PDA

View Full Version : Where is the slide / bump fire stock thread?


speeder
10-01-2011, 5:53 AM
I keep searching with every combo of words phrases but I can't find any threads on the subject. This topic has to have been beaten to a pulp by now? Some where? Just trying to find some thoughts on it's legality here.

TurboAR
10-01-2011, 6:41 AM
Good luck, here you go:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=414935
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=435001
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=415367
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=382120
I don't know if anybody has been busted with it here in California and gone to court? A lot of people are waiting to see that happen and see what the ruling on it will be?.....sucks. But we live in Calif.

Kharn
10-01-2011, 6:43 AM
Discussing the stock itself is banned in CA. :p

TurboAR
10-01-2011, 7:02 AM
Discussing the stock itself is banned in CA. :p
Now thats funny..hahaha:clown:...but your right....sad.:mad:

huntercf
10-01-2011, 7:56 AM
I don't think it is banned per se but DOJ hasn't issued a ruling on its legality even though the ATF has said it is legal. With that said CA law says that you can't have anything to help you increase the speed of firing therefore even though they are technically legal and don't fit the requirements of assistance I believe CA is going to leave it up to interpretation in the courts which probably wouldn't go your way.

speeder
10-01-2011, 8:47 AM
Thank's for the links brother,

I couldn't find anything on it doing a search here. Now I see what a ssh storm the topic created. Looks like a very fun add-on. I would like to have one if not for it's price & the price of ammo. Most every vid I have seen, even with small children, show it to be very effective and reasonably controllable. Much much better than standard bump fireing.

I don't buy that it's a trigger activator or that it's confirmed illegal. More of a matter of interpitation and opinion to be bent to fit the side of the fence your on. I had seen every stance on the matter. Pretty much from, I have it on my rifle right now and it's totally legal, let's go shoot. To, I am God and I pronounce this stock illegal, burn it before you die!

huntercf, your above post was one of the most clear cut and reasonable explanations I have read. At least from my understanding.

To each his own, pay your dime & take your chances....... Didn't mean to re-kindle a fire. No need to re-hash it boy's, just wanted to hear some views from the membership.

SPDR.

Bruce
10-01-2011, 9:07 AM
It was bumped.

CaliforniaLiberal
10-01-2011, 9:32 AM
Thank's for the links brother,

I couldn't find anything on it doing a search here. Now I see what a ssh storm the topic created. Looks like a very fun add-on. I would like to have one if not for it's price & the price of ammo. Most every vid I have seen, even with small children, show it to be very effective and reasonably controllable. Much much better than standard bump fireing.

I don't buy that it's a trigger activator or that it's confirmed illegal. More of a matter of interpitation and opinion to be bent to fit the side of the fence your on. I had seen every stance on the matter. Pretty much from, I have it on my rifle right now and it's totally legal, let's go shoot. To, I am God and I pronounce this stock illegal, burn it before you die!

huntercf, your above post was one of the most clear cut and reasonable explanations I have read. At least from my understanding.

To each his own, pay your dime & take your chances....... Didn't mean to re-kindle a fire. No need to re-hash it boy's, just wanted to hear some views from the membership.

SPDR.


There have been stories of bump fire fiends being reported by well meaning, freaked out citizens or heard by nearby LEOs and getting hassled/gun confiscated/arrested/frowned at. It's clearly too fun to be legal in CA.

I prefer to do it in the middle of the Nevada desert on BLM land where I can see for 5 miles all around and there are no other humans present.

And yes it has been discussed extensively. Consensus might be that it's too close to borderline or fully illegal for CalGuns to endorse. CalGuns is on a mission from God to restore 2nd Amendment Rights in California and wants to sail a straight and steady course without distractions of possible court cases for bump fire or iffy stocks/devices.

"To each his own, pay your dime & take your chances" :thumbsup::63::rockon::taz:

jaymz
10-01-2011, 11:29 AM
Last thread I saw on the subject had what we often refer to as "the right people" being grilled on their opinions as to why they were illegal. It was locked shortly thereafter. My advice would be to not discuss the subject here. It won't end well.

dantodd
10-01-2011, 11:55 AM
I don't buy that it's a trigger activator or that it's confirmed illegal. More of a matter of interpitation and opinion to be bent to fit the side of the fence your on. I had seen every stance on the matter. Pretty much from, I have it on my rifle right now and it's totally legal, let's go shoot. To, I am God and I pronounce this stock illegal, burn it before you die!


If the local DA or police officer "interprets" it as a felony what happens?

Smokeybehr
10-01-2011, 3:22 PM
If the local DA or police officer "interprets" it as a felony what happens?

