CA Legal? "Bump stick stock"

[hawk1]

Not so sure about that, the argument against the shoestring was that when attached to the firearm it acted as an auto-sear (when the bolt closed the string pulled the trigger). The stick-on-a-stock doesn't mechanically interface with the gun in the same manner, it just pulls the trigger as the gun recoils.

I see no difference in the examples I put in bold above. Both are causing the trigger to be pulled by actions of the rifle.

[sorensen440]

Creative but no thanks

[bohoki]

federally it looks ok but any "firing aid" in california can be called a multiburst trigger activator since it is overly vague and undefinable
i guess this is the origional

[Justin Brimm]

I see no difference in the examples I put in bold above. Both are causing the trigger to be pulled by actions of the rifle.

I'm going with this; honestly, its not California I'd be concerned about going after you in this case. The ATF will be plenty happy to send you to jail for the rest of your life for using that stock stick.

[bohoki]

its not a "gun stock" it is a stock for a trigger stick

it is a "stick stock" it is an unsafe way to fire a gun

[Quiet]

As long as it's not attached to the firearm, it can't be a "multiburst trigger activator".

Penal Code 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.

[Nodda Duma]

IMO those things are dumb anyways because of the unregulated firing rate.

-Jason

[Blue]

That was an idea born on AR15.com years back. I remember the bumpfire videos posted back when the idea first came to be.

I remember that, didn't the inventor get harassed by the ATF for it?

[motorhead]

it looks like fun so of course it's illegal.
it does appear at least from a distance, that it could be disguised as a burger flipper.
didn't atf do a flip-flop and declare the accelerator illegal?

[SwissFluCase]

it looks like fun so of course it's illegal.
it does appear at least from a distance, that it could be disguised as a burger flipper.
didn't atf do a flip-flop and declare the accelerator illegal?

Yes. They approved the Atkins Accelorator, then later declared it to be a machinegun. The latter ruling seems like a real stretch, but I would have no desire to be a test case. Any voluteers?

Regards,


SwissFluCase

[GMONEY]

Risk vs Reward on this one is a FAIL!

[JeffM]

I see no difference in the examples I put in bold above. Both are causing the trigger to be pulled by actions of the rifle.

With the stock/stick above, the trigger cannot be pulled unless the person firing the weapon is actively pushing forward on the rifle.

I see no real difference between this and regular bump firing.

Would I do this? No.

[Quiet]

Yes. They approved the Atkins Accelorator, then later declared it to be a machinegun. The latter ruling seems like a real stretch, but I would have no desire to be a test case. Any voluteers?

Regards,


SwissFluCase

After the Heller SCOTUS case, William Akins appealed the BATFE ruling to the 11th circuit court.

On 02-04-2009, the court ruled in favor of the BATFE.