TBO.com - Tampa Bay Online
Pasco Marksman's Invention Leads Him To Ruin
Tribune photo by Andy Jones
Bill Akins describes how his Akins Accelerator operates when a rifle is attached. The patented device, which allows target shooters to convert a rifle into a simulated fully automatic weapon, has been declared a machine gun by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
ADVERTISEMENT
Published: December 18, 2007
Updated: 12/21/2007 04:06 pm
HUDSON - It was a simple idea, with big potential.
For years, marksmen have been using a technique called bump firing, shooting a semiautomatic rifle from the hip and allowing the weapon's recoil to pull the trigger.
With federal regulations keeping fully automatic weapons out of their hands, it was one of the few ways for firearm enthusiasts to enjoy the thrill of firing a machine gun.
If there was only a way to simulate that action, Bill Akins wondered, by creating a device that mechanized the recoil resistance to fire more rapid, and accurate, bursts of bullets.
Thus, the Akins Accelerator was born.
Akins, 54, is an expert marksman, ex-Marine, Elvis impersonator, seventh-generation Floridian and member of the National Rifle Association.
The Hudson man spent nearly a decade designing his Accelerator. He got a patent for his invention. Then he poured his life savings into marketing and producing it for distribution.
In the era of gun control laws, the device promised to revolutionize target shooting.
"They were selling like hotcakes," Akins said. "We were truly amazed by the response."
That was until the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives banned the Accelerator — two years after approving it.
To the ATF, the mechanism is an illegal converter kit that, if it fell into the wrong hands, could turn a run-of the-mill target rifle into a 700-round-per-minute killing machine.
Under the threat of imprisonment, officials ordered Akins to cease production, turn over the recoil springs from his existing stock and hand over his customer list.
And they didn't give him a dime in return.
More than five years later, Akins is teetering on the verge of bankruptcy.
His business partner has severed ties with his company. His investors have bailed. He has a warehouse in Oregon filled with more than $750,000 worth of useless stock. His reputation has been sullied by trade publications that once praised his invention.
He can't afford to hire a lawyer to challenge the ATF's ruling.
"They've destroyed my dream," Akins said. "Eleven years of my life, gone like that."
ATF officials stand behind their decision to outlaw the Akins Accelerator.
Drew Wade, an agency spokesman in Washington, said the ATF initially approved the device after test firing a prototype that Akins sent them in 2003.
Records indicate the prototype malfunctioned when it was tested and analyzed by a senior technician from the ATF's Firearms Technology Branch, according to Wade. But the agency approved the Accelerator anyway, saying in a letter that it did not meet the criteria for a machine gun and, as a concept, was allowable under federal law.
"FTB has concluded that your submitted device is not designed and intended for use in converting a weapon into a machine gun," Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms officials wrote in a letter dated Aug. 23, 2005.
Wade said the agency reversed its position after someone who bought a fully functioning Accelerator requested another test firing.
And this time, he said, the mechanism worked.
Shortly after, federal regulators issued a new ruling: The Akins Accelerator is prohibited under the National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act of 1968.
The stop-production order came in an ATF letter dated Nov. 22, 2006. Besides mailing in all recoil springs in stock and his customer list, the agency demanded Akins send an affidavit to each customer to account for all the devices sold. The recipients had to sign the document and return it to the ATF with the removed springs.
Wade wouldn't comment on Akins' contention that the ATF erred in its decision-making.
"That's the bottom line is that we believe it's a machine gun," the spokesman said. "End of story."
Akins questions that rationale.
He cites sections of the 1968 gun control act that define a machine gun as any "weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger."
"That's not what the Akins Accelerator does," he said. "It isn't a gun. It isn't a machine gun. It's an accessory; that's all it is. These guys are making it up as they go along."
Officials from the NRA and the National Sports Shooting Association, chief advocates for gun ownership in the country, weren't willing to comment on Akins' dilemma.
"We just don't know enough about it," said Ted Novin, the shooting association's president.
Before he patented the Accelerator, Akins did his homework.
He consulted lawyers such as James H. Jeffries III, who represented the NRA in high-profile lawsuits against the federal government, and sought a legal opinion from the ATF's Firearms Technology Branch.
They all felt that it was permissible under federal law.
"I wouldn't have invested millions of dollars on this if I knew it wasn't legal," Akins said.
Bringing his product to the marketplace, he established the Akins Group Inc., took out bank loans and a second mortgage on his home to fund production and began advertising in Shotgun News and other firearms publications.