Arrested
Booked
A minimum of 2 days in jail
$20,000 bail or $2000 bond (that means you've lost $2k)
Attorney fees
Lost salary/wages
Confiscation of the firearm
Search warrant served on your residence to remove any and all other firearms
Up to 1 year in jail or prison (yes, it's a "wobbler") if you're found guilty
Loss of firearms rights for 10 years for a misdemeanor and forever for a felony conviction.

Lawyer types, feel free to add to the list or correct any errors...

hawk1
10-01-2011, 3:35 PM
I don't think it is banned per se but DOJ hasn't issued a ruling on its legality even though the ATF has said it is legal. With that said CA law says that you can't have anything to help you increase the speed of firing therefore even though they are technically legal and don't fit the requirements of assistance I believe CA is going to leave it up to interpretation in the courts which probably wouldn't go your way.

DOJ/ATF ruling means nothing when the law says:

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,


(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.

huntercf
10-01-2011, 10:17 PM
DOJ/ATF ruling means nothing when the law says:

For part (B) it is a stock and not attached to the trigger.

Part (A) is tricky and where one would most likely find themselves in hot water. Because it says "when activated"; some may argue that a stock is not activated because it doesn't have any parts to activate (i.e. a spring) but I think a DA would argue that once the trigger is pulled then the stock is activated by essense of sliding.

I would love to have one but I am not going to play chicken (or matyr) with my 2A right.

In reading the law, does this mean if I attach something to my finger to increase the rate of fire then it is legal because it isn't attached to the firearm?

bwiese
10-02-2011, 8:10 AM
Sweet Jeezus, not this SlideFire SSAR15 trigger activator again. All the nonanalytical people are out today, I guess.

Their uninformed opinions should be completely disregarded. It would almost be funny to see them in court trying to defend themselves, except it would be sad because they will lose their gunrights.

THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT FOR A 12020(C)(23) 'multiburst trigger activator' to have anything to do with the trigger mechanism. This device could be named as a 'purple hamster masturbator' and would still be illegal regardless hamster involvement if it facilitated rate of fire increase: the title/name is pretty irrelevant, the definition is what's operational.

Slide Fire's own product advertising & marketing materials show and specifically tout rate of fire increase. That bare fact makes it just about impossible for any defense to work around. It was specifcally sold to accomplish the goal of making a gun work like what they show in their vidoeos.

This particular part is not an 'evil feature' or 'characteristic feature' of a 12276.1 semiauto rifle configuration - and thus cannot be overridden by a BulletButton maglock. [Some people seem to somehow think a BulletButton can 'fix' this status of the SlideFire stock but they are wrong.]

This device regulated and wholly controlled by a free-standing separate law/definition not interrelated with other definitions. This product is thus most likely separately and intrinsically illegal - even if detached from any gun, and even if no matching (or non-matching) gun is owned.

BATF 'approval' (or more correctly, BATF statement of nonviolation) is irrelevant to CA law and I simply don't understand why folks keep bringing it up.

PC 12020(c)(23) definition controls, and 12020PC prefatory paragraph is the penalty - which is the same for SBR, SBS, nunchucks, and other no-no items.

Simply stated, bump-firing with normally equipped rifle is an effort that has varying results over a period time (i.e, goes in & out of 'the zone'). An increase of consistency of bumpfire is precisely an increase in fire rate.

Adding the SlideFire stock allows consistent bumpfire: at the end of the tests - on video and shown to a judge & jury - it is easy to show more rounds per minute are facilitated by the SlideFire stock.

That's all that's needed for conviction: a demonstrable rate increase as facilitated by the device - whether or not the device is attached. With any test by court expert combined with existing marketing materials by SlideFire, your fate is sealed - quickly. This stuff will not be dismissed for lack of clarity; the definition is broad enough and no shaping regulatory definitions are present to restrict scope.

A forgiving junior asst DA in a small county might be forgiving if the device were not attached to a gun. NEVER COUNT ON THE FORGIVENESS OF A DA FOR FELONY MATTERS. THEY REGARD THEIR PRODUCTIVITY AS A POLITICAL SUCCESS IF THEY CAN BUST MORE FELONIES WITH MINIMAL CASE TIME EXPENDED.

Any plea 'deal' offered in this matter by a DA will at best get to lack of jail time, but will still involve felony outcome.

In a brief conversation w/Jason Davis, he has also agreed with me that this device was illegal. So it's not just me.

Your ***, your money, your gunrights. 12020 violations are not wobblers and there is no 17(b) resentencing to misdemeanor to restore rights.




-----------------------------------------------------------------------
HunterCf: your hypothetical of having attached something to your finger that'd readily raise the rate of fire [as evidenced in a repeated test over a time period (vs. with nothing on your finger)] would indeed be prohibited.
12020(c)(23) bans possession of the device whether or not it's attached to the gun. If you could increase bumpfire rate/consistency with an assembly of a Band-aid, paperclip and toothpick.

hawk1
10-02-2011, 8:29 AM
For part (B) it is a stock and not attached to the trigger.

