BATFE Antics...

[280plus]

Got this in the email, thought I'd pass it along:

Time To Rein In The BATFE
-- Please ask George Bush to take the agency to the woodshed

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

Thursday, February 22, 2007


The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has
been on a tear under the administration of Attorney General Alberto
Gonzalez.

Manufacturers of various products have been told in writing that
their products are not a firearm and that they can be marketed
outside the federal paperwork system for selling firearms. Then,
months or years later, BATFE sends another letter reversing the first
determination.

The Congressional Research Service found in 2005 (ATF Firearms
Procedures) that BATFE has no written procedures for determining what
is a firearm. The "process" is arbitrary, and the string of
reversals in recent months shows how capricious a BATFE determination
is.

Historic Arms received a letter of determination in 1995 that its
BM-3000 was not a firearm. Indeed, Historic Arms had designed the
product as an accessory for a machine gun to fire different kinds of
ammunition than the gun had originally been designed to fire. For 11
years, the company manufactured their product without incident. But
in 1996, Historic Arms received a second letter determining that the
product was actually a machine gun!

As in other cases, BATFE wanted all the company's products sent to
Washington along with all the names of the customers who had
purchased the item.

In 2004, the BATFE determined that the Akins Accelerator was a "non
firearm" accessory that allowed a shooter to bump fire a semi-auto
and considerably increase the rate of fire. This year, BATFE has
determined that the trigger finger which is bumping the trigger is
itself a machine gun! Again, send in all the product and customer
names.

For years, Centerfire Systems had a parts kit that it sold for
machine guns. Now, six years later, BATFE has reversed itself on
this company. And, the Bureau has put Centerfire Systems through the
same drill -- send in their products and their customer lists.

In a related matter involving the definition of what makes a gun a
"gun," KT Ordnance was raided by BATFE last year and its products
were confiscated. What were the dangerous items? A parts kit for
customers to legally make their own (unregistered) firearm. Again,
BATFE wanted the customer list.

The capricious activities by the BATFE wreck economic chaos on these
companies, in addition to violating both theirs and their customers'
rights protected by the Second Amendment.

It is time for the BATFE to put their procedures for determining what
is a firearm, and what is a machine gun, in writing.

This latest bait and switch is but another backdoor effort on the
part of the federal government to attack gun ownership. This time
the attack is on manufacturers.

ACTION: Please contact Pres. Bush. If we do not restrain BATFE now,
they will do immeasurable damage to the firearms industry in the
United States.

You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send the President the
pre-written message below. You can also contact the President via
telephone:

Comments:    202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
FAX:         202-456-2461


---- Pre-written letter ----

Dear President Bush,

I am outraged that BATFE still has no written procedures for
determining what is a firearm, and what is a machine gun. It has now
been two years since the publication of ATF Firearms Procedures by
the Congressional Research Service when they revealed that Firearms
Technology Branch has no written procedures.

The Bureau has been in existence for over 30 years. How many
prosecutions have put gun owners and manufacturers in jail based on
shifting, arbitrary and capricious "expert" testimony in
court which
is not based on written procedures?

When is the BATFE going to publish proposed written procedures for
the public to comment on them? When is the Justice Department going
to review the conviction of every gun owner and manufacturer where a
BATFE "expert" testified against him?

Please have the BATFE take action on these problems right away.

Sincerely,


****************************

... And Then There Was Rosie

What to do about loud, obnoxiously anti-gun "celebrities"
like Rosie
O'Donnell? Why, make an example of them... on a t-shirt, of course.

Check out the best-selling "Rosie" t-shirt, featuring a GOA
logo and
the message:

If guns kill people, then...
-- pencils miss spel words.
-- cars make people drive drunk.
-- spoons made Rosie O'Donnell fat.

The obverse has a bold gun rights statement, also. Only $15.50 at
http://www.gunowners.org/merchandise.htm (plus shipping and
handling).

[Gewehr98]

IMHO, the Akins Accelerator slipped through the cracks to begin with. 

The bonehead manufacturer gambled that his "unitized bump-fire system in a stock" would not garner scrutiny, and he lost.

I don't necessarily agree with the NFA act of '34, nor the end of new production machine guns for retail in '86, but you cannot simply paint white stripes on a black horse and call it a zebra - something that Akins did with his spring-operated machine gun.  In simplest terms, with a single pull of the trigger, it continues to fire multiple shots until empty.  That constitutes a machine gun in BATF eyes, although why they didn't catch it the first time remains a mystery. If other folks have to abide by such onerous restrictions to have a machine gun, why doesn't the maker of the Akins Accelerator?

How does this gizmo contrast with me taking my M1 Garand or SLR-95 and bump-firing it?  Instead of a trick stock that allows the action to reciprocate under recoil, and a spring that returns it automatically after each cycle, I'm physically holding the firearm forward against the trigger and recoil, with just enough pressure to trip the sear with each recoil cycle.  There's no modification to the gun, just a fast trigger reset as the off hand pulls the firearm forward against the trigger finger. I would imagine basically any semi-auto rifle could, with enough practice, be made to bump-fire.  Having made my SLR-95 bump-fire once, it has limited value, namely in converting money to noise while patterning lead downrange.  If that's your cup of tea, fine, but truthfully, if you want a real machine gun, ante up, get your NFA paperwork done, and go buy one.   

