PDA

View Full Version : Multi-burst trigger activators


jaymz
03-30-2011, 9:04 PM
Another post (locked and all but one post deleted) got me fired up (again), and I must respectfully disagree with one of the "Right People", and not so respectfully disagree with the CADOJ. These (http://militarygunsupply.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=1082), according to the letter of the law, are NOT illegal.

12020 PC.
(a) Any person in this state who does any of the following is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not
exceeding one year or in the state prison:
(1) Manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or
exposes for sale, or who gives, lends, or possesses any ... {snip}..., any multiburst trigger activator,
...{snip}....


(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.

A properly functioning AR15, as well as many if not all semi-auto firearms, simply will not fire more than one round, without all of the trigger and related firing mechanism components going through a certain sequence of events. In short, one trigger pull, one bullet out the barrel. That tosses "A" out the window - doesn't apply.

"Increases the rate of fire" is key. I couldn't find any specific rate of fire info for an AR15, but for all intents and purporses, the M16 is the same, and full auto rate of fire is north of 650-700 rpm. I'm 99% certain that none of the multi-burst activators are capable of increasing the rate of fire above what the rifle was engineered to. That tosses "B" out the window - doesn't apply. A lightweight buffer (http://vuurwapenblog.com/2010/12/12/ar-15-rate-of-fire-as-a-function-of-buffer-weight-and-action-spring-initial-comparison/) weight and spring is more likely to be a felony, due to the fact that it can actually increase the rate of fire, compared to a stock weight and spring. Should everyone with a lightweight spring and buffer destroy those parts?

Am am not arguing the fact that possesion of these things will not land you in jail and/or lose your gun rights - they very likely will. Don't possess the stuff. My argument is that anyone that agrees that multi-burst activators are illegal, is dead wrong.

Let's keep the discussion civil guys, I'm hoping somebody can either prove me wrong, or prove me right. Not just opinions, but proof. Show me high speed video that shows a multi-burst at +700 rpm. Show me a trigger crank that makes two bullets come out without the entire firing mechanism going through thier sequence.

bubbapug1
03-30-2011, 9:14 PM
I hope your right. I also think your right. The last thread turned into a lot of name calling.

This sentence is ambiguous and could present a problem, as it is much broader than trigger activation...its almost alluding to the SSAR stock.

(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.

InGrAM
03-30-2011, 9:18 PM
Sounds like the CADOJ saw the video on youtube and said "ohhh crap! our 10 round magazines will be sooo much more deadly with one of those thingys!"

Quiet
03-30-2011, 9:20 PM
AFAIK...
BATFE views max semi-auto rate of fire as 120 RPM*.
So, if it increases the rate of fire past 120 RPM. It would fall under PC 12020(c)(23)(B).

*I believe they came up with this number when they made their ruling on the "shoestring" & the Akins device.

goober
03-30-2011, 9:22 PM
illegal or not, those things are FUGLY :puke:

stix213
03-31-2011, 12:10 AM
Since an F/A AR is illegal you have to compare to the rate of fire of a semi-auto, so I don't think that is a valid argument.

Some of what was in the other thread, minus the name calling (not on my part):
My opinion though is that it is in fact legal, reasoning that bump firing since legal already achieves the rate of fire of the SSAR-15 stock. No actual increase in rate of fire means not a multi-burst trigger activator. Bill fired back that a "unique" individual can certainly maintain that rate of fire, but an ordinary person would likely be unable to using typical bump firing techniques, going in and out of bump fire, for a net reduction in overall rate of fire as compared to the SSAR-15 when fired non-stop.

True.... This is certainly an excellent point and as he mentioned the Hellfire trigger group is banned.

But I maintain that is an unrealistic standard. The Hellfire can be installed in featureless builds running 100 round Beta-C mags. Bill's ordinary person standard would certainly apply since maintaining a 100 round bump fire without a Hellfire trigger or an SSAR-15 would be extremely difficult.

But that is an unfair standard for the SSAR-15 since unlike the Hellfire, the SSAR-15 is 2 evil features, which means you are running 10 round fixed mag configuration. When limited to 10 rounds, an ordinary person can certainly fire only 10 without going in and out of bump fire, so they can definitely achieve the rate of fire of the SSAR-15 even without significant practice. We're talking about only 10 rounds when using this stock, not a 100 round mag dump.

I'm sure someone will mention "what about RAWs? If you put this thing on a RAW then you can run 100 round mags." Well using Bill's own ordinary vs unique person standard, an ordinary person can't go out and get a RAW, you're kinda already in the unique category.

Its unfortunate that the other thread devolved into trying to get Bill to apologize or banned over a minor slight. I thought it was really fleshing out a lot of a topic that has really never been discussed on this forum before.

leelaw
03-31-2011, 12:20 AM
This is the one and only warning for this thread to remain civil, unlike the prior.

It doesn't matter who you are or represent, civil discourse is required.

bigcalidave
03-31-2011, 12:21 AM
Until the laws change, better safe than sorry... Why risk it to bumpfire....

stix213
03-31-2011, 12:23 AM
Until the laws change, better safe than sorry... Why risk it to bumpfire....

Yes I'm saying the same thing. I think you can win with this thing in court, but people using this device certainly risk arrest and felony charges + lawyer fees. I'm not trying to claim otherwise. Don't go out and use one of these things.

Thing is someone will who watches youtube vids but not CGN has probably got this fit to their rifle right now and will likely get caught by law enforcement with it, so the discussion of its actual legality is valid IMO even with the DONT EVEN THINK OF DOING IT disclaimer. I'm genuinely interested though in having the flaws in my own reasoning pointed out.

jtmkinsd
03-31-2011, 12:38 AM
Guess I missed the ugliness...kinda glad, that stuff happens far too often.

I stand by what I posted in the other thread...while an argument could be made that the stock doesn't increase the "rate of fire", just picture in your head a jury watching the manufacturer's own video, and see if you can't see them all looking at one another and saying "it makes it a machine gun!" :eek: All they're going to care about as you try to explain the mechanics of it all is how many bullets are coming out the dangerous end.

And remember, a "jury of your peers" is rarely just that. It would be an epic win to come out on top if it ever landed in court. Not impossible...just epic.

oaklander
03-31-2011, 12:45 AM
The issue is that there is the DOJ, a bunch of county DA's - and a ton of other people who might all have different opinions on this. . .

Too much depends on the definition of a few words, and without looking at every case about statutory construction, and probably 3 other legal issues that I haven't even thought of yet, there's really no way to even predict how this would go if someone had to defend it. . .

I think everyone can agree with the above.

bwiese
03-31-2011, 1:46 AM
Take some average AR15 w/std triggers and an average person (crime lab employee) bump firing.

That bumpfiring will not be 100% and will most likely have some sporadic inconsistent nature.

Now, the AR with a SlideFire stock is tested next. Easy, consistent rapid firing. More rounds expended in unit time than above, and easily visible.

Noted in DA's lab report which judge sees along with marketing materials from SlideFire - and then he reads both definitions. Judge will most likely find that the device is in fact a rate increaser (a matter of law finding). The question to the jury [if jury] will only be "Is Joe Blow guilty of possessing a multiburst trigger activator?" and the device in question will be regarded as one.

(Oak can probably look up jury instructions on this item.)

REMEMBER YOU"LL BE IN A CALIFORNIA COURT WITH A LIKELY ANTIGUN JUDGE.

audiophil2
03-31-2011, 1:51 AM
(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.

I don't see how the SSAR-15 fits A or B.

My interpretation on A falls on the key word of "activating" the device. The SSAR is a chunk of plastic. It can't be activated. The "loophole" would be that the law uses "activating" when "using" would have covered more designs including the SSAR.
The $40 trigger activators do make contact with the trigger. They are sold as "activators"because they become an extension of the trigger.

My interpretation on B is that the SSAR is not a "manual or power-driven trigger activating device." The SSAR from what I can see on the photos and video never makes contact with the trigger. The trigger finger goes through the trigger guard along the trigger and the end of the finger is pressed firmly against the SSAR extended block on an equal plane with the trigger. Simply pressing the trigger would not activate the bumpfire effect. Simply pressing the SSAR front end of the stock will not activate the trigger. It requires both of those steps in addition to pushing the upper forward.

Part B seems more related to items that ATTACHED to the gun causing it to fire more rapidly than finger pulling. A good example is the BMF activator, GAT trigger activator, and nancrank. These are all gatling gun devices that require multiple lobes pushing the trigger back as the crank rotates.

Nanocrank with 6 lobes
Zpa6pK3sEEw

Gat trigger with 3 lobes

200 rounds in a very dirty Razorback. One issue is the Gat can over run the mechanics of the feed mechanism which causes bent parts that need to be retuned.

JfoooD9WJZ4

jtmkinsd
03-31-2011, 1:57 AM
My interpretation on A falls on the key word of "activating" the device. The SSAR is a chunk of plastic. It can't be activated.

It has a toggle switch to go from semi-auto to bump-fire. Activate?

audiophil2
03-31-2011, 1:59 AM
It has a toggle switch to go from semi-auto to bump-fire. Activate?

I dont see a toggle switch. Can you point it to me?

Here is a close up video on how the SSAR needs to function.

SIxgPMN5kWc

stix213
03-31-2011, 2:01 AM
I dont see a toggle switch. Can you point it to me?

In one of the vids there is some kind of knob on the bottom of the stock that seems to engage or disengage the slide function.

audiophil2
03-31-2011, 2:06 AM
In one of the vids there is some kind of knob on the bottom of the stock that seems to engage or disengage the slide function.

Is it a horizontal curcular knob on the bottom of the middle of the stock? I was wondering what that was.

stix213
03-31-2011, 2:13 AM
Is it a horizontal curcular knob on the bottom of the middle of the stock? I was wondering what that was.

Here they demonstrate the knob in this video

x0f7OCnrrpk

oaklander
03-31-2011, 2:13 AM
(A) "activating the device"

Three words. . .

Does anyone here want to risk their whole future on how one person who you do not know, and who has never met you, defines those three words?

I will have to start bowling in the minor leagues again, since my bowling balls are not as large as yours. . .

jtmkinsd
03-31-2011, 2:18 AM
What's funny is their "ATF approval letter" simply states [yep, it's a firearm part and doesn't meet the requirement to be regulated] i.e. it doesn't need a serial number.

However they do have the standard "it's your butt if it's not legal where you are" disclaimer on their website.

http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o64/jimmykinsd/ATF%20LETTERS/BATFE-Slide-Stock-Review-Le.jpg

audiophil2
03-31-2011, 2:36 AM
Here they demonstrate the knob in this video

x0f7OCnrrpk

The button you pointed out does make the gun appear to switch from Sa to SA/selectfire. had they eliminated the semi function only making it semi by pulling the trigger without having the finger point on the front of the SSAR they might be able to call it a true bumpfire item.