Part (A) is tricky and where one would most likely find themselves in hot water. Because it says "when activated"; some may argue that a stock is not activated because it doesn't have any parts to activate (i.e. a spring) but I think a DA would argue that once the trigger is pulled then the stock is activated by essense of sliding.

I would love to have one but I am not going to play chicken (or matyr) with my 2A right.

In reading the law, does this mean if I attach something to my finger to increase the rate of fire then it is legal because it isn't attached to the firearm?

So you're saying it's legal then? :confused:

:facepalm:

huntercf
10-02-2011, 8:47 AM
So you're saying it's legal then? :confused:

:facepalm:

Nope, I personally believe it would be deemed illegal. All I'm saying is that DOJ hasn't issued a ruling on its legality in CA. DA's love to exploit grey areas and in this case I believe the grey would turn to black (not in a good way). The DOJ might think that the other laws (listed above) suffice to deem it illegal and in a courtroom they probably would be correct. IANAL but my opinion is to not buy it or use it, just not worth it.

bwiese
10-02-2011, 10:17 AM
All I'm saying is that DOJ hasn't issued a ruling on its legality in CA.

For much of the decade DOJ FD/BoF has not and will not make legality determinations of firearms parts or firearms. And even when they do sometimes they're wrong (Alison, for example, writing that you can build your own 1911 directly - even though that would have to violate her own safe handgun law and the gun would have to transition thru Roster-exempt status first.)

The BoF really only is set up to represent dealers, who effectively are agents of the DoJ. The FFLs are your interface to the DOJ.

Even before that many things would often result in a "we are not your lawyer, contact your own counsel" statement.

Mesa Tactical
10-02-2011, 11:51 AM
BATF 'approval' (or more correctly, BATF statement of nonviolation) is irrelevant to CA law and I simply don't understand why folks keep bringing it up.

Cuz they really, really want one!

bwiese
10-02-2011, 11:54 AM
Cuz they really, really want one!

Yes, I've never seen a product that colors folks' rational thought processes as much as this - other than the "it's legal for me to buy but illegal for you to sell me an over-10rd magazine".

MP301
10-02-2011, 2:07 PM
This is one of those 58 different opinions with 58 different DA's type of bull**** deals. Until someone takes the test and it goes through court, it might as well be illegal by default. No one wants to be out somewhere shooting this "technically" legal equipped rifle and get it taken away and possibly be prosecuted and there is a good chance of conviction depending on the jury make up and how good your attorney is.

In my county, we have made the DA aware of its existance and he didnt see an issue with it since ATF didnt have a problem with it. However, would I stake my 2A rights on a verbal OK by an elected official of any kind? That would be a no. Short of getting it in writing which is probably a pipe dream, it still is what it is. A no go.

As far as arrests and confiscation, we would probably be ok with this counties LE generally speaking as they are not anti gun here and most of the deputies are educated on this. When properly educated, they seem to be ok.

But what about CHP, USFS LE and F&G? I would be amazed times 10 if one of those agencies wouldnt just go to town on you thinking they caught the master Felon if theyt ran across someone shooting a slidefire.

So, the moral of the story is, its a **** brained idea to mess with this at this time unless or until there is a court case that says otherwise or a letter from DOJ saying its 100% legal.

Now, I think its beyond screwed up how you cant compel DOJ (who says they are Ca's legal leadership blah blah blah) to take a stand. We need to change this IMHO.

Just the fact that they wont take a stand means they know its technically legal, but they dont like it so they are gonna keep thier mouth shut and hope everyone is too scared to be a test case. Because if they did come out with an opinion that said it wasnt legal, they would be called on it and would have to back it up.

My .02

bwiese
10-02-2011, 2:55 PM
This is one of those 58 different opinions with 58 different DA's type of bull**** deals. Until someone takes the test and it goes through court, it might as well be illegal by default.

Even if someone won one single case it doesn't mean it's legal.

In my county, we have made the DA aware of its existance and he didnt see an issue with it since ATF didnt have a problem with it.


Lazy FAIL DA. Good for us on this issue, but I dislike nonanalityical status. With that mindset he could be equally wrong on something else that's of import to us.



Just the fact that they wont take a stand means they know its technically legal, but they dont like it so they are gonna keep thier mouth shut


Wrong. They're keeping silent on devices legal or illegal.

Look what happened to the guy busted by DOJ for the MagMagnet.

Read and understand the law and its scope and don't rely elsewhere.

nicki
10-02-2011, 3:16 PM
The Slide fire stock is cool, let's face it, many of us who have ARs would really like to have that "rock and roll" switch and the "slide fire" offers a way to "skirt" around the Fed NFA and Hughes amendment.

The problem is Cali passed a law against "trigger activators" and "multiple burst" devices. The average juror is going to look at the slide fire and say it converts a AR to a machinegun.

