Gemini Technologies, Inc., (Gemtech) is a Boise, Idaho based manufacturer of firearms, including NFA weapons. At the time the subject of this article was made Gemtech was a collaboration of three separate designers primarily known for their silencer designs, Dr. Philip H. Dater, Jim Ryan and Gregory S. Latka. Jim Ryan has since left Gemtech to pursue a new business. Gemtech continues as its own entity, with Phil Dater and Greg Latka producing the firm’s products. Silencers are the main product of Gemtech. However they did also design and produce concealable firearms that are as stealthy as their suppressors. One of them is the LDE. While it shares a similar name to the 9mm Parabellum LDE-9 pen gun also made by Gemtech, it is a different design, and considerably smaller.

The Gemtech LDE is a single shot “pen gun”, chambered for .22 long rifle ammunition. It was designed by Jim Ryan as a “Last Ditch Effort” (hence the name) firearm. The gun was originally conceived in the early 1990’s, at the same time as the companion LDES suppressor also made by Gemtech. However the first LDE used a trigger similar to that on the MAC Stinger, and Ryan felt that design wasn’t safe enough for carry while loaded. It was never released. The current trigger, which uses a rotating band to retain and release the cocked firing pin, was inspired by the bolt lock he designed for suppressed Ruger .22 pistols. He feels this design is safe enough for carry while loaded.

The LDE is extremely small, measuring approximately 3 inches in length by 1/2 inch in diameter. Weight is less than two ounces. Constructed entirely out of stainless steel (except the firing pin) it is both weather resistant and sturdy. The entire gun, except the firing pin, was made on CNC machining equipment by Greg Latka. The firing pins were made by hand by Jim Ryan, due to their complicated shape and the need to be made from a steel that will take the required heat treatment. Unlike many pen guns, the LDE has a rifled bore.

Pen gun generally refers to hand fired guns that have a stock in a straight line to the bore, as opposed to having a stock at an angle to the bore, as conventional handguns do. As a pen gun, it is regulated in the U.S.A. as an Any Other Weapon (AOW) by the National Firearms Act (NFA), since it is a concealable firearm that does not fit the ATF definition of a pistol or revolver.

The LDE is meant to be used with a muzzle suppressor. The barrel is threaded 3/8 x 24 tpi for that purpose, and Gemtech makes the LDES and LDES 2 muzzle cans, which are usable on this gun, as well as other .22 rimfire weapons. Even though the LDE was listed in the 1996 catalog, Gemtech decided that the level of care required of the operator in using such a small gun was high enough that they could not market it to the general public, due to legal liability concerns. While the LDES and LDES 2 silencers are offered for sale to anyone who can legally obtain a sound suppressor, the LDE is not offered for sale at this time. Jim Ryan advises that fewer than 12 have been made. He also indicated that he does plan at some point to make a longer version of the gun, which will have a longer body and cocking piece, with a pocket clip and a short ink cartridge for one end, and will resemble a writing pen, although it will not be made by Gemtech, but rather by his own company, Tactical Ordnance and Equipment Corp. The longer version, when available, will be offered for sale to anyone able to obtain an NFA weapon.

How it Works

The cocking piece, which is the rear knurled portion, has a Phillips head screw through it, the head of which retains the firing pin. The firing pin spring is captive on the screw, between the body and firing pin. Retracting the cocking piece retracts the firing pin, against the spring. The trigger is a rotating band on the body of the LDE. When it is rotated while the firing pin is retracted against the spring it catches and holds the firing pin, and when the trigger is rotated the opposite direction, it releases the firing pin. If the gun is loaded, it will then fire. The safety pin is a piece of stiff wire that, when inserted through its hole in the body, will catch the firing pin before it hits the round, should the firing pin fall unintentionally.

How to Use it

As with many AOW’s, using the gun is not intuitive, as it does not have a conventional trigger, or stock. The gun is cocked by first unscrewing the rear cocking piece portion until it is held against the body of the gun by the firing pin spring. This retracts the firing pin about 1/2 of the way, and will prevent an accidental discharge should the cocking piece slip out of the user’s hand while attempting to complete cocking a loaded LDE. Cocking a loaded LDE is not recommended. The cocking piece is then pulled back further against the trigger spring pressure, and when fully retracted, the trigger ring is rotated counter-clockwise until the allen head screw in the trigger ring is in line with the mark engraved on the body. This part of the cocking operation tends to be difficult, as the firing pin spring being compressed is rather strong. Attaching a silencer to the gun will help give the user enough gripping area to fully retract the firing pin while also rotating the trigger ring.