More here:

http://www.atf.gov/alcohol/info/revrule/rules/atfruling_2006-2.pdf



 

[280plus]

I've seen bump fire done by holding an sks at the hip with the trigger hand thumb around a beltloop, I can't remember exactly how it worked but it did.

[Gewehr98]

Bump-firing does indeed work. Sometime I'll get the camcorder running, head out to the quarry, and rip through a 75-round drum with my SAR-1 and post the video on my blog.

But I cannot fault the BATF on their reversal ruling of the Akins Accelerator.  It's a conversion to make a semi-auto firearm shoot full-auto, no different than a Lightning Link or AutoSear in an AR-15, asshattery notwithstanding.

 

[280plus]

Yup, I see what you're saying...

[mfree]

And I've bump-fired a marlin 60 from the hip. Well, in little jumps and spurts anyways, kind of touchy

Does that make me a machine gun?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

And I've bump-fired a marlin 60 from the hip. Well, in little jumps and spurts anyways, kind of touchy

Does that make me a machine gun?

No.

"Machine gun" means you get multiple shots from a single trigger pull.  When you bump fire a gun you only get one round fired per trigger pull.  You're just pulling the trigger in an unusual way, a way that allows you to pull the trigger several times in a very short period of time.

It's all academic anyway, as bump firing is useless for anything except making noise and wasting money.  You can't aim a gun when you bump fire it.  You can't hardly aim when you're playing with those goofy contraptions like the Atkins Accelerator, either.

[Standing Wolf]

Where does it say all that !@#$%^&*! in the Second Amendment?

[Gewehr98]

I was waiting for somebody to come along and parrot that.

The Second Amendment doesn't specifically state you cannot have a 16-inch gun from the battleship U.S.S. New Jersey, but guess what - you can't, and I doubt anybody is tilting at that particular windmill.

The Second Amendment doesn't specifically state you cannot gather enough fissile Pu239 to make a home defense nuke, but guess what - you can't, and again, I don't see much outrage over it.

Don't like it?  Vote those who would make or support restrictive gun laws out of office, and vote in those who would let you have a 2007-model MG-42 as your truck gun. 

In the meantime, fill out your NFA paperwork like I did, have the judge sign it, and then spend the shekels for your choice of gun with either the go-fast switch, short barrel, suppressor, or all of the above.  Although my Krinkov is only semi-auto...

[WeedWhacker]

The Second Amendment doesn't specifically state you cannot have a 16-inch gun  [...] enough fissile Pu239 to make a home defense nuke [nor a] MG-42 as your truck gun.

I can't *stand* that mindset. Remind me, what does the Tenth Amendment say again?

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people."

Oh, right. All powers not delegated are reserved, kept, owned by the States or the people. (At a bare minimum) if your state has no law restricting any of the above, then We, the People have the right to own anything we please, including RP-7 RPG launchers and ammo, Stinger missiles and launchers, etc. The Constitution grants us NO rights - we already have them. What the Constitution does do is say, hey, feds! Keep your damn hands off these things here!

[HankB]

The Second Amendment doesn't specifically state you cannot have a 16-inch gun from the battleship U.S.S. New Jersey, but guess what - you can't, and I doubt anybody is tilting at that particular windmill.

Hmmm . . . if you used SOLID rather than explosive projectiles, would battleship guns actually be illegal, seeing as the projectile and propellent are separate?

Considering their age, would they fall into the C&R category?

[WeedWhacker]

Hmmm . . . if you used SOLID rather than explosive projectiles, would battleship guns actually be illegal, seeing as the projectile and propellent are separate?

I know this wasn't your question, specifically, but if you read about the "letters of marquee" the US issued, it will become quite clear that the practical application of the Constitution is completely at peace with the notion that private individuals can own fully-armed battleships, and by logical extension, tanks, aircraft, etc.

[The Rabbi]

The gov't obviously has powers not enumerated in the Constitution.  Con Law is also a little more complicated that picking up a piece of paper and reading a paragraph.

[Gewehr98]

Rabbi speaks true.

Good luck on that aircraft carrier in your back yard thing, WeedWhacker.  Let us know how your efforts turn out, ok? 

[Matthew Carberry]

C'mon Gewehr, no one is talking about keeping an aircraft carrier in your backyard. 

It would undoubtedly violate zoning ordinances and kill your grass.

Now keeping one in a slip down at the marina... 

[Gewehr98]

Yeah, but, as WeedWhacker would be quick to point out, just where in the Constitution do zoning ordinances fit in? They violate my 10th amendment rights, dagnabbit! 

Having left the PRK a few years back with all the guns I own that are now illegal there, I'm very much aware of what pain "The State" can inflict, too...