So, if you insist on getting one of these devices in California, you might as well get a mag lock on your OLL and make your mags full cap while you are at it.

If you really want one of these, find a place you can store it out of state and go visit and shoot it out of state.

Perhaps if there is enough demand, maybe some of our members who reside in border states can offer homes for our orphaned and exiled gun parts and be gracious enough to allow us to visit our children a few times per year until we clean up the Cali mess.

Nicki

jaymz
10-02-2011, 4:57 PM
CA's laws on "trigger activators" and "multi-burst" devices are flat out WRONG. They absolutely do not increases the weapon's actual rate of fire. All of these fancy gizmos do is allow you to pull the trigger really fast - but the firearm still only fires one round per trigger pull. Laws of physics and mechanics easily prove this to be true. According to the law, they are 100% legal, I don't care what anyone says to the contrary - they are WRONG. That being said, CA does not care about logic and reason. They say that these gadgets increase the rate of fire, therefore, DO NOT play with them in this state. You probably should not even posses them here.

MP301
10-02-2011, 5:05 PM
Even if someone won one single case it doesn't mean it's legal.



Lazy FAIL DA. Good for us on this issue, but I dislike nonanalityical status. With that mindset he could be equally wrong on something else that's of import to us.




Wrong. They're keeping silent on devices legal or illegal.

Look what happened to the guy busted by DOJ for the MagMagnet.

Read and understand the law and its scope and don't rely elsewhere.

I dont necesarily agree with you about whether the slade fire is technically legal or not, I do agree that its a hot patato that needs to be avoided at the moment though...same end result anyway.

But, what I want to know is why there is no push, either through legislature or court, to compel the DOJ to take a side, one way or another, on this and many other issues. Isnt that thier job.... "guidance for the 58 DA's etc etc.? Seriously, we can deal with them saying something is not kosher and go from there, but this BS of them not giving an answer at all really pisses me off to no end.

And I do believe that at least one of the elements as to why they dont provide an opinion is because something just "may" be technically legal, but they dont like it. What other incentive would they have to not just say something is illegal and be done with it?

jaymz
10-02-2011, 5:11 PM
I think that the DOJ/BoF won't come out and say that it's illegal is because someone may say "prove it" and they won't be able to.

cmaynes
10-02-2011, 5:20 PM
CA's laws on "trigger activators" and "multi-burst" devices are flat out WRONG. They absolutely do not increases the weapon's actual rate of fire. All of these fancy gizmos do is allow you to pull the trigger really fast - but the firearm still only fires one round per trigger pull. Laws of physics and mechanics easily prove this to be true. According to the law, they are 100% legal, I don't care what anyone says to the contrary - they are WRONG. That being said, CA does not care about logic and reason. They say that these gadgets increase the rate of fire, therefore, DO NOT play with them in this state. You probably should not even posses them here.

BW stated the actual text of the PC- it allows the weapon to fire more rapidily than if it was not installed. the result is the issue, not how it is achieved.

what California anti's are more interested in is the public seeing more of this....

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/10/02/article-2044362-0E2315E100000578-48_634x820.jpg

taperxz
10-02-2011, 5:42 PM
BW stated the actual text of the PC- it allows the weapon to fire more rapidily than if it was not installed. the result is the issue, not how it is achieved.

what California anti's are more interested in is the public seeing more of this....

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/10/02/article-2044362-0E2315E100000578-48_634x820.jpg

Just another criminal who ended up dead!

jaymz
10-02-2011, 5:58 PM
BW stated the actual text of the PC- it allows the weapon to fire more rapidily than if it was not installed. the result is the issue, not how it is achieved.



I'm not sure which PC you were referring to, but here is the PC regarding multiburst activators. It clearly states 2 or more rounds per trigger pull, or increase in the rate of fire. Neither of these can be done with an external add-on device. Unless any of these add-on devices can excedd about 800 rounds per minute, they absolutely do not increase the rate of fire. No external add-on gadget can make the firearm fire more than 1 round per trigger pull. They simply are not illegal by definition. The problem is that CA says different. Which means DO NOT posses them here!

12020
(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.

bwiese
10-02-2011, 6:09 PM
I think that the DOJ/BoF won't come out and say that it's illegal is because someone may say "prove it" and they won't be able to.


1. This is pretty easy to prove. Either by the BoF or the forensics guys
(the *smart* crime lab gun guys wholly separate from BoF).

2. People are making a mistake- we live in an adversarial legal system.
The prosecution can't really offer you personal specific legal advice.
They will offer general handy guidance on noncomplex issues. And
the structure of BoF is that the FFL is the 'agent'/interface between
the DOJ and you (which actually can give you some protection).