The same hold true with my GAT trigger activator. I can either crank it for a gatling effect or just pull the trigger for a semi auto effect. Since it does come into contact with the trigger it is a true trigger activator.

stix213
03-31-2011, 2:43 AM
The button you pointed out does make the gun appear to switch from Sa to SA/selectfire. had they eliminated the semi function only making it semi by pulling the trigger without having the finger point on the front of the SSAR they might be able to call it a true bumpfire item.


I'd be surprised if the knob couldn't be removed from the stock. I'm sure the knob just grabs the tube when engaged to prevent the stock from sliding.

audiophil2
03-31-2011, 3:01 AM
Three words. . .

Does anyone here want to risk their whole future on how one person who you do not know, and who has never met you, defines those three words?

I will have to start bowling in the minor leagues again, since my bowling balls are not as large as yours. . .

It's not three words. It's one word. "activating" Definition:verb, start, cause to function or act, turn on, set going. antonyms- stop, halt.
I cant think of a way to stop the SSAR or halt it. It has no moving parts. The operator can stop the trigger being pulled by not pulling forward. If you cant stop the SSAR, then you cant start it either. I can start and stop an engine, I can't start/stop a rock.

Part B forbids a trigger activating device like GAT trigger activator, hellstorm, BMF activator. All legal by ATF but not legal by CA DOJ.
The SSAR does not activate the trigger. The operators finger operates the trigger. Please show me where the SSAR comes into contact with the trigger.

I take offense to you questioning me without bothering to rebut my opinion. At no time did I tell anyone what i said was legal fact, rather it was my interpretation of the poorly written law. It could be right or wrong but at least I tried to provide a logic based opinion. What Gene said came down from the grapevine and thus could have easily been altered over time.

To be honest, I would not take the word of anyone on here about any laws. Laws are my responsibility to know and I would go to one of many sources to learn what is legal or not. I have way to much to risk making a dumb mistake. I don't intent to prove Gene or anyone else is wrong and I am right. I just wanted to ad my opinion on the laws, which is not legal advise in any way.

audiophil2
03-31-2011, 3:11 AM
I'd be surprised if the knob couldn't be removed from the stock. I'm sure the knob just grabs the tube when engaged to prevent the stock from sliding.

I might buy this for my next AR build. I was going for a dirt cheap AR with a plum crazy lower and cheapie upper for my wife but this stock at $360 is not the worst thing I could buy. I really wish it worked on my belt fed .22 AR but the co said there is not enough blowback.

After looking at the illegal Akins design I see ways to make bumpfire contollable inexpensively.

oaklander
03-31-2011, 3:13 AM
It's not three words. It's one word.

Exactly my point, now you are trying to argue with me about which particular words, that stranger that you do not know, will be forced to define. Do you not see that the mere fact that you can so easily argue different interpretations of "word definitions" is a problem?

If the whole thing is this "squirmy," don't you think that you should take heed? This whole legal analysis that you are trying to do is like walking down a dark alley.

It's not the legal analysis, per se, that has me worried - it's the fact that any analysis (pro or con) HERE has to almost completely rely on word definitions. That is a shaky basis for any legal analysis of this, since word definitions are somewhat subjective, and there are competing word definitions in all the dictionaries.

Don't you think that if I was in front of a jury, and I had a good jury, that I could convince them to like "MY" word definition? Of course you do!

NOW

Imagine that someone like me (i.e., good with words) was working for the "other side" - you would be screwed, legally.

I take offense to you questioning me without bothering to rebut my opinion.

Have you considered that perhaps the way I questioned you was actually a subtle rebuttal to your opinion? It's short, so go look at it again.

audiophil2
03-31-2011, 3:51 AM
Exactly my point, now you are trying to argue with me about which particular words, that stranger that you do not know, will be forced to define. Do you not see that the mere fact that you can so easily argue different interpretations of "word definitions" is a problem?

If the whole thing is this "squirmy," don't you think that you should take heed? This whole legal analysis that you are trying to do is like walking down a dark alley.

It's not the legal analysis, per se, that has me worried - it's the fact that any analysis (pro or con) HERE has to almost completely rely on word definitions. That is a shaky basis for any legal analysis of this, since word definitions are somewhat subjective, and there are competing word definitions in all the dictionaries.

Don't you think that if I was in front of a jury, and I had a good jury, that I could convince them to like "MY" word definition? Of course you do!

NOW

Imagine that someone like me (i.e., good with words) was working for the "other side" - you would be screwed, legally.



Have you considered that perhaps the way I questioned you was actually a subtle rebuttal to your opinion? It's short, so go look at it again.

You've got an advantage over me because you are a lawyer and have experience with how the court system works.
I am not trying to argue with you about anything. You incorrectly quoted 3 words and I only put "activating" in quotes. Activating is the key loophole. Focusing on 1 word can have quite an implication on the definition of the law. Same as "bear" arms.
We are looking at word definitions and even if there are competing definitions it is my understanding (and correct me if I'm wrong) that a jury must go by the reasonable man definition of a word as it pertains to the specific topic.

A good lawyer can be lousy if he can't manipulate the information in a legal way in his favor (OJs glove don't fit). A lousy defense lawyer can make a valid argument simply based on asking questions he already knows the answers to. He can tear apart the SSAR and show how it would bumpfire with or without specific parts. Sure it can bumpfire with the stock as in the videos but cut out the part the tip of the fingure rests on and I bet you I could still make the gun bumpfire. I could make it bumpfire with most SSAR parts damaged or missing. So the stock does not activate multiburst.

I read your answer and it reads as if I am giving legal advice based on three words. You regard me as one person who is giving legal advice on 3 words. That is absolutely incorrect.

oaklander
03-31-2011, 4:10 AM
It's actually REQUIRED that you be a zealous (but ethical) advocate for your client. If there's a legal basis for arguing a certain word definition, it is entirely ethical to argue that on behalf of your client.

The danger here is that you are posting things that may make some less experienced Calgunners *think* that there is little legal risk here. You and I both know that these "stocks" are highly risky under current law.

If someone gets arrested after reading your posts, do you want that on you?

I've seen more and more people act as if Calguns was NOT read by thousands of people, including new shooters, law enforcement, and politicians (and the press).

Don't just throw stuff out there, especially if you are not a lawyer, or don't have a SOLID understanding of how codes and cases work together. It's not responsible. I won't even post "hard core" legal stuff without doing hours and hours of research.

For example, the very short article that I wrote a couple of days ago for my "NFA" blog took me about 6 hours to research and write. Have you spent that much time researching the law on THIS?

You will note that I don't even need to get into the "legal" argument here. It almost doesn't even matter, due to the "word" issue that I brought up.

You know how high-cap mag crimes are almost not prosecutable? Well, this is like that - but in reverse. It's almost un-defensible, at least as I understand it right now.

You've got an advantage over me because you are a lawyer and have experience with how the court system works.
I am not trying to argue with you about anything. You incorrectly quoted 3 words and I only put "activating" in quotes. Activating is the key loophole. Focusing on 1 word can have quite an implication on the definition of the law. Same as "bear" arms.
We are looking at word definitions and even if there are competing definitions it is my understanding (and correct me if I'm wrong) that a jury must go by the reasonable man definition of a word as it pertains to the specific topic.

A good lawyer can be lousy if he can't manipulate the information in a legal way in his favor (OJs glove don't fit). A lousy defense lawyer can make a valid argument simply based on asking questions he already knows the answers to. He can tear apart the SSAR and show how it would bumpfire with or without specific parts. Sure it can bumpfire with the stock as in the videos but cut out the part the tip of the fingure rests on and I bet you I could still make the gun bumpfire. I could make it bumpfire with most SSAR parts damaged or missing. So the stock does not activate multiburst.

I read your answer and it reads as if I am giving legal advice based on three words. You regard me as one person who is giving legal advice on 3 words. That is absolutely incorrect.

HondaMasterTech
03-31-2011, 4:15 AM
What about a "rocking trigger"? If anyone is into paintball you'd know what I'm talking about. It's basically a see-saw type trigger that allows the operator to use two fingers and fire the weapon with a "walking" motion of two fingers.

Each finger would be performing a seperate trigger pull with no more than one round being fired per trigger pull. http://www.paintballspartan.com/paintball/images/Trigger/Spyder_Rocking_Trigger.jpg

audiophil2
03-31-2011, 4:41 AM
It's actually REQUIRED that you be a zealous (but ethical) advocate for your client. If there's a legal basis for arguing a certain word definition, it is entirely ethical to argue that on behalf of your client.

The danger here is that you are posting things that may make some less experienced Calgunners *think* that there is little legal risk here. You and I both know that these "stocks" are highly risky under current law.

If someone gets arrested after reading your posts, do you want that on you?

I've seen more and more people act as if Calguns was NOT read by thousands of people, including new shooters, law enforcement, and politicians (and the press).

Don't just throw stuff out there, especially if you are not a lawyer, or don't have a SOLID understanding of how codes and cases work together. It's not responsible. I won't even post "hard core" legal stuff without doing hours and hours of research.

For example, the very short article that I wrote a couple of days ago for my "NFA" blog took me about 6 hours to research and write. Have you spent that much time researching the law on THIS?

You will note that I don't even need to get into the "legal" argument here. It almost doesn't even matter, due to the "word" issue that I brought up.

You know how high-cap mag crimes are almost not prosecutable? Well, this is like that - but in reverse. It's almost un-defensible, at least as I understand it right now.

At no time did I say I was providing legal advice on these products. If a new Calgunner takes what I wrote as more than personal opinion then the onus is on them.
Your understanding is as valuable as my understanding. Neither of us have been proven right. They are just differing opinions. I do see this as defensible. I provided explanations as to why I see it defensable and you have not stated anytrhing specific as to why I am incorrect. I don't mind if you pick me apart word for word. I just want to understand how the device seems to be so clearly illegal based on something other than opinion.

If you have the ability to tell me to not throw stuff out there especially because I am not a lawyer, why are you not doing the same with Gene? As far as I know he is not a lawyer and him telling the forum a lawyer told him so can be done by anyone else. Word of mouth based on non credited info is equally detrimental to newbie calgunners. Or is there a clear double standard?

Without there being a test case how can Gene and his anonymous lawyer have any weight over my personal opinions? Why does it have to be so secretive in a public forum as if there is a special class of persons disseminating info as they see fit?

HondaMasterTech
03-31-2011, 4:43 AM
The ssar stock does look cool, I wonder how durable it is.

audiophil2
03-31-2011, 4:56 AM
The ssar stock does look cool, I wonder how durable it is.

I like it. Not pretty but function over form.
I want to see it reliably bump 22lr. It is too pricey to dump .223 or even 9mm.

