CA DOJ finally says something about SlideFire stocks...

[zuchaka]

ya i had hellfire trigger on my M-11 years ago and decided after using it one time ohh great i can spray ammo and miss a lot lame idea, no thanks.

[Arisaka]

Sour grapes on here IMO, that **** looks cool.

[Hogstir]

Oh Well, can't find any ammo to shoot anyway.

[kick Z tail out]

I have no desire to have one, even if it were legal. Vince from Sham-wow might as well be selling them.

[myk]

Chevrolet should stop selling supercharged Corvette ZR1's too-what a waste of gas...

[bohoki]

ive read the law completely and think its a 50% 50% depending on the skill of the lawyer and the willingness of the judge to understand the "letter" and limitations of the law

the atf says the hellfire,hellstorm,handcrank were all legal too but they were banned under the definition

untill there is a definite ruling

i ask which part does it fall under


(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.

(the definition of burst is more than one shot per trigger pull since your finger pulls the trigger each time its not a true burst)

(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.

(i admit it increases the rate of fire but the device does not activate the trigger so this definition should not apply if "trigger activating" was removed it would apply but you have to read all words in the clause)

[LOW2000]

It is technically a trigger DEactivator, since its purpose is to remove your finger from the trigger, it is you pulling the gun into your finger that is activating it.

[jaymz]

(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.

(i admit it increases the rate of fire but the device does not activate the trigger so this definition should not apply if "trigger activating" was removed it would apply but you have to read all words in the clause)

I understand why people think that it increases the rate of fire. But the fact is that it absolutely does not. It allows us humans to achieve the rate of fire. If it actually increased the rate of fire, that means that the rate of fire designed into the rifle would have to be exceeded. When you exceed design limits, stuff breaks. Therefore, to increase the rate of fire for any firearm, you need to re-design/modify the components required for firing a round, to work faster than originally designed. It is impossible (laws of physics can't be broken) to bolt a stock onto any rifle and actually increase the rate of fire. Anyone that says otherwise is flat-out wrong.

[bohoki]

I understand why people think that it increases the rate of fire. But the fact is that it absolutely does not. It allows us humans to achieve the rate of fire. If it actually increased the rate of fire, that means that the rate of fire designed into the rifle would have to be exceeded. When you exceed design limits, stuff breaks. Therefore, to increase the rate of fire for any firearm, you need to re-design/modify the components required for firing a round, to work faster than originally designed. It is impossible (laws of physics can't be broken) to bolt a stock onto any rifle and actually increase the rate of fire. Anyone that says otherwise is flat-out wrong.

i'm pretty sure the law is not dealing with the physics of the operation but with the "average person" type example of using the gun without it and with it

not an exceptional person speedy finger without the device

i am aware the rate of fire is determined by the cycle period and lock time but if that was the definition then nothing would apply under that definition

[bwiese]

As I stated in my first post, there are several items that are in a "gray" area that haven't been put through the scrutiny of our courts yet. Your claim that this item is illegal is pure speculation on your part.

It's also possible to kill someone and thru various issues in the courts walk away scot free. So I guess we can give similar advice about killing people - "try it and go to trial and see if it's legal".

A rational person with even a minor legal background and knowledge of the field would read the law, read the description and shy away.

Is it worth a sub-1% gamble on a nonwobbler CA felony for a plastic toy?

Remember also that a gun lawyer and I had discussed this and we were in vehement agreement. I'll take his advice any day over yours.

[jaymz]

i'm pretty sure the law is not dealing with the physics of the operation but with the "average person" type example of using the gun without it and with it

not an exceptional person speedy finger without the device

i am aware the rate of fire is determined by the cycle period and lock time but if that was the definition then nothing would apply under that definition

I'm glad you said that. It leads me to ask why the law would (probably) be applied differently for the slide fire for example, vs. taking your stock 1911 and changing some parts to make it a "race gun"? Using that logic, ANY part, installed on ANY gun, that helps the shooter fire the gun faster than it could be fired "out of the box", is a felony. It just doesn't fly. And for the record, your last sentence is absolutely correct. Nothing that's labeled a multi-burst trigger actuator actually is.

[interstellar]

Simple mind experiment:

Judge: Defendant, let me ask you a simple question. Do you shoot more bullets in a shorter amount of time with that there bump stock thingy than with a standard adjustable stock?

Defendant: Yes

Judge: So using the stock increases your rate of fire? Now, let me read the law you've been charged under....


Of course the defendant would have a lawyer speaking for him, and this is just a thought experiment, but I think the outcome of a real charge and trial would result in the defendant being found guilty.

Nevada and Arizona are too close and have enough class 3 rentals not risk your gun and rights on a maybe.

Of course I'm not a lawyer and I'm just typing authoritatively.

[jaymz]

Simple mind experiment:

Judge: Defendant, let me ask you a simple question. Do you shoot more bullets in a shorter amount of time with that there bump stock thingy trigger job than with a standard adjustable stocktrigger?

Defendant: Yes

Judge: So using the stock improved trigger increases your rate of fire? Now, let me read the law you've been charged under....


Of course the defendant would have a lawyer speaking for him, and this is just a thought experiment, but I think the outcome of a real charge and trial would result in the defendant being found guilty.

Nevada and Arizona are too close and have enough class 3 rentals not risk your gun and rights on a maybe.

Of course I'm not a lawyer and I'm just typing authoritatively.

Definitely don't risk it unless you like going to court.

[tcrpe]

Some guy in Texas say its OK, if you're handicapped and you don't attach it to a firearm. The Cal DOJ says they'll rip your skin off over it, and CGF says you're on your own with.

Yea, good idea, go ahead and try it.

Brainiacs, all.

[Oneaudiopro]

Hmmmm

It's also possible to kill someone and thru various issues in the courts walk away scot free. So I guess we can give similar advice about killing people - "try it and go to trial and see if it's legal".

A rational person with even a minor legal background and knowledge of the field would read the law, read the description and shy away.

Is it worth a sub-1% gamble on a nonwobbler CA felony for a plastic toy?

Remember also that a gun lawyer and I had discussed this and we were in vehement agreement. I'll take his advice any day over yours.

Not offering advise, just my opinion, which we're both entitled to.