3. DOJ did not write these laws.

bwiese
10-02-2011, 6:15 PM
I'm not sure which PC you were referring to, but here is the PC regarding multiburst activators. It clearly states 2 or more rounds per trigger pull, or increase in the rate of fire. Neither of these can be done with an external add-on device. Unless any of these add-on devices can excedd about 800 rounds per minute, they absolutely do not increase the rate of fire. No external add-on gadget can make the firearm fire more than 1 round per trigger pull. They simply are not illegal by definition. The problem is that CA says different. Which means DO NOT posses them here!

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

Wrong. Basic reading failure. Return to Evelyn Wood.

Your concept of some 'cyclic rate of fire' measure has nothing to do with this, esp if derived from M16.

The gun involved will be an AR15. There is no formal definition of rate of fire. Getting more rounds easily
out of the SlideFire configuration per time window vs. stock AR will be the test.

Test would be something like this:
(#1) - test person bumpfiring a normal AR over X seconds time frame. Rounds counted. Repeated 3-5 times
and averaged. Bumpfiring is not a guaranteed consistent reliable process and will be sputtery. Captured on
video.

(#2) - test person using SlideFire stock on AR. Same X seconds time frame; more rounds will readily be
expended in X second time window. Rounds counted; test repeated 3 times and averaged. Captured on
video.

#2 will readily and repeatedly have more rounds emitted than #1. More rounds in X time = rate of fire
increase.

Gun owner gets convicted of felony and loses rights for life.


You're really trying to twist yourself to support this product in a way that just doesn't pass sanity test in a court.

MultiCaliber
10-02-2011, 7:22 PM
Wrong. Basic reading failure. Return to Evelyn Wood.

Your concept of some 'cyclic rate of fire' measure has nothing to do with this, esp if derived from M16.

The gun involved will be an AR15. There is no formal definition of rate of fire. Getting more rounds easily
out of the SlideFire configuration per time window vs. stock AR will be the test.

Test would be something like this:
(#1) - test person bumpfiring a normal AR over X seconds time frame. Rounds counted. Repeated 3-5 times
and averaged. Bumpfiring is not a guaranteed consistent reliable process and will be sputtery. Captured on
video.

(#2) - test person using SlideFire stock on AR. Same X seconds time frame; more rounds will readily be
expended in X second time window. Rounds counted; test repeated 3 times and averaged. Captured on
video.

#2 will readily and repeatedly have more rounds emitted than #1. More rounds in X time = rate of fire
increase.

Gun owner gets convicted of felony and loses rights for life.


You're really trying to twist yourself to support this product in a way that just doesn't pass sanity test in a court.

I doubt they would even have the test guy try to bumpfire it in test #1.

Think about how -that- would look. Agreed, this thing is just plain bad.

For those that want one, take some happiness and good cheer from the fact that single shot semi is more accurate than FA anyway. And seriously, lets say you do need to suppress someone/something... how long are you gonna keep their heads down with 10 rounds anyway? ;)

bwiese
10-02-2011, 7:33 PM
I doubt they would even have the test guy try to bumpfire it in test #1.

Think about how -that- would look. Agreed, this thing is just plain bad.


I think a crime lab just might do an A vs B test if a plea were not forthcoming.

But Plan B is just to show the marketing materials & videos shown by SlideFire. That's pretty much 'case closed' right there.

strongpoint
10-02-2011, 7:54 PM
You're really trying to twist yourself to support this product in a way that just doesn't pass sanity test in a court.

i think part of the problem is that many people don't know how to interpret written statute, or how to think about this the way lawyers, a judge and a jury will. imagine the prosecutor has on the stand the DOJ employee who conducted the test bwiese posits above:

Q: you tested two rifles -- one AR-15 with a standard stock, and another with a slide fire stock. is that correct?
A: yes.

Q: did the rifle with the slide fire stock prove capable of firing at a higher rate?
A: yes.

Q: was this higher rate of fire attributable to having this stock installed?
A: yes.

Q: in other words, then, the stock is performing the job as it is advertised to do.
A: yes.

that's it. DONE. the jurors are home in time for dinner, because it's easy to demonstrate that this stock violates the law as it's written. bwiese, your post #14 above should be stickied in about eight different forums on this board, just on the off chance that someone might see it before posting this question again.

cmaynes
10-02-2011, 8:21 PM
Just another criminal who ended up dead!

yes indeed- another double murderer who used an "assault weapon" to commit his crimes- the dude was an epic fail as far as Law enfocement was concerned to begin with, but the clear message is that military style rifles were the cause and reason for the murders- It doesnt have to be true, but that picture is worth a thousand Brady Campaign press releases. especially directed towards Sacramento and DC....

huntercf
10-02-2011, 8:48 PM
i think part of the problem is that many people don't know how to interpret written statute, or how to think about this the way lawyers, a judge and a jury will. imagine the prosecutor has on the stand the DOJ employee who conducted the test bwiese posits above:

Q: you tested two rifles -- one AR-15 with a standard stock, and another with a slide fire stock. is that correct?
A: yes.

