Slidefire Magazine at Local CA Gas Station

[boamedt]

Multiburst can not be described as one shot fired per tigger pull....thats the definition of semi-automatic fire, and thats what the slide fire does....u can look up what multi burst means, Im pretty sure more than one...if it didnt then all semi-auto rifle are breaking the multi burst law

[boamedt]

Why would u walk around bumpfiring if ur engaging targets.....u would waant to be stationary anyways....

[Travis590A1]

Well I see handgunner advertise guns that aren't cali legal all the time in their magazines should someone tell them too? It seems nobody is even sure to the legality of the stock anyways. Someone needs to contact the powers that be in kalifornistan and hear it from the horses mouth and also let me know asap so I can order one if they are CA approved

[Jeepers]

Try it off-hand while walking around The Slidefire makes it trivial to bumpfire.

found it no modified stock being bumpfired from the shoulder .....

[shark92651]

Why would u walk around bumpfiring if ur engaging targets.....u would waant to be stationary anyways....

I usually don't shoot my carbines from a bipod off a table. I think you get my point that the technique in that video is hardly the way most people bumpfire. The slidefire lets even a novice shooter bumpfire at ease, from any firing position. Like I said before, I would love for it to be legal but so far the word from people whose legal opinions I trust say to stay away.

[daybreak]

How about we just install the triggers used on paintball guns so we can have two fingers back and forth on the same trigger?

You do realize those are electronic switches / solenoid activated right?

[tonelar]

A dealer I know phoned DOJ to ask when they'll come out with a statement about the slidefire. He was told that so far they can't refute that the stock is a non-mechanism.

Mebbe someone here can phone them and help them declare it illegal?

[Merc1138]

You do realize those are electronic switches / solenoid activated right?

It's not that you couldn't make a gun with an electronic switch and solenoids, but you have to consider the problem of bounce(bouncing the trigger would be the same as bump firing, but the switch itself bouncing internally with only one trigger pull... GL with that in court).

[shark92651]

A dealer I know phoned DOJ to ask when they'll come out with a statement about the slidefire. He was told that so far they can't refute that the stock is a non-mechanism.

Mebbe someone here can phone them and help them declare it illegal?

Phone calls to the DOJ or any verbal opinion that may result are useless. A letter sent certified mail with return receipt is better as you will get a written reply. My guess is that the written reply would still be vague but it would be interesting to see what they have to say about it. Somebody send a letter and then post the reply

[strongpoint]

Yes because bumpfiring without the device has the same effect as bumpfiring with device, so rate of fire does not increase more with the device, its the same, nor does the device create "burstfire" which is more than one shot per trigger pull......so yes it is ur finger that is doing it.....not the "device"

I personally don't see how the slidfire is a "multiburst trigger activator" in any way. Has nothing to do with the trigger at all.

Multiburst can not be described as one shot fired per tigger pull....thats the definition of semi-automatic fire, and thats what the slide fire does....u can look up what multi burst means, Im pretty sure more than one...if it didnt then all semi-auto rifle are breaking the multi burst law

you guys are doing it wrong; this isn't how legal terminology works. start from the other end -- the definition, not the name.

the only question this law asks is, does the device in question fit the definition given? in other words (roughly speaking), is it a mechanical device that increases rate of fire? if so, then it's illegal.

the name that the law THEN gives this illegal device is "multiburst trigger activator" -- but that's just a name, nothing more. it has NO relevance to the definition of what devices are illegal.

trying to argue that a "multiburst trigger activator" is not what a slidefire stock IS -- that entire argument is a red herring. it seems to make sense, but laws don't work that way.

ETA: i point out (for the benefit of who haven't encountered the issue before) that a thread arises about once a fortnight or so regarding the legality of slidefire stocks. every time the question comes up, several posters make the exact same argument above -- mistaking the name for the definition -- and then the CGN legal beagles come along and shoot the argument full of holes using exactly the logic i'm conveying here. that's why there's a sticky on the subject.

[Fate]

found it no modified stock being bumpfired from the shoulder .....

That's just an out of spec fire control system. Not uncommon in PSLs from awhile back.

[Jeepers]

That's just an out of spec fire control system. Not uncommon in PSLs from awhile back.

and theres many more from 1022's to AR...

[arsilva32]

last i heard they had a doj letter that they gave out with the stock saying they were legal in cali, but from what the CGF said its not worth being a test case to own one here.the expense could go way over what the stock cost, in legal fees and such.

[bwiese]

Yet they sell them in ca gun stores
And CA hasnt done nothing about it.i dont see how they can prosecute u for a product u bought in CA from a CA gun store. that sold it to u....seems it would b the person who sold it to u who should b prosecuted

Dude, get clear on it: possession is illegal, even if the item is unattached ot gun.

Now, you do bring up an argument that might be valid if a GUN were illegal. CA DOJ uses gunshops as their agents and thus if everything is aboveboard, a good gun lawyer can likely defend an illegal GUN sale from a gunshop since the gunshop is de fact DOJ's agent. But that's only for firearms transactions - I don't think this extends to parts/accessories.

[bwiese]

last i heard they had a doj letter that they gave out with the stock saying they were legal in cali, but from what the CGF said its not worth being a test case to own one here.the expense could go way over what the stock cost, in legal fees and such.

Please show me a DOJ letter.

You CAN'T.

They're bandying about an ATF letter which has no relevance toward separate CA law.