I just wonder how much better this is than just using a rubber band around the magwell and behind the trigger.

If I spot one used for under $250 I will grab it up.

jaymz
03-31-2011, 5:32 AM
You guys are arguing the wrong point. The method of "activating" simply doesn't matter. You can activate the trigger with a slice of pastrami, still doesn't change the rate of fire, or makes two or more bullets come out the end of the barrel. I don't know - maybe I'm just an idiot to think that the same mechanical skills/knowledge that has managed to provide myself and my family a pretty good life for the past quarter century, can be applied in the courtroom as well. Is there any case law in CA on this stuff?

email
03-31-2011, 5:54 AM
Roses are red, violets are blue.

It is by definition, a test-case magnet for you.

cdtx2001
03-31-2011, 7:07 AM
I would LOVE to see one of you guys try to argue these technical points in front of a CA jury of your "peers". Splitting hairs in court over something like this would probably result in a very nasty outcome. CA juries are not your friend as they are rarely made up of "your peers".

Besides, the thing has a pistol grip and with a BBd AR the fun would be over way too quick. To really have fun with it, you'd have to move to another state where you can have evil features AND 30 or 100 rnd mags. At that point, I wouldn't bother with the thing, I'd apply to get a permit to own real FA toys. I'd just pay the federal tax stamp and have a legal FA M-16. Might as well, then I could have silencers too.

rrr70
03-31-2011, 7:32 AM
Why don't you buy one and take it to the range. Let us know how it goes.

Decoligny
03-31-2011, 7:56 AM
AFAIK...
BATFE views max semi-auto rate of fire as 120 RPM*.
So, if it increases the rate of fire past 120 RPM. It would fall under PC 12020(c)(23)(B).

*I believe they came up with this number when they made their ruling on the "shoestring" & the Akins device.

Since when does CA Penal Code/CA justice system align itself with what the BATFE says?

audiophil2
03-31-2011, 8:16 AM
I would LOVE to see one of you guys try to argue these technical points in front of a CA jury of your "peers". Splitting hairs in court over something like this would probably result in a very nasty outcome. CA juries are not your friend as they are rarely made up of "your peers".

Besides, the thing has a pistol grip and with a BBd AR the fun would be over way too quick. To really have fun with it, you'd have to move to another state where you can have evil features AND 30 or 100 rnd mags. At that point, I wouldn't bother with the thing, I'd apply to get a permit to own real FA toys. I'd just pay the federal tax stamp and have a legal FA M-16. Might as well, then I could have silencers too.

CA jururs still have to obey the law and if they vote incorrectly the judge can void the verdict. This might not even go to a jury if a good atty and expert can prove it's not an activator.

There are CA residents that could legally put these on their ARs. RAWs are one route and featureless rifles with a modified MMG is another.

So you would really spend $14,000 for a FA AR-15 plus $200 stamp, plus transfer fee, plus another $200 stamp for the silencer instead of $350 for the SSAR? It's even cheaper than the $1,000 Akins stocks that were banned years ago. Your stamp and transfer fees will be more than the SSAR stock. if you could find out later on it is perfectly legal in CA would you still move and spend all that money?

bwiese
03-31-2011, 9:02 AM
BTW, I'm Bill, not Gene.

CA jururs still have to obey the law and if they vote incorrectly the judge can void the verdict. This might not even go to a jury if a good atty and expert can prove it's not an activator.

No, juries are triers of fact ("Did Joe Blow possess an illegal trigger activator?") - while the judge determines matters of law ("Is a device that aids in increasing rate of fire a 12020(c)(23)-defined multiburst trigger activator?"). The judge will also give instructions to the jury.


There are CA residents that could legally put these on their ARs. RAWs are one route and featureless rifles with a modified MMG is another.
100% ABSOLUTELY WRONG.

This is not a 12276.1PC charactierstic 'evil feature.' This device is under a completely separate body of
law, regulated like SBRs, SBSes, unconventional pistols, nunchakus, shurikens, etc.

Thus the rifle's status as a RAW is irrelevant.

Possession of such this device appears to be intrinsically illegal whether or not it's attached to a gun and whether or not a matching gun is even possessed.

HondaMasterTech
03-31-2011, 9:10 AM
BTW, I'm Bill, not Gene.



No, juries are triers of fact ("Did Joe Blow possess an illegal trigger activator?") - while the judge determines matters of law ("Is a device that aids in increasing rate of fire a 12020(c)(23)-defined multiburst trigger activator?"). The judge will also give instructions to the jury.



100% ABSOLUTELY WRONG.

This is not a 12276.1PC charactierstic 'evil feature.' This device is under a completely separate body of
law, regulated like SBRs, SBSes, unconventional pistols, nunchakus, shurikens, etc.

Thus the rifle's status as a RAW is irrelevant.

Possession of such a specified device is intrinsically illegal whether or not it's attached to a gun and whether or not a matching gun is even possessed.

I have over 2 thousand posts. Of which, probably 1% is worth reading, if that. You on the other hand have over 20 thousand posts. Of which, probably 99.99% are worth reading, if not, more.

stix213
03-31-2011, 9:16 AM
The danger here is that you are posting things that may make some less experienced Calgunners *think* that there is little legal risk here. You and I both know that these "stocks" are highly risky under current law.

If someone gets arrested after reading your posts, do you want that on you?

I've seen more and more people act as if Calguns was NOT read by thousands of people, including new shooters, law enforcement, and politicians (and the press).

Don't just throw stuff out there, especially if you are not a lawyer, or don't have a SOLID understanding of how codes and cases work together. It's not responsible. I won't even post "hard core" legal stuff without doing hours and hours of research.


I was hoping this thread could remain useful for discussing the legalities at hand with regard to the SSAR-15, why it may or may not be legal, instead of trying to quiet the topic out of an over abundance of caution..... with a disclaimer like Bill's in the sticky ITS EXTREMELY LIKELY YOU WILL BE ARRESTED IF FOUND WITH THIS DEVICE!!!! EVEN IF YOU ARE SUCCESSFUL AT DEFENDING YOURSELF THAT IS ONLY AFTER FELONY CHARGES ARE FILED AGAINST YOU, A LONG COURT PROCESS, ALL YOUR GUNS ARE TAKEN, AND THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS ARE LOST. DON'T TAKE THIS LIGHTLY, AS IN DON'T DO IT.

It seems like the most powerful argument against this stock right now is that jurors are easily swayed by emotional arguments, such as seeing a video of the SSAR-15 in action and implying that this creates some kind of dangerous machine gun, so its evil, so its best to find guilty. Wouldn't showing videos of people legally bump firing to the jury, which will look little different, be how you would attack that kind of argument?

oaklander
03-31-2011, 9:44 AM
I'm not going to answer this because I am trying to be polite here.

I realized that I was coming down hard on another poster who had limited knowledge, but was posting things that might influence people to do unwise things. So I'm really trying to be nicer than I've been.

Do you not even see why I might criticize some posts, and not others?

Even the way you ask questions opens you up for ridicule. Pretend that you are arguing your point in front of a jury - who do think would win - you or me?

Be honest.

NOW - do you see why I get nervous over this kind of stuff?

I don't have a problem with people discussing this - but what some people are doing is trying to advocate a position. If someone advocates a position, they open themself up - that's the way it works here.

I was making the point that your argument doesn't even need to be rebutted by a LEGAL argument. It's so flimsy that it can be rebutted by mere common sense, without me even needing to crack open the codes/cases.

Let me digress:

The "newb" way to think about all this stuff is merely on the basis of "what the law says." That's the way it SHOULD BE - but it is NOT the way it is. In something as highly politicized as "guns" - there's all sorts of other stuff that comes into play (like how badly a DA wants to add another notch to his "win record"). The type of arguing I was just doing in the thread is exactly what you would get from a DA. I was essentially ignoring the law (I still have not even looked it up), and trusting that the jury would too. The law itself is too flimsly to base a defense on - so that opens it up to a LOT of lawyering from both sides.

Now, most people would agree that I "won" my "argument" - AGAIN WITHOUT EVEN USING THE LAW. Don't you guys see how this works? It's not checkers, it's chess, as we say all the time.

NOW - if you found what I was arguing above kind of scary and irritating, imagine how you will feel when a DA, who has the power to charge you with a crime, and who will be trying his (or her) darndest to get you in jail, starts talking. Do you want to feel that vulnerable, in real life?

Of course you do not.

And you should not wish it on anyone else, either.

If you have the ability to tell me to not throw stuff out there especially because I am not a lawyer, why are you not doing the same with Gene?

HondaMasterTech
03-31-2011, 9:49 AM
Oak, you must have "pwn" hotkeyed to your keyboard.

oaklander
03-31-2011, 9:55 AM
Yes, that is exactly how the people who want to put someone in jail for this device will do it - seriously - they will show videos of full auto NFA weapons being fired, and then videos of this device being used to simulate FA fire. It will look the same to the jury.

If the marketing materials for this device contain even one wrong word, that particular word will be used to convict as well. . .

I don't mind people discussing the device, and I wish I *could* own one - since it seems like fun - but I just don't see it being legal here. If folks don't mind discussing the legality of the device instead of trying to make the point that it's legal (since it's not), then I don't have a problem.

Wouldn't showing videos of people legally bump firing to the jury, which will look little different, be how you would attack that kind of argument?

oaklander
03-31-2011, 9:56 AM
LOL - it's a hobby. A sick one, I admit.

I'm really trying to be nice(r), since I'm all involved in politics and stuff like that now. . .

:)

Oak, you must have "pwn" hotkeyed to your keyboard.

stix213
03-31-2011, 10:10 AM
Yes, that is exactly how the people who want to put someone in jail for this device will do it - seriously - they will show videos of full auto NFA weapons being fired, and then videos of this device being used to simulate FA fire. It will look the same to the jury.

If the marketing materials for this device contain even one wrong word, that particular word will be used to convict as well. . .

I don't mind people discussing the device, and I wish I *could* own one - since it seems like fun - but I just don't see it being legal here. If folks don't mind discussing the legality of the device instead of trying to make the point that it's legal (since it's not), then I don't have a problem.

Does the fact that Slide Fire Solutions explicitly maintains that the SSAR-15 does not increase the rate of fire of the firearm carry any weight? Bill argued previously that it is advertised as a rate of fire increaser, but I've tried to find where they make that claim but it appears they do not, and in fact say the exact opposite repeatedly (being that a rate of fire increase is the basis of it being argued to be illegal by Bill).

http://www.slidefiresolutions.com/Product-SSAR-15.html

The SSAR-15 is NOT a mechanical device. It does not perform any automatic functions, and does not increase a rifles rate of fire.

