CA DOJ finally says something about SlideFire stocks...

[Gunlawyer]

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.

Go ahead and test it then!

These are definately illegal by my interpretation of the law-but hey what do I know Im only a lawyer.

I promise if you do test it you will not be having any guns in the future.

(I will say this Im a lawyer with the resources to test it in court and I wouldnt buy one and put my gun rights in jeapordy. But hey I love guns and the law. If you love neither then I suggest you test it in court. By my interpretation Id say you have a 1/1000 chance in prevailing and striking the law. If I was your lawyer defending you or any other good lawyer (without additional facts) the odds might increase to 5/1000. Ill keep my guns everytime. When these came out I seriously looked into getting one but researched the law and decided it would not be prudent at this stage to test it. Let some more court cases come out where perhaps strict scrutiny is the standard for all arms and devices and I might say the odds get better but at this stage it would be foolish to have one as it is not even a wobbler.)

[bohoki]

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.

i would have said no and i would demonstrate to the court the bumpfiring videos on youtube that are done with standard unmodified firearms


also that clause has trigger activating in it so i woudl retort that since the device does not actvate the trigger it doesnt matter if it does increase the rate of fire it would be like installing a lighter buffer it may reduce lock/dwell time and thus cause the cyclic rate to be increased but since it does not activate the trigger those are not banned

[tcrpe]

i would have said no and i would demonstrate to the court the bumpfiring videos on youtube that are done with standard unmodified firearms


also that clause has trigger activating in it so i woudl retort that since the device does not actvate the trigger it doesnt matter if it does increase the rate of fire it would be like installing a lighter buffer it may reduce lock/dwell time and thus cause the cyclic rate to be increased but since it does not activate the trigger those are not banned

And then you'd be convicted and carted off to jail.

[Librarian]

And then you'd be convicted and carted off to jail.

To be fair, many of us (including me) think a conviction would ensue, but no one has seen any court cases on the point yet.

If one thinks differently, and is willing to risk arrest, prosecution, and conviction for a felony, followed by prison time - up to "... a term of imprisonment in a county jail for 16 months, or two or three years" - and loss of gun rights and other rights, one could choose to buy one of these gadgets. (Not a good reward/risk, IMO.)

This thing is a malum prohibitum - some legislator thought it was a bad idea and got a majority of the legislature and the Governor to go along.

[tcrpe]

I take offense at what appears to be members here promoting this piece of junk without plainly spelling out the obvious downside. I can just see some twenty-something taking the bait.

The DOJ says its illegal? That should be good enough for any rational person.

CGF says you're on your own with this. How more plainly can it be spelled out? Yet we still have champions of some mythical "gray area"?

And when some stupid twenty something gets skinned over this, will these "gray area" snake oil salesmen help him out? Hell no, they won't.

The producer of this piece of crap has a letter from ATF on his website? He doesn't point out that the ATF rescinded that approval. He also makes no note that the now-rescinded approval was for a "gun part" meant to accommodate persons with manual impairment. To him the Second Amendment is nothing more than a moneymaking opportunity.

There's a lot of dishonesty over this product.

To be fair, many of us (including me) think a conviction would ensue, but no one has seen any court cases on the point yet.

If one thinks differently, and is willing to risk arrest, prosecution, and conviction for a felony, followed by prison time - up to "... a term of imprisonment in a county jail for 16 months, or two or three years" - and loss of gun rights and other rights, one could choose to buy one of these gadgets. (Not a good reward/risk, IMO.)

This thing is a malum prohibitum - some legislator thought it was a bad idea and got a majority of the legislature and the Governor to go along.