more slidefire stock sightings...

[mdib870]

so is the slide fire legal in california or not?

[vintagearms]

so is the slide fire legal in california or not?

Legal until the CA DOJ says its not. Calguns sides on the side of caution while others want to be the test case.

[lewisracing]

so is the slide fire legal in california or not?

Touche my friend. Touche



ibtl

[POLICESTATE]

Hadn't seen a slidefire before, checked out the videos. Man I love American ingenuity! But yeah I can see them being problematic here in California.

[myk]

I have to say I'm definitely interested in owning one, if anything just for the novelty of seeing what an automatic weapon is like, without making permanent changes to the weapon. Naturally, I don't want to be the test case either though...

[sdallace]

"A guy on Craigslist" is not a good place to get legal opinions.

I wasnt taking his advice mor was i buying. i assumed they were illegal due to the sticky

[MrPlink]

Can I get a tactical face palm please?

[Capybara]

10 rounds with a Slidefire would be but a short burp. What's the point?

[lewisracing]

Can I get a tactical face palm please?

Anytime buddy

[strongpoint]

How long, and how much open blatant use is needed before people think it's legal? What I'm saying is, if we make it to 2016, and there are hundreds/thousands of CA users on youtube, and not a single arrest is made, would the legal guys at calguns change their opinion? Or is their interpretation to be taken as fact, even when evidence suggests different?

irrelevant. there could be a million slidefire stocks out there installed on otherwise legal ARs and openly used at ranges from eureka to escondido ... and all it would take is one zealous DA with a chip on his shoulder, an understanding of the law in question, and a perp he dislikes. and if that DA gets a jury to believe his interpretation of the law, then suddenly they're all illegal.

until there's case law on the subject, the point is moot. but the existence of slidefire stocks in this state or their common usage prove nothing.

You're missing what I'm saying. I'm saying if it is deemed legal, I have a feeling the calguns legal guys won't admit if they were wrong. They will take the "legal" approach and remain silent, like the DOJ.

really? i have a feeling that if it is deemed legal, the calguns legal guys will say, "hey, here's a court case that finally says something definitive on the matter. now we have something to go on besides a cautious reading of the law in question."

Another thing they stated was that it is not illegal to use non blocked pmags in a bulletbuttoned ar. Forgive me for my ignorance but iirc from what i have read on this forum that is a no no. Someone please correct me if im wrong. From my understanding large caps are ok in raws and featureless rifles, not OLLs with evil features.

The video clearly shows the man shooting two pmags loaded with more than 10rounds each through a slidefire equiped ar type rifle and actuating a magazine lock during the mag change

if that's true, they're morons. the AW law definitively states that a mag-locked rifle with a magazine of >10 capacity is an AW (for whatever reason), and it doesn't even do so in a particularly confusing way.

One of the points made to me by the stores rep was that ALL ar15s are RAWs. Someone please correct me if i am wrong, but as i understand it a maglock is what prevents ar pattern rifles from being classified as AWs.

well, first of all, i hope they didn't say RAWs, because you haven't been able to register an assault weapon in california since the end of 2000.

but beyond that, it's all about configuration. your statement is like saying "all M14-pattern rifles are AWs, except they don't come from the factory with pistol grips." a stripped AR lower is certainly not an assault weapon unless it's a name-listed model. and barring that, you can set up a perfectly legal AR without a maglock as long as it doesn't include any of the SB23 features. any semiautomatic centerfire rifle is potentially an AW if it's not configured to be compliant.


now THAT oughta be stickied.

[orlydose1]

if that's true, they're morons. the AW law definitively states that a mag-locked rifle with a magazine of >10 capacity is an AW (for whatever reason), and it doesn't even do so in a particularly confusing way.




well, first of all, i hope they didn't say RAWs, because you haven't been able to register an assault weapon in california since the end of 2000.

but beyond that, it's all about configuration. their statement is like saying "all M14-pattern rifles are AWs, except they don't come from the factory with pistol grips." a stripped AR lower is certainly not an assault weapon unless it's a name-listed model. and barring that, you can set up a perfectly legal AR without a maglock as long as it doesn't include any of the SB23 features. any semiautomatic centerfire rifle is potentially an AW if it's not configured to be compliant.

strongman, i donot believe m14 type rifles are AWs, they are semiauto centerfire rifles in my book. add an "evil" feature to one without a maglock and the law states otherwise. as far as the term "RAW" being used by the shop employee, yes he stated that all ar rifles are RAWS and that DOJ will always consider them RAWs. i explained to him that my LMT was not registered as AW but as a centerfire RIFLE/LONGGUN because it has a maglock. i also asked him to stop calling california compliant maglocked rifles AWs. the response i got was that DOJ considers them AWs, you registered your gun,its a RAW. then i was told he needed to get back to building more california assault weapons. am i the one thats crazy? isnt the reason we put maglock devices on these and other rifles (or go featureless) so they dont get catagorized as AWs?

my point of the matter is that i wanted to become a customer of this shop until i found out how they interpret the law. i even sent them a copy of the flowchart but basically was told even if it had a maglock, if it had a "feature" it was AW. in the end i will not be doing business with them because the way they view the law. i feel shop owners should educate and protect their customers, not encourage them to walk in gray areas and skew the facts.

[SocomM4]

It's almost unbelievable .