This claim by the company will directly contradict the claim by the DA that it is a rate of fire increaser making it a multi-burst trigger activator if charged as such.

oaklander
03-31-2011, 10:20 AM
No, I think all a DA is going to care about is showing that you bought something, and that that something on your gun, and it made your gun work like a full auto.

That would be #1

Then the #2 thing he/she would do is "make" the device fit into the poorly worded law against MTA's.

You guys are both overthinking and underthinking this.

You are overthinking because you are focusing on the byzantine laws, and not the real issue, which is "can you get a conviction here?"

You are underthinking because by focusing on the laws, you forget that the laws themselves are only ONE single aspect of whether something is "legal" in CA.

Thus, the other aspect is "how likely would a DA get a mental erection if he came across one of these cases." Do you not think that a DA would view convicting someone of a "machine gun violation" as a career enhancing move?

Folks - we have to look at everything here. ALSO - when someone from CGF posts something like this, it's best to listen to them. Sometimes there is more to the story. Now, here I don't know - BUT - I can tell you that I MYSELF listen to CGF.

I don't have a big head about stuff. If Gene has an opinion, I tend not to doubt it. If Bill has an opinion, I tend not to doubt it.

I'm not saying "don't debate this stuff" - BUT - if you do - be prepared to back stuff up - and be prepared to think outside of the box.

Does the fact that Slide Fire Solutions explicitly maintains that the SSAR-15 does not increase the rate of fire of the firearm carry any weight? Bill argued previously that it is advertised as a rate of fire increaser, but I've tried to find where they make that claim but it appears they do not, and in fact say the exact opposite repeatedly (being that a rate of fire increase is the basis of it being argued to be illegal by Bill).

http://www.slidefiresolutions.com/Product-SSAR-15.html

jtmkinsd
03-31-2011, 10:25 AM
Wouldn't showing videos of people legally bump firing to the jury, which will look little different, be how you would attack that kind of argument?

Sure...how many you ever see "legally" bumpfiring from the shoulder?

Everything here is an opinion...THAT is a fact. But the warning should be clear...it's not something you'd want to try to defend in court.

bwiese
03-31-2011, 10:30 AM
The other issue is that even if someone WINS in one trial court, it very well has little applicability into another court. And I don't see this matter running up the appeals chain.

ulv
03-31-2011, 10:36 AM
Before it all got deleted, I remember someone humorously saying that our fingers then are multi-burst trigger activators and therefore possession of fingers is a felony :p

But think about what this could mean! Now our fingers are "tools" and magazines can be released by this "tool".

oaklander
03-31-2011, 10:53 AM
Agreed. No judge in California is going to rule in favor of, what appears to the public, to be a machine gun.

That's yet another problem here.

There are so many, and I am a little freaked out that people don't see them.

Seriously, I get phone calls from Calgunners every few days about various gun arrests. People can't even seem to "drive from point a to point b" without getting thrown in jail for something stupid. And that's people who are following all laws, etc. . . and make one small mistake.

Here, this is just too risky.

And I don't see this matter running up the appeals chain.

HondaMasterTech
03-31-2011, 10:58 AM
I think the typical juror would see a fully automatic machine gun, not a "bumpfired" semiautomatic rifle. The convincing thing to me is that this device makes the bumpfire more accurate and convenient as well as reliable and repeatable. Traditional bumpfire from a belt loop appears to be more of a novelty/trick. At least, from a typical jury perspective.

bubbapug1
03-31-2011, 11:47 AM
Although I didn't like the tone of the other thread, some of the arguments made A LOT of sense to me. Its not worth the risk to own the stock, especially when I can bump fire without the stock.

I sent mine back to the vendor yesterday. I will certainly get banged with a 15% restocking charge, another $10.00 credit card charge, and shipping...so thats around $70.00...lets see, an attorney for a trial would be around $40,000.00 not to mention how much the vasoline would be if convicted and sent to prison...

And the stock isn't that ugly, its actually made very well, and it probably works, although I never mounted it.

Think guys...the risk is high, and only 10 rounds in bump fire is kind of like a very very premature ejaculation.

I hated to see it go, but it was the right thing to do.

stix213
03-31-2011, 12:13 PM
I think Oaklander's points about how regardless of the letter of the law, you're going to get screwed anyway on this one, are reason enough to stay away. That seems to be the most convincing argument here in my eyes.


Sure...how many you ever see "legally" bumpfiring from the shoulder?

Everything here is an opinion...THAT is a fact. But the warning should be clear...it's not something you'd want to try to defend in court.

Bump firing from the shoulder isn't very difficult even without this stock.

w7vpL0wjiws
KwNJx3CG7i0

IntoForever
03-31-2011, 12:50 PM
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o64/jimmykinsd/ATF%20LETTERS/BATFE-Slide-Stock-Review-Le.jpg

That letter to the ATF looks slightly deceiving. It says 'The stock has no automatically functioning mechanical parts or springs and performs no automatic mechanical function when installed'. My question is, doesn't a spring automatically revert to a resting shape when released or push against any thing which distorts is from a resting position automatically or does it just flop around? I'd like to see the ATF use said device then write a letter then send the stock to the CA DOJ for them to evaluate. With letters from the ATF, CA DOJ and the DA with photos as part of the response saying this is acceptable, I'd consider buying one, until then, I'm not going to join that party!

TurboAR
03-31-2011, 1:13 PM
What about the use of one of these bump fire stocks used same in Nevada or New Mexico. Only reason I am asking is that a friend has one and lives in New Mexico. We met in Henderson Nevada at Thanksgiving . We were a few miles from Henderson at a war zone of an area which people were open target shooting. We shot 1000 or so rounds of ammo with it. It was very fun learning to control fire it. I want to do it again this year I hope. Anyhow, the area police drove by us and just looked at us and smiled as we bumped fired away. By the way, he paided 175.00 for his at a gun show.

stix213
03-31-2011, 1:17 PM
What about the use of one of these bump fire stocks used same in Nevada or New Mexico. Only reason I am asking is that a friend has one and lives in New Mexico. We met in Henderson Nevada at Thanksgiving . We were a few miles from Henderson at a war zone of an area which people were open target shooting. We shot 1000 or so rounds of ammo with it. It was very fun learning to control fire it. I want to do it again this year I hope. Anyhow, the area police drove by us and just looked at us and smiled as we bumped fired away. By the way, he paided 175.00 for his at a gun show.

I doubt either of those states have a crime as broad as the multi-burst trigger activator here in CA, and I know that machine guns in compliance with federal law are legal there. Sounds good to go having one over there.

bwiese
03-31-2011, 1:18 PM
What about the use of one of these bump fire stocks used same in Nevada or New Mexico. Only reason I am asking is that a friend has one and lives in New Mexico.

People that live in a free state and/or possess these in a free state like NV/AZ are fine. These appear not to have Federal issues.

My commentary above is solely based on CA law.

oaklander
03-31-2011, 1:34 PM
Yes, all I am asking is that people think this stuff through - beyond the mere "law" and look at the "system" instead. Even if the law is OK (and I don't think it is), the "system" will still screw you on these.

I just don't want any of my friends to get thrown in jail over a $400 toy - just not worth it.

I'm seriously trying to figure out the DOJ permitting process for real FA weapons. While I don't think that there will be any big revelations on that process (don't get out your checkbook just now), I feel a LOT better devoting my time to trying to figure out how to legally own a real FA weapon in CA.

Once you get to that level (ironically) - you have all sorts of "federal" protection for what you are doing - due to perceived "preemption." No local DA is going to try and charge you for illegal possession of something that is legal under both CA law and federal law.

Wish I could explain this better. The take-away is that legally-shaky (in CA) "toys" are that - just toys. They are weak sauce. Let's instead spend some time and effort into figuring out how to LEGALLY get the "real deal" here, etc. . . .

I don't want to "shill" out my NFA trust stuff - that's not why I am on Calguns (and I don't even really make any money off of it anyways). That being said, I'm starting to research the whole "California Legal Machine Gun (http://californianfatrust.com/california-machine-gun-permits-and-the-law/)" stuff. . . and I will be posting what I find out (subject to certain discretion, since machine guns are so political here in CA).

Let's instead move in that direction, instead of getting all erect over what amounts to a cool plastic toy.

boxbro
03-31-2011, 2:10 PM
Before it all got deleted, I remember someone humorously saying that our fingers then are multi-burst trigger activators and therefore possession of fingers is a felony :p

But think about what this could mean! Now our fingers are "tools" and magazines can be released by this "tool".

Yeah, that was me.
When you use your fingers to bump fire you subsequently increase the rate of fire.
If we are to fully accept the argument as to why that the SSAR-15 is illegal, I see no reason why your fingers can't be considered a multi-burst trigger activator as well.
I don't believe there would be a good argument for why the SSAR-15 would be illegal but not our fingers.

audiophil2
03-31-2011, 2:11 PM
Folks - we have to look at everything here. ALSO - when someone from CGF posts something like this, it's best to listen to them. Sometimes there is more to the story. Now, here I don't know - BUT - I can tell you that I MYSELF listen to CGF.


Interesting. You comment that one should listen to what a member of CGF is posting yet the locked thread from Bill (sorry I called you Gene) has a little disclosure saying NOT to treat Bill's posts as coming from the CGF nor as legal advice. So the post he made that was locked is by his own disclaimer an OPINION.
Maybe Bill's statement would have more credibility if it did indeed come from the CGF instead of your false assumption that it did.

Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

CGF Board Member / CRPA Board Member / CRPA Life Member / NRA Patron Life Member

No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are
to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net
ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my
employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as
legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.

Now back to Bill's personal, non-CGF approved opinion:

12020 PC.
(a) Any person in this state who does any of the following is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not
exceeding one year or in the state prison:

(1) Manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or
exposes for sale, or who gives, lends, or possesses any ... {snip}..., any multiburst trigger activator,
...{snip}....


(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.

__________________________________________________ ________________________________


As you can see, the (b) definition above is very very broad - let alone the (a) definition - and there's no
requirement for the 'trigger activator' to have anything really to do with the trigger or being mounted to
the trigger (i.e., it doesn't have to be a "Hellfire"-style device.) All it needs to do is help - or be perceived
as helping increase the fire rate of any semiauto firearm. (There's no differentiation for pistol vs. rifle,
rimfire vs. centerfire.)

I'm trying my best to see Bill's logic here. Please Read again my opinion (not legal advice and not suggestion to buy the SSAR, simply a personal interpretation) and explain how my logic is flawed.

Definition 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.
I do not see how the slidefire fits this definition. The slidefire does in no way activate the trigger. No part of the slidefire touches the trigger at any time. Definition B defines items like the GAT trigger ACTIVATOR, BMF trigger ACTIVATOR, and tac trigger. A similar device would also be the Tactical innovations dual Ruger gatling gun.

Definition 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.

