PDA

View Full Version : CA Legal? "Bump stick stock"


Fate
02-10-2009, 11:17 AM
Had someone ask me if this "tool" was CA legal and I had to say :shrug: Thoughts?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/BO_8ZnTlr5k&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BO_8ZnTlr5k&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

tgriffin
02-10-2009, 11:25 AM
It could be argued that is a multi-burst trigger activator. I would lean on the side of no.

chiefcrash
02-10-2009, 1:14 PM
It could be argued that is a multi-burst trigger activator. I would lean on the side of no.

exactly. It's hard to tell from the video, but it looks like the stick (not his finger) is pulling the trigger. That makes me nervous...

SwissFluCase
02-10-2009, 1:18 PM
That bump stick looks like an NFA item to me... :shock:

Regards,


SwissFluCase

ilbob
02-10-2009, 1:36 PM
That bump stick looks like an NFA item to me... :shock:

Regards,


SwissFluCase
It appears the trigger is being actuated once for each time the gun is fired, so not an NFA item.

It looks homemade to me.

Full Clip
02-10-2009, 2:26 PM
Just use a rubber band.

hawk1
02-10-2009, 2:26 PM
If they can bust you for using a shoestring, then they can get you for this as well...

HotRails
02-10-2009, 3:08 PM
If they can bust you for using a shoestring, then they can get you for this as well...


Yes, but didnt the shoestring result in multiple shots per trigger pull? I dont recall.


It looks to be a safety hazard though, with the gun being even in less control than when 'bump firing'

Dr Rockso
02-10-2009, 3:15 PM
If they can bust you for using a shoestring, then they can get you for this as well...

Not so sure about that, the argument against the shoestring was that when attached to the firearm it acted as an auto-sear (when the bolt closed the string pulled the trigger). The stick-on-a-stock doesn't mechanically interface with the gun in the same manner, it just pulls the trigger as the gun recoils.

SwissFluCase
02-10-2009, 3:19 PM
Still seems reminiscent of the Atkins Accelerator...

Regards,


SwissFluCase

grammaton76
02-10-2009, 3:20 PM
I'd lean on the side of no. But really, you can get the same effect with practice without the stick. The stick is just serving as a guide...

grammaton76
02-10-2009, 3:22 PM
Still seems reminiscent of the Atkins Accelerator...

That was my first thought upon seeing the thread title, but the AA was a custom stock with a spring installed, and attached to the rifle.

I consider this to be much closer to the shoestring, than anything else... it's certainly nothing I'd post on Youtube.

Really, the answer is to just get really good at bump-firing and the stick won't be necessary.

FlyingDesertEagle
02-10-2009, 3:32 PM
anyone here remember the BMF Actuator? It acted like a 3 round burst AND (if you held it lightly ) it would allow you to bumpfire really easily.

it was declared illegal in CA prior to the Roberti-Roos fiasco.

leelaw
02-10-2009, 4:01 PM
That was an idea born on AR15.com years back. I remember the bumpfire videos posted back when the idea first came to be.

rp55
02-10-2009, 4:22 PM
Play that funky music white boy!

hawk1
02-10-2009, 4:38 PM
Not so sure about that, the argument against the shoestring was that when attached to the firearm it acted as an auto-sear (when the bolt closed the string pulled the trigger). The stick-on-a-stock doesn't mechanically interface with the gun in the same manner, it just pulls the trigger as the gun recoils.


I see no difference in the examples I put in bold above. Both are causing the trigger to be pulled by actions of the rifle.

sorensen440
02-10-2009, 4:40 PM
Creative but no thanks

bohoki
02-10-2009, 4:47 PM
federally it looks ok but any "firing aid" in california can be called a multiburst trigger activator since it is overly vague and undefinable
i guess this is the origional
_3y2Cp0pKwA

Justin Brimm
02-10-2009, 4:48 PM
I see no difference in the examples I put in bold above. Both are causing the trigger to be pulled by actions of the rifle.

I'm going with this; honestly, its not California I'd be concerned about going after you in this case. The ATF will be plenty happy to send you to jail for the rest of your life for using that stock stick.

bohoki
02-10-2009, 5:39 PM
its not a "gun stock" it is a stock for a trigger stick

it is a "stick stock" it is an unsafe way to fire a gun

Quiet
02-10-2009, 6:23 PM
As long as it's not attached to the firearm, it can't be a "multiburst trigger activator".

Penal Code 12020
(c)(23) As used in this section, a "multiburst trigger activator" means one of the following devices:
(A) A device designed or redesigned to be attached to a semiautomatic firearm which allows the firearm to discharge two or more shots in a burst by activating the device.
(B) A manual or power-driven trigger activating device constructed and designed so that when attached to a semiautomatic firearm it increases the rate of fire of that firearm.

Nodda Duma
02-10-2009, 6:29 PM
IMO those things are dumb anyways because of the unregulated firing rate.

-Jason

Blue
02-10-2009, 6:33 PM
That was an idea born on AR15.com years back. I remember the bumpfire videos posted back when the idea first came to be.