The Accelerators, made of injection molded plastic, sold for about $1,000 apiece. They came in a small box with tools and instructions on how to attach the device to a semiautomatic rifle.
Similar to a Hellfire — which attaches to the trigger guard and already is on the market — the Accelerator was based on the practice of bump firing, or shooting a semiautomatic rifle from the hip and allowing the weapon's recoil to pull the trigger.
Once the trigger is pulled, the Accelerator's spring mechanism takes over and the trigger reciprocates at high speed, using recoil resistance to imitate automatic fire.
Most of the Accelerators were made for a Ruger 10/22, but Akins intended to make them for other rifles.
Overnight, the buzz about the Accelerator spread across the Internet.
"This thing is cool," one buyer gushed in a sporting chat room. "I can't believe it's legal."
But in 2006, several months after full production began, the ATF reversed its original ruling, outlawing the device and leaving Akins with a worthless product.
Akins wrote to the ATF, asking for clarification.
What followed was a flurry of vague and often contradictory correspondence that never fully explained why the federal regulators changed their position, Akins said.
"I wanted to explode," he recalled. "I started calling everyone I know, looking for help."
The NRA understood his dilemma, a spokesman told him, but didn't have a dog in the fight.
He turned to several pro-gun Republicans in Congress. Staff members promised someone would look into it.
"They said they couldn't do anything," Akins said. "Their hands are tied."
At the very least, he hoped to recover some of the money — his own and investors' — which he estimates at several million dollars.
"I don't understand how the federal government could come into my life like this, destroy my business and not offer compensation," Akins said. "We did everything by the books."
The man behind the Akins Accelerator has toured the country impersonating Elvis onstage. He and his wife, Jeannie, live in a modest home, on 2 acres along a winding road, in a rural corner of west Pasco County where you still can see the stars at night.
"I haven't made a lot of money over the years," Akins said. "But I've done alright for myself."
He considers himself a patriot and a rugged individualist, in the Jeffersonian tradition.
He is an unflinching defender of the Second Amendment and a 30-year member of the NRA who learned to appreciate guns as a kid hunting rabbits in rural Florida.
He joined the Marine Corps at the height of the Vietnam War.
He has voted Republican his entire life, twice for George W. Bush.
And he loves his country.
"I was brought up to believe in America, in the principles of right and wrong," Akins said. "My boyhood heroes were John Wayne and Roy Rogers. I was a child of the 1950s."
That's why his ongoing feud with the federal government and the lack of backup for his cause have shaken him to the core.
He cites the Ruby Ridge shootings and the Branch Davidian siege by ATF agents in Waco, Texas, as examples of how the government crushes dissent.
He wonders if they will come for him, too.
"They're a bunch of jack-booted thugs," he fumed. "I wouldn't put it past them."
He also said he feels betrayed by the pro-gun lobby.
A few weeks ago, the NRA sent him a membership renewal. Akins stared at the one-page letter for a while. He sighed.
"I couldn't bring myself to renew it," he said. "What's the point, right?"
---Logo TBO---
Keyword: Rifleman, to see a video demonstration of the Akins Accelerator to judge for yourself whether it turns a rifle into a machine gun.
Reporter Christian M. Wade can be reached at (727) 815-1082 or cwade@tampatrib.com.
Post a comment
(Requires free registration.)