The slidefire does not have the ability to be activated. It is a plastic stock. The bumpfireing action comes from the user pushing the upper (not a part of the slidefire) forward ACTIVATING the trigger. The recoil pushes the lower backward and a new action of pushing the upper forward must take place or the trigger will not ACTIVATE again. If the upper is not pushed forward the second time the rifle will only fire one shot. Pulling back on the slidefire will not cause a second round to fire as it does in no way have the ability to ACTIVATE the trigger.

Thats the legal mumbo jumbo as I understand A and B.

On to machine gun status:

ARTICLE 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS

* 12200. The term "machinegun" as used in this chapter means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can readily be restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person. The term also includes any weapon deemed by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms as readily convertible to a machinegun under Chapter 53 (commencing with Section 5801) of Title 26 of the United States Code.

In order to be a machine gun, the gun must be able to fire more than one shot by the single function of the trigger. Meaning, one trigger pull and 2+ rounds fired equals MG. The slidefire is incapable of firing more than 1 shot per trigger pull thus it is not a MG.

Now Kevin, all I am asking is for your personal opinion on how I interpret the code. I understand that even if a lawyer said the slidefire does not fall under A or B that someone could be prosecuted for having it in CA. As gun owners we should at least take the time to see if by definition this thing is legal and if someone wants to contact DOJ or whomever to get a ruling on this then all the better. I recall it took some brave souls to get OLL's, rebuild kits, featureless/BB rifles, and recently single shot pistols and more shall issue passed. Why not look into this stock as well?

HondaMasterTech
03-31-2011, 2:23 PM
How is "rate of fire" defined?

audiophil2
03-31-2011, 2:32 PM
How is "rate of fire" defined?

I got this from wiki so not sure how much value it has:

The semi-automatic rate is the assault rifle/semi-auto only version on rapid fire. It is the maximum rate that a weapon can fire with any degree of accuracy in semi-auto mode, usually 45-60 rpm.

I don't see how this applies to B though because the entire statement has to be true. Sure the slidefire increases the rate of fire but it is not a trigger activating device.

stix213
03-31-2011, 2:49 PM
Interesting. You comment that one should listen to what a member of CGF is posting yet the locked thread from Bill (sorry I called you Gene) has a little disclosure saying NOT to treat Bill's posts as coming from the CGF nor as legal advice. So the post he made that was locked is by his own disclaimer an OPINION.
Maybe Bill's statement would have more credibility if it did indeed come from the CGF instead of your false assumption that it did.


Of course its his opinion. CGF doesn't necessarily need to take an official position on all firearm accessories. Bill though, as someone who has had a lot of experience in this area should not be ignored as the opinion of just some random joe blow. Through the track record here its obvious his opinion has a level of inherent credibility.

bwiese
03-31-2011, 2:50 PM
Sure the slidefire increases the rate of fire but it is not a
trigger activating device.

What the definition refers to - as opposed to the mere naming of the device - is what is banned.

The fact that it does not actually activate or connect to the trigger is pretty irrelevant.

12020(a) could ban "blue artistic hamsters" but define them in 12020(c) with the rate of fire increase definition we've been discussing - and that would ban the trigger activator device (and not ban real blue hamsters with art skills.)

'Rate of fire' is not defined under CA statute or regulation and the 'plain meaning' would be taken: # of rounds fired per second.

12voltguy
03-31-2011, 2:52 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIC8SMttjjo&feature=player_embeddedSure...how many you ever see "legally" bumpfiring from the shoulder? Everything here is an opinion...THAT is a fact. But the warning should be clear...it's not something you'd want to try to defend in court.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIC8SMttjjo&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIC8SMttjjo&feature=player_embedded

HondaMasterTech
03-31-2011, 3:00 PM
What the definition refers to - as opposed to the mere naming of the device - is what is banned.

The fact that it does not actually activate or connect to the trigger is pretty irrelevant.

12020(a) could ban "blue artistic hamsters" but define them in 12020(c) with the rate of fire increase definition we've been discussing - and that would ban the trigger activator device (and not ban real blue hamsters with art skills.)

'Rate of fire' is not defined under CA statute or regulation and the 'plain meaning' would be taken: # of rounds fired per second.

Could "rate of fire" be applicable in a trial involving only a semi-automatic rifle? Or, could the term be stricken due to inapplicability?

bwiese
03-31-2011, 3:16 PM
Could "rate of fire" be applicable in a trial involving only a semi-automatic rifle? Or, could the term be stricken due to inapplicability?

Don't overthink this. What we think of as customary definitions prob don't apply. They are also not defined in statute.

Rate is rate. Semiautos have cycle times too.
Some guns can be fired more quickly than others.

An average person bump firing and unpracticed will probably not do nearly as well as with an 'activator' device and that will be sufficient.

HondaMasterTech
03-31-2011, 3:25 PM
Don't overthink this. What we think of as customary definitions prob don't apply. They are also not defined in statute.

Rate is rate. Semiautos have cycle times too.
Some guns can be fired more quickly than others.

An average person bump firing and unpracticed will probably not do nearly as well as with an 'activator' device and that will be sufficient.

I understand. It caught my attention, specifically because of the "rate of fire" part since a semi-automatic rifles rate of fire is determined by the gun, as you say, even with the slidefire thing-a-majig, unlike an actuator which would have it's own rate of fire set by it's mechanism.

I'm trying to not overthink this, lol.

I'm starting to think, in my non-legal, non-relevant opinion that, since the device does not activate the trigger and does not have a rate of fire controlled by a mechanism, that this device isn't illegal. Though, given what I think, I think this is a fine line and could spell disaster for peeps

HondaMasterTech
03-31-2011, 3:27 PM
I wouldn't do it in California, is what I'm saying. lol

audiophil2
03-31-2011, 3:49 PM
What the definition refers to - as opposed to the mere naming of the device - is what is banned.

The fact that it does not actually activate or connect to the trigger is pretty irrelevant.

12020(a) could ban "blue artistic hamsters" but define them in 12020(c) with the rate of fire increase definition we've been discussing - and that would ban the trigger activator device (and not ban real blue hamsters with art skills.)

'Rate of fire' is not defined under CA statute or regulation and the 'plain meaning' would be taken: # of rounds fired per second.

Bill,
you are mixing my quote "Sure the slidefire increases the rate of fire but it is not a trigger activating device." with regard to 12020 B and applying it to 12020 A. A and B are separate definitions of types of MBD.

12020 A could only ban blue artistic hamsters if something like a hamster wheel and a pulley set were attached to the trigger guard where when the hamsters ran in the wheel the device would turn lobes that ACTIVATE the trigger. Same as having hamsters spin a wheel that was attached to a GAT trigger ACTIVATOR.

You are correct in that the device does not need to activate or connect to the trigger. 12020A defines a MBD as something that causes 2+ shots in a burst by ACTIVATING the device. The slidefire is incapable of being activated. It has no moving parts or electronics. It would be the same as saying you can activate a hand rail. How do you activate a handrail? It's just metal. The Akins Accelerator used springs to moved the receiver back and forth. That is a perfect example of 12020A.

The more I think of it 12020A sounds like the definition of the old string and ring wrapped around the slide, grip, and through the trigger. When you pull on the ring it presses the trigger and the movement of the slide causes the trigger to reset rapidly. In this case the loop on the string has now become the trigger and one pull will cause 2+ shots. It makes sense why ATF would call that string setup a MG, but not a MBD. The slidefire and the Akins Accelerator do not do this. The trigger still has to be pulled each time by a finger.

audiophil2
03-31-2011, 3:59 PM
I think one thing that should be noted is that items like the slidefire, rubberband behind the trigger, tac trigger, etc require 2 hands to operate. If there is no force pushing the upper away from the slidefire it will not fire more than one shot.

True trigger ACTIVATORS (12020B) like the Gat trigger, BMF activator, and nanocrank to not required foward pressure and can easily be manipulated to fire with one hand touching the gun.

audiophil2
03-31-2011, 8:29 PM
From slidefiresolutions website:

Legality
-Is the SSAR or Bump Firing legal in my state?
A very good question! The SSAR-15, by definition, is not an adjustable stock, nor does it qualify as a trigger manipulation device. Slide Fire Solutions’ has not been notified by any state that our product conflicts with any laws.

I understand that slidefire is not a CA atty, DA, judge, or jury panel and that just because no one has told the company that the stock is illegal does not automatically make it legal. I just wonder what the ramifications could be if a member intentionally spreads misinformation to a large group of slidefires potential customers that the product is illegal. Could slidefire seek damages if the CA law system rules the product perfectly legal?
I can see how the wrong opinion, mine, Bill's, Kevin's, etc could cause liability in many ways.

oaklander
03-31-2011, 8:34 PM
I just spent the day with a retired judge. HE thinks this stock is a bad idea, *I* think it's a bad idea, Bill (who knows more about this law than probably even *I* do) - thinks it's a bad idea.

I've outlined the problems I have with it, and Bill's outlined the similar problems *he* has with it.

It's a fricken TOY, for heaven's sake. I appreciate your determination on this issue - and we need more people like you - but seriously - it's just not something that is worth the risk.

Now Kevin, all I am asking is for your personal opinion on how I interpret the code. I understand that even if a lawyer said the slidefire does not fall under A or B that someone could be prosecuted for having it in CA. As gun owners we should at least take the time to see if by definition this thing is legal and if someone wants to contact DOJ or whomever to get a ruling on this then all the better. I recall it took some brave souls to get OLL's, rebuild kits, featureless/BB rifles, and recently single shot pistols and more shall issue passed. Why not look into this stock as well?

Peter.Steele
03-31-2011, 9:00 PM
What about a "rocking trigger"? If anyone is into paintball you'd know what I'm talking about. It's basically a see-saw type trigger that allows the operator to use two fingers and fire the weapon with a "walking" motion of two fingers.

Each finger would be performing a seperate trigger pull with no more than one round being fired per trigger pull.


Can you imagine the mechanical nightmare that would be? The only way it works there is because it appears to be electronic ...

You'd be better off with the traditional paintball-style trigger, the really long one with two grooves for fingers. But then, you'd have a really rough time trying to aim your fire. You can do it with a paintball gun because there's no recoil to speak of.

bwiese
03-31-2011, 9:07 PM
From slidefiresolutions website:

Legality
-Is the SSAR or Bump Firing legal in my state?
A very good question! The SSAR-15, by definition, is not an adjustable stock, nor does it qualify as a trigger manipulation device. Slide Fire Solutions’ has not been notified by any state that our product conflicts with any laws.