The trigger ring, once in line with the mark on the body, will hold the firing pin in the cocked position. The cocking piece will now stay in the fully retracted position by itself, and should be screwed back into the body. At this point the safety pin may be inserted. The LDE is now ready to be loaded, by unscrewing the barrel, inserting a live cartridge into the chamber, and screwing the barrel back onto the gun. The gun is then fired by rotating the trigger ring section of the gun clockwise about 1/4 turn. The muzzle cap/thread protector must be removed before the gun is fired. If the gun is to be dry fired, a fired case must be in the chamber, or the firing pin will hit the chamber, and score it.

In my testing the LDE never failed to fire a shot, perhaps due in part to the firing pin, which hits the rim at two points, to insure ignition. Accuracy testing was not performed, as the gun has no sights or stock, and is basically a contact range weapon. The bullet went where the gun was pointed, and hit the paper point first. It is quite adequate as a last ditch weapon. Firing the weapon with a suppressor was very pleasant, recoil was very mild. Firing the weapon without any muzzle device was a little harder, while the recoil wasn’t too bad, the small size of the gun made it hard to hold on to under recoil. The unsuppressed report out of the tiny barrel was extremely loud, particularly for a .22 rimfire.

The idea behind the LDE was to create a usable firearm as small as could be done. Gemtech succeeded. It is an extremely small survival weapon. The LDE could be concealed inside a package of cigarettes, if people could unobtrusively carry such an item in these puritan times. One might be better off carrying the LDE loose, or as part of their keychain. Due to its very small production figures, it is also quite a collector’s item.

The 1994 federal ban on making new high capacity magazines for civilian sale has created a new field of endeavor for fertile minds – extending the life of the existing supply of grandfathered magazines.

One such inventor is Scott T. Long of STL Tactical. He has developed a way to preserve the useful life of the Zytel magazine made for the SWD M11/9 9mm Parabellum machine guns and pistol. The same magazine is also used in the SWD M11A1 .380 caliber machine gun.

At a time when a magazine making ban seemed far-fetched, SWD elected to make magazines for their M11/9 guns inexpensive, by using a molded plastic magazine. When the magazines are new they work pretty well. Eventually the plastic feed lips would wear out, the rounds of ammunition would not stay in the magazine, but would pop out the top, and the magazine would be thrown away. Throwing magazines away is no longer an option. While it would be theoretically legal for someone to make replacement magazine bodies for the pre-ban magazines, no one is doing so. There have been a number of ways to deal with this problem. One manufacturer makes replacement magazine wells for these guns, so that they will use STEn magazines. Other makers are converting metal magazines for other guns to work in the M11/9. STL Tactical took a different approach.

STL takes the customers plastic M11/9 magazine, whether it is new or used with worn out feed lips, and adds two steel inserts on the feed lips. The insert covers the top of the lips, and extends into the body of the magazine, along the sides. A small amount of the plastic is machined out so the insert, when glued in place, will not protrude from the wall of the magazine. If the magazine is already cracked or split it cannot be helped by this modification. Mr. Long said he originally envisioned a full metal sleeve for the magazine, sort of like a Glock magazine, which would support the rear of the magazine as well as the lips. However after some experimentation he found that the cost of manufacture and of installation would be much more than customers would pay.

One advantage to modifying the plastic magazines in this way, over other solutions, is with the .380 ACP SWD M11A1 machine guns. Unlike the original Powder Springs and RPB made .380 MAC style guns, SWD elected to have their M11A1 guns use the same magazine as their 9mm M11/9. The smaller, metal, .380 magazines for the RPB and Powder Springs guns were a little scarce, and SWD apparently didn’t feel the need to tool up to make an additional magazine. So the magazine well/pistol grip assembly for the SWD M11A1 guns is the same as on their M11/9 guns. Unfortunately, the Zytel magazines don’t work with .380 ammunition. The ammunition pops out the top, even when the magazine is new. This situation is not true of the .380 M12 pistols that SWD made long after the M11A1 guns, they use a magazine that is similar, if not identical, to the magazines the RPB and Powder Springs .380 guns were designed for.

A sample magazine was tried in both an SWD M11/9 machine gun, and an SWD M11A1 .380 machine gun. Function was flawless in both guns. After about 300 rounds through the magazine, of both .380 and 9mm ammo, there was no noticeable wear on the metal lips. The modification should certainly extend the life of the Zytel magazines by many hundreds of rounds. And the modification greatly increases the reliability of the SWD .380 MAC guns over using converted metal magazines.

The cost of modifying one customer-supplied magazine is $12.00, including shipping, with discounts for multiple magazines.