* Keep it clean
* Respect others
* Don't hate
* Don't use language you wouldn't use with your mom
* Use "Report Inappropriate Comments" link when necessary
* See Member Agreement for details
TBO.com - Tampa Bay Online Member Agreement | Privacy Statement | Work With Us
Reader Comments
Posted by ( fiorilli ) on December 18, 2007 at 4:07 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Should Bill Akins be allowed to sell his new product? Tell us what you think.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( LatinaLady ) on December 18, 2007 at 4:23 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
No one NEEDS to fire that many rounds that quickly out of combat situations. They should have banned it the first time around. I'm all for the right to bear arms, but within reason. This seems over the top to me and unnecessary.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Pepo ) on December 18, 2007 at 4:24 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
NO--but perhaps the ATF could have compensated him somehow.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Desmo ) on December 18, 2007 at 4:27 p.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by ( Keira ) on December 18, 2007 at 4:35 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Seems to me the government owes this man some form of compensation. If they approved it and then changed their minds, it's their mistake - not his. Hopefully, this guy will get a lawyer to take on the case. While I hate to see taxpayer dollars caught up in a mess like this, it's not like they're spending our money on worthwhile causes anyway.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( kleanthisa ) on December 18, 2007 at 4:44 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Typical government BS - the left hand has no idea what the right hand does. And it's shielded from stupidity when something goes wrong. We are expected to be a country governed by laws - how can we be when we read and understand and interpret them one way, the correct way, and Goliath comes along and then says that they won't play by the rules. I've seen it myself time and time again - we play fair and the government sticks it to us because we cannot afford the dog in the fight and it's too complicated to do otherwise. But this is an expected response because our laws are so complicated and convoluted sometimes that even the supremes have a hard time understanding them. I feel for this guy - I can sympathize with him - we've over complicated our lives. And to the anti-gunners, my message before you go off on my statements is this - this device was being designed for enthusiasts not criminals - the criminals already have automatic weapons. Understand what you stand for not what you stand under.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( kimmypooh ) on December 18, 2007 at 4:48 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Sounds like he's getting crapped and stomped on. He should be allowed to sell his product just like they sell guns. Who ever buys it has to get a permit, backgorund check and so on. If not he can always sell them to 3rd world countries....just kidding about that but he is getting screwed big time!
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( pasco_pete ) on December 18, 2007 at 5:02 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
I feel bad for the guy, but he developed something that he had to realize would be borderline legal. If you have to go to lawyers to determine whether or not your product could slip through the legal mumbo-jumbo...then you know full well that your product is borderline.
And using that "enthusiast" rationale is childish. There is no good reason for a non-military/non-law enforcement person to own an automatic weapon. And I am pro-gun...in case you wondered.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( epodec ) on December 18, 2007 at 5:04 p.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by ( spinj6m ) on December 18, 2007 at 5:06 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
There is no need for this invention in everyday life. The government did a good thing by outlawing this. It's just to bad they had to screw this guy over before figuring out the right thing to do.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( thatguyfl82 ) on December 18, 2007 at 5:20 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
I gree with SpinJ. This def would be bad to have out in a society where gun violence has risen. The poor guy obviously had a great invention and it was a good business idea and was Legal at the Time. The Govt is both right on their decision and wrong for the way they handled it.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( IB6UB9 ) on December 18, 2007 at 5:29 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Haben Sie Liebe Amerika! Der amerikanische Traum ist nicht ebenso klar, wie jeder denkt. Dieser Kerl könnte Millionen in Deutschland mit dieser Erfindung gemacht haben. Nur ein Dummkopf würde solch einen Artikel in den Zuständen verfertigen und annehmen, wohlhabend zu werden.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( TW ) on December 18, 2007 at 5:36 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
I agree with epodec besides criminals are going to do what they will but restricting our constitutional right makes no sense we have the right to protect ourselves period. I don't even like guns but this man went through every proper channel to get this approved for sale and it was so you either leave it on the shelves or you compensate him for you're "error" it's that simple!
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Desmo ) on December 18, 2007 at 5:45 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
The government pay the man for their mistake???? Surely you jest.
*sarcasm intended
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Kublai88 ) on December 18, 2007 at 6 p.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by ( Desmo ) on December 18, 2007 at 6:10 p.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by ( gator92 ) on December 18, 2007 at 6:53 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
This figures! First the ATF says his device is fine, then they come back two years later and say it isn't! They should compensate this guy for his losses. That is only fair. Just a typical big government bureaucracy screwing up and making an individual who jumped through all their hoops pay for it.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( MyNameIsJob ) on December 18, 2007 at 6:54 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
i'm just going to repost a comment from the 3rd grader bringing a gun to school comment.