I understand that slidefire is not a CA atty, DA, judge, or jury panel and that just because no one has told the company that the stock is illegal does not automatically make it legal. I just wonder what the ramifications could be if a member intentionally spreads misinformation to a large group of slidefires potential customers that the product is illegal. Could slidefire seek damages if the CA law system rules the product perfectly legal?
I can see how the wrong opinion, mine, Bill's, Kevin's, etc could cause liability in many ways.


Given this is a politcal and legal discussion forum and the assertion was done in good faith without malice (i.e, not a competitor) - and given mine, Kevin's, CGF's and others' past endeavors trying to keep people out of jail, not much would happen - esp when a well-known gun attorney has already told me in a more or less public venue that this is illlegal anyway :)

Even if one trial court punts on this and accidentally says it's legal, that's not a real win - that's just a successful defense. Nobody's taking this up the appeals chain anyway and I don't see gunrights groups doing much on this given its toy/novelty/nonserious status and so many other gun rights battles to fight that are actually IMPORTANT.

They can sue me if they want.

audiophil2
03-31-2011, 9:15 PM
I just spent the day with a retired judge. HE thinks this stock is a bad idea, *I* think it's a bad idea, Bill (who knows more about this law than probably even *I* do) - thinks it's a bad idea.

I've outlined the problems I have with it, and Bill's outlined the similar problems *he* has with it.

It's a fricken TOY, for heaven's sake. I appreciate your determination on this issue - and we need more people like you - but seriously - it's just not something that is worth the risk.

Wow. I don;t even know how to reply to this. So a few guys think the slidefire is a bad idea. First it was said it was illegal. Bill's sticky states it is illegal. Now it's just a bad idea. If you're going to go to that level then why not just say all guns are a bad idea? CA has so many laws on the books and it has been pretty clear that members here have done what others considered a bad idea (OLL, UOC, etc) yet not illegal and there have been arrests. There have also been clarifications and punitive damage lawsuits won.

Yes it's a toy. I like toys. My determination is not about right or wrong, good idea or bad idea, risk and reward. All I wanted to figure out with the help of some very intelligent members here like you and Bill is if this thing trully is a multi burst device. So far I have provided very clear interpretations as well as examples to back up my interpretations and I get no response other than changing the discussion away from finding the most reasonable definition.
All I get from you is a judges opinion it is a bad idea (not illegal), your same opinion as well as you speaking for Bill that it is a bad idea (illegal now removed from the subject).

If you simply think the stock is a bad idea and cannot provide reasonable explanations or examples of how it would be determined illegal then change the sticky to an opinion instead of stating an unproven fact that it is illegal.
Think about the manufacturer. Is it fair for you to announce on this forum that their product is illegal in CA without explaining exactly why?

I do appreciate your responses. I may be wrong but it seems as if you are looking at my explanations with a more open mind and may not think it is illegal. If CGN can change the working of the sticky I would gladly delete all my posts in this tread. I am not trying to win a pissing contest. I just want to see a fair treatment of this fun looking toy.

oaklander
03-31-2011, 9:31 PM
Just read what I wrote, I'm getting tired of repeating everything.

I'm really trying to be nice, but you are now wasting my time, and Bill's time.

While I don't think CGF will support a test case on this toy, individual citizens are free to do what they want.

If you want to be a test case, feel free.

With respect to your legal arguments, I didn't even read them. I don't need to, since the sole issue here is not even the code sections - it's whether or not a prosecutor can convince a jury that this makes a gun into a "machine gun."

Do you want to risk a felony on some stranger's definition of a few poorly-worded words?

You are making it TOO COMPLICATED.

Wow. I don;t even know how to reply to this. So a few guys think the slidefire is a bad idea. First it was said it was illegal. Bill's sticky states it is illegal. Now it's just a bad idea. If you're going to go to that level then why not just say all guns are a bad idea? CA has so many laws on the books and it has been pretty clear that members here have done what others considered a bad idea (OLL, UOC, etc) yet not illegal and there have been arrests. There have also been clarifications and punitive damage lawsuits won.

Yes it's a toy. I like toys. My determination is not about right or wrong, good idea or bad idea, risk and reward. All I wanted to figure out with the help of some very intelligent members here like you and Bill is if this thing trully is a multi burst device. So far I have provided very clear interpretations as well as examples to back up my interpretations and I get no response other than changing the discussion away from finding the most reasonable definition.
All I get from you is a judges opinion it is a bad idea (not illegal), your same opinion as well as you speaking for Bill that it is a bad idea (illegal now removed from the subject).

If you simply think the stock is a bad idea and cannot provide reasonable explanations or examples of how it would be determined illegal then change the sticky to an opinion instead of stating an unproven fact that it is illegal.
Think about the manufacturer. Is it fair for you to announce on this forum that their product is illegal in CA without explaining exactly why?

I do appreciate your responses. I may be wrong but it seems as if you are looking at my explanations with a more open mind and may not think it is illegal. If CGN can change the working of the sticky I would gladly delete all my posts in this tread. I am not trying to win a pissing contest. I just want to see a fair treatment of this fun looking toy.

audiophil2
03-31-2011, 9:33 PM
Given this is a politcal and legal discussion forum and the assertion was done in good faith without malice (i.e, not a competitor) - and given mine, Kevin's, CGF's and others' past endeavors trying to keep people out of jail, not much would happen - esp when a well-known gun attorney has already told me in a more or less public venue that this is illlegal anyway :)

Even if one trial court punts on this and accidentally says it's legal, that's not a real win - that's just a successful defense. Nobody's taking this up the appeals chain anyway and I don't see gunrights groups doing much on this given its toy/novelty/nonserious status and so many other gun rights battles to fight that are actually IMPORTANT.

They can sue me if they want.

That's quite a shame. You would rather hold fast to an unproven opinion and treat it as fact simply because you are sure no one will make an issue of your opinion being represented as fact than simply edit your statement in a way that clearly makes it an opinion and strongly suggest no one purchase the item.

Honestly, I have no dog in this race. I can buy the stock if I want and probably will. I'm not trying to get CA residents in trouble. I'm not even trying to prove you wrong. I just see your statement as misleading as you are treating some lawyers words as well as your own as some kind of DOJ/DA ruling. Go ahead and fight the fight ensuring gun owners stay out of trouble. Just don't think you make the laws. You don't.

audiophil2
03-31-2011, 9:36 PM
Just read what I wrote, I'm getting tired of repeating everything.

I'm really trying to be nice, but you are now wasting my time, and Bill's time.

While I don't think CGF will support a test case on this toy, individual citizens are free to do what they want. If you want to be a test case, feel free.

OK. I'll stop trying to get some real clarification. I would love to be a test case but I can't. Slidefires are perfectly legal where I live.
Keep on fighting the good fight. CA needs you.

bwiese
03-31-2011, 9:45 PM
That's quite a shame. You would rather hold fast to an unproven opinion and treat it as fact simply because you are sure no one will make an issue of your opinion being represented as fact than simply edit your statement in a way that clearly makes it an opinion and strongly suggest no one purchase the item.

When I see a broad swath of coverage from the law and a noted gun lawyer agrees with me that it's "ungood", that's good enough for me.


. I just see your statement as misleading as you are treating some lawyers words as well as your own as some kind of DOJ/DA ruling.DOJ doesn't give out rulings on parts. They've abandoned that since 2006 at the start of the OLL rush.

If you get anything at all, it will just re-quote 12020(c)(23) PC and say, "... if you have further questions, please consult your lawyer."


Go ahead and fight the fight ensuring gun owners stay out of trouble. Just don't think you make the laws. You don't.Case law will only be made if (1) there's a conviction and (2) it goes up the appeals chain.

In the meantime the wording is sufficiently clear to regard this as banned. Everyone else here is really trying hard to find escape clauses in wordings that are unrestricted by any regulatory definitions (unlike AW features which are formally defined in 11 CCR 5469).

audiophil2
03-31-2011, 10:04 PM
When I see a broad swath of coverage from the law and a noted gun lawyer agrees with me that it's "ungood", that's good enough for me.


DOJ doesn't give out rulings on parts. They've abandoned that since 2006 at the start of the OLL rush.

If you get anything at all, it will just re-quote 12020(c)(23) PC and say, "... if you have further questions, please consult your lawyer."


Case law will only be made if (1) there's a conviction and (2) it goes up the appeals chain.

In the meantime the wording is sufficiently clear to regard this as banned. Everyone else here is really trying hard to find escape clauses in wordings that are unrestricted by any regulatory definitions (unlike AW features which are formally defined in 11 CCR 5469).

Bill,
thanks for the response. You guys know way more than most of us but I am not the type that just gets info spoonfed to me. I do appreciate you clarifying how the DOJ works. Seems like its all guilty until proven innocent over and over again after filing for bankruptcy to stay out of jail. Seriously no win situation going on over there.
I think I'll have a moment of silence for CA gun owners tomorrow before playing with my GAT activator on my little beltfed.

pdugan6
03-31-2011, 10:08 PM
I don't enjoy wasting that much ammo for no specific reason. quality placement not quantity

Spyder
03-31-2011, 10:16 PM
12020(c)(23)(A) makes it pretty obviously clear to me. It defines a multiburst trigger activator as:
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.

Does the slidefire stock attach to a semiautomatic firearm? Yes.
Does it allow the firearm to discharge two or more shots in a burst by activating the device? Yes.

It attaches to a rifle, and it is activated when you hold your finger on the tab by the trigger and pushe the upper half of the rifle forward. You can activate it for one round, for two rounds, for a whole magazine or for any number of rounds in between.

Hopefully everyone agrees that the stock is attached to the semiautomatic firearm.

Activation of the device comes when you use it. When you use the device, you activate it. When you activate the device, the rifle is capable of firing 2 or more rounds. When you use the device, the rifle is capable of firing 2 or more rounds. I don't see where the confusion comes in.

To defend it as not a multiburst trigger activator, you would have to show that when the device is attached to the semiautomatic firearm, the firearm is NOT capable of firing 2 or more rounds when you use the device.

Can you prove that the stock does NOT make the semiautomatic firearm capable of firing 2 or more rounds when you activate/use the stock? That's the whole POINT of the stock, so it can not be proven.

stix213
03-31-2011, 10:38 PM
12020(c)(23)(A) makes it pretty obviously clear to me. It defines a multiburst trigger activator as:
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.

Does the slidefire stock attach to a semiautomatic firearm? Yes.
Does it allow the firearm to discharge two or more shots in a burst by activating the device? Yes.

It attaches to a rifle, and it is activated when you hold your finger on the tab by the trigger and pushe the upper half of the rifle forward. You can activate it for one round, for two rounds, for a whole magazine or for any number of rounds in between.

Hopefully everyone agrees that the stock is attached to the semiautomatic firearm.

Activation of the device comes when you use it. When you use the device, you activate it. When you activate the device, the rifle is capable of firing 2 or more rounds. When you use the device, the rifle is capable of firing 2 or more rounds. I don't see where the confusion comes in.