STL Tactical
P.O. Box 251
Pipersville, PA 18974
(610) 847-2291
(610) 847-9989 FAX
EMAIL stl@epix.net

A December 24, 1996, decision of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals may finally represent the end of ATF’s “once a machine gun, always a machine gun” policy. Said the court;

“According to the agency, for weapons other than machineguns, removal of the features that led to the weapon’s classification as a firearm suffices to remove the weapon from the Act’s coverage. Firearms Enforcement Program, ATF Order 3310.4B paragraph 83(e)(2). For machinegun receivers, however, removal of the features causing their classification as machineguns does not remove them from Firearms Act coverage, and thus the Gun Control Act’s prohibition. Under the agency’s once-a-machinegun-always-a-machinegun policy, only complete destruction can remove machinegun receivers from the Firearms Act’s coverage. We can find nothing in the text of the Firearms Act to support this difference in treatment.“ Having examined the Bureau’s arguments from text, structure, legislative history, and underlying policy, we find no reasonable basis for its once-a-machinegun-always-a-machinegun interpretation of the Firearms Act.”

The Facts

In 1988, F.J. Vollmer & Co., a licensed manufacturer of NFA weapons, acting upon advice from regional ATF officials, modified 175 Heckler & Koch model 94 (HK94) 9mm semi-automatic rifles by removing the welded on block at the rear of the magazine well, and by drilling a hole there to accept a swing-down type trigger frame, as opposed to the clip-on type that came on the rifles. This modification rendered the receiver identical in all relevant respects to that of the fully automatic MP5 machine gun. The idea was to then sell these rifles with a registered auto sear installed in the trigger pack, as transferrable machine guns. The rifle could not be legally used with a stock MP5 trigger group in the swing down type trigger frame. However, having a modified semi-auto trigger group in an unmodified MP5 style trigger frame, operating as the MP5 trigger frame does, as opposed to the semi-auto clip on type, enhanced the value of the converted guns. The receiver modification made the guns closer copies to the factory MP5 model.

The ATF office in Washington overruled the advice from the regional office, and decided that the modified guns were machine guns in themselves, with or without the registered sear. Further, ATF informed Vollmer that even if Vollmer welded the hole back up, and welded a block back on, so as to re-make the rifles in exactly their state before Vollmer modified them, ATF would still consider them to be machine guns. This was an application of ATF’s “once a machine gun, always a machine gun” policy mantra.

Vollmer was left sitting on a large number of rifles that should have had a lot of value as HK94 semi-automatic rifles, and were instead being treated by ATF as machine guns registered after May 19, 1986, which cannot not be transferred to individuals. As post-May machine guns, the rifles were worth considerably less than a semi-automatic HK94 rifle.

Vollmer then submitted two transfer applications to ATF. One was for one of the HK94 rifles, as modified, with a registered sear installed. The second was for one of the modified HK94 rifles, which had been restored to semi-automatic configuration, with a registered sear installed. ATF rejected both transfers.

The Lawsuit

Looking at a significant loss of money, Vollmer sued ATF. In 1992, in Vollmer v. Higgins, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9450 (D.D.Cir. 1992), Judge Norma H. Johnson upheld ATF’s denial of both transfers. Vollmer appealed and the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, in Vollmer v. Higgins, 23 F.3d 448 (D.C.Cir. 1994) reversed the trial court as to the transfer application for the re-made rifle, and upheld the denial of the transfer of the HK94 modified to machine gun receiver configuration.

The court decided that the modification to the HK94 rifles did convert them into machine guns themselves, with or without a registered sear. As the modification was done after 1986, the court decided the resulting guns were not transferrable to individuals. The court refused to consider ATF bound by the advice of the regional officials, as it directly contradicted the laws passed by Congress. While the court acknowledged that ATF had permitted individual owners of similar conversions to keep the guns as transferrable guns, particularly conversion sears for AK style guns that required a hole be drilled in the receiver of the host semi-automatic rifle, ATF had never permitted the manufacturers of such guns to keep them as transferrable guns. Further, the court considered the law surrounding the making ban (18 U.S.C. section 922(o)) to be clear, and no machine guns made after that date could be transferred to individuals. There was no argument as to the modified HK94 receiver being identical to the MP5 receiver, in all relevant respects.

However, the court rejected ATF’s argument as to the HK94 modified back into semi-automatic configuration. ATF contended that somehow the re-modified gun was readily restored back into a machine gun, because it had been one in the past. ATF had no explanation as to how it was any more restorable, or modifiable than a HK94 that had never been altered. The court could not understand how, if the restoration was into a condition identical to a HK94 imported as a semi-automatic rifle, there was any difference between the modified machine gun and a semi-automatic rifle. The court could find no basis for such a distinction in the statute itself. The court characterized the policy as both “incredible” and unreasonable.

