PDA

View Full Version : Slide fire Saar-15sbs


ragenmoan
05-29-2012, 2:35 PM
Any know I'd slide fire's Saar-15 sbs bp fire stock is illegal in California?

Untamed1972
05-29-2012, 2:37 PM
There is a whole stickied thread on it in the rifle section

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=527201

cntrolsguy
05-29-2012, 2:38 PM
Stay Away From It!!!!

Fate
05-29-2012, 2:43 PM
Stay Away From It!!!!

F6X9KcrXHwg

ragenmoan
05-29-2012, 2:50 PM
The text should have said " anyone know if the slide fire ssar15 bump fire stock is illegal in California.

cntrolsguy
05-29-2012, 3:00 PM
The text should have said " anyone know if the slide fire ssar15 bump fire stock is illegal in California.


The Link untamed put up should give you all the info you need. In short, Yes it is illegal.

RazzB7
05-29-2012, 3:01 PM
In case anyone hasn't said it. It's illegal, stay away from it :D

stix213
05-29-2012, 5:11 PM
Has anyone been arrested and/or prosecuted for one yet? How an actual court case turns out could either confirm or change the current legal theory regarding this stock.

huntercf
05-29-2012, 5:39 PM
I don't think anyone has been arrested yet; however even though the BATF says it is legal, the CA DOJ doesn't comment on whether something is legal until after someone is arrested. Based on the PC it is probably illegal and would cost you big $$ to fight it and most likely you would be convicted.

BigDogatPlay
05-29-2012, 5:44 PM
Has anyone been arrested and/or prosecuted for one yet? How an actual court case turns out could either confirm or change the current legal theory regarding this stock.

It's a multi-burst trigger activation device, which are called out specifically in the Penal Code, IMO. That particular statute can be interpreted very broadly. I don't know if there is a prosecution, bweise would, but it wouldn't surprise me if there were.

VegasND
05-29-2012, 6:13 PM
I keep talking myself into and then out of purchasing one; I'm pretty sure I'll be buying a slide-fire stock in the next few months.

bwiese
05-29-2012, 6:16 PM
1. I believe there have been convictions for the HellFire trigger activator.

2. The SlideFire device is no different given its behavior vs. interface with the definition of 'multiburst trigger activator'.

3. It's a pretty slam-dunk case to convict on given breadth of definition
reasonable clarity thereof, and SlideFire's own marketing materials touting
speed. The fact that 'trigger' is part of the name has little to nothing to
do with the definitions, which are based on operational end results.

nicki
05-29-2012, 6:27 PM
1. I believe there have been convictions for the HellFire trigger activator.

2. The SlideFire device is no different given its behavior vs. interface with the definition of 'multiburst trigger activator'.

3. It's a pretty slam-dunk case to convict on given breadth of definition
reasonable clarity thereof, and SlideFire's own marketing materials touting
speed. The fact that 'trigger' is part of the name has little to nothing to
do with the definitions, which are based on operational end results.

We are not trying to be "kill joys", we are trying to keep people from becoming felons and not only losing their guns rights, but other rights as well.

Yes California laws are messed up, especially when compared to other states.

Believe me, when I saw this device, I thought cool, but then I got to thinking did California have something they could screw me with if I got one and then I remembered about the felony multi burst activator law:(

This device even if it was legal isn't going to be much fun in Cali anyway unless you have a RAW because you would have to limit mag capacity to 10 rds.

Nicki

stix213
05-29-2012, 9:12 PM
It's a multi-burst trigger activation device, which are called out specifically in the Penal Code, IMO. That particular statute can be interpreted very broadly. I don't know if there is a prosecution, bweise would, but it wouldn't surprise me if there were.

Yes I realize that is the current legal thinking, and I've been a part of every thread on the topic here.

If though someone had been arrested, charged, and found not guilty by a CA court, that would change everything. Since the stock has now been available for a rather long time, is known to be in the hands of many californians (as evidenced by numerous threads on sightings of the stock at local gun ranges), I'm pretty surprised we don't have any case law yet, hence my question on arrests/prosecutions.

Librarian
05-29-2012, 9:31 PM
Yes I realize that is the current legal thinking, and I've been a part of every thread on the topic here.