To defend it as not a multiburst trigger activator, you would have to show that when the device is attached to the semiautomatic firearm, the firearm is NOT capable of firing 2 or more rounds when you use the device.

Can you prove that the stock does NOT make the semiautomatic firearm capable of firing 2 or more rounds when you activate/use the stock? That's the whole POINT of the stock, so it can not be proven.

Using your definition of using a device to fire 2 or more rounds, then a standard pistol grip would even fit since it attaches to the firearm and when using the pistol grip you are capable of firing two or more rounds. You could say that about a magazine, or even the trigger itself. Your definition you are using is a bit silly. Obviously it has to go a little deeper than what you are claiming.

mtsul
03-31-2011, 10:47 PM
Wow tag this p

goober
03-31-2011, 10:53 PM
depends what the definition of "burst" is :D

TurboAR
04-01-2011, 9:19 AM
I just wish there was a way to test drive this Bump fire stock in the CA legal system, I donít want to see anybody having to pay $40K to fight this in court. Canít a letter with a sample bump fire stock be sent to CA DOJ for clarification and or certification or being legal or not being legal?

boxbro
04-01-2011, 9:44 AM
DOJ doesn't give out rulings on parts. They've abandoned that since 2006 at the start of the OLL rush.

If you get anything at all, it will just re-quote 12020(c)(23) PC and say, "... if you have further questions, please consult your lawyer."

If this isn't illegal, it should be.
The government should be required to answer questions of legality.

audiophil2
04-01-2011, 9:47 AM
I just wish there was a way to test drive this Bump fire stock in the CA legal system, I donít want to see anybody having to pay $40K to fight this in court. Canít a letter with a sample bump fire stock be sent to CA DOJ for clarification and or certification or being legal or not being legal?

I'm working on it. As far as I have read into this thread no one can specifically explain how this item is illegal in CA. It has gone from illegal status to bad idea to needing case precedent to determine its legality.
It might take awhile but I am in contact with Slidefiresolutions and am willing to find a way to determine its legality without having to get arrested.

boxbro
04-01-2011, 9:51 AM
I'm working on it. As far as I have read into this thread no one can specifically explain how this item is illegal in CA. It has gone from illegal status to bad idea to needing case precedent to determine its legality.
It might take awhile but I am in contact with Slidefiresolutions and am willing to find a way to determine its legality without having to get arrested.

Well, maybe it's the wording that is getting you.
Why don't we say that based on the wording of the law, it is entirely possible, if not probable, that Police and DA's might feel this is illegal and might arrest and prosecute because of that, and they probably would be able to convince a jury that it is in fact illegal and someone did in fact possess such illegal item.

bwiese
04-01-2011, 9:52 AM
If this isn't illegal, it should be.
The government should be required to answer questions of legality.

This is not just DOJ Bureau of Firearms.

Other gov't agencies are similar, too - though the fact the DOJ is under the AG magnifies things, since they are the 'opponent' in legal proceedings and we live in an adversarial legal system. (Note that I didn't say 'justice' system.)

TurboAR
04-01-2011, 10:01 AM
Good work Audiophil2, reading all this stuff makes my head spin.
I'm working on it. As far as I have read into this thread no one can specifically explain how this item is illegal in CA. It has gone from illegal status to bad idea to needing case precedent to determine its legality.
It might take awhile but I am in contact with Slidefiresolutions and am willing to find a way to determine its legality without having to get arrested.

jaymz
04-01-2011, 10:01 AM
12020(c)(23)(A) makes it pretty obviously clear to me. It defines a multiburst trigger activator as:
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.

Does the slidefire stock attach to a semiautomatic firearm? Yes.
Does it allow the firearm to discharge two or more shots in a burst by activating the device? Yes.

It attaches to a rifle, and it is activated when you hold your finger on the tab by the trigger and pushe the upper half of the rifle forward. You can activate it for one round, for two rounds, for a whole magazine or for any number of rounds in between.

Hopefully everyone agrees that the stock is attached to the semiautomatic firearm.

Activation of the device comes when you use it. When you use the device, you activate it. When you activate the device, the rifle is capable of firing 2 or more rounds. When you use the device, the rifle is capable of firing 2 or more rounds. I don't see where the confusion comes in.

To defend it as not a multiburst trigger activator, you would have to show that when the device is attached to the semiautomatic firearm, the firearm is NOT capable of firing 2 or more rounds when you use the device.

Can you prove that the stock does NOT make the semiautomatic firearm capable of firing 2 or more rounds when you activate/use the stock? That's the whole POINT of the stock, so it can not be proven.

I can unquestionably prove that a properly functioning AR15 will only fire one round per trigger pull - no matter what you attach to the rifle. It's simple mechanics. The slippery slope here is what's the legal definition of "burst" as it pertains to firearms. Most people that I have ever asked seem to agree that it relates to how many rounds are fired with one pull of the trigger. "Three round bursts" fire 3 rounds with one trigger squeeze, that's a fact. Therefore, a "multi-burst activator" regardless of the type, must fire two or more rounds per trigger activation to be illegal and they absolutely cannot do that. Look at the name "multi-burst", that alone implies multiple bursts - used on the semi auto firearm for which it is designed simply means "multiple single shots". Multi bursts increase your finger's rate of fire, they do not increase the firearms rate of fire. You can put an AR upper on an M16 lower and it will function as the M16 upper does. It is capable of 6-7 hundred rpm.

Again, don't posses these things, stocks, cranks, whatever. Not worth it.

audiophil2
04-01-2011, 10:01 AM
Well, maybe it's the wording that is getting you.
Why don't we say that based on the wording of the law, it is entirely possible, if not probable, that Police and DA's might feel this is illegal and might arrest and prosecute because of that, and they probably would be able to convince a jury that it is in fact illegal and someone did in fact possess such illegal item.

I agree with you 100%. After Kevin and Bill very graciously explained themselves and their stance I see the slidefire stock as a prosecution in the making. It does not make the item illegal though prior to conviction. My sand in the pants issue is that it has been ruled guilty before proven innocent instead of simply strongly opined that ownership may cause jail time.

Think to the whole UOC threads. The big guys at CGN and CGF never said UOC was illegal. They said UOC at your own risk and if you get arrested don't beg CGF for legal help since you were warned not to UOC by us at this time.

audiophil2
04-01-2011, 10:11 AM
I can unquestionably prove that a properly functioning AR15 will only fire one round per trigger pull - no matter what you attach to the rifle. It's simple mechanics. The slippery slope here is what's the legal definition of "burst" as it pertains to firearms. Most people that I have ever asked seem to agree that it relates to how many rounds are fired with one pull of the trigger. "Three round bursts" fire 3 rounds with one trigger squeeze, that's a fact. Therefore, a "multi-burst activator" regardless of the type, must fire two or more rounds per trigger activation to be illegal and they absolutely cannot do that. Look at the name "multi-burst", that alone implies multiple bursts - used on the semi auto firearm for which it is designed simply means "multiple single shots". Multi bursts increase your finger's rate of fire, they do not increase the firearms rate of fire. You can put an AR upper on an M16 lower and it will function as the M16 upper does. It is capable of 6-7 hundred rpm.

Again, don't posses these things, stocks, cranks, whatever. Not worth it.

You are correct about the one round per trigger pull but you cannot leave out the outside the box thinking of what constitutes a trigger. Under ATFE machine gun law the little rope around the slide, around the handgrip, and past the trigger with a ring on the end creates a machine gun. The guns OEM trigger still fires one round at a time but is not longer the trigger according the the ATFE. The ring you pull becomes the trigger and since you only need to pull it once to make the gun fires multiple shots you just created a MG.

Same applies to GAT and BMF trigger activators. They are legal because you are cranking them to fire the gun. The trigger is still the guns trigger. I was going to modify the GAT so that I could attach a cordless drill to it. Had I done that, the trigger on the cordless drill would become the gun trigger making it a machine gun. Luckily I read up on it before I actually did it.

wash
04-01-2011, 10:48 AM
What's the difference between something illegal and something very likely to get you arrested and in a criminal trial that you will probably lose?

I can't see too much there.

We are in a delicate time for RKBA in California and the whole country. Like Cruikshank and Slaughter house, we can have our rights restricted for decades if we get the wrong decision in court. We have to back winners and win every time. That's why the SD CCW case was such a setback. People who would have gotten permits were denied because of that case. It's probably not too much of a stretch to think that people will die because of it.

Now what we are talking about here is a ~toy. It might be great fun but if there is a test case, what are the possible outcomes? The best case is a win, people are allowed to own this toy until some anti decides to go on a crusade to ban these "dangerous guns that allow our underpriveledged fatherless youth to hail accurate spray fire at innocent women, children and registered voters, from the hip with the shoulder thing that goes up". The much more likely result is a guy who wants a toy gets sent to jail and looses his gun rights over a toy.

This isn't the right battle to fight at this time. It's a matter of strategy. Limited resources don't help either.

So if you still wonder about it's legality, I would say that it might fall outside of the multi burst trigger activator area but it is certainly what they were trying to ban when that law was written.

We don't need to stir up a fight over something that the antis will paint as a machine gun. We aren't there yet.

B Strong
04-01-2011, 11:44 AM
Another post (locked and all but one post deleted) got me fired up (again), and I must respectfully disagree with one of the "Right People", and not so respectfully disagree with the CADOJ. These (http://militarygunsupply.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=1082), according to the letter of the law, are NOT illegal.

12020 PC.
(a) Any person in this state who does any of the following is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not
exceeding one year or in the state prison:
(1) Manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or
exposes for sale, or who gives, lends, or possesses any ... {snip}..., any multiburst trigger activator,
...{snip}....


(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.

A properly functioning AR15, as well as many if not all semi-auto firearms, simply will not fire more than one round, without all of the trigger and related firing mechanism components going through a certain sequence of events. In short, one trigger pull, one bullet out the barrel. That tosses "A" out the window - doesn't apply.

"Increases the rate of fire" is key. I couldn't find any specific rate of fire info for an AR15, but for all intents and purporses, the M16 is the same, and full auto rate of fire is north of 650-700 rpm. I'm 99% certain that none of the multi-burst activators are capable of increasing the rate of fire above what the rifle was engineered to. That tosses "B" out the window - doesn't apply. A lightweight buffer (http://vuurwapenblog.com/2010/12/12/ar-15-rate-of-fire-as-a-function-of-buffer-weight-and-action-spring-initial-comparison/) weight and spring is more likely to be a felony, due to the fact that it can actually increase the rate of fire, compared to a stock weight and spring. Should everyone with a lightweight spring and buffer destroy those parts?

Am am not arguing the fact that possesion of these things will not land you in jail and/or lose your gun rights - they very likely will. Don't possess the stuff. My argument is that anyone that agrees that multi-burst activators are illegal, is dead wrong.