Oh how we misconstrue the right to bear arms. Did we forget that when that amendment was put in place which was back in 1791 (it's actually carried over from 1181.) when we had a population of around 4 million people as opposed to our population of 302 million people today. That being said, it originally read "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.". Simply stated, we didn't have a police force or a military which the government pretty much expected (rather than make it a law like in England.) that every able bodied male between 15 and 50 preserve our freedom if infringed upon. Today we've lost touch with that, well the "kill em all and let god sort em out republican types" have lost touch with that, so yeah, if you wanna hold onto that law then how about you buy a plane ticket to Iraq and preserve our freedom, atleast an 11 year old kid won't shoot some other kid since the guns and bill of rights will be used in the manner they are intended for elsewhere and out of his hands. Same goes for this guy, if guns were respected and used as our forefathers intended then he'd have his money still, and there would be alot of gun owners hanging around a desert.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( MyNameIsJob ) on December 18, 2007 at 7:58 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
TheFed, you got me! I didn't serve the country, sure i've owned guns, I don't any longer as I don't need it, and the entire time I did, I didn't sit there sucking the life out of a right thats been ran through the "telephone game" if you know what I mean. I guess I should have pointed out that the comment was directed to the hardcore gun-toting pro NRA person who get's ticked they got arrested for having a fully automatic rifle (not related to this story since it's not even a gun they are talking about.) just because they had a right to have a gun because some guys who felt that people should have them because the population of the united states at that time was only a fraction the size of Englands, which they had just recently broken free from and were the main threat to the colonies... I'm not an expert, I just stayed awake in American History and got some of a college education and I like to know things, be it useless or productive. And thanks, you claiming that I make myself out to be an "expert" to more common knowledge of the history of the US than what is required to be a US citizen if you have not been naturalized just proves to me that I am right in some opinions of formed about some residents of this country.
So you continue taking advantage and bending the constitution and what our forefathers have fought and died for only to further make this country look more ridiculous than our current president could ever achieve.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( IB6UB9 ) on December 18, 2007 at 8:36 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Just proving a point here today folks and something I pointed out to TBO staff late last week. Thanks for proving my point today. Maybe we can get TBO to write a story about all of you in the end. Do you know that all of our posts are public information available through many search engines? What if someone compiled a database of all of the regular trolls' posts and published them to a web site of which would profile every single one of you without the cloak? I am sure you would all be shocked to see your real contact information posted on such a web site. You can't expect to bash people 'anonymously' as you so state in your posts without paying the consequences in the end, do you? You all would be shocked to know who posts on this web site on a regular basis. A few tricks in Google will show you the true identity of most of the regular posters on here. IP Addresses translate to businesses which translate to workers which translate to all of you.
Keep up the flame wars because this 'what if' could become a reality when someone posts your true identities and professions online. I am sure you will have some explaining to do. Especially all of the attorneys, judges, LEOs, teachers, etc who post on here in such an open and free fashion.
Brrrrrr!! Gives me goose bumps! How about you?
Stay tuned!
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( cbrick ) on December 18, 2007 at 10:12 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Hey spinj6m. who are you 2 say there is no need 4 this in everyday life. so I guess we dont need dvd players,or model airplanes,or boats,fishing poles etc. I dont like soccer, but I'm not looking 2 ban it worldwide. Need is not the issue here. Did we not learn anything from Larry Flynt's court battles. Land of the free? Hardly.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Bill_Akins ) on December 18, 2007 at 11:36 p.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by ( jimt ) on December 19, 2007 at 12:36 a.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by ( cbrick ) on December 19, 2007 at 2:49 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
well said, jimt. Bravo!
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Bill_Akins ) on December 19, 2007 at 3:42 a.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by ( Dawnnblondee ) on December 19, 2007 at 8:18 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
I have known Bill Akins personally for over 10 years. He is a hard working God
fearing and freedom loving person.
Although I do not like guns myself, I feel people should be able to own them. Afterall, the criminals will get them no matter what the laws are.
I feel the NRA has abandoned Bill and the government owes him compensation for resending its original decision to approve his invention.
I hope the NRA will put its money where its mouth is and stand by Bill. If it doesn't I bet they will lose support of alot of their members.
I know Bill will come out on top, being such a good guy he is already a winner in my book!
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( MajorMike ) on December 19, 2007 at 9:34 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Several posters (such as LatinLady and spinj6m) have remarked that there is no need for this product. Just as there is no "need" for fashion clothing, any car other than a "Model T", flat-screen TVs, the Internet, or any of the millions of things we have because we want them. Do you want a capricious, unelected state or Federal bureaucrat to unilaterally decide what you "need" or that previously legal things are now banned?
Do you want a Federal bureaucrat to ban your hybrid car due to the outrageous damage they do to the environment? Or to ban fashion clothing?
As to whether or not Mr. Akins should have expected this or not, it is a sad comment on how Americans have become subservient to the capricious nature of unelected Federal bureaucrats making regulatory law at whim. We are supposed to have a limited representative government - a Federal republic bound by a Constitution, not an all-powerful, unelected bureaucracy that rules us by unopposable fiat and the threat of ruination.
Its also sad that many posters confuse their law-abiding, peaceful neighbors and their pursuit of legal past times with the criminal (i.e., non-law abiding) thug subculture where most violent crimes are commited. Guns, which are inanimate objects, do not pose any threat to society. It is the criminal misuse of objects (such as knives, bats, cars, chains, sharp pencils, etc.) by CRIMINALS which pose a threat to society.