If though someone had been arrested, charged, and found not guilty by a CA court, that would change everything. Since the stock has now been available for a rather long time, is known to be in the hands of many californians (as evidenced by numerous threads on sightings of the stock at local gun ranges), I'm pretty surprised we don't have any case law yet, hence my question on arrests/prosecutions.

You could buy one and call up DOJ and say 'neener-neener-neener!'.

Not something I'd recommend, but it would answer the question.

stix213
05-29-2012, 9:43 PM
You could buy one and call up DOJ and say 'neener-neener-neener!'.

Not something I'd recommend, but it would answer the question.

As long as I can give them your address ;)

bwiese
05-29-2012, 10:42 PM
Yes I realize that is the current legal thinking, and I've been a part of every thread on the topic here.

If though someone had been arrested, charged, and found not guilty by a CA court, that would change everything.

No it wouldn't.

Trial court results/opinions are not formally published for citation/use. [Yeah, you can get any court record ultimately but it has little bearing.] And it's entirely possible for two separate courts in two separate counties to come up with opposing results (with separate logic from the bench), which would have to work up the appeals chain.

Now, despite all the above, we fight every OLL case we can find. Number one reason is just to fight because we fight and thus continually demonstrate 'guaranteed pushback' on a matter we can win.

But I would not want to be a lawyer trying to defend a SlideFire in CA unless it could be arranged for some sort of deferred adjudication or the DA incorrectly charged it as a misdemeanor [this does happen, and you take the ball and run with it.]




Since the stock has now been available for a rather long time, is known to be in the hands of many californians (as evidenced by numerous threads on sightings of the stock at local gun ranges), I'm pretty surprised we don't have any case law yet, hence my question on arrests/prosecutions.

Some LEOs may not even know. Hell, some DOJ agents might not even know.

Meplat
05-29-2012, 11:37 PM
1. I believe there have been convictions for the HellFire trigger activator.

2. The SlideFire device is no different given its behavior vs. interface with the definition of 'multiburst trigger activator'.

3. It's a pretty slam-dunk case to convict on given breadth of definition
reasonable clarity thereof, and SlideFire's own marketing materials touting
speed. The fact that 'trigger' is part of the name has little to nothing to
do with the definitions, which are based on operational end results.

So, what am I missing here? If the key is the operational end result, how fast do my muscles and reflexes have to be before my body becomes a 'multiburst trigger activator'?

dantodd
05-29-2012, 11:50 PM
So, what am I missing here? If the key is the operational end result, how fast do my muscles and reflexes have to be before my body becomes a 'multiburst trigger activator'?

No one knows. If you had an e-stim setup attached that caused your finger to pull the trigger rapidly it might be considered a "multiburst trigger activator." However; an external device that is designed for and effectively causes you to fire more rapidly than you normally can using only your unassisted trigger finger is definitely a "multiburst trigger activator." If they can claim a rubber band is one the bumpfire stock has no chance.

stix213
05-30-2012, 12:59 AM
So, what am I missing here? If the key is the operational end result, how fast do my muscles and reflexes have to be before my body becomes a 'multiburst trigger activator'?

This has been hashed out pretty good in some older threads. Bwiese's opinion is the one we should go with without any opinions from the DOJ or clear court victories to the contrary.

lomalinda
05-30-2012, 9:00 AM
A multi-burst activator is just another way of saying "more than one round per pull of trigger."

An example is the three-shot burst on the M4.

If the wording goes beyond that, that's another story.

But as for the simple statement of "multi-burst," it's hard to see how you'd be in violation with the device in question.

RazzB7
05-30-2012, 9:13 AM
A multi-burst activator is just another way of saying "more than one round per pull of trigger."

An example is the three-shot burst on the M4.

If the wording goes beyond that, that's another story.

But as for the simple statement of "multi-burst," it's hard to see how you'd be in violation with the device in question.

