search
top

Court Rules Against Akins

Looks like the District Court agreed the Akins accelerator is a machine gun.  Dave Hardy has the details.

5 Responses to “Court Rules Against Akins”

  1. Mike Gordon says:

    What is totally distressing about this ruling and the original BATF rule change is that the laws means nothing except what the enforcers of the law says it means on any given day. Today the Akins accelerator is reclassified as an NFA weapon and tomorrow your Glock 19 is reclassified as having no sporting use. Just wait.

  2. I understand NFA says:

    I read the district court Judge’s opinion. He just ignored everything illegal the ATF did. He ignored that the ATF did not do a proposed notice of rule change nor gave any time for public comments or a hearing. He ignored congressional NFA law and just rubber stamped everything the ATF said and completely ignored the plaintiff’s accusations entirely. It is obvious this was an anti gun judge who didn’t like what the inventor had created and didn’t want this to be heard in court, so he granted the ATF’s motion to dismiss so it would not be able to be heard in court.

    I understand they are appealing.

  3. Sebastian says:

    What did the ATF do that was illegal? We’re talking about a determination here, not a change in the Code of Federal Regulations, which requires them to go through the rulemaking process. This should be appealed, but the crux of the case is going to hinge on what “single action of the trigger” means. ATF’s problem in this case is that they first determined it was not a machine gun, then decided to change their minds. It’s unfair, and smacks of bureaucratic incompetence, but it’s not illegal.

  4. I understand NFA says:

    What the ATF did that was illegal was not only their ignoring “single function of the trigger” and making up their own ruling that single function of the trigger equates to single function of the trigger finger. What else they did that was illegal, was to not post any notice of a proposed rule change as is required by federal law. The judge completely ignored that.

    The crux of the case is not going to hinge on what “single action of the trigger” means, but what “single FUNCTION of the trigger means”. Federal NFA law says “FUNCTION”.

    What the ATF has done IS illegal. But unfortunately when the government does something that is illegal i.e. (contrary to congressional federal NFA law), there is no accountability. If you or I do the same thing, we go to jail or prison.

  5. Sebastian says:

    But they didn’t change any rule. You’re confusing an ATF determination with a change in the Code of Federal Regulations. The latter is the only thing that requires going through the rule making process.

    Sorry I got my words mixed up there, but a “single function of the trigger” I think means exactly that. ATF claims it means a single function of the trigger finger. Both are reasonable interpretations of the law. That’s why we have courts, to sort this stuff out. I’d like to see Akins prevail here, but this is why we have courts. Whether what ATF’s interpretation of the law is correct is for the courts to determine. So far the courts seem to be agreeing with ATF. Maybe that will change on appeal. But this is how the system works.

top