[WeedWhacker]

I'm aware Rabbi likes to yank peoples' chains, but this one is easy to address (though I'd already done so with my first post):

The gov't obviously has powers not enumerated in the Constitution.  Con Law is also a little more complicated that picking up a piece of paper and reading a paragraph.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people."

Further emphesized by:

(one of many sources) Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently, the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void.

So, in essence, yes, con law is as simple as reading a paragraph. Unless, of course, by "powers not enumerated", you mean the gov't has lots of guns and lots of judges with which to make unconstitutional rulings, sure.

[tyme]

The Second Amendment doesn't specifically state you cannot have a 16-inch gun from the battleship U.S.S. New Jersey, but guess what - you can't, and I doubt anybody is tilting at that particular windmill.

Plenty of us would tilt at that windmill if we were armed with something more effective than nerf swords.

The Second Amendment doesn't specifically state you cannot gather enough fissile Pu239 to make a home defense nuke, but guess what - you can't, and again, I don't see much outrage over it

My outrage isn't over being prohibited from building nukes, but over way the fed.gov went about prohibiting such activities... by congressional fiat.

Nuclear technology is obviously way different than anything existing in 1789.  Even so, for it to be constitutional, we should have adopted a federal amendment restricting private possession of fissile material the moment we realized what it could do.  Part of the reason for the ever-expanding interpretation of the interstate commerce and general welfare clauses is that whenever our society has stumbled onto major revelations like nuclear chain reactions or space travel or radio waves, we've been unwilling to pass federal amendments to deal with them.  Instead, there's an assumption that Congress can do whatever it wants to restrict those new technologies, often with minimal consultation with people who actually understand those technologies.

In simplest terms, with a single pull of the trigger, it continues to fire multiple shots until empty.  That constitutes a machine gun in BATF eyes, although why they didn't catch it the first time remains a mystery.

There's one conscious decision to pull the trigger, yes, but multiple physical pulls of the trigger.  The trigger has to be moved to fire each round.  It's irrelevant why or how the finger is exerting force to move the trigger.  The way the BATFE used to (and sane people still do) think of a machinegun is as a gun that keeps firing without further motion of the trigger relative to the frame.

[The Rabbi]

I'm aware Rabbi likes to yank peoples' chains, but this one is easy to address (though I'd already done so with my first post):

The gov't obviously has powers not enumerated in the Constitution.  Con Law is also a little more complicated that picking up a piece of paper and reading a paragraph.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people."

Further emphesized by:

(one of many sources) Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently, the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void.

So, in essence, yes, con law is as simple as reading a paragraph. Unless, of course, by "powers not enumerated", you mean the gov't has lots of guns and lots of judges with which to make unconstitutional rulings, sure.

That's why they don't teach Con Law in law schools--all students have to do is read the relevant paragraphs. 

[Gewehr98]

Since it's not mentioned specifically in the Constitution...

Why can't I doink my neighbor's wife and her hottie daughter at will, namely MY will (and pursuit of happiness)?

Why can't I drive through the neighborhood with a 5,000 watt car stereo cranked to ear-bleeding levels?

Why can't I drive my car without insurance in my home state?

Why can't I bounce checks all over the county for high-dollar items?

Why can't I dump stocks before the market closes for the day when a certain friend in the exchange gives me a hot tip?

Why can't I buy beer after 9 PM in my county?

Why did the Kalifornia DOJ come after me to register my AK and AR?

Why did I spend 20+ years flying hairy-assed reconnaissance sorties ferreting out nuclear proliferators enriching uranium to weapons-grade and reprocessing fuel rods for the Pu239, when it's perfectly ok to do so here in the States per the Constitution?

Yeah, it's all there, one just has to read the Constitution.  My pursuit of happiness is being seriously cramped. Anything else not listed specifically on that parchment is not legally binding, and I'm sure if you ask our resident lawyer, El Tejon, he'll back you up 100% on that.   

(I know there's folks who have an alternate view of reality, but c'mon.  Re-fighting the Civil War 150 years after the fact, I can kinda stomach...)

[Matthew Carberry]

Since it's not mentioned specifically in the Constitution...

I know you are being facetious, but, as you know, most of those fall under state civil or criminal codes, or are violations of the regulations of the private stock exchange.

The Federal Constitution is irrelevent.

[The Rabbi]

Not all of them. Regulation of securities and exchange is a Fed thing.
I was think more like eminent domain.

[Gewehr98]

Carebear, you're absolutely correct, I was being totally facetious.  Truthfully, I still have a standing employment offer from the BATF, and my TS/SCI clearance is good through January, 2009.  Were I not just starting my second career as a deputy sheriff, I may very well have taken their offer. Just washed my brain, can't do a darned thing with it... 

[Matthew Carberry]

Doesn't the stock exchange itself forbid its members from engaging in insider trading as a condition for continued membership?

And insider trading would be a tort, which would be covered under contract law right?

Does it "need" Federal regulation?

[The Rabbi]

Maybe, but it is regulated by the SEC, and those are the federal boys.  As I recall the first head of SEC was Joe Kennedy, appointed by Roosevelt on the theory of "set a thief to catch a thief."