Machine guns manufactured before 1986 are fully legal for non-criminal US citizen Floridians (as well as residents in many other states) to own, under Federal and State law, as long as the transfer is approved by the ATF and the $200 tax paid. They are expensive "rich man" toys. Criminals get them smuggled in with drugs (or take them from the police) and break the law - what a shocking concept!
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( SOT ) on December 19, 2007 at 11:14 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
This the same ATF that ruled that a shoestring was a machine gun, what exactly should we expect? Mr.Akins should be allowed to sue not only the ATF but also those people who made the decision, personally.
Even if the prototype did not work, the CONCEPT was approved...those FTB people should be sued, fired, and prosecuted for fraud. They have been collecting pay and benefits from the government under the auspice of being an "expert" and don't have a clue.
If they approved it in the first place they were wrong, considering the second ruling. If they countered the original approval and were right to approve it in the first place, they are wrong now. In either case their "expertise" is suspect.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( HistoricArms ) on December 19, 2007 at 11:31 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
I have experienced first hand Mr. Sullivans leadership of the ATF. He is vindictive, and will have his people fudge the evidence in court just to make a case. {look it up, US v. Kwan, 9th Circ.}.
I have had armed audits, and visits, not to mention, been penalized by Mr. Sullivan for having the Babylonian indecency to tell Federal juries that ATF has no written testing program for firearms evidence in Federal Court. They actually admitted it to Congress back in 05.
"Maximum Mike Sullivan" was informed over a year ago, instead of cleaning up the mess he opted to cover it up! Faking evidence in Federal Court, If you think bullet testing was bad, look at how ATF tests the rest of the gun! The ATF documented that a 14 inch shoe string was a machinegun. This document has been introduced as evidence in Federal Court more than once.
Just prior to Mr. Bill Akins "redetermination", I was "got" in the same way. A product of mine that was determined to be lawful, then was later [10 months after production] declared "illegal". I was being punished for showing up for the defense in a Federal court case.
The problem is systemic at ATF, not isolated. Because ATF only infringes on firearms owners, and members of the firearms industry, most media will not say a word as the actions of the ATF are inline with their [liberal] beliefs.
The amount of documented evidence of ATF outrageous behavior is rather substantial if one can work "Google".
Bill, How can I help?
Len Savage
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( MajorMike ) on December 19, 2007 at 11:43 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
SOT, thanks for bring up the shoestring.
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, your omnipotent Federal bureaucracy's most omnipotent and least accountable agency, the vaunted Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, did, in fact, determine that a common shoestring was (an remains), in fact, a "machine gun" in and of its self. No ruling yet as to whether or not simple twine, string or cord is also.
Based on that, anyone that owns a semiautomatic rifle (like a Ruger 10/22, Remington 66, Browning .22, etc.) and owns shoes with post-1986 shoestrings (or has not registered his or her pre-1986 transferable shoestrings) is an evil illegal machine gun owning criminal!
And why haven't we banned shoestrings (and twine, string, cord)?
I've destroyed all my shoestrings, boot strings, twine, string, cord,, etc. Imagine if I had novelty "Complaint Department" paperweights?
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Bill_Akins ) on December 19, 2007 at 12:03 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Dear Len Savage.
Please give me a call at my phone # of (727) 819-8352 or e mail me at Akins_Bill@yahoo.com
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( KCrane ) on December 19, 2007 at 12:40 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
I am an Akins customer and have a $1200 stock sitting in my closet. I was unaware that "Akins also refunded his customers' money". I have not received a refund.
William, I am very sorry for what the BATFE was done to your investment. We all know it is wrong.
Ken
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( KCrane ) on December 19, 2007 at 1:04 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Ops, I just read Akins correction that refunds were not offered.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( homeuser ) on December 20, 2007 at 1:41 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
I'd like to see the ATF documentation of their first approval(s) as well as the subsequent reversal that used to be hosted at the firefaster.com web site. Is it posted anywhere - or can anybody mail them to me? Thanks.
homeuser at gmail dot com
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( frankie_b ) on December 22, 2007 at 3:35 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
He made one dumb mistake! He should have gotten a patent on it then SELL it to the military. He's a brillaint engineer but a poor business man. Why didn't he think of this?
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( eckrph ) on December 28, 2007 at 11:51 p.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)