Attorney’s Fees

As a prevailing party, Vollmer went back to the trial court seeking attorney’s fees from the government, under the Equal Access to Justice Act, which provides for an award of attorney’s fees to parties suing the U.S. government, if they “prevail” and if the government’s position in the litigation is found to be “lacking substantial justification”. In an unpublished decision, the trial judge, Judge Johnson, decided Vollmer was entitled to no fees, as it lost on the first issue, and the government’s position on the re-modified HK94 rifle, the second issue, was “substantially justified” based upon the then current case law, and understanding of the statute. Since the trial judge had agreed with the ATF position to begin with, this was not too surprising.

In perhaps the most important ruling of this case, in Vollmer v. Magaw, 102 F.3d 591 (D.C.Cir 1996) (The director of ATF had changed over the course of the case, so the current director was substituted for the former director, as defendant) the D.C. Court of Appeals reversed the trial court for the second time. The appeals court decided that while Vollmer had lost on the issue of the modified HK94, it had prevailed on the second issue, and further, the government’s position lacked justification. The appeals court criticized the trial court for merely parroting the ATF argument’s for the policy, and failing to look at those arguments in light of the rejection of them by the court of appeals.

In the context of the attorney’s fee application, the court looked again at the ATF once a machine gun policy, and decided it lacked justification under current law, in that it expanded the definition of machine gun in a way not required or contemplated by the National Firearms Act. The court concluded that defining some semi-automatic rifles as machine guns was contrary to Congressional intent, as well as the letter of the law – the court pointed to the 1994 regulation of some semi-automatic rifles as evidence Congress never intended the NFA to cover semi-automatic rifles as machine guns. ATF argued “machinegun” was supposed to be defined expansively by the NFA; the court reached the opposite conclusion.

The Court of Appeals did reduce the requested fees by an amount they decided was the equitable value of the first claim Vollmer lost on, 30%. The court rejected ATF’s suggested formula, of 19% of the requested fees, based on ATF’s claims about the relative market value of the guns had Vollmer prevailed on the first claim, versus the market value of the guns in the semi-automatic configuration. The court also refused to award Vollmer’s attorney, Stephen P. Halbrook, enhanced fees for being a specialist in firearms law, finding that that sort of specialization was not what Congress had in mind when providing for enhancement of the base fee for certain special lawyer skills. The base rate, $75, plus a cost of living adjustment since the statute was enacted, is not shabby, however.

The Ramifications?

This decision is only binding on cases brought within the D.C. Circuit, which only covers Washington, D.C. Anyone aggrieved by a decision of an administrative agency, such as ATF, can bring suit there, if they wish. Alternatively, one could also sue in the federal district court for their area of residence, or business, as the case may be. However, the fact that the D.C. Circuit not only found the once a machine gun policy inconsistent with the statute, but found the position lacked substantial justification based upon the law, means the court didn’t consider the issue a close call, and bodes well for other circuits to follow suit, should a similar case be brought elsewhere. Further, if ATF chooses to stick to the policy, and thumb their noses at the D.C. Circuit, ATF risks further awards of attorney’s fees, especially if suit is brought in the D.C. Circuit, which is always an option.

Application of the Doctrine?

The court was very careful to limit their discussion of the once a machine gun policy to the context at hand, a semi-automatic rifle receiver converted into a machine gun receiver, then converted back.

However one issue that comes up regularly is that of M14 rifles being disposed of by the US Department of Defense. An M14 machine gun receiver is functionally identical to that of the Springfield Armory, Inc., M1A semi-automatic receiver, in all significant ways, except for the lug at the bottom rear of the M14 receiver that holds the selector. An M14 receiver without the lug is substantially identical to an M1A receiver; however the “once a machine gun always” policy has prevented M14 rifles from being removed from the purview of the NFA by removing the lug. While this is a slightly different scenario than that in Vollmer, as the starting point is a machine gun, not a semi-auto, the end result is the same, taking something that was a machine gun and turning it into a semi-auto. The source of the machine gun, conversion from a semi-auto in the Vollmer case, from the factory as a machine gun in the case of the M14, was not a determining issue in the Vollmer case. What mattered was a comparison between the modified machine gun receiver, and the approved semi-auto receiver.

A complication is the 1994 Crime Bill ban on further making of semi-automatic assault weapons. Since the M14 would be converted into a semi-automatic after September 13, 1994, the effective date of that law, the rifle would, in all likelihood, have to comply with 18 U.S.C. section 922(v), and be configured like current production Springfield, Inc., M1A rifles, and lack a bayonet lug.

One source of such modified M14 rifles could be the Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP), the privatized DCM program, which currently is authorized to sell unneeded .30 caliber rifles from the U.S. Department of Defense. Currently that consists only of M1 Garand and a very few 1903A3 rifles. While DCM had expressed an interest in selling modified M14 rifles in the past, ATF policy about it being a machine gun even after removal of the selector lug stood in the way. It shouldn’t be an issue any more.