Slide fire?

[v35]

I thought I understood what "full auto" meant, but then I ran across this:

http://www.slidefire.com

How does that differ from a fully automatic weapon? I picture myself bringing such a thing to a range and being put away for a very long time.

I'm not so naïve as to think laws pertaining to firearms are supposed to make sense, but can someone explain this to me like I'm five years old? It seems the more I learn the less I know, and right now I'm feeling like an idiot.

 

[DeepSouth]

Short answer:
It's still one bullet fired per pull of the trigger, therefore it is still semi auto.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...How does that differ from a fully automatic weapon?...

It appears the ATF concluded in 2010 that slide fire stocks are legal and in 2012 that a certain bumpfire stock was not a machine gun. Note that consistent with usual administrative practices these agency opinions apply only to the exact item examined.

Furthermore, such devices might still be illegal under state law. For example, it appears that there is good reason to believe these devices are illegal in California.

...I'm not so naïve as to think laws pertaining to firearms are supposed to make sense...

The reality is that understanding law and how things work requires effort, study, research. Much in the law is non-intuitive or will make sense only when one has sufficient background knowledge. You can't expect to be able to figure out what the law is or how it works just trying to "noodle it out."

 

[kozak6]

I think it's more that the actual law is light on definitions and part of the BATFE's job is to [strike]make up whatever they'd like it to mean that week[/strike] interpret it.

Interestingly enough, they've decided that the slidefires are machineguns if they use a spring to return the gun to the firing position.

Honestly, weapon laws often don't make sense, and I'm talking about the ones actually written into law. Legally speaking, it's easier for me to own and carry a pistol (openly or concealed) than a pair of nunchucks. Yeah.

If we are talking about BATFE determinations and interpretations, it's :banghead::banghead::banghead: all the way down.

 

[1911 guy]

Frank brings up a good point, especially as it is his profession. As citizens, though, we must remember that laws are complex and convoluted for one of three possible reasons:

They deal with an intricate set of circumstances or situations and must be carefully crafted (often intended)

Or

They are written by idiots who know nothing of the circumstance or issue they seek to regulate and have more unintended consequence than indended impact (often reality)

Or

They seek to prohibit otherwise legal activity of citizens by imposing onerous restriction or excessively narrowly defined parameters (less common, but who doesn't love a good conspiracy theory?)

But anyway, the stocks are usually considered merely an accessory to a legal firearm because the actual firearm operates in the same way it did before, one round per pull of the trigger. State law may prohibit it, though.

Full auto can be fun, and if it trips your trigger (pun intended), go for it. But having used full auto on Uncle Sam's dime, I don't see enough utility or fun in it to warrant spending my own money on the stock or the ammo to feed it. But that's why it's a free country. You can spend your money the way you see fit.

 

[v35]

Fascinating stuff. Thank you for the eye-opening explanations.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Some posts have disappeared. Please remember that this thread is about the legal issues and not the desirability or utility of these devices.

 

[lilguy]

What do you look for in state firearms law to determine if these device are legal?

 

[Candyman87]

It's considered a collapsible stock in New Jersey and therefore an "evil feature." You'd have to lose the pistol grip to be able to utilize it in NJ.

 

[JSH1]

You also have to remember that every time a law is passed (for just about anything) smart people will read the law and try to come up with a way to get around the law while still technically meeting the letter of the law.

In this case the slidefire stock facilitates the rapid rate of fire of an automatic weapon while still meeting the technical requirement of the law (one shot fired per movement of the trigger)

 

[v35]

What do you look for in state firearms law to determine if these device are legal?

The absence of anything stating it isn't.

For example, in my state I would expect such a prohibition would appear in 18 CS § 908 "Prohibited offensive weapons", and I can find no such prohibition in that statute. But, a prohibition could appear elsewhere in other consolidated or unconsolidated statutes, in local municipal ordinances, and conceivably even in homeowner's associations and similar agreements.

Of course federal law also applies, but as others have noted the particular device in question itself does not constitute an "automatic weapon" nor does it create one from one that isn't... much to my amazement.

Edit to add: In the absence of qualified and documented legal guidance in your particular state think it would be unwise to take one to the range just to see what happens

 

[stchman]

I can bump fire my SKS and Mini with the old thumb in belt loop technique, does that make the SKS and Mini and machine gun?

Remember the big fat guy on YouTube that bump fired a Glock off is stomach? I guess that his stomach should be NFA.

 

[Spats McGee]

What do you look for in state firearms law to determine if these device are legal?

If you can find a way to search your state statutes, run searches for the relevant terms: firearm, handgun, pistol, rifle, shotgun, weapon, etc. Then read those statutes and the caselaw surrounding them . . .

 

[Jim K]

Don't forget that the current culture plays a large role in the law and its ramifications. When the NFA was first passed in 1934, one thing Congress agreed on was that "silencers" were "sneaky", as were guns that didn't look like guns, again "sneaky" ways to kill people. In that era, gangsters were seen primarily as Italians (or (d**os) who were underhanded and full of dirty tricks; they used weapons that good, honest, blond, blue-eyed Americans would never even consider. Blacks were also sneaky and used dirty weapons; high gun taxes would keep "those people" from buying guns. Speeches containing just about those words were common in Congress; the idea of a black president or an Italian-American Supreme Court justice would have given the lily-white Congress collective apoplexy.

Gun owners who praise FDR forget, or never knew, that the original administration draft of the NFA would have required registration of all guns, and imposed confiscatory transfer taxes on ALL guns and ALL ammunitiion. (IIRC, $2000 for MG's, $1000 for handguns, $500 for CF rifles, $200 for .22's, and $100 for shotguns. All ammo would have had to be registered with transfer fees of $10 a round for CF rifle rounds, $20 a round for handgun ammo, $2 FOR shot shells, and $1 a round for .22. Multiply the dollar figures by $35 to come close to modern dollar terms.)

Congress ended up passing basically what we have now except for the 1986 change. It was considered a defeat for FDR and his AG, the humorless nut-case Homer Cummings. It was a victory of sorts for the NRA, which then had a whopping 20,000 members.

Jim