Let's keep the discussion civil guys, I'm hoping somebody can either prove me wrong, or prove me right. Not just opinions, but proof. Show me high speed video that shows a multi-burst at +700 rpm. Show me a trigger crank that makes two bullets come out without the entire firing mechanism going through thier sequence.

If you can do a mag dump faster with the activator than with a finger and a semi-auto AR, you're sunk.

Save the money from not buying an activator and the money from the ammo you'd waste fooling around with it, and go to a carbine class.

bwiese
04-01-2011, 11:49 AM
If you can do a mag dump faster with the activator than with a finger and a semi-auto AR, you're sunk.


Bingo. And all the marketing material & videos SFS uses to sell the device moot any assertions of non-rate-increase.

Furthermore, other comparisons with other similar devices will not speak favorably to its legality.

oaklander
04-01-2011, 12:14 PM
Correct!!!!

And like you, my personal opinion is that the device we are talking about is:

1) Cool
2) Looks like it's well made here in the USA
3) Probably a lot of fun
4) Not in apparent violation of FEDERAL LAW
5) Sadly, a "risk" under CA law

Although I think this device is a fairly awesome toy (just telling you all the truth here), and I would LOVE to own one. I'm not going to own one, since the risk is too great.

And remember - I'm the person who volregged the FIRST AMD-65 pistol with DOJ, and I'm who they told that the AMD-65 pistol was illegal. It's not, and I got mine volregged after sending certain communications to certain people. Heck, we just built another one, and posted it all over the interwebz.

SO - I'm not a "shrinking violet" here, is the point.

But THIS THING scares me. So think about it - if something scares ME, it's not going to be something that YOU ALL want to get into.

:D

Now, I realize that the manufacturer reads this thread, and if they have concerns about me and Bill's personal opinions here, then they are welcome to contact either one (or both) of us.

We will tell them the same thing:

We like the stock, and we think that it would be fun, and we have nothing against the product or the company that makes it, and we wish them the BEST - BUT - we would rather not that they try and promote it in California.

Obviously, we can't make them not sell it here, and we are not going to do the "punk thing" and get a letter from DOJ saying that it's not legal here - but trust me, all someone has to do - if they doubt us - is to write CA DOJ, and get an opinion.

What CA DOJ will say is that they won't issue an opinion on it, but that the various DA's around the state may choose to charge it as a MTA, etc. . .

Bingo. And all the marketing material & videos SFS uses to sell the device moot any assertions of non-rate-increase.

Furthermore, other comparisons with other similar devices will not speak favorably to its legality.

audiophil2
04-01-2011, 12:40 PM
Correct!!!!

And like you, my personal opinion is that the device we are talking about is:


5) Sadly, a "risk" under CA law


Now, I realize that the manufacturer reads this thread, and if they have concerns about me and Bill's personal opinions here, then they are welcome to contact either one (or both) of us.


but trust me, all someone has to do - if they doubt us - is to write CA DOJ, and get an opinion.

What CA DOJ will say is that they won't issue an opinion on it, but that the various DA's around the state may choose to charge it as a MTA, etc. . .

1. This is stickied as not legal, not as a risk. All I ask if for the sticky to be changed to "risk", "severe risk", "prepare for jail time with bubba", etc.

2. Calguns is not as popular as you may assume. Most CA gun owners have not heard of this site if you look at the registered members vs. gun owners. A gun owner in Alabama probably never searched for 10 round mag limits in CA.

3. I have contacted both Slidefire solutions and CA DOJ Firearms division. I don;t expect an answer from DOJ because Bill said they don't respond but I sent it anyway. Not to be bullheaded but to say at least I tried.

Freeze1977
04-01-2011, 12:55 PM
Bingo. And all the marketing material & videos SFS uses to sell the device moot any assertions of non-rate-increase.

Furthermore, other comparisons with other similar devices will not speak favorably to its legality.

A rifle can be fired just as quickly without the SSAR-15 - simply bumpfire from the hip. The SSAR-15 just makes it where you can make sure those rounds don't end up in someones bedroom 4 miles down the road.

The rifle is capable of the same rate of fire with or without the SSAR-15 ... someone could argue that the SSAR-15 is a safety device for those people that enjoy bumpfiring. Kinda like seatbelts ... the seatbelt doesn't make the car drive any safer ... it just makes the act of driving safer.

For someone to increase the rate of fire of a firearm - they have to physically alter the fire control group and/or the internals of the firearm.

I.e. - if you replace the buffer spring with an extra strength buffer spring - the bolt carrier will return to battery faster than before therefore allowing the rate of fire of the firearm to be increase from the unaltered version.

Or - you can put replace the buffer assembly with a lighter versions to accomplish the same result.

Another example, would be reducing the weight of the hammer (like a match trigger) so that the hammers engagement time is shortened - resulting in an increase in the rifles ability to shoot faster.

Since the SSAR-15 doesn't alter the physical mechanics of the gun itself ... the rifle with or without the SSAR-15 is capable of shooting at it's maximum rate of fire (different mechanical parts will determine that value). You actually have to change or add something to the mechanical portion of the rifle to change it's rate of fire. That is why the military added the H2 buffer, because they wanted to slow it down.

Just out of curiosity ... has this law ever been used to convict someone?

oaklander
04-01-2011, 1:21 PM
Wrong. Please, you have a tendency to throw out multiple wrong assertions in all of your posts.

2. Calguns is not as popular as you may assume.

I'm meeting with a senior ATF manager in a couple of weeks, just to say "hi" - and to make sure that he understands that "we" are usually all on the same team. I'm sure he will have an opinion about this device, and it will be interesting to hear.

But, the real reason I am meeting with him is that he was reading a Calguns thread, and saw that I was one of the people here (like Bill & Gene) who actually knows what he/she is talking about.

You will note that he didn't contact you.

:D

Calguns is read by top LE, powerful politicians, FFLs - basically, all the major stakeholders in CA gun law/politics.

If you do not understand the whole "stakeholder" concept, you are already in over your head. Seriously, at this level, even the wrong words in a post can result in things that are bad.

And PLEASE - don't take this post and deliberately mis-interpret my words. You seem to think that "pretending to mis-understand words" is the same as "debate."

You seem like a nice guy, but you are kind of like the person who goes to a auto-mechanics shop and peppers the mechanics with random questions about what they are doing.

If I say "I am changing the oil," you then ask me why I'm not using "ATF" instead. Then I say that ATF hurts engines, and then you say that you read on the internet that it's OK. Etc., etc. . .

You are pleasant, but at this point - tedious.

oaklander
04-01-2011, 1:23 PM
Welcome. If you are from the company that makes the "SSAR-15" - or are otherwise affiliated with them - please have the courtesy to so state in your post. Your post reads like the talking points that they probably used when they contacted the ATF to get federal approval. You are also welcome to contact me using the information in my profile here, and discuss this offline, if it will make you more comfortable.

That being said, we are not going to re-open the debate on this. Our personal opinions are clear at this point, and nothing further needs to be said.

If that's not good enough, I will ask Kes to lock THIS thread too, and to delete any future posts on this topic. "Horses" don't need to be beaten after they are dead, etc. . . This horse is now a rotting corpse, and let's not desecrate it any further.

In fact, I am going to have this thread locked, so that the manufacturer will HAVE to contact me or Bill. This is enough on this, seriously.

A rifle can be fired just as quickly without the SSAR-15 - simply bumpfire from the hip. The SSAR-15 just makes it where you can make sure those rounds don't end up in someones bedroom 4 miles down the road.

The rifle is capable of the same rate of fire with or without the SSAR-15 ... someone could argue that the SSAR-15 is a safety device for those people that enjoy bumpfiring. Kinda like seatbelts ... the seatbelt doesn't make the car drive any safer ... it just makes the act of driving safer.

For someone to increase the rate of fire of a firearm - they have to physically alter the fire control group and/or the internals of the firearm.

I.e. - if you replace the buffer spring with an extra strength buffer spring - the bolt carrier will return to battery faster than before therefore allowing the rate of fire of the firearm to be increase from the unaltered version.

Or - you can put replace the buffer assembly with a lighter versions to accomplish the same result.

Another example, would be reducing the weight of the hammer (like a match trigger) so that the hammers engagement time is shortened - resulting in an increase in the rifles ability to shoot faster.

Since the SSAR-15 doesn't alter the physical mechanics of the gun itself ... the rifle with or without the SSAR-15 is capable of shooting at it's maximum rate of fire (different mechanical parts will determine that value). You actually have to change or add something to the mechanical portion of the rifle to change it's rate of fire. That is why the military added the H2 buffer, because they wanted to slow it down.

Just out of curiosity ... has this law ever been used to convict someone?

Freeze1977
04-01-2011, 1:40 PM
You can look online and see the exact letter that Slide Fire Solutions used when they submitted the SSAR-15 to the ATF for approval. None of your assumptions about what is in the letter is correct.

I am just calling it as I see it ... if your scared ... that's fine don't use. I was just stating that to meet the qualification that something "increases the rate-of-fire" it would have to CHANGE the physical properties of the mechanics of the rifle or the fire control group - as the letter that is shown in the earlier posts ... the ATF said it's non-mechanical and performs no automatic functions.

So how does something that's not mechanical and performs no automatic functions increase the rate of fire of a firearm? Simple it doesn't.

All this fear mongering is sad ... were suppose to live in a free country - yet we bread fear of the government that is suppose to be put in place by our own choosing.

Go ahead and lock it ... doesn't matter to me ... all I was asking was to explain your thinking.

oaklander
04-01-2011, 1:44 PM
My thinking is clearly delineated here in the numerous posts preceding this one.

The issue now is not my thinking, it is YOUR reading comprehension. Either that, or you just read the last couple of posts - either way - you do not seem like a very thoughtful person. And you are not the type of person that anyone will listen to, because of that. . .

Please do not further embarrass yourself here on this forum, as you appear to be getting ready to do.

At this point, I feel like I am now visiting a day care center, if you get my drift.

WAIT: it's an April Fools joke - I get it now. Too funny!

all I was asking was to explain your thinking.

Kestryll
04-01-2011, 1:56 PM
Okay, the subject has been brought to the fore and there is now enough 'noise' that atention is being paid to it.

Until such time as DoJ addresses this or an assessment/opinion is made publicly by a firearms attorney this is nothing but circular arguing.

I will say this much however, looking at the video on the site including the parts about controlled bursts and single shots in addition to 'magazine emptying bumpfiring' I would consider this to be a means of making a select fire conversion and will not allow them to be sold on Calguns.net.

Should the legal issue and concerns change or DoJ clarify it's legality in CA in writing this will change but until then we will err on the side of caution.