As an FFL holder, I find it amazing that the device even passed ATF scrutiny the first time.
It didn't. The sample he submitted was legel in its operation because it broke while being tested, rendering into a condition that only allowed single pull/single fire. The sample was technically legal, but only because it wasn't working properly when tested.
If you read the letter from the ATF they very specifically state that their opinion was based
solely upon the actual operation of the faulty sample, not on the overal premise of operation. Then they go on to reiterate the definition of machine gun (several times, if memory serves). It's glaringly obvious what they were saying, at least to those who actually read the letter for what it is.
Akins misread that letter and presumed it to mean the device as a concept was legel. The letter actually said that the device in it's present operating state (i.e. faulty) was legal. Akins junkies continue to espouse something in the letter that isn't there.
Mods, please. This gets hashed out
ad nauseum at least a couple times a month over on THR. Can we kill this now?
Brad