352   [email protected]

Number 3 is the most important. Congress did nothing about Ruby Ridge or Waco. I do not expect they would do anything about this illegal ruling against the Akins Accelerator or any of the other abuses I mentioned above other than block Sullivan's confirmation possibly. You must remember that first and foremost, BATFE is a tax collecting agency of the Federal government and as such it is a cash cow for the Federal government. Shutting it down completely would cost the Feds tax dollars taken from the people. So the most important thing is to secure a law firm or individual attorneys that would be willing to take my case and since Akins Group Inc nor myself has the finances to pay attorneys for their services in a civil suit, the law firm or individual attorneys would have to take this on a damage contingency basis or act pro bono in a high profile case that would give them much notoriety and may well be one of the most important cases they ever work on in their lifetimes concerning fighting an illegal regulatory ruling that could actually ban all semi automatic firearms if the BATFE won. Otherwise, I am left totally on my own to either file a civil suit on my own without an attorney and without the knowledge of how to do so, or to at some future time peacefully, and civilly disobey and be prosecuted and lay my very freedom on the line as the only way to get this to court.

Please feel free to post this and anything else from my posts concerning this injustice at any online firearms forum or pro second amendment or pro civil liberties forum online.
The more sites that are reached and the more the public is made aware of these injustices as well as the injustice against my patented invention, the better.

For those folks who may not want to take the time to write their representatives or to help me fight for this cause, consider this. Suspose you were me. Suspose the legal invention that you patented at large expense was illegally rendered unsalable. Suspose a Federal agency that twice approved your invention as legal for two years then banned your invention without compensation after you and others had invested hundreds of thousands of dollars of your saving into its development along with 11 years of your personal life. Suspose the corporation you were in was destroyed financially by this. Suspose before he resigned, your partner was not interested in fighting this BATFE injustice and did his best for a year to paralyze you corporately so that he would not have to worry about his FFL and SOT licenses being harrassed by the BATFE and was only interested in complying and actually had an attorney send you a letter threatening to gag order you if you did not remain silent even though no such gag order would be enforceable since no case of any kind had been filed. Suspose after almost 30 years as a member, you had been abandoned and ignored by the largest pro firearms organization in the world. Suspose you had to endure the ignorance of naysayers and contagious defeatism people that are actually in the firearms community gleefully saying "I told you so and I predicted this would happen, you can't win!". Suspose you had received no help from any organizations whatsoever and were totally on your own in standing up for and fighting for your and everyone elses Federal firearm rights that are already existing Federal law. Suspose no one seemed interested or if interested were unable to render any actual practical help.
Suspose you had gone thru both your Senators and Congresspersons and they were unable or unwilling to help you. Suspose you had submitted an administrative appeal to the BATFE and they denied it. Suspose the law firms you had already contacted were uninterested in taking the case because it might take years until they won or received any money for their services and they are better served taking other cases that bring in cash much quicker to them and their firms. Suspose your last and only recourse left to you was to peacefully civilly disobey and lay your freedom on the line for yourself and other citizen's firearm rights and possibly incurr 15 years in prison and a $250,000.00 fine if you lost with your public defender against a BATFE dream team of attorneys and so called "expert" BATFE witnesses. Suspose you would not accept this abuse nor admit defeat and that you took your Marine Corps oath of allegiance seriously and stuck to your vow to defend the Constitution and the United States against all enemies both foreign and domestic. and were not only willing to go to prison but to die if necessary for your and everyone elses Federal rights that you were susposed to ALREADY have. Suspose you realized that the general public and indeed even most people in the firearms community were either unaware or uncaring that if this case was lost that it could outlaw all forms of bumpfiring and any semi automatic weapon capable of bumpfiring which would be most all semi automatic weapons.

WHAT WOULD YOU DO????????

www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=62411


Oh the confusion.

+2 is okay, but 1+1 ain't?

I really wish this had gone our way.  Those stocks were really cool.

Larsen or Larson?

Quoted: Larsen or Larson?

I'm not sure of the exact spelling.

Bill, if you'd like to get some local guys together to go have a meeting with Ginny then let's do it. I'm on her mailing list and I donate to her campaign and she owes me and you and the rest of us Florida guys.

Let's do it.

Make a post in the Florida hometown forum and let's get it going. If we show up in force maybe we can get her to get off her haunches and kick some ass. She is pro 2A or so she said to me at a gunshow.

Quoted: Bill, if you'd like to get some local guys together to go have a meeting with Ginny then let's do it. I'm on her mailing list and I donate to her campaign and she owes me and you and the rest of us Florida guys. Let's do it. Make a post in the Florida hometown forum and let's get it going. If we show up in force maybe we can get her to get off her haunches and kick some ass. She is pro 2A or so she said to me at a gunshow.

Thanks CaptainPooby.

I will post in the Florida hometown forum just what you said.

Quoted: Quoted: Bill, if you'd like to get some local guys together to go have a meeting with Ginny then let's do it. I'm on her mailing list and I donate to her campaign and she owes me and you and the rest of us Florida guys. Let's do it. Make a post in the Florida hometown forum and let's get it going. If we show up in force maybe we can get her to get off her haunches and kick some ass. She is pro 2A or so she said to me at a gunshow. Thanks CaptainPooby. I will post in the Florida hometown forum just what you said.

I have posted in the hometown forum under Florida requesting people to join a meeting with Congresswoman Ginny Brown Waite concerning the BATFE violation of Federal law and their abuse of power against Akins Group Inc and their product the Akins Accelerator which the 2006-02 BATFE ruling illegally banned. Please read the post, post back or e mail me that you will attend. My phone number and e mail are both at that post. Join me and let our congresswoman hear our voices.