Q: did the rifle with the slide fire stock prove capable of firing at a higher rate?
A: yes.

Q: was this higher rate of fire attributable to having this stock installed?
A: yes.

Q: in other words, then, the stock is performing the job as it is advertised to do.
A: yes.

that's it. DONE. the jurors are home in time for dinner, because it's easy to demonstrate that this stock violates the law as it's written. bwiese, your post #14 above should be stickied in about eight different forums on this board, just on the off chance that someone might see it before posting this question again.

+1 on the above, plus I don't even think the firearms testers at DOJ will bump fire the AR.

kperry
10-02-2011, 8:50 PM
Sweet Jeezus, not this SlideFire SSAR15 trigger activator again. All the nonanalytical people are out today, I guess.
<snip>
THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT FOR A 12020(C)(23) 'multiburst trigger activator' to have anything to do with the trigger mechanism. This device could be named as a 'purple hamster masturbator' and would still be illegal regardless hamster involvement if it facilitated rate of fire increase: the title/name is pretty irrelevant, the definition is what's operational.
<snip>


Damnit, now I want to create some sort of AR/AK accessory, and call it the 'purple hamster masturbator'... That said, anyone with any sense who reads 12020 can determine that the SlideFire stock is a no-go under CA law, no matter what the BATFE says.
And in a perfect world, you would buy your Purple Hamster Masturbator at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, 'cause it would be a convenience store.

jaymz
10-02-2011, 9:06 PM
Wrong. Basic reading failure. Return to Evelyn Wood.

Snide comments like this seem to be your M.O. as of late. It's very unbecoming, especially coming from a man whom I, and others, generally hold in high regard. It is also completely false. Where did my reading fail?

Your concept of some 'cyclic rate of fire' measure has nothing to do with this, esp if derived from M16.

The gun involved will be an AR15. There is no formal definition of rate of fire. Getting more rounds easily
out of the SlideFire configuration per time window vs. stock AR will be the test.Test would be something like this:

(#1) - test person bumpfiring a normal AR over X seconds time frame. Rounds counted. Repeated 3-5 times
and averaged. Bumpfiring is not a guaranteed consistent reliable process and will be sputtery. Captured on
video.

(#2) - test person using SlideFire stock on AR. Same X seconds time frame; more rounds will readily be
expended in X second time window. Rounds counted; test repeated 3 times and averaged. Captured on
video.

#2 will readily and repeatedly have more rounds emitted than #1. More rounds in X time = rate of fire
increase.

Gun owner gets convicted of felony and loses rights for life.

You are a smart enough guy to hopefully agree with me on (a) - 2 or more rounds with a single trigger pull, so I'll leave that alone. I'll focus on (b).
While my 800 r.p.m. statement may or may not be relevant, I come from a mechanical background. Rate of fire is a design characteristic of firearms. Most of our fingers are not capable of keeping up with a guns rate of fire. Bolting on some whizbang gadget in order to use the firearm to it's full potential, does not mean that the rate of fire has been increased - the R.O.F. has only been achieved. Simply stated, if the designed rate of fire is exceeded without upgrades/modifications, the firearm will fail. Try exceeding the maximum rpm on your new Dodge without upgrading/modifying internal components and tell me what happens. Your test logic above is also flawed. Say the average Joe can shoot 30 rounds per minute with gun whatever. Crappy trigger, no lube on the moving parts, whatever. Joe installs a new trigger, polishes and lubes the moving parts. Now he can do 40 rounds per minute. New trigger, polish and lube now equals a felony, right? It increased the rate of fire by the standard you are using. That doesn't pass the sanity test either.

You're really trying to twist yourself to support this product in a way that just doesn't pass sanity test in a court.

Actually no. I have zero interest in any of these things. I am more of a precision guy than spray and pray. Besides, you know that there is no sanity in court.

As I'm 99% certain you will not step back and view this from another perspective, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm also fairly certain that between the two of us, reasonable doubt could easily be established, and the accused set free! And once again, for the rest of you that have read this far - DO NOT play with these things in CA. You will likely find yourself in very hot water.

audiophil2
10-02-2011, 9:33 PM
It is a waste of time to discuss the Slidefire stock on this forum. Any persons claiming it is illegal are only making personal opinions. Any persons claiming it is legal are only making personal opinions. There are several CA gun owners that have this stock within the state of California. There have been no arrests made so far. Does not mean there never will.

CA DOJ called me almost a year ago about the Slidefire stock. Unfortunately I was not able to take the call and calling back is a nightmare. I am still waiting for feedback from DOJ but it is not a priority to me anymore. While DOJ does not make the laws they can provide guidance. It does not mean DOJ will protect you from criminal charges.

The stock is gaining acceptance in the free states. It is a viable alternative to $15k registers lowers and lightning links. It has been able to function on .22 lowers as well in some cases with the right ammo, heavy trigger spring, and some extra lube.

In the Slidefire thread that got locked none of my questions were able to be answered by the persons opining it was illegal. In fact PMs were sent that I will not disclose out of professional courtesy with conflicting information as presented to the public on this forum.

If you want the stock buy it and be prepared for whatever might happen. Do your own due diligence instead of relying on opinions of others. It is a zero priority item compared to everything else CGF is fighting for.

strongpoint
10-02-2011, 9:50 PM
You are a smart enough guy to hopefully agree with me on (a) - 2 or more rounds with a single trigger pull, so I'll leave that alone.

'scuse me, jaymz, for butting in between you and bwiese, what do you see in 12020(c)(23)(A) as written that says anything about that clause being restricted to devices that function off a single trigger pull?

"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."

jaymz
10-02-2011, 10:08 PM
strongpoint, how about the first line of 12020(c)(23) As used in this section, a multiburst TRIGGER activator..........

audiophil2 is 100% correct. So with that, I guess I'll keep my opinions on the subject to myself from here on out.

jaymz
10-02-2011, 10:11 PM
Forgot to add, I never said anything about being restricted to a trigger pull. Even though all the items being discussed essentially do just that one way or another.

strongpoint
10-02-2011, 11:06 PM
strongpoint, how about the first line of 12020(c)(23) As used in this section, a multiburst TRIGGER activator..........

but that's where the whole "purple monkey masturbator" example comes in (i can't believe i just typed that). it doesn't matter what the definition is named; the only thing that matters is whether the object in question fits the description.

just by way of providing another example, what if the statue clearly defined a slide fire stock? i.e., what if a third clause, a hypothetical 12020(c)(23)(C), described a sliding stock that was meant to ease the process of bump-firing? under 12020(c)(23), this would still be called a "multiburst trigger activator" whether it acts on a trigger or not. the name is essentially irrelevant; whether or not the definition applies is what's important.


Forgot to add, I never said anything about being restricted to a trigger pull.

sorry; i thought that's what you were doing with this:

You are a smart enough guy to hopefully agree with me on (a) - 2 or more rounds with a single trigger pull, so I'll leave that alone.

i also apologize again for barging into a discussion that i know has been going on for longer than i've been in the room.

jaymz
10-03-2011, 4:21 AM
All I'm trying to say is this: call these gizmos whatever you want. The firearm's rate of fire is NOT increased. It is simply achieved at best.

Mesa Tactical
10-03-2011, 6:38 AM
Firecrackers are cheaper and not a felony.

bwiese
10-03-2011, 8:27 AM
All I'm trying to say is this: call these gizmos whatever you want. The firearm's rate of fire is NOT increased. It is simply achieved at best.

Your argument is legally irrelevant and you really don't know what you're talking about.

A rate of fire increase is readily demonstrable to a court. Again, rate of fire will be regarded as 'number of bullets emitted over the test time period'. A best effort bumpfire test - with its sporadic and inconsistent nature - will be logged, and then with the consistent, smooth SlideFire implementation. Lack of gaps and lack of (or far less) inconsistency w/the Slide Fire stock usage will result in at least a few more rounds expended in same unit time. More rounds per unit time in test = increase.

It's a slam dunk.

Somebody else said that 'reasonable doubt' could be raised but that won't happen... and the more proper phrasing is 'void for clarity'.

Very, very, very few laws are voided for clarity and this is an amazingly high bar to reach and requires a TON of lawyering.

AB962 was voided for clarity and it required a maximal effort by a whole office of skilled gun lawyers, and was funded by NRA/CRPA. There was also a parallel suit in place as an alternate path (OOIDA v. Lindley) run by CGF. This required a lot of extended effort not available to an ordinary criminal defendant. We were also lucky we were able to get standing in Fresno - as opposed to downtown LA.

Just because a law is unclear and leads to befuddlement of some, does not mean it's so unclear it'd voidable. These are really really really rare instances.

stix213
10-03-2011, 9:40 AM
I think your only possible defense if/when this gets you to court, is to provide your own video demonstration of standard bumpfire vs bumpfire with this stock, and show the rate of fire being the same before & after. Your defense would depend on how persuasive you are (as in, don't count on it).

bwiese
10-03-2011, 9:44 AM
I think your only possible defense if/when this gets you to court, is to provide your own video demonstration of standard bumpfire vs bumpfire with this stock, and show the rate of fire being the same before & after. Your defense would depend on how persuasive you are (as in, don't count on it).