I must have excellent above-average vision.

strongpoint
05-30-2012, 9:36 AM
A multi-burst activator is just another way of saying "more than one round per pull of trigger."

the wording does go beyond that. you and i both know what a "multi-burst activator" means in common language. but in a california courtroom, "multi-burst trigger activator" is a term defined by law, and that law doesn't require "more than one round per pull of trigger." it defines (in general) devices that mechanically increase rate of fire -- and that makes it easy to see how you'd be in violation with the device in question.

a lot of people get tripped up on the difference between a common definition and a term defined by law; i've seen similar confusion about "pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon." some seem to think the definition of "conspicuously" is some kind of subjective decision, but it's not -- the law defines the meaning of that entire phrase.

lomalinda
05-30-2012, 10:06 AM
A burst is nothing more than a pulse consisting of more than one thing, in this case shots being fired.

The pulse of shots begins with the pull of the trigger.

It ends with the release of the trigger, running out of ammunition, or a malfunction.

With bump fire of any type, the pulse is singular--there's one shot per pulse.

I agree that in CA there's evil afoot and it's not worth one's while to have such an item. But the semantics you guys are using are a bit too much to let "slide" without discussion.

RazzB7
05-30-2012, 10:09 AM
A burst is nothing more than a pulse consisting of more than one thing, in this case shots being fired.

The pulse of shots begins with the pull of the trigger.

It ends with the release of the trigger, running out of ammunition, or a malfunction.

With bump fire of any type, the pulse is singular--there's one shot per pulse.

I agree that in CA there's evil afoot and it's not worth one's while to have such an item. But the semantics you guys are using are a bit too much to let "slide" without discussion.

It's been said already in this thread, but I'll repeat it for clarity. Your words make perfect sense. But you're confusing common sense with legal opinion. They are foreign to each other.

lomalinda
05-30-2012, 10:15 AM
Razz, re-read my earlier post:

"I agree that in CA there's evil afoot and it's not worth one's while to have such an item. But the semantics you guys are using are a bit too much to let "slide" without discussion."

I was nitpicking those who claimed it was actually a burst device, not the fact that the CA turds will try to dupe a jury into believing that it is one.

bwiese
05-30-2012, 10:38 AM
Razz, re-read my earlier post:
I was nitpicking those who claimed it was actually a burst device, not the fact that the CA turds will try to dupe a jury into believing that it is one.


The title of the device is immatierial, as the statute defines a "multiburst trigger activator" in [old numbering] 12020(c)(23). It includes the general concept of a rate increaser.

The product marketing material, videos and general marketing concept all demonstrate increased avg firing rate over time [as compared with unaided normal fire or even bumpfiring].

Note that whether it attaches to trigger is irrelevant; the end function of rate increase is.

The name in fact likely evolved from marketing material in the very late 80s or early 90s for the Hellfire? Hellstorm? device, which I do recall its ads touting as a 'trigger activator' and somehow the 'burst'-like concept got in there.

12020(c)(23) could have defined a "purple hamster masturbator" with the above-referenced MBTA definition. If found guilty of possessing a device that attaches to a a gun to increase firing rate, you'd be guilty of possessing a purple hamster masturbator.

RazzB7
05-30-2012, 10:41 AM
New sig! :D

REH
05-30-2012, 10:50 AM
Quick question. Is just the possession of the device a crime?

lomalinda
05-30-2012, 11:02 AM
"Quick question. Is just the possession of the device a crime?"

If what we're hearing above is true, it could be a "constructive possession" issue.

jwkincal
05-30-2012, 11:08 AM
It says "possesses:"

32900. Except as provided in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section
17700) of Division 2 of Title 2, any person in this state who
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 multiburst trigger activator is punishable by
imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or in the state
prison.

REH
05-30-2012, 11:13 AM
It says "possesses:"

Thanks........................

Meplat
05-30-2012, 12:23 PM
Razz, re-read my earlier post:

"I agree that in CA there's evil afoot and it's not worth one's while to have such an item. But the semantics you guys are using are a bit too much to let "slide" without discussion."

I was nitpicking those who claimed it was actually a burst device, not the fact that the CA turds will try to dupe a jury into believing that it is one.

I guess I agree with all sides. While I certainly do not see this as a hill worth expending any energy or resources to assail, at this time, and certainly not worth dyeing on. What is law if not language; and this language is so muddled and vague as to be successfully challengeable, I would think. Of course what I think is of little import, as I am not a lawyer and have not the resources to fund lawyers. Truth be known, I would put those resources toward fighting more important battles if I did have them.