I remember that, didn't the inventor get harassed by the ATF for it?

motorhead
02-11-2009, 9:18 AM
it looks like fun so of course it's illegal.
it does appear at least from a distance, that it could be disguised as a burger flipper.
didn't atf do a flip-flop and declare the accelerator illegal?

SwissFluCase
02-11-2009, 9:32 AM
it looks like fun so of course it's illegal.
it does appear at least from a distance, that it could be disguised as a burger flipper.
didn't atf do a flip-flop and declare the accelerator illegal?

Yes. They approved the Atkins Accelorator, then later declared it to be a machinegun. The latter ruling seems like a real stretch, but I would have no desire to be a test case. Any voluteers? :p

Regards,


SwissFluCase

GMONEY
02-11-2009, 9:51 AM
Risk vs Reward on this one is a FAIL!

JeffM
02-11-2009, 1:48 PM
I see no difference in the examples I put in bold above. Both are causing the trigger to be pulled by actions of the rifle.

With the stock/stick above, the trigger cannot be pulled unless the person firing the weapon is actively pushing forward on the rifle.

I see no real difference between this and regular bump firing.

Would I do this? No.

Quiet
02-11-2009, 2:19 PM
Yes. They approved the Atkins Accelorator, then later declared it to be a machinegun. The latter ruling seems like a real stretch, but I would have no desire to be a test case. Any voluteers? :p

Regards,


SwissFluCase

After the Heller SCOTUS case, William Akins appealed the BATFE ruling to the 11th circuit court.

On 02-04-2009, the court ruled in favor of the BATFE.


PER CURIAM:
William Akins appeals the summary judgment in favor of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives and against his complaint that the Bureau violated his due process rights when it classified the Akins Accelerator, an accessory that increases the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle, as a prohibited firearm. Akins argues that the decision of the Bureau to classify the Accelerator as a “machinegun” as defined in the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b), is unreasonable and not entitled to deference; the classification of the Accelerator without a hearing violated his right to procedural due process; and section 5845(b) is unconstitutionally vague. We affirm.

III. DISCUSSION
Akins challenges the summary judgment on three grounds. First, Akins argues that the classification by the Bureau of the Accelerator as a machinegun is unreasonable. Second, Akins argues that the summary disposition of the classification violated his right to due process. Third, Akins contends that section 5845(b) of the National Firearms Act is unconstitutionally vague. These arguments fail.

The Bureau acted within its discretion when it reclassified the Accelerator as a machinegun. A machinegun is a weapon that fires “automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.” 26 U.S.C. §5845(b). The interpretation by the Bureau that the phrase “single function of the trigger” means a “single pull of the trigger” is consonant with the statute and its legislative history. See Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600, 602 n.1, 114 S. Ct.1793, 1795 n.1 (1994); National Firearms Act: Hearings Before the Committee on Ways and Means, 73rd Cong. 40 (1934). After a single application of the trigger by a gunman, the Accelerator uses its internal spring and the force of recoil to fire continuously the rifle cradled inside until the gunman releases the trigger or the ammunition is exhausted. Based on the operation of the Accelerator, the Bureau had authority to “reconsider and rectify” what it considered to be a classification error. See Gun South, 877 F.2d at 862–63. That decision was not arbitrary and capricious. See id. at 866.

The Bureau did not violate Akins’s right to due process when it reclassified
the Accelerator summarily. Due process requires that the “‘a person in jeopardy of serious loss be given notice of the case against him and opportunity to meet it.’” Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 348, 96 S. Ct. 893, 909 (1976) (quoting Joint Anti-Fascist Comm. v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 171–72, 71 S. Ct. 624, 649 (1951)(Frankfurter, J., concurring)). As the Mathews Court explained, “[a]ll that is necessary is that the procedures be tailored, in light of the decision to be made, to ‘the capacities and circumstances of those who are to be heard,’ to insure that they are given a meaningful opportunity to present their case.” Id. at 349, 96 S. Ct. at 909 (citation omitted). Akins received notice that the Bureau had reclassified the Accelerator, and Akins submitted a lengthy request for the agency to reconsider its decision based on his interpretation of the statute. No further process was required.

Section 5845(b) also is not unconstitutionally vague. A statute is constitutionally vague when it fails to give a “person of ordinary intelligence a
reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited.” Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108, 92 S. Ct. 2294, 2298–99 (1972). The plain language of the statute defines a machinegun as any part or device that allows a gunman to pull the trigger once and thereby discharge the firearm repeatedly. See United States v. Thomas, 567 F.2d 299, 300 (5th Cir. 1978) (applying a commonsense meaning to the word “silencer” under former section 5845 in a vagueness challenge). Use of the word “function” instead of “pull” to reference the action taken by a gunman to commence the firing process is not so confusing that a man of common intelligence would have to guess at its meaning.

IV. CONCLUSION
The summary judgment in favor of the United States is AFFIRMED.