Yes, but then SlideFire's video for marketing/sales woudl be used against you, esp if your SlideFire test rate was measurably lower than the factory demo sales video: you'd be perceived as 'dogging it'.

jaymz
10-03-2011, 4:32 PM
You coming down to SoCal anytime soon, Bill? I'm not a big fan of Internet debates - I'm much better face to face (though that isn't saying much). I'd really like to talk about this sometime. Just for ****s and giggles. I really have no interest intrying to change CA's multiburst laws, there are much bigger fish to fry. But for some reason or other, I really don't think you and I are fully understanding the points each other are trying to make. I'd like to quote and respond to some stuff in your last post, but iPods are not ideal for that and that's all I've got right now. I'm very interested in why you think that your test method is the only one that would be used. And why, for example, converting an out of the box 1911 into a race gun would not be a felony as it clearly increases the rate of fire just as you say a slide fire (or whatever it's called) stock does.

Notorious
10-21-2011, 12:02 AM
Looks like theoretically, there should be no problems with this stock in s far as a reasonable person with an understanding of mechanical engineering goes.

The gun still fires one round per trigger pull, that should not be in dispute. The faster rate at which the trigger is being pulled is the crux of the issue. Can it be also argued then some well trained shooters who can activate trigger's very quickly had increased the rate of fire? I've seen videos of people shoot a revolver faster than me shooting a semi auto. Is his training and subsequently more skilled finger in violation then?

As to the gun's inherent mechanical limit on ROF, that is a function of every mechanical device we own. I can ride my motorcycle around a track in a certain doing of time, a racer can do it in way less time. He exploited the motorcycle to its potential better than me, butt the limits of the motorcycle remain the same.

So the question is, does CA consider ROF to be subjective or objective? If we use an absolute rate of fire which is based on gun design, then the slide fire does nothing to rate of fire. If we use a subjective quantity and base it on different shooters and their abilities, then you wouldn't even need slide fire. Trigger jobs, gun oil, training, faster twitch muscles in fingers, all can increase ROF over the baseline subjective ROF of a casual shooter.

kel-tec-innovations
10-21-2011, 1:07 AM
^ agreed. Sounds very logical. I have been itching to purchase one of those stocks. The only thing is how logical will the court's judge and jury be?

sdfire
10-21-2011, 4:49 AM
What if the activator is not attached to the firearm?
My friend is working on a glove that is worn on the hand and not attached to the rifle that facilitates more controlled bump firing.

Notorious
10-21-2011, 8:26 AM
Logic has nothing to do with courts. That's the sad part. All the logic still wouldn't mean I want to be the test case and bet my life on an anti-gun judge, over zealous DA, and 12 idiots who couldn't get out of jury duty.

jaymz
10-21-2011, 2:58 PM
Looks like theoretically, there should be no problems with this stock in s far as a reasonable person with an understanding of mechanical engineering goes.

The gun still fires one round per trigger pull, that should not be in dispute. The faster rate at which the trigger is being pulled is the crux of the issue. Can it be also argued then some well trained shooters who can activate trigger's very quickly had increased the rate of fire? I've seen videos of people shoot a revolver faster than me shooting a semi auto. Is his training and subsequently more skilled finger in violation then?

As to the gun's inherent mechanical limit on ROF, that is a function of every mechanical device we own. I can ride my motorcycle around a track in a certain doing of time, a racer can do it in way less time. He exploited the motorcycle to its potential better than me, butt the limits of the motorcycle remain the same.

So the question is, does CA consider ROF to be subjective or objective? If we use an absolute rate of fire which is based on gun design, then the slide fire does nothing to rate of fire. If we use a subjective quantity and base it on different shooters and their abilities, then you wouldn't even need slide fire. Trigger jobs, gun oil, training, faster twitch muscles in fingers, all can increase ROF over the baseline subjective ROF of a casual shooter.

FINALLY! Someone else agrees with me! I truly don't understand how nobody else seems to grasp the concept. Thanks.

Notorious
10-21-2011, 3:21 PM
The gun has an inherent mechanical limit to the ROF that you can achieve. Pull the trigger faster than the mechanical limit and you will just be slapping the trigger without the gun firing.

Try getting that through the heads of the average jury.

MasterYong
10-21-2011, 3:28 PM
Wait, wasn't there a sticky thread about this in the 2A section?

In fact, where did the other 1/2 of the stickied 2A forum threads go?

Mario520
12-22-2011, 5:43 PM
What if the activator is not attached to the firearm?
My friend is working on a glove that is worn on the hand and not attached to the rifle that facilitates more controlled bump firing.

lmfao!!!! That is a good one.

Longshot37
01-10-2012, 11:13 PM
In a side by side comparison wouldn't an ar15 with a lighter match trigger and lighter bcg dispense more rounds in a certain period of time than a stock ar15? In everyone's rate of fire argument wouldn't that make a match fire control group a "burst fire device"?
I think this law was intended for people modifying their guns for 3rd bursts and saying its not "full auto" and not ment to attack bump fire