Thursday, May 29, 2008

Akins files 2nd case against BATFE

Bill Akins recently posted an update on Gunsnet detailing his current legal efforts. If you’re unaware of the issue in question – Mr. Akins is the inventor of the Akins Accelerator. Basically the Accelerator is a replacement stock for a Ruger 10/22 that permits controlled bump firing. This design was initially approved by the BATFE for sale. Akins went ahead with production plans, but then the BATFE reversed its decision claiming that the Akins Accelerator turned the Ruger 10/22 into a machine gun. Unfortunately, the BATFE has a history of this sort of arbitrary and capricious decision making – which can turn a law-abiding citizen into a “felon” overnight. In response Akins has now filed a second suit against the BATFE. The first in DC and the second in Florida Federal Court.

Bill states:

“In addition to the case I have filed in the Federal court of claims in Wash D.C., my attorney has now filed another case in Florida federal district court. Same issue. BATFE arbitrarily declaring the Akins Accelerator rifle stock to be a machine gun. My attorney has now filed two pending federal court cases filed at the same time against the BATFE regarding this issue.

“This is to inform the public and former customers that as a private individual and successor in interest to Akins Group Inc., I am still fighting for their rights to own a fully functioning Akins Accelerator.

“I cannot elaborate on the particulars of either of the cases on advice of my attorney.”


Bill also included a link to the complaint – here’s the summary

“This action seeks a declaratory judgment that a certain decision of the United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“BATFE”), was arbitrary, capricious, without factual support and contrary to law, together with an appropriate injunction. In the alternative, Plaintiff seeks a declaration that 26 U.S.C.§ 5845(b) is unconstitutional on its face and as applied to Plaintiff, with an appropriate injunction.”

Here’s the demand for relief:

1. A declaration that the Akins Accelerator is not a machine gun.
2. An injunction prohibiting Defendant from treating the Akins Accelerator as a machine gun for any purpose.
3. In the alternative, a declaration that 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b) is unconstitutionally vague on its face and as applied to Plaintiff.
4. In the alternative, an injunction prohibiting Defendant from applying 26 U.S.C. 5845(b) so as to treat the Akins Accelerator as a machine gun.
5. Costs of bringing and maintaining this action, including attorney’s fees.
6. Any other relief the Court deems proper.


I wish him the best of luck, and will continue to update you on the case as I get more information.

Until next time!!!

No comments: