PDA

View Full Version : bullet button conviction...


FrankG
12-19-2008, 11:15 AM
i was having a conversation with some local leos and they said there was a recent conviction regarding the bullet button in contra costa county??? Anybody here of this ??? any truth...

hoffmang
12-19-2008, 11:27 AM
I don't believe it was Contra Costa, but I am aware of a case nearby that had issues related to having too large a magazine fixed to the firearm.

-Gene

Captain Evilstomper
12-19-2008, 11:33 AM
so not technically a bullet button conviction, it was an AW conviction?

CHS
12-19-2008, 11:36 AM
Remember folks, adding a magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds to a semi-automatic centerfire rifle with a bullet button is an automatic unregistered AW.

Magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds are still perfectly legal to own and use in CA, just not in all cases.

RobG
12-19-2008, 12:01 PM
so not technically a bullet button conviction, it was an AW conviction?

That would be my take on it. Nothing to do with the BB, which is a good thing.

sorensen440
12-19-2008, 12:03 PM
I hope they dont go too hard on him
That's something Ive noticed many don't know

1lostinspace
12-19-2008, 12:07 PM
I don't my AR's out anymore maybe once a year to make sure they are at 0, I don't want to take the chance with LE that does not know the law and spend thousands getting my self out of trouble. I bought a Saiga not to have to worry about anything to major.

railroader
12-19-2008, 12:30 PM
I don't my AR's out anymore maybe once a year to make sure they are at 0, I don't want to take the chance with LE that does not know the law and spend thousands getting my self out of trouble. I bought a Saiga not to have to worry about anything to major.

If the LEO doesn't know the law what will stop him saying your saiga is listed even though it's a different importer. I have both, a saiga and an ar but I always bring the flowchart and other info with me to the range. Mark

Jicko
12-19-2008, 12:37 PM
That would be my take on it. Nothing to do with the BB, which is a good thing.

A "larger than 10 rounds" magazine, fixed to the rifle with a "bullet button", is a "AW violation". So, it is due to the BB, but w/ more than 10 rounds magazine.

383green
12-19-2008, 12:42 PM
A "larger than 10 rounds" magazine, fixed to the rifle with a "bullet button", is a "AW violation". So, it is due to the BB, but w/ more than 10 rounds magazine.

Exactly. Even if the rifle is featureless, having both a BB and a >10 round magazine installed makes it an AW... even though that same rifle might legally accept 30 rounders with a regular magazine catch! Fixed magazines holding more than 10 rounds are specifically prohibited. Silly, but true.

RobG
12-19-2008, 12:42 PM
A "larger than 10 rounds" magazine, fixed to the rifle with a "bullet button", is a "AW violation". So, it is due to the BB, but w/ more than 10 rounds magazine.


Well, yea. But its the >10 mag in addition that triggered the alleged AW charge, not the BB itself. Thats all I was attempting to say.

anhero
12-19-2008, 12:56 PM
Exactly. Even if the rifle is featureless, having both a BB and a >10 round magazine installed makes it an AW...

correct me if i'm wrong here. if i have a featureless rifle, i can put a hi cap mag on it. but once i put a bb and >10 round mag, then it's considered an AW??

featureless = no evil components

evil components:
muzzle brake
detachable mag
pistol grip
extending stock?

Shotgun Man
12-19-2008, 12:58 PM
A "larger than 10 rounds" magazine, fixed to the rifle with a "bullet button", is a "AW violation". So, it is due to the BB, but w/ more than 10 rounds magazine.

With or without the bullet button, that gun would have been an AW

For having a fixed magazine with the bullet button, and for having a pistol grip without the bullet button.

RobG
12-19-2008, 12:59 PM
correct me if i'm wrong here. if i have a featureless rifle, i can put a hi cap mag on it. but once i put a bb and >10 round mag, then it's considered an AW??

featureless = no evil components

evil components:
muzzle brake
detachable mag
pistol grip
extending stock?

Correct. No fixed magazines over 10 rounds.

Muzzle brake is not an evil feature. A flash hider is.

eje
12-19-2008, 12:59 PM
Does anyone have firsthand info whether there was in fact a conviction and whether the conviction was based on AW because (1) fixed mag with greater than 10 rounds or (2) capacity to accept detachable mag plus prohibited features?

383green
12-19-2008, 1:02 PM
With or without the bullet button, that gun would have been an AW

For having a fixed magazine with the bullet button, and for having a pistol grip without the bullet button.

For having a fixed magazine that holds more than 10 rounds. A fixed magazine that holds 10 or fewer rounds is OK.

bwiese
12-19-2008, 1:04 PM
correct me if i'm wrong here.
if i have a featureless rifle, i can put a hi cap mag on it.


Providing it's detachable

but once i put a bb and >10 round mag, then it's considered an AW??

Yep, because it triggers a secondary/alternate generic AW definition:
any semiauto centerfire rifle with a fixed mag holding over 10 rounds.

That's regardless of presence/absence of "characterstic features" such as pistol grips, flash hiders, thumbhole, folding or collapsing stocks, etc.

Remember the third generic AW definition is any semauto centerfire rifle whose overall length is less than 30".

Shotgun Man
12-19-2008, 1:05 PM
For having a fixed magazine that holds more than 10 rounds. A fixed magazine that holds 10 or fewer rounds is OK.
Right, right, right. If I could only write what I meant.

bwiese
12-19-2008, 1:06 PM
Does anyone have firsthand info whether there was in fact a conviction and whether the conviction was based on AW because (1) fixed mag with greater than 10 rounds or (2) capacity to accept detachable mag plus prohibited features?

I'm pretty confident it was not a BB-with-capacity-to-accept matter.

We'd most likely have been working on it otherwise.

I'm nevertheless wondering if they were able to take an AB2728 disposition.

eje
12-19-2008, 1:13 PM
I'm pretty confident it was not a BB-with-capacity-to-accept matter.

We'd most likely have been working on it otherwise.

I'm nevertheless wondering if they were able to take an AB2728 disposition.

Do you know if the rifle had a bullet button?

tombinghamthegreat
12-19-2008, 2:02 PM
I don't my AR's out anymore maybe once a year to make sure they are at 0, I don't want to take the chance with LE that does not know the law and spend thousands getting my self out of trouble. I bought a Saiga not to have to worry about anything to major.

Thats lame. If the a uneducated police officer were to harass you for a fixed mag rifle, they would harass you more for a ak style rifle with detachable mag, might even claim its illegal because it can except high capacity mags. Know the law and exerise your rights.

Rascal
12-19-2008, 2:07 PM
Well if this did happen, then BOF is in fact saying that the BB is considered a implement for making a non- detachable magazine. Definition of a AW weapon is a semi auto center fire rifle with a fixed mag holding over 10 rounds. He had a "Fixed Magazine" (Bullet Button) that holds more than 10 rounds, and was prosecuted, therefor a BB IS considered a mixed mag implement.

6172crew
12-19-2008, 2:12 PM
I know a CCSD guy who works the courts, I can ask him.

mvpatriot
12-19-2008, 2:18 PM
Remember folks, adding a magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds to a semi-automatic centerfire rifle with a bullet button is an automatic unregistered AW.

Magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds are still perfectly legal to own and use in CA, just not in all cases.

Just more backasswards thinking from our pals at the DOJ.
If a person is using prebans with a featureless build wouldn't you think that they would still want you to use a mag lock???
If you go MMG+prebans you have to remove you BB which is a PAIN and stupid....
I know I need the arrrrrr setup

eje
12-19-2008, 2:21 PM
Well if this did happen, then BOF is in fact saying that the BB is considered a implement for making a non- detachable magazine. Definition of a AW weapon is a semi auto center fire rifle with a fixed mag holding over 10 rounds. He had a "Fixed Magazine" (Bullet Button) that holds more than 10 rounds, and was prosecuted, therefor a BB IS considered a mixed mag implement.

Can't find the thread over at ARF.com, but the theory seemed to be not that a BB equipped firearm had a fixed mag, rather it lacked capacity to accept a detachable mag under the regulatory definition. I think it was leelaw who said that, I hope I'm not misquoting him. Not sure whether DOJ would be involved in this particular situation; it would be nice to have more details.

eje
12-19-2008, 2:29 PM
Ok I found a cached google version of that arf.com thread (http://74.125.45.132/search?q=cache:UQZ9o893QacJ:www.ar15.com/lite/topic.html%3Fb%3D8%26f%3D11%26t%3D323293%26page%3D 2+leelaw+bb+site:www.ar15.com&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us). What it sounds like is that empty mag well, BB equipped firearm lacks capacity to accept detachable mag; once a mag is inserted, it becomes a fixed mag. I'm not entirely convinced about the latter, it would be nice if there was some adjudication that a rifle in that configuration (BB with mag inserted) is a fixed mag rifle.

G17GUY
12-19-2008, 3:27 PM
Ok I found a cached google version of that arf.com thread (http://74.125.45.132/search?q=cache:UQZ9o893QacJ:www.ar15.com/lite/topic.html%3Fb%3D8%26f%3D11%26t%3D323293%26page%3D 2+leelaw+bb+site:www.ar15.com&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us). What it sounds like is that empty mag well, BB equipped firearm lacks capacity to accept detachable mag; once a mag is inserted, it becomes a fixed mag. I'm not entirely convinced about the latter, it would be nice if there was some adjudication that a rifle in that configuration (BB with mag inserted) is a fixed mag rifle.

http://www.calguns.net/caawid/flowchart.pdf

Salty
12-19-2008, 4:26 PM
If the LEO doesn't know the law what will stop him saying your saiga is listed even though it's a different importer. I have both, a saiga and an ar but I always bring the flowchart and other info with me to the range. Mark

A Saiga looks like any other rifle from 10 feet away. AR-15 screams... well I don't know what it screams, but it screams it much louder.

762cavalier
12-19-2008, 6:03 PM
A Saiga looks like any other rifle from 10 feet away. AR-15 screams... well I don't know what it screams, but it screams it much louder.
Well, Duh! It screams "evilbabykillingmachineshootfromthehipwithoutreload ingdiediedie!!!!!!!!!!!!!":p:D

I thought everybody new that.

alex00
12-19-2008, 6:50 PM
Ok I found a cached google version of that arf.com thread (http://74.125.45.132/search?q=cache:UQZ9o893QacJ:www.ar15.com/lite/topic.html%3Fb%3D8%26f%3D11%26t%3D323293%26page%3D 2+leelaw+bb+site:www.ar15.com&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us). What it sounds like is that empty mag well, BB equipped firearm lacks capacity to accept detachable mag; once a mag is inserted, it becomes a fixed mag. I'm not entirely convinced about the latter, it would be nice if there was some adjudication that a rifle in that configuration (BB with mag inserted) is a fixed mag rifle.

The AW relates to the firearm itself, whether or not a magazine is inserted. It makes no difference to my rifle if it has a magazine in the well or not if it is equipped with a bullet button. The CCR definition also applies to the firearm. A magazine in and of itself is not attachable or detachable. Everything rests on the firearm itself. Having a magazine in or out does not change the "capacity to accept a detachable magazine". If that were the case, dropping the mag at the range with a bullet button would create an AW, and I assure you, that is not the case.

If you're magazine well is empty, they cannot claim that it has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine. The test would be to insert a magazine and detach it without tools. It cannot be done with a bullet button installed.

JDay
12-19-2008, 6:55 PM
Just more backasswards thinking from our pals at the DOJ.
If a person is using prebans with a featureless build wouldn't you think that they would still want you to use a mag lock???
If you go MMG+prebans you have to remove you BB which is a PAIN and stupid....
I know I need the arrrrrr setup

If you're using a MMG why would you want a BB?

JDay
12-19-2008, 6:59 PM
The AW relates to the firearm itself, whether or not a magazine is inserted. It makes no difference to my rifle if it has a magazine in the well or not if it is equipped with a bullet button. The CCR definition also applies to the firearm. A magazine in and of itself is not attachable or detachable. Everything rests on the firearm itself. Having a magazine in or out does not change the "capacity to accept a detachable magazine". If that were the case, dropping the mag at the range with a bullet button would create an AW, and I assure you, that is not the case.

If you're magazine well is empty, they cannot claim that it has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine. The test would be to insert a magazine and detach it without tools. It cannot be done with a bullet button installed.

Unless the officer sticks a 30 round mag into the mag well and then you have an assault weapon because the rifle has a fixed magazine that holds over 10 rounds.

alex00
12-19-2008, 7:02 PM
Unless the officer sticks a 30 round mag into the mag well and then you have an assault weapon because the rifle has a fixed magazine that holds over 10 rounds.

If the cop is dirty enough to do that, you have bigger issues. It probably wouldn't matter how your rifle was configured if you run into the small percentage of dirty cops willing to manufacture evidence to make an arrest.

FrankG
12-23-2008, 1:08 AM
So i guess this conviction was in the last month and it was an aw conviction were the gun was equiped with a BB. The person I talked to said they would get me the info about the case or minimal the name of the case. And apparently it was in Contra Costa County. I will post more info when i get it.

adamsreeftank
12-23-2008, 12:28 PM
Do we know whether he was charged with a felony or a misdemeanor?

Biff...
12-23-2008, 12:38 PM
With all the budget woe's in this state, ofcourse we should have our priorities straight and go for violaters like this harden criminal. Why should we balance the states budget, why should we help our citizens with the housing crisis, why should we help our children with better schools, better teachers. Lets concentrate on Joe schumo down the street that couldn't understand the concept of a BB.

AWWWWWWWW- When will it end. :mad:

Crazed_SS
12-23-2008, 12:59 PM
If the LEO doesn't know the law what will stop him saying your saiga is listed even though it's a different importer. I have both, a saiga and an ar but I always bring the flowchart and other info with me to the range. Mark

I'd be concerned with a Saiga too considering it says "Saiga" right there on the Kasler list and there's a picture of one in the AW Identification guide that cops have. I realize it's a Kalishnikov USA saiga on the list and pictured in the guide, but a clueless cop who thinks an OLL AR is an AW would probably think an Off-list Saiga was also an AW.

artherd
12-23-2008, 1:15 PM
Anyone with info on this, I would like to determine if this is the same case CGF is already aware of - or a new one.

Ballistic043
12-23-2008, 2:13 PM
definitely bookmarking this. i want to see what happens here

sounds like something else going on though.. things dont quite add up

FreedomIsNotFree
12-23-2008, 3:12 PM
Can't find the thread over at ARF.com, but the theory seemed to be not that a BB equipped firearm had a fixed mag, rather it lacked capacity to accept a detachable mag under the regulatory definition. I think it was leelaw who said that, I hope I'm not misquoting him. Not sure whether DOJ would be involved in this particular situation; it would be nice to have more details.

You can occasionally get some decent info over at ar15.com, but when it comes to legalese, I wouldn't reply on anything at that site.

When it comes to the legalities of OLL's and the various configurations we run through in CA, there is no better place than right here.

I feel like I drop a few IQ points whenever I visit AR15.com.

bwiese
12-23-2008, 4:24 PM
I feel like I drop a few IQ points whenever I visit AR15.com.

Depends on the antburners.

bohoki
12-23-2008, 5:53 PM
A "larger than 10 rounds" magazine, fixed to the rifle with a "bullet button", is a "AW violation". So, it is due to the BB, but w/ more than 10 rounds magazine.

i would love to see the ruling because if it was a case of 11 or more rounds in a bullet button gun

that sets precident that the use of a bullet button is in fact a non detachable magazine

CAL.BAR
12-23-2008, 10:29 PM
This is a great question and one which I have wondered about for some time. We've had BB's and Oll's for 3+ years now. Does ANYONE have verifiable proof of a conviction with a properly equipted BB? ANYWHERE in CA?

becxltoo984
12-23-2008, 10:44 PM
If the cop is dirty enough to do that, you have bigger issues. It probably wouldn't matter how your rifle was configured if you run into the small percentage of dirty cops willing to manufacture evidence to make an arrest.



I've made it a point NOT store any of Pre ban AR mags anywhere close to my OLL AR builds .
On recent trip to AZ I went as far as disassembling the three 30 rounder's I took with me. and locking them in a tool box in the back of my truck . I guess Im paranoid
:(

eje
12-24-2008, 9:32 AM
You can occasionally get some decent info over at ar15.com, but when it comes to legalese, I wouldn't reply on anything at that site.

When it comes to the legalities of OLL's and the various configurations we run through in CA, there is no better place than right here.

I feel like I drop a few IQ points whenever I visit AR15.com.

I've been a member at ar15.com since '98 I think; I bought most of my hi-cap AR mags from the classifieds there in '99. I've been following the AW saga since then and am somewhat interested in the issues surrounding the BB. There was a thread a while back at ar15.com where it was argued (by some of the main Calguns folks if I recall) that if a rifle did not have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine, then it must have a fixed magazine. In other words it must either be fixed or detachable. In the thread I linked to, leelaw (I think he is an active member here at Calguns) agreed that a BB equipped rifle with an empty mag well does not have a fixed magazine. If it's "either/or" then that seems a little problematic to me; so I'm not certain what the official Calguns position is. I tend to agree that there can only be two choices under the statute -- firearm either has a fixed magazine or has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine -- so I'm not convinced that the statute allows for a situation where a firearm does not have a fixed magazine, but it does not have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine either (at least not under the regulatory definition of "detachable magazine"). I see a similar problem with swapping mags while using a bullet button; I don't think you have a fixed mag in that situation (based on some of the arguments made by the CWDraco guy at ar15.com who gets dumped on all the time!:D).

Practically speaking the bullet button has a lot of momentum and apparently nobody is taking the opportunity to prosecute these cases (except maybe in the Contra Costa?) so it appears safe to use them. I've got a registered AW so I'm fine; when I build up the OLL that I have I'll probably use a monster man grip so I can swap my hi caps.

hoffmang
12-24-2008, 9:51 AM
This really isn't a hard concept. The rifle either has the capacity to accept a "detachable magazine" or it does not. There is no middle ground. A "detachable magazine" is a defined term and does not mean what the dictionary says - it means what 11 C.C.R. 5469 says it means. Namely:

"detachable magazine" means any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action nor use of a tool being required. A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool.

At no point in time (even with an empty magazine well) can a correctly configured BB rilfe accept a magazine that can be detached without use of a tool.

This is precise, but it is not hard to understand if you start treating it like the law and not like common sense.

-Gene

383green
12-24-2008, 10:04 AM
it is not hard to understand if you start treating it like the law and not like common sense.

I find it ironic that common sense generally is not nearly common enough, except in the rare cases like this one where it's not applicable! :p

eje
12-24-2008, 10:25 AM
I understand the argument you're making based on the regulatory definition. But I think it might have been you who said in the old ar15.com thread that it's either fixed or it's detachable, if it's not one it's the other. I agree with that, these were the 2 configurations for semiauto centerfile rifles intended by the assault weapon statute. Is that your current thinking or are you now saying "not fixed but not capable of accepting a detachable magazine either"?

I suppose my hesitance here is that the purpose of the regulatory definition of detachable magazine was to "ensure that certain firearms remained fixed mag by definition" or something like that. They were talking about SKS (and maybe m1 garands, I don't remember). Now they are using that regualtory tool/bullet language to create a previously unseen category of weapon that is neither fixed nor capable of accepting a detachable magazine ie bullet button. I see potential problems with doing this because there is a new category, i.e. "capable of accepting attachable mags" or "capable of accepting non-detachable mags", which doesn't appear anywhere in the statute and was not intended or contemplated by the statute. Using a bullet button does not keep a fixed mag rifle fixed, it makes a new configuration.

Again the vast majority of people are using bullet buttons with no problems except maybe in one isolated instance which we do not have complete information about. I hope someone is able to figure out what is going on and report it here.

383green
12-24-2008, 11:27 AM
The concerns that you're bringing up regarding "fixed", "detachable", etc. were pretty thoroughly beaten to death here 2 or 3 years ago.

DOJ did try to define a new class of weapon+magazine in which the magazine is not detachable, yet not permanently fixed in place. However, that was determined to be an "underground regulation" and shot down in flames by the OAL:

OAL Suspension Notice (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/oal/OAL-280-Suspension-Notice-2007-09-21-w-Attachments.pdf)


The AW laws define many classes of firearms which are considered to be "assault weapons". These classes are not all mutually-exclusive; it is possible for a gun to be covered by more than one of them. It is not even necessary for "detachable" and "fixed" to be mutually-exclusive categories which are all-inclusive in combination in order to interpret the AW laws as written.

One of the defined classes is:

(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:

[list of restricted features...]

The term "detachable magazine" as it is to be used in that phrase is defined by the DOJ:

(a) "detachable magazine" means any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action nor use of a tool being required. A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool.

On a rifle equipped with a bullet button and a magazine in place, the magazine cannot be removed without the use of a tool. Thus, the rifle does not have a "detachable magazine". Furthermore, if the magwell is open, then a tool will still be needed to remove any magazine that is inserted. Thus, the rifle does not have "the capacity to accept a detachable magazine", as that phrase is defined by law. Since the rifle does not have "the capacity to accept a detachable magazine" (with or without a magazine installed), the rifle is not included in that defined class. Note that the term "fixed" is not used in the definition of that class, so it does not matter whether the magazine is considered to be fixed or not in this particular case.

The term "fixed" is used in the definition of another class of assault weapon:

2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

Now, I do not recall whether the word "fixed" is specifically defined for the purposes of this class of weapon, so I'm about to use some of that dangerous common sense. Somebody please correct me if I misstate anything... That being said, let's assume that the phrase "fixed magazine" here means "not a detachable magazine", with "detachable magazine" being defined by 11 CCR 5469. Now, let's see what this implies:

If the magazine is removed from a bullet-button rifle, then the rifle does not have a magazine. Thus, it cannot belong to this restricted class.

If you now insert a magazine, I believe that magazine is correctly considered to be "fixed". If the magazine that you inserted has "the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds", then this rifle has just become an assault weapon (if it wasn't already one under one of the other restricted classes).

So, in summary, a rifle that has a properly-installed bullet button and has either a 10 round (or smaller) magazine installed or an open magwell, is neither a rifle with "the capacity to accept a detachable magazine" nor a rifle with "a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds". It is in neither of those two restricted classes. If it is not in any of the other restricted classes (such as "A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.", then it is not an assault weapon under California law.

The main point that I'm trying to make is that "detachable magazine" and "fixed magazine" are used in different, independent assault weapon definitions. It doesn't matter whether they are exact opposites of each other, or overlapping classes, or even classes which do not together cover all possible types of magazine, because they're not used together in the same place in the law. The places in which they are used are independent, non-mutually-exclusive, non-all-inclusive definitions.

I'm not trying to be rude, but the concerns that you're bringing up here are very old and very dead.

hoffmang
12-24-2008, 11:39 AM
The BoF is doing nothing but silently admitting defeat. They admitted (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/oal/OAL-280-Suspension-Notice-2007-09-21-w-Attachments.pdf) that there was no permanence required and they are bound by their definition of detachable magazine.

The SKS is not banned simply by disassembly. When you have the non detachable type magazine out of the SKS without a detachable magazine it is not now an "SKS with detachable magazine." It is an SKS that has the capacity to accept a magazine that is not removable without a tool where a bullet tip is considered a tool.

That's not a hard concept to understand but it seems like people prefer fear to clear thinking.

-Gene

383green
12-24-2008, 12:06 PM
That's not a hard concept to understand but it seems like people prefer fear to clear thinking.

In defense of folks who are still wary of these things, I suggest that we've been trained to be increasingly afraid for most of our lives, and clear thinking has only been getting the upper hand fairly recently.

eje
12-24-2008, 12:10 PM
I know you're not trying to be rude, don't worry I'm not taking it that way! I read the OAL stuff when it was happening and that was about permanence, this is something else. The "it must either be fixed or detachable" wasn't my idea, it was what Calguns people were saying 6 months ago at ar15.com, which is why I am a little confused about what the official position is now. The "it must either be fixed or detachable" stuff was supported by the claim that DOJ was defining fixed mag by negative implication when they defined detachable mag; I remember seeing this argument made by some Calguns folks in the same ar15.com thread; I can't find the thread at ar15.com so I'm just going by memory here.

lrdchivalry
12-24-2008, 12:15 PM
I understand the argument you're making based on the regulatory definition. But I think it might have been you who said in the old ar15.com thread that it's either fixed or it's detachable, if it's not one it's the other. I agree with that, these were the 2 configurations for semiauto centerfile rifles intended by the assault weapon statute. Is that your current thinking or are you now saying "not fixed but not capable of accepting a detachable magazine either"?

I suppose my hesitance here is that the purpose of the regulatory definition of detachable magazine was to "ensure that certain firearms remained fixed mag by definition" or something like that. They were talking about SKS (and maybe m1 garands, I don't remember). Now they are using that regualtory tool/bullet language to create a previously unseen category of weapon that is neither fixed nor capable of accepting a detachable magazine ie bullet button. I see potential problems with doing this because there is a new category, i.e. "capable of accepting attachable mags" or "capable of accepting non-detachable mags", which doesn't appear anywhere in the statute and was not intended or contemplated by the statute. Using a bullet button does not keep a fixed mag rifle fixed, it makes a new configuration.

I remember the thread at AR15.com and responded to many of CWDraco's comments. His arguement was that a BB equipped rifle still had the capacity to accept a detachable magazine due to the magazine being able to be removed from the rifle with a tool, even though the law is pretty clear and proved that he was wrong, which, he could not accept. No matter how much info we gave him it wasn't good enough, so what did he result to? He wanted to take it to the pit because he couldn't argue on facts so he wanted to get nasty and not get booted from AR15.com by taking it to the pit. I even challenged him to build a BB equipped rifle and send it to the DOJ for clarification and he refused and dodged the challenge because he knew he was wrong.

There are only two types of magazine in regards to AW's. It's either detachable or fixed. There is no wording in the law in regards to being "capable of accepting attachable magazines". The wording of the law is clear as is the definition of detachable magazine. If it's not detachable, it's fixed. The problem is that you read more into it then is necessary. There was no new configurations created just compliance with the law, plain and simple.

Even the Sacromento PD training bulleting will tell you a BB equiped rifle is not an assault weapon unless it has a "fixed" magazine that holds more then 10 rounds.

eje
12-24-2008, 12:45 PM
It is an SKS that has the capacity to accept a magazine that is not removable without a tool where a bullet tip is considered a tool.

I think the regulatory history is pretty clear that the fixed mag SKS is not an AW because it is a semi-auto centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine that does not have the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds. The express purpose of the detachable mag regulation was to keep the SKS "fixed by definition," even though, as some of the comments pointed out, the fixed mag could be removed with a tool during disassembly. They weren't removing the SKS from the fixed mag category and creating some brand new "capable of accepting a magazine that is not removable without a tool where a bullet tip is considered a tool" category, they were explicitly keeping SKS in the fixed mag category. So there is support in the regulatory history for "either it's fixed or it's detachable" which is why I'm bringing this up, as now it sounds like there may have been a shift in position in the last few months.

eje
12-24-2008, 12:55 PM
I think CWDraco was arguing "not capable of accepting detachable mags but not fixed either" therefore you can use a BB with hi cap mags and it does not meet either statutory definition of assault weapon for semi auto rifles. And the Calguns people were saying "no, it's fixed so you can only use 10 round mags." I might be wrong about that but that's what I remember.


There are only two types of magazine in regards to AW's. It's either detachable or fixed. There is no wording in the law in regards to being "capable of accepting attachable magazines".


That's what I thought the Calguns position was also.

lrdchivalry
12-24-2008, 1:03 PM
I think CWDraco was arguing "not capable of accepting detachable mags but not fixed either" therefore you can use a BB with hi cap mags and it does not meet either statutory definition of assault weapon for semi auto rifles. And the Calguns people were saying "no, it's fixed so you can only use 10 round mags." I might be wrong about that but that's what I remember.

That was one issue of the debate, which, as was pointed out that there are only two types of magazines. Detachable and fixed. He was trying to justify his BS info with the arguement that since the definition of fixed magazine is not in the CCR then it must be attachable and therefore the use of hi-cap mags were ok.

That's what I thought the Calguns position was also.

I can't speak for Calguns but it wouldn't be just their position, California law backs up that position.

eje
12-24-2008, 1:11 PM
The concern I have is the flipside, which is, if it's not fixed, it's detachable. If a semi-auto centerfire rifle doesn't meet the definition of "fixed" then what do you have?

lrdchivalry
12-24-2008, 1:17 PM
The concern I have is the flipside, which is, if it's not fixed, it's detachable. If a bullet button AR does not meet the definition of "fixed" then what do you have?


An AR OLL that has a bullet button does not have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine due to a tool being required to remove the magazine. The definition of detachable is outlined in the CCR, so if it's not detachable the only other option is fixed.

“‘[D]etachable magazine’ means any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily
from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action nor use of a tool being required.
A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool".

A bullet button equipped OLL is a fixed magazine build.

hoffmang
12-24-2008, 1:20 PM
The concern I have is the flipside, which is, if it's not fixed, it's detachable. If a semi-auto rifle doesn't meet the definition of "fixed" then what do you have?

The word fixed is not in the Penal Code except where it alternatively defines an AW as a rifle having a fixed magazine that is capable of accepting more than 10 rounds. A rifle either has a "detachable magazine" as that term is defined in the CCR, or it does not. CWDraco's argument was an attempt to create fantasy that allowed a BB rifle to use large-capacity magazines - something clearly prohibited.

When an OLL has no magazine in the well it is neither a rifle with a fixed magazine nor a rifle capable accepting a "detachable magazine." When a magazine is placed into the magazine well it now becomes a rifle with a fixed magazine and the restriction on accepting more than 10 rounds is triggered.

-Gene

lrdchivalry
12-24-2008, 1:28 PM
The word fixed is not in the Penal Code except where it alternatively defines an AW as a rifle having a fixed magazine that is capable of accepting more than 10 rounds. A rifle either has a "detachable magazine" as that term is defined in the CCR, or it does not. CWDraco's argument was an attempt to create fantasy that allowed a BB rifle to use large-capacity magazines - something clearly prohibited.

When an OLL has no magazine in the well it is neither a rifle with a fixed magazine nor a rifle capable accepting a "detachable magazine." When a magazine is placed into the magazine well it now becomes a rifle with a fixed magazine and the restriction on accepting more than 10 rounds is triggered.

-Gene

Agreed!

artherd
12-24-2008, 1:54 PM
This is a great question and one which I have wondered about for some time. We've had BB's and Oll's for 3+ years now. Does ANYONE have verifiable proof of a conviction with a properly equipted BB? ANYWHERE in CA?

If you find one - which you won't - send it to me so we can overturn it on appeal.

eje
12-24-2008, 2:15 PM
When an OLL has no magazine in the well it is neither a rifle with a fixed magazine nor a rifle capable accepting a "detachable magazine." When a magazine is placed into the magazine well it now becomes a rifle with a fixed magazine and the restriction on accepting more than 10 rounds is triggered.

I don't think a mag becomes a fixed mag just because it needs a tool to be removed, you need more. DOJ was not defining "fixed mag" by negative implication, it put the tool/bullet language in the regulations so that SKS fixed mag rifles "would remain fixed by definition." Which means the definition of "fixed" is something other than "needs a tool to remove." At the time the regulation was drafted it was true that mags that required a tool to remove were fixed mags (sks, m1 garand) but those rifles were already fixed by some other definition. That doesn't mean that any future configuration is going to be "Fixed" just because you need a tool to remove the mag. In other words you don't get a fixed mag rifle unless it has a mag that is "fixed" by that other definition. You had the DOJ running around in circles with the OAL permanence stuff but as far as the meaning of "fixed magazine" is concerned DOJ has been fairly coherent and consistent from what I can see, in their responses to public regulatory comments and in the fixed mag configurations they approved, i.e, a fixed mag remains attached or "affixed" to the firearm during loading. Mag swapping with the bullet button doesn't meet that definition.

So circling back to the original topic of this thread, I can see the argument why the firearm lacks the capacity to accept a detachable magazine but I'm not persuaded that a bullet button AR is a fixed mag configuration, so hopefully someone will find that Contra Costa County case and we can see if there was a judicial determination that the rifle was a fixed mag rifle.

I don't want to beat a dead horse here, I prefer to lurk here and ar15.com and am not usually one to stir the pot. I really respect what hoffmang and others are doing with the foundation and the DOJ battles and I will leave it at that. Happy holidays everyone!

lrdchivalry
12-24-2008, 2:44 PM
I don't think a mag becomes a fixed mag just because it needs a tool to be removed, you need more. DOJ was not defining "fixed mag" by negative implication, it put the tool/bullet language in the regulations so that SKS fixed mag rifles "would remain fixed by definition." Which means the definition of "fixed" is something other than "needs a tool to remove." At the time the regulation was drafted it was true that mags that required a tool to remove were fixed mags (sks, m1 garand) but those rifles were already fixed by some other definition. That doesn't mean that any future configuration is going to be "Fixed" just because you need a tool to remove the mag. In other words you don't get a fixed mag rifle unless it has a mag that is "fixed" by that other definition. You had the DOJ running around in circles with the OAL permanence stuff but as far as the meaning of "fixed magazine" is concerned DOJ has been fairly coherent and consistent from what I can see, in their responses to public regulatory comments and in the fixed mag configurations they approved, i.e, a fixed mag remains attached or "affixed" to the firearm during loading. Mag swapping with the bullet button doesn't meet that definition.

Really? Iggy went on national television in his capacity as a DOJ firearms expert and stated the bullet button created a fixed magazine and made OLL's legal. You are also ignoring the Sacromento PD training bulletin that also states that a bullet button equipped rifle is a fixed magazine. Just because a piece of equipment comes out after the CCR was written in order to comply with the law does not negate or invalidate it. There is no difference if I were to use a tool to remove the magazine on the SKS or a BB equipped OLL. If we went by your arguement then any rifle whose magazine can be removed with a tool is not a fixed magazine.

So circling back to the original topic of this thread, I can see the argument why the firearm lacks the capacity to accept a detachable magazine but I'm not persuaded that a bullet button AR is a fixed mag configuration, so hopefully someone will find that Contra Costa County case and we can see if there was a judicial determination that the rifle was a fixed mag rifle.

It's funny, you agree that there are only 2 types of magazine, detachable or fixed, yet cannot accept what the law states.. If it requires a tool to remove then it is not detachable, your only other option is fixed. Every time you insert a magazine into a BB equipped rifle you need a tool to remove it and according to the CCR if it requires a tool to remove then it's not detachable...So logic tells you the only other option is fixed. Right? As I have said before, quit reading into the law and just follow it. Whether your persuaded or not is irrelevent, what matters is what the law says and the documentation from law enforcement agencies confirm it.

I don't want to beat a dead horse here, I prefer to lurk here and ar15.com and am not usually one to stir the pot. I really respect what hoffmang and others are doing with the foundation and the DOJ battles and I will leave it at that. Happy holidays everyone!

Why do I suspect that your actually CWDraco using an alias and still trying to win that debate that started in ar15.com.

artherd
12-24-2008, 2:46 PM
I don't think a mag becomes a fixed mag just because it needs a tool to be removed, you need more.

Eh, you're wrong. Page 3.

http://cdglobal.net/gun/DOJ-Written-Comment1-I%20own%20a%20Barrett%20M82-round2.pdf

tango-52
12-24-2008, 2:49 PM
Why do I suspect that your actually CWDraco using an alias and still trying to win that debate that started in ar15.com.

I just thought it was Allison M. trying to spread some Christmas FUD. :p

lrdchivalry
12-24-2008, 3:12 PM
Eh, you're wrong. Page 3.

http://cdglobal.net/gun/DOJ-Written-Comment1-I%20own%20a%20Barrett%20M82-round2.pdf

OUCH!

eje
12-24-2008, 3:39 PM
Why do I suspect that your actually CWDraco using an alias and still trying to win that debate that started in ar15.com.

I've been a member of various forums for quite a long time -- if you don't believe me, go ahead and do a search at glocktalk.com, ar15.com, sigforum.com, parkcitiestactical.com (I think my username there was "Ed"), etc. I am a seller at auctionarms.com with the username "eje67." etc. So your suspicion is misplaced I'm afraid.

artherd
12-24-2008, 3:40 PM
OUCH!
This isn't our first rodeo :)


(that said, we're not perfect or omnipresent, so please bring things up - much of the strength of CGF comes from the members of calguns.net ! )

lrdchivalry
12-24-2008, 3:59 PM
I've been a member of various forums for quite a long time -- if you don't believe me, go ahead and do a search at glocktalk.com, ar15.com, sigforum.com, parkcitiestactical.com (I think my username there was "Ed"), etc. I am a seller at auctionarms.com with the username "eje67." etc. So your suspicion is misplaced I'm afraid.


Perhaps, however, membership in multiple forums doesn't mean that you couldn't be CWDraco.

eje
12-24-2008, 4:03 PM
Eh, you're wrong. Page 3.

http://cdglobal.net/gun/DOJ-Written-Comment1-I%20own%20a%20Barrett%20M82-round2.pdf

The mag on your Barrett remains affixed to the firearm during loading does it not? Or are you swapping mags?

Swapping mags with a bullet button does not meet the plain meaning definition of "fixed," and it does not meet the definition of "fixed" that is universal in the firearms industry. (I am borrowing the latter from Draco because I agree with him not because I am him.) You can't say the legislature intended something else by "fixed" because there was no other possibility for fixed mag semi auto centerfire rifles. The regulatory definition of detachable mag does not re-define or specially define fixed mag, it keeps otherwise fixed mag rifles from being considered "capable of accepting detachable mags." If DOJ promulgated a reg that enlarged, expanded, amended, etc. a statutory definition, wouldn't that be a problem? Or is it a problem only sometimes but not others? I don't think the reg does that of course but that is how others are interpreting it and that is problematic.

artherd
12-24-2008, 4:08 PM
You are proposing a fantasy in which there is some sort of 3rd type of magazine rather than "fixed" or "detatchable".

What are you ultimately getting at here?

The mag on your Barrett remains affixed to the firearm during loading does it not? Or are you swapping mags?

The hinge magazine is held in by 2 screws - quite easily removable with a tool.

eje
12-24-2008, 4:20 PM
Perhaps, however, membership in multiple forums doesn't mean that you couldn't be CWDraco.

More likely your accusations/suspicions reflect the usual calguns m.o., which is to call someone who doesn't tow the party line a "troll" "doj plant" etc. You're way off base here, I have been an AW owner and gun enthusiast for some time now who sees the "must either be fixed or detachable" mantra troublesome with empty mag well bullet button AR (it's not fixed). The same for the claim that DOJ was defining "fixed mags" by negative implication when it defined detachable magazine, which I think is untenable based on the ample regulatory history, and if not untenable, an improper regulation to the extent that it results in semiauto centerfire rifles being categorized as "fixed" when their mags are not fixed under the plain meaning definition of "fixed" or any other firearm industry definition of fixed. This is why at this point I would not use a bullet button. If there is contrary court decision, trial court, appellate court, whatever, I will reevaluate this. The DOJ doesn't know its head from its *** on this stuff, they are too stupid or confused from the permanance fight to try to do anything about it. I don't care what anyone else decides to do with their OLLs, and I'll repeat that it appears safe to use a bullet button because nobody seems to be prosecuting and not for lack of opportunity.

eje
12-24-2008, 4:22 PM
The hinge magazine is held in by 2 screws - quite easily removable with a tool.

That doesn't answer my question.

lrdchivalry
12-24-2008, 5:17 PM
The mag on your Barrett remains affixed to the firearm during loading does it not? Or are you swapping mags?

Swapping mags with a bullet button does not meet the plain meaning definition of "fixed," and it does not meet the definition of "fixed" that is universal in the firearms industry. (I am borrowing the latter from Draco because I agree with him not because I am him.) You can't say the legislature intended something else by "fixed" because there was no other possibility for fixed mag semi auto centerfire rifles. The regulatory definition of detachable mag does not re-define or specially define fixed mag, it keeps otherwise fixed mag rifles from being considered "capable of accepting detachable mags." If DOJ promulgated a reg that enlarged, expanded, amended, etc. a statutory definition, wouldn't that be a problem? Or is it a problem only sometimes but not others? I don't think the reg does that of course but that is how others are interpreting it and that is problematic.

If that is the case then why had the main firearms expert for the DOJ go on national television and state that a bullet button equipped rifle is a fixed magazine build and therefore making OLL's with all the evil features legal, second, Sacromento PD has also put out a training bulletin stating an OLL with a bullet button is indeed a fixed magazine.

If what you are saying were accurate then the Riverside County DA's office would have had a slam dunk case against Bright Spot Pawn after the RSO raided them and confiscated multiple so called assault weapons. Funny, they had to give the weapons back because they were equipped with BB's and were considered OLL fixed magazine rifles.

You claim not to be CWDraco, however, my suspicion remains. In the AR15.com forum only one person agreed with CWDraco and then changed his mind when presented with overwhelming evidence to prove him wrong. Nobody else came forward to refute the evidence presented in our arguement. He used the same arguments that you do know...Hmmm.

I present a challenge to you then. If you are so sure that you are right then I challenge you as I did CWDraco, to build an OLL with a BB and then place a 30 round magazine into the rifle. Ship the rifle to the CADOJ for clarification on the legality of the weapon, make sure you provide the DOJ with your name and address. Present verifiable evidence to this forum proving you are right. Then everyone will know definitavely who is right. I suspect though, that the DOJ will paying you a visit with some special jewelry for you for owning a illegal AW.

artherd
12-24-2008, 5:20 PM
I have been an AW owner and gun enthusiast for some time now who sees the "must either be fixed or detachable" mantra troublesome with empty mag well bullet button AR (it's not fixed).

It's just as 'fixed' as your glock's slide is fixed to the gun.

Rapid tool-less assembly is a common concept in the firearms industry.

You are living in candy land if you think for one second somehow a BB mag is not 'fixed' once assembled.

Your comfort level here is not a matter of law - so let's dispense with that.

Fjold
12-24-2008, 5:34 PM
eje is to polite and well mannered to be CWDraco.

GM4spd
12-24-2008, 5:44 PM
If that is the case then why had the main firearms expert for the DOJ go on national television and state that a bullet button equipped rifle is a fixed magazine build and therefore making OLL's with all the evil features legal, second, Sacromento PD has also put out a training bulletin stating an OLL with a bullet button is indeed a fixed magazine.

When did this television event take place? As far as
a Sacramento PD endorsement that isn't a real comfy feel either,especially
since I don't live or shoot there.Also the only BB I have seen up close is
for the AR15 types and it is a respectable unit(non obtrusive)whereas my
FAL would look better with birdsiht all over it,not to mention it impedes,
normal break open of the rifle.The real problem I have with BBs is I have
many prepreban mags that I have kept legally over the years and it appears
to me that MERE possession(of any large capacity mag) in close proximty to any BB would be a
problem I don't need. Pete

383green
12-24-2008, 6:05 PM
The real problem I have with BBs is I have many prepreban mags that I have kept legally over the years and it appears to me that MERE possession(of any large capacity mag) in close proximty to any BB would be a problem I don't need.

How could it be a problem to posses a large capacity magazine near a BB-equipped gun? The AW laws in CA do not include a concept of constructive possession, so it is not a problem to possess parts which could be assembled into an AW. If you actually insert one of those large-capacity magazines into a BB-equipped gun, then that would be a problem, because that gun would then be one that "has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds". If the BB-equipped gun is merely near the magazine, then it doesn't "have" the magazine.

If in doubt, leave a 10-round (or smaller) magazine installed in the BB-equipped gun at all times, so that there's no question that any other magazines laying around aren't part of it, and nobody will be likely to inadvertently stick a larger magazine into the hole. In the case of an AR-like rifle, you don't even need to remove the magazine to load/unload it if you don't want to.

artherd
12-24-2008, 6:17 PM
The real problem I have with BBs is I have
many prepreban mags that I have kept legally over the years and it appears
to me that MERE possession(of any large capacity mag) in close proximty to any BB would be a
problem I don't need. Pete

Constructive possession does not apply to features based AW statutes.

hoffmang
12-24-2008, 7:27 PM
"detachable magazine" is defined in the California Code of Regulations.

"fixed" is not defined and thus uses the dictionary or common sense definition. When a magazine is in a BB equipped OLL, the rifle is a fixed magazine rifle. When no magazine is in a BB equipped OLL it is neither a "detachable magazine" rifle or a "fixed" magazine rifle.

I think you need to state your disagreement with my statement above more succinctly or it seems you're just needlessly fretting.

-Gene

truthseeker
12-24-2008, 8:23 PM
It sounds to me that he is trying to interpret the laws to mean something that they do NOT! You are trying to impose common sense to the words "detachable, fixed, and capacity to accept" which have already been defined by the same people that wrote these laws which the BB has complied with per the meaning of the words that were written into law.

If you are unsure or think that the BB does not follow the "spirit" of the law (which means jack sh*t, because it either is illegal or it is not and in this particular instance it is NOT since it complies with ALL definitions set forth on what an AW is and is NOT) then DO NOT configure/buy a semi-auto rifle that uses a BB.

WOW that was the longest run-on sentence I have ever written!!

eje
12-24-2008, 8:28 PM
The AW laws in CA do not include a concept of constructive possession, so it is not a problem to possess parts which could be assembled into an AW. If you actually insert one of those large-capacity magazines into a BB-equipped gun, then that would be a problem, because that gun would then be one that "has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds". If the BB-equipped gun is merely near the magazine, then it doesn't "have" the magazine.

If in doubt, leave a 10-round (or smaller) magazine installed in the BB-equipped gun at all times, so that there's no question that any other magazines laying around aren't part of it, and nobody will be likely to inadvertently stick a larger magazine into the hole. In the case of an AR-like rifle, you don't even need to remove the magazine to load/unload it if you don't want to.

If you are going to use a bullet button, I think this is the most sensible way to go about doing it. I agree with your constructive possession observations, this is the reason why I do not think an empty mag bullet button AR "has a fixed magazine" -- it does not have any magazine. This means of course that if there are only two categories of semi auto centerfire rifles, which I agree is the case and others in this thread appear to as well, then there is only one alternative and it's not a good one.

In response to some of the other posters, I'm certainly not the one saying there is some fantasy third configuration that is not fixed and not detachable. But I suppose you can make that argument if you want, or you can argue that your empty mag well bullet button AR defies categorization under either of the universally recognized semi-auto centerfire configurations. Some one is making that argument in this thread, which doesn't help my confusion about what is the official button button theory, as people are saying different things.

Boots
12-24-2008, 8:40 PM
That's how I treat my AR's... the two that have BB's have 10 round mags inserted at all times. I'll only take them out if I'm either disassembling them for cleaning or if I ever leave this "state".

How could it be a problem to posses a large capacity magazine near a BB-equipped gun? The AW laws in CA do not include a concept of constructive possession, so it is not a problem to possess parts which could be assembled into an AW. If you actually insert one of those large-capacity magazines into a BB-equipped gun, then that would be a problem, because that gun would then be one that "has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds". If the BB-equipped gun is merely near the magazine, then it doesn't "have" the magazine.

If in doubt, leave a 10-round (or smaller) magazine installed in the BB-equipped gun at all times, so that there's no question that any other magazines laying around aren't part of it, and nobody will be likely to inadvertently stick a larger magazine into the hole. In the case of an AR-like rifle, you don't even need to remove the magazine to load/unload it if you don't want to.

Boots
12-24-2008, 8:45 PM
LOL take a deep breath after that one

It sounds to me that he is trying to interpret the laws to mean something that they do NOT! You are trying to impose common sense to the words "detachable, fixed, and capacity to accept" which have already been defined by the same people that wrote these laws which the BB has complied with per the meaning of the words that were written into law.

If you are unsure or think that the BB does not follow the "spirit" of the law (which means jack sh*t, because it either is illegal or it is not and in this particular instance it is NOT since it complies with ALL definitions set forth on what an AW is and is NOT) then DO NOT configure/buy a semi-auto rifle that uses a BB.

WOW that was the longest run-on sentence I have ever written!!

383green
12-24-2008, 8:50 PM
you can argue that your empty mag well bullet button AR defies categorization under either of the universally recognized semi-auto centerfire configurations.

There are not two (and only two) universally recognized semi-auto centerfire configurations. There are more than two, and they are not mutually exclusive. Please go read my detailed explanation (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=1819506&postcount=49) again.

The particular two configurations you're talking about are (emphasis added):

1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:

[list of restricted features...]

2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

The categories are not the opposites of each other, i.e. "detachable magazine" and "fixed magazine". The first category generally does not depend upon whether a magazine is present or not, but the second one generally does.

Thus:

A) A BB-equipped AR with a magazine installed does not have the "capacity to accept a detachable magazine". It does have "a fixed magazine".

B) A BB-equipped AR with an open magwell does not have the "capacity to accept a detachable magazine". It does not have "a fixed magazine".

C) An AR with a conventional mag catch, with a magazine installed, does have the "capacity to accept a detachable magazine". It does not have "a fixed magazine".

D) An AR with a conventional mag catch, with no magazine installed, does have the "capacity to accept a detachable magazine". It does not have "a fixed magazine".

This really isn't rocket science...

eje
12-24-2008, 9:01 PM
"fixed" is not defined and thus uses the dictionary or common sense definition. When a magazine is in a BB equipped OLL, the rifle is a fixed magazine rifle. When no magazine is in a BB equipped OLL it is neither a "detachable magazine" rifle or a "fixed" magazine rifle.

A semi auto centerfire rifle is an assault weapon if it "has a fixed magazine" with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds. If the rifle has a fixed magazine that does not have the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, it is not an assault weapon. If you are swapping mags with a bullet button rifle, the rifle doesn't have "a" magazine, unlike the SkS fixed mag which remains attached to the rifle while you are shooting, loading, and unloading. You can take the SKS mag out when you disassemble the rifle, but you're going to be putting the same mag right back in, unless you are replacing it for some reason. So you don't have "a" singular magazine, like you do with the SKS, garand, or even the hinged mag Barrett.

Even if you are only using one mag with your bullet button AR -- you're removing it, loading it, and placing it back in -- the mag isn't "fixed" under a plain language definition because it is constantly moving in and out of the mag well during operation of the firearm (shooting, loading, and unloading). The argument you are making is really, "it's fixed but only part of the time." Is that sufficient? Is that what the legislature intended? I don't think so, there was no other choice when the statute was drafted.

On top of that there is no helpful precedent in the history of firearms, and the one place where the DOJ has squarely defined "fixed magazine" in any kind of official manner says a fixed magazine "remains affixed to the firearm during loading." Your strategy of using the DOJ's own words against them was very effective with the permanence regs, but you can't use that strategy here. Nor can you say well they've approved this type of configuration before, because they haven't approved any fixed mag configurations where the firearm did not have a single mag that was affixed to the firearm during loading. So no I don't think this argument has a lot going for it.

lrdchivalry
12-24-2008, 9:11 PM
If you are going to use a bullet button, I think this is the most sensible way to go about doing it. I agree with your constructive possession observations, this is the reason why I do not think an empty mag bullet button AR "has a fixed magazine" -- it does not have any magazine. This means of course that if there are only two categories of semi auto centerfire rifles, which I agree is the case and others in this thread appear to as well, then there is only one alternative and it's not a good one.

You cannot have it both ways. On one hand you state you agree that there are only two types of magazine, detachable and fixed, then on the other hand you state a BB equipped rifle is not a fixed magazine. A BB equipped rifle does not have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and since the magazine requires a tool to remove it does not meet the legal definition of detachable, therefore, the only other option is fixed..

In response to some of the other posters, I'm certainly not the one saying there is some fantasy third configuration that is not fixed and not detachable.But I suppose you can make that argument if you want, or you can argue that your empty mag well bullet button AR defies categorization under either of the universally recognized semi-auto centerfire configurations. Some one is making that argument in this thread, which doesn't help my confusion about what is the official button button theory, as people are saying different things.

Nobody, except you and CWDraco (if your not the same person), argues that a BB equipped rifle defies categorization. Everyone here has told you that a rifle equipped with a BB is considered a fixed magazine rifle. Gene also gave a great explanation and you still refuse to accept it. If you wish to help your confusion, start listening, and reading the law and other LEO resources that back up what Gene and others have told you. You create your own confusion by reading more into it then you need to. Remember it's not what you think the spirit of the law should be but what the law actually says.

eje
12-24-2008, 9:15 PM
383green, I understand the "defies categorization as having a fixed magazine and also defies categorization as as having the capacity to accept a detachable magazine" argument you are making (your (B) example). But people other than me are saying, in this thread, that there are two and only two categories for semiauto centerfire rifles and there is no "fantasy" (not my word) third category where you don't have a fixed mag but don't have capacity to accept a detachable magazine either. (hoffmang was saying this 6 months ago at ar15.com (must be fixed or detachable) but he's not saying it any more.) This lack of coherence and consistency does not make me feel any better about bullet buttons.

lrdchivalry
12-24-2008, 9:26 PM
A semi auto centerfire rifle is an assault weapon if it "has a fixed magazine" with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds. If the rifle has a fixed magazine that does not have the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, it is not an assault weapon. If you are swapping mags with a bullet button rifle, the rifle doesn't have "a" magazine, unlike the SkS fixed mag which remains attached to the rifle while you are shooting, loading, and unloading. You can take the SKS mag out when you disassemble the rifle, but you're going to be putting the same mag right back in, unless you are replacing it for some reason. So you don't have "a" singular magazine, like you do with the SKS, garand, or even the hinged mag Barrett.

Show me where in the law that a fixed magazine must remain in the weapon during shooting, loading, and unloading in order to be classified as fixed?


Even if you are only using one mag with your bullet button AR -- you're removing it, loading it, and placing it back in -- the mag isn't "fixed" under a plain language definition because it is constantly moving in and out of the mag well during operation of the firearm (shooting, loading, and unloading). The argument you are making is really, "it's fixed but only part of the time." Is that sufficient? Is that what the legislature intended? I don't think so, there was no other choice when the statute was drafted.

It doesn't matter what the intent was, it is what the law actually states. The BB follows the LETTER of the law and since the BB was not in existance during the time the CCR was written does not mean it is to be ignored or discounted.

On top of that there is no helpful precedent in the history of firearms, and the one place where the DOJ has squarely defined "fixed magazine" in any kind of official manner says a fixed magazine "remains affixed to the firearm during loading." Your strategy of using the DOJ's own words against them was very effective with the permanence regs, but you can't use that strategy here. Nor can you say well they've approved this type of configuration before, because they haven't approved any fixed mag configurations where the firearm did not have a single mag that was affixed to the firearm during loading. So no I don't think this argument has a lot going for it.

It wasn't a stategy..The DOJ's Head firearms agent went on national tv and stated that a rifle with a BB is a fixed magazine. The RSO had to return BB equipped rifles to their rightful owner because they were fixed magazine rifles. The Sacto PD has put it in writing in one of their training bulletins that a BB equipped rifle is a fixed magazine.

lrdchivalry
12-24-2008, 9:34 PM
383green, I understand the "defies categorization as having a fixed magazine and also defies categorization as as having the capacity to accept a detachable magazine" argument you are making (your (B) example). But people other than me are saying, in this thread, that there are two and only two categories for semiauto centerfire rifles and there is no "fantasy" (not my word) third category where you don't have a fixed mag but don't have capacity to accept a detachable magazine either. (hoffmang was saying this 6 months ago at ar15.com (must be fixed or detachable) but he's not saying it any more.) This lack of coherence and consistency does not make me feel any better about bullet buttons.

I think your trying to twist what Gene said to validate your arguement. He stated that a rifle equipped with a BB and empty mag well lacks the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and therefore not an AW. Place a mag into the BB equipped rifle and it becomes a fixed magazine rifle. If you took the magazine out of the SKS it no longer has the capacity to accept any magazine. Is it still a fixed magazine? The answer would be yes. The same for the BB. No where in the law does it state that the magazine must remain on the weapon during unloading or loading in order to be a fixed magazine or that it must take a certain amount of to remove in order to be classified as a fixed magazine..

hoffmang
12-24-2008, 9:40 PM
eje,

You can actually, you know, quote me and respond to me.

Let me be concise. an OLL with a Bullet Button is just as much a fixed magazine rifle as an SKS with a non detachable magazine.

Just because its not as easy to find 15 round non detachable SKS non detachable magazines, an SKS that isn't banned with its magazine off is no different than an OLL w/ a BB and the magazine out of the well. You're searching for a distinction that isn't distinct.

I had said that someone might argue that an OLL with a BB and no magazine is not a fixed magazine rile. I believe it is. At worst its a dissasembled rifle with a fixed magazine. However, this doesn't at all matter.

I know two things to be true.

1. A semiautomatic centerfire rifle with a pistol grip and a bullet button does not have a "detachable magazine" and therefor is not a Category III rile. Period. End of story. That's what is prohibited - nothing more. with a 10 round magazine or no magazine it does not meet the definition under PC 12276.1. (a) (1).

2. If you place a 30 round magazine into a BB equipped semiautomatic centerfire rifle it is an assault weapon under PC 12276.1 (a) (2).

If this is not correct then you have to tell me what Penal Code I'm violating when I have in my possession a semiautomatic centerfire rifle with a pistol grip, a bullet button, and an empty magazine well.

-Gene

383green
12-24-2008, 9:51 PM
If you are swapping mags with a bullet button rifle, the rifle doesn't have "a" magazine, unlike the SkS fixed mag which remains attached to the rifle while you are shooting, loading, and unloading. You can take the SKS mag out when you disassemble the rifle, but you're going to be putting the same mag right back in, unless you are replacing it for some reason. So you don't have "a" singular magazine, like you do with the SKS, garand, or even the hinged mag Barrett.

Even if you're removing one magazine and reinstalling another one, the rifle in question never has more than one magazine.

With an SKS, you may load the magazine in place. Or, you may choose to disassemble the rifle using a tool such as a bullet tip, load the magazine while it is not attached to the rifle, and then reinstall it. You could even put in a different one than you removed a moment ago. This doesn't matter under the CA AW laws.

With BB-equipped AR, you may load the magazine in place. Or, you may choose to disassemble the rifle using a tool such as a bullet tip, load the magazine while it is not attached to the rifle, and then reinstall it. You could even put in a different one than you removed a moment ago. This doesn't matter under the CA AW laws.

Both cases are the same.

The argument you are making is really, "it's fixed but only part of the time."

So, what? You can also use a tool such as a bullet tip to remove the 10-round magazine from an SKS. You can even load it that way if you want to. You could also install a 20-round magazine in its place; at the moment you do that, you have created an assault weapon. It wasn't an assault weapon a moment ago, and now it is. It was only an assault weapon part of the time... and that part of the time when it was is what can get you thrown in the slammer.

On top of that there is no helpful precedent in the history of firearms, and the one place where the DOJ has squarely defined "fixed magazine" in any kind of official manner says a fixed magazine "remains affixed to the firearm during loading." Your strategy of using the DOJ's own words against them was very effective with the permanence regs, but you can't use that strategy here. Nor can you say well they've approved this type of configuration before, because they haven't approved any fixed mag configurations where the firearm did not have a single mag that was affixed to the firearm during loading. So no I don't think this argument has a lot going for it.

Actually, I think that the DOJ has issued at least one letter that states that OLLs with magazine locks do not have "the capacity to accept a detachable magazine". Can Gene/Bill/etc. post a link to one of those letters that they issued before they decided to shut their mouths and start issuing "58 DAs" FUD?



You cannot have it both ways. On one hand you state you agree that there are only two types of magazine, detachable and fixed, then on the other hand you state a BB equipped rifle is not a fixed magazine. A BB equipped rifle does not have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and since the magazine requires a tool to remove it does not meet the legal definition of detachable, therefore, the only other option is fixed..

This argument is a bit confused at best. "a BB equipped rifle is not a fixed magazine": Correct, a rifle is not a magazine, though it may or may not have a magazine.


383green, I understand the "defies categorization as having a fixed magazine and also defies categorization as as having the capacity to accept a detachable magazine" argument you are making (your (B) example).

I never stated anything about anything defying categorization. There is a big difference between defying categorization (which means, that it cannot be categorized) vs. not belonging to a particular category.

But people other than me are saying, in this thread, that there are two and only two categories for semiauto centerfire rifles and there is no "fantasy" (not my word) third category where you don't have a fixed mag but don't have capacity to accept a detachable magazine either.

You're confusing at least two different thing here:

1) There was a time when DOJ tried to define a brand new category that would apply to BB-equipped rifles, using a concept of permanence as a defining feature. They did this in order to try to twist the legal AW definitions to include BB-equipped ARs, because they didn't want us to have them. OAL correctly determined that DOJ was essentially making up their own law, and forced them to stop doing this. This is the "fantasy" category which can't exist as part of the AW determination code, because the legislature did not define it.

2) "Capacity to accept a detachable magazine" is not the exact opposite of "has a fixed magazine". A rifle does not necessarily sit in exactly one of those categories at any given time, because those terms are not mutually-exclusive and all-inclusive. Yes, a rifle with a BB and an open magwell has neither "capacity to accept a detachable magazine" nor "a fixed magazine" at that instant. This does not mean that it defies categorization, because those two categories are not mutually-exclusive, and together they are not all-inclusive. The list of assault weapon categories continues on after those two, and a rifle might belong in 0, 1 or 2 (or more?) of the categories at any given instant. As long as it always stays in zero of the categories, it's OK. If it strays into one or more of the defined categories, then it's an AW at the time that it is in any of those categories, and one or more laws may have been broken.


(hoffmang was saying this 6 months ago at ar15.com (must be fixed or detachable) but he's not saying it any more.)

Please provide a quote. Based on the other confused arguments in this thread, his statement may have been misunderstood or taken out of context. Or, he could have slipped and written something incorrect... even Gene isn't perfect, though he's much closer than most folks on this particular topic. Present a quote, and we'll dissect it. Until then, we here at Calguns don't even know what it is that you're concerned about.

This lack of coherence and consistency does not make me feel any better about bullet buttons.

Please describe, succinctly, what you think is wrong with bullet buttons. I still can't tell what your concern is.

Does an OLL with an installed bullet button have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine, whether the magwell is open or full? No, it doesn't. If you think otherwise, please explain why you think so.

Does an OLL with an installed bullet button have a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, when the magwell is either open or stuffed with a 10 round or smaller magazine? No, it doesn't. If you think otherwise, please explain why you think so.

Does an OLL with an installed bullet button fit in any of the other categories of AWs that we aren't talking about here? It may or may not. It is the owners responsibility to make sure that their rifle isn't in any of the restricted categories, just as it is there responsibility to never cram a magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds into a BB-equipped rifle, and it is their responsibility to not have any of the other restricted features on a rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine.

oaklander
12-24-2008, 9:52 PM
For some reason, we get "bullet button trolls" every now and then. It must be the weather.

:D

383green
12-24-2008, 10:08 PM
For some reason, we get "bullet button trolls" every now and then. It must be the weather.

:D

(QFT! :p)

Yes, but we're all such nice guys and gals that we take them seriously every time and explain everything again in great detail, rather than just saying "We beat this to death 2 years ago - go away." ;)

eje
12-24-2008, 10:29 PM
You can actually, you know, quote me and respond to me.

My apologies, and I try to avoid the tit for tat quoting that goes on in internet forum, I didn't mean any disrespect by not addressing you directly.

When no magazine is in a BB equipped OLL it is neither a "detachable magazine" rifle or a "fixed" magazine rifle.

I had said that someone might argue that an OLL with a BB and no magazine is not a fixed magazine rile. I believe it is.

Can you see how someone might be confused about what your position is? I don't know if it's the way you write or whether you are saying 2 different things.

vf111
12-24-2008, 10:35 PM
I too at one point in time had a concern about bullet buttons when the mag has been removed w/ a tool for reloading. But after reading the requisite penal codes and understanding the letter of the law (not what the Legislature & DOJ "intended" since I can't read minds and have no idea what they "intended"), it's obvious a BB equipped rifle w/ a 10 round or less mag most certainly does not meet the definition of an AW as defined by the penal codes. Whammo: my mind became at peace and BRD ensued!:43:

lrdchivalry
12-24-2008, 10:38 PM
This argument is a bit confused at best. "a BB equipped rifle is not a fixed magazine": Correct, a rifle is not a magazine, though it may or may not have a magazine.

Sorry about that. Meant to say a BB equipped rifle with a magazine in the mag well constitutes a fixed magazine rifle.

oaklander
12-24-2008, 10:40 PM
Without wading through this thread - the simplest argument is this:

First we start with the DOJ definition:

12276.1. (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following:
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
(B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) A forward pistol grip.
(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
(3) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.

5469 defines detachable magazine as:

(a) "detachable magazine" means any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action nor use of a tool being required. A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool. Ammunition feeding device includes any belted or linked ammunition, but does not include clips, en bloc clips, or stripper clips that load cartridges into the magazine.

A rifle equipped with a BB simply does not have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine as defined under California law.

I don't know how much simpler it can be.

eje
12-24-2008, 10:52 PM
I never stated anything about anything defying categorization. There is a big difference between defying categorization (which means, that it cannot be categorized) vs. not belonging to a particular category.
***
1) There was a time when DOJ tried to define a brand new category that would apply to BB-equipped rifles, using a concept of permanence as a defining feature. They did this in order to try to twist the legal AW definitions to include BB-equipped ARs, because they didn't want us to have them. OAL correctly determined that DOJ was essentially making up their own law, and forced them to stop doing this. This is the "fantasy" category which can't exist as part of the AW determination code, because the legislature did not define it.

The legislature hasn't defined any category for semi-auto center fire rifles that lack the capacity to accept detachable mags and do not have a fixed magazine. So if you are saying the regulation (ie definition of detachable magazine) allows for a new category undefined by the legislature (not fixed, not detachable either), then wouldn't this regulation suffer from the same defect as the proposed regs that were knocked down? And DOJ never said SKS fixed mag rifles ceased to be fixed mag rifles when their mags were removed during disassembly, there is absolutely nothing in the regulatory history about SKS or other fixed mag rifles somehow moving out of the "has a fixed mag" category when the mag is out of the rifle. I think there are two categories, a semi-auto rifle is in either one or the other, and if it is not in one, it is in the other. This was not controversial before but evidently it is now.

Does an OLL with an installed bullet button have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine, whether the magwell is open or full?

Not under the bullet button interpretation of the regulatory definition of detachable magazine, which I think is problematic (the interpretation that is) for the reasons stated previously. I don't think the regulatory definition does any more than DOJ said it did in the responses to the public comments, but the way it is being interpreted is at odds with the legislation.

Does an OLL with an installed bullet button have a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, when the magwell is either open or stuffed with a 10 round or smaller magazine?

If you are swapping magazines, the OLL doesn't have a fixed magazine. If the mag well is open, the OLL doesn't have a fixed magazine. If you are loading, unloading, and shooting the rifle with the 10 round or smaller magazine without moving the magazine, I think you can argue that it's a fixed mag in legal configuration like the mag lock configurations the DOJ already approved. But if you are using it that way might as well have a mag lock instead.

Gotta go play Santa, Merry Christmas!:cheers2:

Arkalius
12-24-2008, 10:57 PM
I'm kind of confused. eje, are you trying to assert that there is a configuration that we believe is legal, but you believe is not, or are you saying there is a configuration that we believe is not legal, but you belive is?

It is true that the law does not contain a specific definition of "fixed magazine". This is all a very convoluted discussion. Let's talk about the definitions from a common sense standpoint first. A fixed magazine gun is one that has a magazine that is not meant to be removed from the gun as a regular part of its operation. The gun will have that one magazine and it is not removed or detached except through disassembly. A deatachable magazine, then would be the opposite. The mag is meant to be removed as a normal part of the operation of the firearm, and typically one will have additional magazines that can be inserted. The obvious purpose of this is to facilitate faster reloads of the weapon.

Under these definitions it is tough to imagine that a bullet button-equipped AR15 is really a "fixed" magazine. It uses the same mags as a normal AR15 does. Nothing about the magazine itself is changed. That's kind of the confusing part. We describe the magazine itself as either fixed or detachable. But the law says that a detachable magazine is "any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action nor use of a tool being required". However, whether or not this is the case, at least with an AR15, has nothing to do with the magazine itself and more to do with how the firearm is configured. The term "detachable magazine" implies that you can look at the magazine itself and determine that it is detachable, but you can't. The law is probably worded this way because there doesn't seem to be any other elegant way of describing it without using this syntactical goof.

The real debate is about whether or not detachable and fixed are dichotomous terms. We know that, by legal definition, an AR15 configured with a bullet button is not a "detachable magazine rifle" as it were. The question is then, does that make it automatically a "fixed magazine rifle"? If it does not, then what is it?

The most important thing here is knowing what is legal. Since an AR15 with a bullet button is not a detachable magazine rifle, it isn't an AW under 12276.1.a.1. Based on the law enforcement interpretation of the law (using the Sac PD memo as a source here), a BB-equipped AR15 that has a magazine attached is a "fixed magazine rifle" because, if the mag holds more than 10 rounds, they consider that an AW under 12276.1.a.2. eje seems to assert that such a gun is not a "fixed magazine rifle" (and it would follow then, that it could not be an AW under 12276.1.a.2 regardless of the mag capacity). We know, by legal definition, that it isn't a "detachable magazine rifle". So if it is neither, then what is it?

artherd
12-24-2008, 11:25 PM
The legislature hasn't defined any category for semi-auto center fire rifles that lack the capacity to accept detachable mags and do not have a fixed magazine. ... DOJ never said SKS fixed mag rifles ceased to be fixed mag rifles when their mags were removed during disassembly, there is absolutely nothing in the regulatory history about SKS or other fixed mag rifles somehow moving out of the "has a fixed mag" category when the mag is out of the rifle.

Technically, your BB equipped rifle becomes a magazine-less single-shot automatic-extracting rifle while it has it's mag disassembled for reloading. For about 15 seconds.

SO WHAT?

becxltoo984
12-24-2008, 11:28 PM
eje

he's just a different kinda troll stop feeding his BS !

383green
12-24-2008, 11:30 PM
The legislature hasn't defined any category for semi-auto center fire rifles that lack the capacity to accept detachable mags and do not have a fixed magazine. So if you are saying the regulation (ie definition of detachable magazine) allows for a new category undefined by the legislature (not fixed, not detachable either), then wouldn't this regulation suffer from the same defect as the proposed regs that were knocked down?

No. not at all. I have said over and over that the first two categories under 12276.1 are neither mutually exclusive, nor are they all-inclusive. It is not correct to say that all rifles fall into one category or the other, nor was it intended that way by the legislature. Some rifles fall into the first category, and they are banned assault weapons. Some rifles fall into the second category, and they are also banned assault weapons. Some rifles fall into neither category, and they may or may not be banned assault weapons depending on whether they fall into any of the other categories. A rifle can even fall into more than one of the categories: For example, a rifle which is listed by make and model, and had a detachable magazine, and has a pistol grip, and is under 30 inches long, falls into at least three of the defined categories of assault weapons. If it has a .50BMG chamber (as defined in the penal code), then it's in four categories.

One more time: The categories are not mutually-exclusive, so a rifle can fall into more than one of the categories at the same time. They are also not all-inclusive. They don't define all types of rifles; they only define all types of assault weapons. Any gun which does not fall into any of the categories at all is, by definition, not an assault weapon. For example, a CA-legal off-the-shelf Mini-14 with a pre-ban 30 round magazine crammed into the bottom does not fall into any of the defined categories, and thus it is not an assault weapon.

The DOJ thing was an entirely different situation. DOJ tried to define their own brand new category of assault weapon, and then say that rifles in that category are banned. They are not allowed to do that. That is, in effect, creating a brand new law. Legislature gets to do that, and DOJ just gets to enforce the laws that were already written.



And DOJ never said SKS fixed mag rifles ceased to be fixed mag rifles when their mags were removed during disassembly, there is absolutely nothing in the regulatory history about SKS or other fixed mag rifles somehow moving out of the "has a fixed mag" category when the mag is out of the rifle.

I don't see how this is at all relevant.


I think there are two categories, a semi-auto rifle is in either one or the other, and if it is not in one, it is in the other. This was not controversial before but evidently it is now.

For the Nth time, the two categories that I believe you are referring to are not the same as the first two categories defined under 12276.1. You can decide to divide all semiautomatic rifles into two categories (say, fixed vs. detachable magazine) and define those two categories such that they are mutually-exclusive and all-inclusive (that is, every single semiautomatic rifle is in exactly one of your two categories). However, this categorization is meaningless for purposes of determining whether a rifle is an AW or not, because AWs are not defined using those two categories that you made up. They are defined with a mach larger list of non-mutually-exclusive categories under 12276 and 12276.1, and even those categories do not include all semiautomatic rifles. They only include assault weapons, and anything which is not included in any of the 12276/12276.1 categories is not an assault weapon... even if it is a semiautomatic rifle.


If you are swapping magazines, the OLL doesn't have a fixed magazine.

An OLL with a BB and an open magwell is no different than an SKS with its 10-round fixed magazine removed. In either case, you can remove the fixed magazine using a bullet tip as a tool, insert up to 10 rounds into the magazine, and then reinstall the fixed magazine without using a tool, although it takes a bit more care with the SKS to keep the rounds from falling out of the magazine in the process.

If the mag well is open, the OLL doesn't have a fixed magazine.

I agree. If it doesn't have a fixed magazine, then it clearly isn't a member of the class which uses "has a fixed magazine..." as part of its definition. Thus, it doesn't fall into one of the restricted AW classes. This is good.

Even if you argue that it doesn't have a fixed magazine, who cares? As long as it doesn't have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine, it's not in that other category, either.


If you are loading, unloading, and shooting the rifle with the 10 round or smaller magazine without moving the magazine, I think you can argue that it's a fixed mag in legal configuration like the mag lock configurations the DOJ already approved.

Ok.

But if you are using it that way might as well have a mag lock instead.

You are free to choose to have a different kind of mag lock instead. I prefer the bullet button, even when I hinge open the top and load the magazine in place. With the pre-bullet-button magazine locks, once you remove the magazine lock, the gun now has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine. Why? Because without the mag lock in place, I can insert a magazine, hold it in place with my hand, fire one or more rounds, and then pull the magazine back out, without using a tool and/or disassembling the action of the rifle. Thus, if I have a screwed-in magazine, and then I experience a jam at the range, I'm faced with needing to remove the pistol grip and any other banned feature before I even remove the magazine. This is very unsafe.

Even if I choose to load the BB-locked magazine in-place, I can easily drop the magazine using a tool in order to clear the weapon, without removing things like the pistol grip or a flash hider from an uncleared weapon first. The BB is safer, whether you choose to load magazines inside the gun or outside it. Note that even guns like an SKS or a Mauser bolt-action, which have uncontroversial fixed magazines, have a way to dump the contents of the mag out the bottom of the rifle if necessary. In the case of the Mauser, a bullet tip is exactly the right tool to use to depress the floorplate latch... just like you could use a bullet tip to drop a mag out of a BB-equipped OLL with a jam.

You're really arguing about a nonexistent conflict.

Gotta go play Santa, Merry Christmas!:cheers2:

Merry Christmas to you, too! :D

383green
12-24-2008, 11:40 PM
eje

he's just a different kinda troll stop feeding his BS !

I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. It's a Festivus Miracle! :D

Ballistic043
12-25-2008, 7:09 AM
When did this television event take place?

perhaps the more pertinent question is, how the hell did you miss it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j71VD4aiFg

one of the only documented videos we have of the news & iggy himself saying its legal.

fairfaxjim
12-25-2008, 9:03 AM
Trolls, no trolls, whatever. 11 pages of SOS.
WHERE'S THE BB CONVICTION??

eje
12-25-2008, 9:56 AM
Good morning 383green, hope you are having a great holiday!

In general I don't disagree with your analysis of AW categories, especially the part about a single firearm falling into multiple, not-mutually-exclusive categories. Or the idea that a firearm that does not fall within the categories is not an AW, like a bolt action rifle. You are arguing that an empty mag bullet button AR does not fall into any of the AW categories, therefore, it is not an AW. I get that argument, but when you make the argument it necessarily means that the rifle doesn't fall into any other recognized category or type of firearm at all (rimfire, bolt action, whatever). You can say that you're not arguing that the rifle defies categorization but that's what you're doing. You can categorize it as "semiauto centerfire rifle that lacks capacity to accept a detachable mag and does not have a fixed magazine either" but when you do that you run into the "fantasy" objection about some mythical third category of semi-auto centerfire rifle (you can check the earlier posts in this thread to see that artherd was using that term not in relation to the permanence regs but to my observation that people were arguing for a "not capable of accepting detachable mags, not fixed either" for semiauto centerfire rifles). The firearm is still a semiauto centerfire rifle and there are only two possibilities for those.

I don't see how this is at all relevant.

Semiautos are categorized as having fixed mags, or having the capacity to accept detachable mags. When the SKS (which DOJ says is "fixed by definition") is disassembled, you do not have a rifle that "does not have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine but does not have a fixed magazine either" (the "fantasy" third category of semi auto centerfire rifles). You have a fixed mag rifle that has been disassembled. To say that a bullet button AR with an empty mag well is also a fixed mag rifle that has been disassembled, you need to start with a fixed mag rifle under the plain meaning of the statute, and if you are swapping mags, the firearm does not have a fixed magazine.

An OLL with a BB and an open magwell is no different than an SKS with its 10-round fixed magazine removed. In either case, you can remove the fixed magazine using a bullet tip as a tool, insert up to 10 rounds into the magazine, and then reinstall the fixed magazine without using a tool, although it takes a bit more care with the SKS to keep the rounds from falling out of the magazine in the process.

I'll take your word that it is mechanically possible to load an SKS fixed mag when removed from the rifle, and reattach the magazine with the rounds inside. But obviously nobody is using this clumsy but mechanically possible method of loading the SKS, its not part of the weapons manual of arms. (Are there any safety considerations for loading the SKS in this fashion? I do not have the experience with the SKS to know.) The weapon was designed to be loaded with the magazine affixed to the firearm, and that is how it's done by everybody who shoots one. SKS is a fixed mag rifle by every conceivable definition. Not so when you are swapping mags that are not affixed to the firearm during loading. To the extent that it is mechanically possible to load an SKS mag outside the firearm, using the fine motor balancing act method to prevent loose rounds from falling out, then you score a point.:D

I agree. If it doesn't have a fixed magazine, then it clearly isn't a member of the class which uses "has a fixed magazine..." as part of its definition. Thus, it doesn't fall into one of the restricted AW classes. This is good.

Even if you argue that it doesn't have a fixed magazine, who cares? As long as it doesn't have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine, it's not in that other category, either.

To be honest, I think that if you are making the argument that a empty mag well bullet button AR lacks the capacity to accept a detachable magazine, then your way of doing it (firearm is not capable of accepting a detachable mag and does not have a fixed magazine either) is better than the "if it's not detachable it must be fixed" way. I don't think these competing theories can be reconciled however and it's fairly clear there is no consensus at this point on which is the official Calguns position.

hoffmang
12-25-2008, 10:04 AM
To be honest, I think that if you are making the argument that a empty mag well bullet button AR lacks the capacity to accept a detachable magazine, then your way of doing it (firearm is not capable of accepting a detachable mag and does not have a fixed magazine either) is better than the "if it's not detachable it must be fixed" way. I don't think these competing theories can be reconciled however and it's fairly clear there is no consensus at this point on which is the official Calguns position.

I find it amusing that you engage 383 but not me.

More importantly than your point above is that it just doesn't matter. It's like debating whether the pure fact that it's not impossible to put your hand through a tree scientifically speaking means it isn't "solid."

A semiautomatic centerfire rifle with a pistol grip and a bullet button and no magazine in the well is not an AW. It doesn't matter what it "is" because whatever it is, it's legal.

Why are you belaboring this?

-Gene

valleyrat
12-25-2008, 10:15 AM
In regards to mags being "either fixed or detachable" only as defined by the industry, the Egyptian Rasheed carbine has a detachable box magazine that was intended to remain fixed on the gun and loaded with stripper clips.

eje
12-25-2008, 10:35 AM
Arkalius, you are really honing in on some critical issues here.

Let me get one thing off the table first: a bullet button AR where the magazine stays in place during loading, shooting and unloading, is a fixed magazine rifle.

Let's talk about the definitions from a common sense standpoint first. A fixed magazine gun is one that has a magazine that is not meant to be removed from the gun as a regular part of its operation. The gun will have that one magazine and it is not removed or detached except through disassembly. A deatachable magazine, then would be the opposite. The mag is meant to be removed as a normal part of the operation of the firearm, and typically one will have additional magazines that can be inserted. The obvious purpose of this is to facilitate faster reloads of the weapon.

I don't want to mischaracterize what you're saying, so correct me if I'm off base. It is hard to characterize a bullet button AR as a fixed magazine under a common sense, plain meaning definition. I completely agree with this. But is it not possible that the bullet button AR has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine under a common sense, plain meaning definition similar to one you have articulated? If you swap mags you are removing them as a normal part of the operation of the firearm (shooting loading unloading), typically you have additional magazines that can be inserted, you are using AR mags, etc. I don't hear you as saying that a bullet button AR lacks capacity to accept a detachable magazine under a common sense definition; instead it lacks capacity to accept a detachable magazine as defined by DOJ regulation. If I'm misinterpreting you let me know.

The real debate is about whether or not detachable and fixed are dichotomous terms. We know that, by legal definition, an AR15 configured with a bullet button is not a "detachable magazine rifle" as it were. The question is then, does that make it automatically a "fixed magazine rifle"? If it does not, then what is it?

If you are saying "by legal definition ", then I agree completely. Is it tenable to argue that when it comes to semi auto centerfire rifles, detachable and fixed are [I]not dichotomous and and there can be a centerfire semi auto rifle configuration that is neither? (By tenable I mean in some way other than by using the California-specific regulatory definition of "detachable magazine.") Or must a semi-auto centerfire rifle either be fixed or have the capacity to accept detachable mags and if it isn't one it must be the other?

Thanks again Arkalius.

oaklander
12-25-2008, 10:37 AM
Ack!!!

These kind of threads drive me crazy!

It's just not that complicated.

IMHO, a judge or DA isn't going to look at 90 percent of the issues presented here.

They are going to look at the law - and the law says that a rifle that is 30 inches or longer, with a 10 round magazine that is fixed in the rifle, is NOT an AW.

"Fixed" simply means that it needs a tool to remove. A rifle that has a BB is a fixed magazine rifle, regardless of whether the magazine is "in" or "out."

The DOJ is telling their field agents that this is legal (I talked to one the other day, in person). Iggy admitted on TV that these are legal. The SAC PD even put out a memo saying they were legal. Tens-of-thousands have been sold already, and there are NO convictions of someone with a properly configured BB rifle. AB2728 was passed, in part, because of all these legal rifles.

Like Gene says, there's no reason to belabor the issue!

383green
12-25-2008, 10:43 AM
Good morning 383green, hope you are having a great holiday!

Yes, I am!

You are arguing that an empty mag bullet button AR does not fall into any of the AW categories, therefore, it is not an AW.

Yes. That's how the AW laws work. A gun that fits into one or more of the defined categories is an AW, and everything else is not.

when you make the argument it necessarily means that the rifle doesn't fall into any other recognized category or type of firearm at all (rimfire, bolt action, whatever).

That is not correct, and I don't see how you came to that conclusion. An empty mag bullet button AR (with a common .223 upper) is still a semiautomatic rifle. It's still a centerfire rifle. It's still a black rifle (or whatever color it happens to be). It's still all sorts of things, and falls into all sorts of categories. The only important thing, for the purposes of the AW laws, is that it is not an AW (unless it falls one or more of the other non-mutually-categories, like being less than 30" long, or having a .50BMG upper installed).

Again, the definitions in the AW laws do not enumerate all categories of rifles. They merely enumerate all categories of assault weapons.

The firearm is still a semiauto centerfire rifle and there are only two possibilities for those.

You have chosen to define two categories such that any semiauto centerfire rifles falls into exactly one of them. You're welcome to do that, but it doesn't matter, because the AW laws do not use your two categories the same way that you do. Your argument is meaningless for the purposes of AW determination in CA.

Semiautos are categorized as having fixed mags, or having the capacity to accept detachable mags.

Under the AW laws, semiautos are not categorized that way. Those are two features which may or may not contribute to a semiauto being classified as an AW. The AW laws do not depend on every rifle fitting into exactly one of those categories, and no others.

To say that a bullet button AR with an empty mag well is also a fixed mag rifle that has been disassembled, you need to start with a fixed mag rifle under the plain meaning of the statute, and if you are swapping mags, the firearm does not have a fixed magazine.

You are incorrect. The meaning of "detachable magazine", as it must be used under CA AW laws, is clearly and unambiguously defined. That definition does not make the classification dependent upon whether the user chooses to remove the magazine to reload it; the definition is based only upon whether the magazine can be removed without using a tool. "Fixed magazine" is not specifically defined for the statute, so the plain meaning of "a magazine which is not detachable" is appropriate.

You are making up your own definition of "fixed magazine" based upon whether the user removes the magazine to reload it or not in practice. You are free to do that for your own purposes, but again, the AW laws don't define things that way, so your own classification system is meaningless for purposes of AW determination.


I'll take your word that it is mechanically possible to load an SKS fixed mag when removed from the rifle, and reattach the magazine with the rounds inside. But obviously nobody is using this clumsy but mechanically possible method of loading the SKS, its not part of the weapons manual of arms.

I made this point only to show that under the CA AW definitions, a normal fixed-mag SKS is equivalent to an AR with a bullet button and an installed magazine. How people choose to use the rifles, or what the operator's manuals for the rifles say, are not relevant, because the CA AW laws do not consider such things.


The weapon was designed to be loaded with the magazine affixed to the firearm, and that is how it's done by everybody who shoots one.

Again, that's not important, because the AW laws do not make their classifications based upon your impression of how things are done by everybody.

As an aside, I'll point out that things aren't even neatly categorizable into "rifles made to be reloaded with the magazine out of the gun" vs. "rifles made to be reloaded with the magazine in the gun". I think that most anybody would agree that a normal M1A has a detachable magazine, and its users would generally swap magazines to reload it. Yet, if I'm not mistaken, the rifle was specifically designed to allow reloading the magazine without removing it, from a standard stripper clip, using a stripper clip guide built into the weapon. It's a rifle with the "capacity to accept a detachable magazine", yet it was designed to also be loadable, in normal by-the-book operation, in the exact same manner as a fixed-magazine SKS.

SKS is a fixed mag rifle by every conceivable definition. Not so when you are swapping mags that are not affixed to the firearm during loading.

The AW laws do not define magazines the same way that you do, and that is the fatal flaw in your argument.


To be honest, I think that if you are making the argument that a empty mag well bullet button AR lacks the capacity to accept a detachable magazine, then your way of doing it (firearm is not capable of accepting a detachable mag and does not have a fixed magazine either) is better than the "if it's not detachable it must be fixed" way. I don't think these competing theories can be reconciled however and it's fairly clear there is no consensus at this point on which is the official Calguns position.

I would say that the Official Calguns Position on an arbitrary classification that is not relevant for purposes of AW/non-AW classification is not important. What Calguns does agree on is that an OLL equipped with a Bullet Button does not have the "capacity to accept a detachable magazine", with or without a magazine in the magwell, and thus it does not fall into a specific one of the CA AW classifications (but it still could fall into others, if not configured legally).

hoffmang
12-25-2008, 10:44 AM
Or must a semi-auto centerfire rifle either be fixed or have the capacity to accept detachable mags and if it isn't one it must be the other?


You can not use the common sense definition of "detachable magazine." Otherwise SB-23 would be an unconstitutional ex-post facto law that criminalized innocent possession of SKSes. It frankly doesn't matter whether there are 2 or 3 types of semiauto centerfire rifles. There are only those prohibited and those not prohibited as they are currently configured. There is no "intent" or "constructive possession" here. There can't be.

Once "detachable magazine" as related to semiauto rifles was specifically defined, the story ends legally. This is the fundamental flaw that anti's don't want to understand. One can't arbitrarily and at the same time generically prohibit some firearms of a class - mainly because underneath all this - you can't prohibit common firearms in the first place.

I ask again, why do you wish to belabor this and why do you keep ignoring my question?

-Gene

eje
12-25-2008, 10:47 AM
I find it amusing that you engage 383 but not me.

What an odd statement to make...I "engaged" you in post 86 in response to your post 80, then in post 91 when you invited me to quote and respond to you, I did that in post 95, then while I was drafting a response to 383green, (you not having provided anything for me to respond to in the meantime) you write this? Would you like me to address you first before addressing everyone else? This is peculiar to me but if I have offended you in anyway I didn't mean to and I apologize. I'm still not sure what your position is: does an empty mag well bullet button AR have a fixed mag? You have said it does and you have also said it doesn't. Now are you saying it doesn't matter either way?

Ground Loop
12-25-2008, 10:59 AM
I've read much of this thread, and I still don't get what point eje is trying to make.

A BB gun does not have the ability to receive a detachable magazine, because a tool is always required to remove it. The magazine is fixed while it's in there, and when it's removed, there is no existing "detachable magazine" that can go in the hole. Makes perfect sense to me.

I guess it would be helpful if eje would play the roll of Devil's Advocate (attorney, really) and state what he would cite someone for, if so empowered. I'm just not seeing the connection.

artherd
12-25-2008, 11:27 AM
Why are we still here?

I hope you never go before a Judge, I'd hold you in contempt just for annoying the crap out of me after you've already made your non-point!

(I guess it's a good thing I'm not a Judge :)

383green
12-25-2008, 11:35 AM
I hope you never go before a Judge, I'd hold you in contempt just for annoying the crap out of me after you've already made your non-point!

Aww, Ben, where's your joyous Festivus spirit? Why don't you go look at that picture of Ms. Bell some more until you feel cheerful again. :p

eje
12-25-2008, 11:39 AM
Why are we still here?

I hope you never go before a Judge, I'd hold you in contempt just for annoying the crap out of me after you've already made your non-point!

(I guess it's a good thing I'm not a Judge :)

Cute.

eje
12-25-2008, 11:42 AM
You can not use the common sense definition of "detachable magazine."

I was responding to Arkalius and in particular his common sense definition of detachable magazine that I quoted. SKS fixed mag doesn't fit that definition.

bwiese
12-25-2008, 12:25 PM
I was responding to Arkalius and in particular his common sense definition of detachable magazine that I quoted. SKS fixed mag doesn't fit that definition.

No, but the BB device makes an AR rifle the equivalent of an SKS in regards to its magazine removal scheme.

The definition of 'detachable magazine' was written with the SKS in mind.

If this had not been considered during formulation of regulatory definitions, SKS would've fallen into AW status.

It is also one of the reasons the DOJ's attempt to redefine the regulatory definition in 2006 failed: because that act would transition ordinary SKSes into AWs.

hoffmang
12-25-2008, 12:45 PM
I'm still not sure what your position is: does an empty mag well bullet button AR have a fixed mag? You have said it does and you have also said it doesn't. Now are you saying it doesn't matter either way?

Here is what I can say with certainty. A BB equipped semiautomatic centerfire rifle with a pistol grip and an empty mag well does not have the capacity to accept a "detachable magazine" as defined under the CCR.

Whether the rifle is a "fixed magazine" rifle when there is no magazine attached is an academic question with no legal implications whatsoever.

Once you attach a magazine to a BB rifle it most certainly is a fixed magazine rifle for the purposes of the Penal Code.

I infer from these two known facts that a BB rifle is "fixed" at all times the BB is attached, but again, that inference has no import whatsoever. Infering exactly the opposite doesn't change the legal analysis of whether a BB equipped rifle is legal under the Penal Code.

-Gene

eje
12-25-2008, 3:06 PM
I made a significant typo in post #110 which I've fixed now.

bweise, the bullet button does make the AR similar to the SKS insofar as a tool/bullet being needed to remove the magazine. But if mag swapping is going on that is where the similarity ends. I agree that under DOJ's initially proposed definition of detachable mag during the 2000 regulatory process the fixed mag SKS would have been improperly characterized as having the capacity to accept a detachable magazine, but I don't think that the DOJ's initially proposed definition was a plain meaning, common sense definition (like the one I quoted from Arkalius). Also, the bullet button ar does not meet the definition of fixed mag in the AW ID guide when mags are being swapped, SKS however does.

hoffmang, I agree that if you attach a mag to a bullet button AR and leave it there it's fixed for purposes of the Penal Code. If you swap mags I don't think the rifle has a fixed mag for purposes of the Penal Code, and if the mag well is empty I don't think the rifle has a fixed mag for purposes of the Penal Code. If the rule of interpretation is "if it's not one it's the other" there is a problem; others besides myself are still saying this (must either be one or the other) and you did at one point. I understand your current position, which is different from previous positions, and I can't agree that it has no legal significance. I think it presents a conflict between the regulation (at least how the regulation is being interpreted) and the statute. You asked why am I bringing all this up, I think I was pretty clear in my initial posts that I was doing it because I was confused about what the current thinking was. No offense, but I think you've been all over the place on the empty mag well bullet button ar; at least now I understand your current thinking.

383green, you are making some good observations but you still haven't found a precedent for a semi auto centerfire rifle that does not have a fixed magazine and also does not have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine. If you're saying "it's not this and it's not that either" I think its disadvantageous not to have an answer for what it actually is.

oaklander, no disagreement with you about the practical reality that nobody is being prosecuted for bullet buttons, they appear safe to use. I've been pretty consistent all along on that point. That's really the bottom line, isn't it? If someone has been prosecuted, though, I am curious about the circumstances just like everyone else. Not much more to say here.

383green
12-25-2008, 3:44 PM
383green, you are making good observations but you still haven't found a precedent for a semi auto centerfire rifle that does not have a fixed magazine and also does not have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine. If you're saying "it's not this and it's not that either" I think its disadvantageous not to have an answer for what it actually is.

I've answered this multiple times. You just don't seem to understand what I've written.

The either/or classification that you insist on cramming all semiautomatic centerfire rifles into does not represent the way that AW/non-AW status is defined by law, in Penal Code section 12276 and 12276.1.

One last try:

1) An AR with a Bullet Button does not have "the capacity to accept a detachable magazine", where "detachable magazine" is defined as:

any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action nor use of a tool being required. A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool. Ammunition feeding device includes any belted or linked ammunition, but does not include clips, en bloc clips, or stripper clips that load cartridges into the magazine.

2) An AR with a Bullet Button that does not have an 11 round or larger magazine inserted in its magwell is not a rifle that "has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds".


If you can find anything wrong with either of these two numbered statements, then feel free to bring it up. Otherwise, there's nothing left to discuss, and you're quibbling about irrelevant semantics.

goathead
12-25-2008, 3:55 PM
:grouphug:

bwiese
12-25-2008, 4:34 PM
bweise, the bullet button does make the AR similar to the SKS insofar as a tool/bullet being needed to remove the magazine. But if mag swapping is going on that is where the similarity ends. I agree that under DOJ's initially proposed definition of detachable mag during the 2000 regulatory process the fixed mag SKS would have been improperly characterized as having the capacity to accept a detachable magazine, but I don't think that the DOJ's initially proposed definition was a plain meaning, common sense definition (like the one I quoted from Arkalius). Also, the bullet button ar does not meet the definition of fixed mag in the AW ID guide when mags are being swapped, SKS however does.

Who says you can't mag swap a fixed mag on an SKS? That's just a matter of custom, inasmuch as the SKS feeds very nicely w/stripper clips.
Topologically/functionally, they're the same.

The current regulatory definition ('use of a tool') allows SKS magazines, the DOJ-approved Cali-FAL from DSA and the DOJ-approved Barrett M82C.

eje
12-25-2008, 4:36 PM
The either/or classification that you insist on cramming all semiautomatic centerfire rifles into does not represent the way that AW/non-AW status is defined by law, in Penal Code section 12276 and 12276.1.

I wasn't the one who came up with the either/or classification, hoffmang did it at ar15.com and artherd and others are still saying it in this thread. So please don't act like this is some out of the blue theory that I concocted out of nowhere. These are the only classifications that anyone has ever used when it comes to determining whether semi-auto centerfire rifles are feature-based AWs under Penal Code 12276.1. Nobody in the legislative or regulatory history has anyone ever mentioned a third category of "not detachable but not fixed either." When I described this concept earlier artherd derisively said it was fantasy. So don't make me the whipping boy for "either/or."


[INDENT]1) An AR with a Bullet Button does not have "the capacity to accept a detachable magazine", where "detachable magazine" is defined as:


Correct, not under the regulatory definition of detachable magazine. The problem is it does not have a fixed magazine either -- under a plain meaning (statutory) definition or the AWID guide definition -- unless the mag remains installed during shooting loading and unloading. I know that's not convenient so the current thinking is "doesn't matter if it's fixed." But if either/or is the rule, which hasn't been definitively decided by anyone whose decision counts, then that pits the reg directly against the statute.

2) An AR with a Bullet Button that does not have an 11 round or larger magazine inserted in its magwell is not a rifle that "has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds".

If you leave the mag installed during shooting, loading and unloading, you've got a fixed mag, and if the mag is 10 rounds or less, it's not a rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds. If the mag moves in and out of the rifle during normal operation of the firearm it's not fixed (see above) and therefore it's not a rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

We're never going to agree on "either/or" versus "not detachable and not fixed either," and we're never going to agree on whether a mag that moves in and out of the mag well during during normal operation of the firearm is "fixed." You and I really are at a standstill here, I don't want to do the tit for tat any more. Can we agree to disagree?

Have a nice evening.

eje
12-25-2008, 4:46 PM
Who says you can't mag swap a fixed mag on an SKS?

This was addressed earlier in the thread.

383green
12-25-2008, 4:49 PM
We're never going to agree on "either/or" versus "not detachable and not fixed either," and we're never going to agree on whether a mag that moves in and out of the mag well during during normal operation of the firearm is "fixed."

Then you are never going to correctly understand the California AW laws, or any other laws, for that matter. You just can't seem to get it through your head that the definitions that you are clinging to (regardless of who made them up, and whether you understood their statements in context or not) are not applicable to CA AW law.

I suggest that you stick with bolt-action rimfire rifles. Savage makes some really nice ones.

eje
12-25-2008, 5:07 PM
383green, thank you for your condescension, and good luck with your candyland arguments.

bwiese
12-25-2008, 5:53 PM
eje, you're the one with candyland arguments - or rather, arguing about irrelevancies.

It's either an AW or not an AW.

A BB-equipped rifle is not an AW.

What they ijad ntended to do, etc. is irrelevant once the regulatory definition was in place.

hoffmang
12-25-2008, 7:42 PM
eje,

When I was arguing with CWDraco (which feels oddly familiar) I was saying to him that he was going to lose the argument that a BB OLL with a 30 round magazine was not prohibited.

I didn't say that it was either or. I do think its either or and I think that an OLL w/ a BB is a fixed magazine rifle, just like an SKS in all situations that the SKS finds itself in during its normal life.

There is no way that a bullet button OLL is ever an AW under SB-23. You keep trying to say that "detachable magazine" has some other meaning than the specific one laid out in the CCR. It doesn't. It's a defined term that was defined in 2000 and can't be gone back on without an act of the legislature.

At no point does an OLL with a bullet button enter an illegal state - even without a magazine in the well. An empty magazine well OLL with BB does not have the capacity to accept any ammunition feeding device that does not require a tool to remove. It's that simple.

-Gene

lrdchivalry
12-25-2008, 9:24 PM
eje,

When I was arguing with CWDraco (which feels oddly familiar) I was saying to him that he was going to lose the argument that a BB OLL with a 30 round magazine was not prohibited.

I didn't say that it was either or. I do think its either or and I think that an OLL w/ a BB is a fixed magazine rifle, just like an SKS in all situations that the SKS finds itself in during its normal life.

There is no way that a bullet button OLL is ever an AW under SB-23. You keep trying to say that "detachable magazine" has some other meaning than the specific one laid out in the CCR. It doesn't. It's a defined term that was defined in 2000 and can't be gone back on without an act of the legislature.

At no point does an OLL with a bullet button enter an illegal state - even without a magazine in the well. An empty magazine well OLL with BB does not have the capacity to accept any ammunition feeding device that does not require a tool to remove. It's that simple.

-Gene

I think you share my suspicions that eje is actually CWDraco.. I noticed he completely ignored my challenge, which CWDraco also ignored or danced around.

Same arguements, same ignoring of facts, just happened to mention CWDraco in his opening posts... I think it's him.

Sgt Raven
12-25-2008, 9:44 PM
eje,

When I was arguing with CWDraco (which feels oddly familiar) I was saying to him that he was going to lose the argument that a BB OLL with a 30 round magazine was not prohibited.

I didn't say that it was either or. I do think its either or and I think that an OLL w/ a BB is a fixed magazine rifle, just like an SKS in all situations that the SKS finds itself in during its normal life.

There is no way that a bullet button OLL is ever an AW under SB-23. You keep trying to say that "detachable magazine" has some other meaning than the specific one laid out in the CCR. It doesn't. It's a defined term that was defined in 2000 and can't be gone back on without an act of the legislature.

At no point does an OLL with a bullet button enter an illegal state - even without a magazine in the well. An empty magazine well OLL with BB does not have the capacity to accept any ammunition feeding device that does not require a tool to remove. It's that simple.

-Gene


The only way a BB OLL becomes a AW is if you insert a magazine that holds more than ten rounds. I know you know this Gene, but this circular argument is getting tiring. ;)

383green
12-25-2008, 9:49 PM
The only way a BB OLL becomes a AW is if you insert a magazine that holds more than ten rounds.

Or if the overall length is less than 30". ;)

artherd
12-26-2008, 12:08 AM
If the mag moves in and out of the rifle during normal operation of the firearm it's not fixed (see above) and therefore it's not a rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

You really wanna try to convince a higher court that:
1) your weapon is not a fixed magazine rifle.
2) your weapon is also not a detachable-magazine rifle?
3) some sort of distinct in-between condition exists, call it a 'magical fancy unicorn schrodinger's magazine'.

I don't envy you that.

Especially since you can't even tell us what it is, or why we should care? (you really want >10 round mags inserted and think its not fixed? COME ON man! You're gonna rot!

Can we agree to disagree?

We can agree not to give a toot :)

CAL.BAR
12-26-2008, 10:25 AM
You really wanna try to convince a higher court that:
1) your weapon is not a fixed magazine rifle.
2) your weapon is also not a detachable-magazine rifle?
3) some sort of distinct in-between condition exists, call it a 'magical fancy unicorn schrodinger's magazine'.

I don't envy you that.

Especially since you can't even tell us what it is, or why we should care? (you really want >10 round mags inserted and think its not fixed? COME ON man! You're gonna rot!


EJE: Your analysis fails as you are using a lay interpretation of "removable" (i.e. that which can possibly be removed) However, the law DEFINES for us what "detachable" means in the code of regulations. Earlier in this threat folks quoted it to you. If you use the proper legal interpretation of "detachable" (as the courts will have to do) you will have to agree that when ANY tool is necessary for the removal, the mag is necessarily not "detachable"

383green
12-26-2008, 10:46 AM
Artherd: Your analysis fails [...]

It's not artherd who is trying to claim something like that; it's eje (the newest member of my very short ignore list). Artherd's posting that you quoted was a incredulous rhetorical question directed at eje.

I humbly and helpfully suggest that you edit your post to change "Artherd:" to "eje:", and to add the missing closing quote tag, in order to avoid confusion in an already jumbled thread.

That being said, your statement is correct, but the person who needs to understand it will fail to do so, since he has already stated that his mind will never be changed about this. That's what landed him on my ignore list: I have no desire to read the ravings of somebody who flatly refuses to consider changing his mind even when shown the clear evidence of what is wrong with his assertions. That would be no different than allowing strangers to preach their religions at me. I was happy to try to help him (despite his disagreement with me, and the tediousness of the debate) up until the point where he stated that he refuses to be swayed.

artherd
12-26-2008, 12:25 PM
Oh belive me I'm intimately familiar with the statute and legislative intent behind 'detachable magazine' ;)

I was postulating eje's theory, then de-constructing it. You're right, when any tool is necessary for removal, the mag is not "detachable" - even if you use a tool on it somewhat often :P.

Artherd: Your analysis fails as you are using a lay interpretation of "removable" (i.e. that which can possibly be removed) However, the law DEFINES for us what "detachable" means in the code of regulations. Earlier in this threat folks quoted it to you. If you use the proper legal interpretation of "detachable" (as the courts will have to do) you will have to agree that when ANY tool is necessary for the removal, the mag is necessarily not "detachable"

lrdchivalry
12-27-2008, 11:26 AM
Wonder where eje/CWDraco disappeared too?

bwiese
12-27-2008, 11:35 AM
Wonder where eje/CWDraco disappeared too?

eje and CWDraco are two separate people.

eje I believe is an attorney somewhere in Socal.

383green
12-27-2008, 12:31 PM
eje I believe is an attorney somewhere in Socal.

That's disturbing. Shouldn't an attorney be capable of reading and understanding laws, and not flatly refuse to consider a conflicting opinion even when it's backed by substantial evidence?

Anyway, my theory of where he went is: He decided to go lurk under a different bridge, where the passers-by aren't as well armed with facts, evidence and case law.

Or maybe he's still here, but I don't see him because he's the third distinguished member of my very short ignore list.

BadFish
12-27-2008, 4:33 PM
If you are going to use a bullet button, I think this is the most sensible way to go about doing it. I agree with your constructive possession observations, this is the reason why I do not think an empty mag bullet button AR "has a fixed magazine" -- it does not have any magazine.


No it is a fixed magazine rifle that has had the mag removed with a tool. This is really so simple that I can't understand why you can see it.

GuyW
12-27-2008, 6:59 PM
...based on the regulatory definition.
....purpose of the regulatory definition of detachable magazine was "capable of accepting non-detachable mags", which doesn't appear anywhere in the statute and was not intended or contemplated by the statute.

Haven't read all this thread yet.

But Regulations are law, just the same as statutes, so your theory of reg vs statute isn't valid IMHO...

(please correct my misconceptions)
.

Sgt Raven
12-27-2008, 7:01 PM
No it is a fixed magazine rifle that has had the mag removed with a tool. This is really so simple that I can't understand why you can see it.


There's none so blind as those who will not see.

artherd
12-27-2008, 7:07 PM
eje I believe is an attorney somewhere in Socal.

<shudder>

lrdchivalry
12-28-2008, 12:03 AM
eje and CWDraco are two separate people.

eje I believe is an attorney somewhere in Socal.

Well he found someone to subscribe to his BS.

FrankG
12-28-2008, 7:11 PM
Wow this got alot bigger then i intended :eek: .I am supposed to get more info on this hopefully this week. I just wanted to see if anybody else had heard about this. I will post info when i get it.

eje
12-29-2008, 5:39 AM
You really wanna try to convince a higher court that:
1) your weapon is not a fixed magazine rifle.
2) your weapon is also not a detachable-magazine rifle?
3) some sort of distinct in-between condition exists, call it a 'magical fancy unicorn schrodinger's magazine'.

It would be lame to argue that your semi-auto centerfire rifle does not have a fixed magazine and does not have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine either, wouldn't it?

bwiese
12-29-2008, 8:41 AM
It would be lame to argue that your semi-auto centerfire rifle does not have a fixed magazine and does not have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine either, wouldn't it?

No it wouldn't.

A magazine is a magazine, and 'detachable magazine' terminology is defined only in relation to the method of attachment to the rifle itself. That is, the construction of the gun determines what the magazine is. Lack of being a detachable magazine per 11 CCR 5469 does not preclude its being a removable magazine.

It doesn't have to make sense using plain language definition, it just has to make sense with the regulatory definitions.

live2offroad
12-29-2008, 9:02 AM
:popcorn:

It's like I've seen this movie, but I'm still glued to the screen..

eje
12-29-2008, 9:03 AM
It sure sounded like artherd was saying I was making a lame argument about a semi-auto centerfire rifle not having a fixed magazine and not having the capacity to accept a detachable magazine either. Anyways, are you saying that if a regulatory definition is different from a plain meaning definition, the regulatory definition is the one you have to use?

bwiese
12-29-2008, 9:08 AM
It sure sounded like artherd was saying I was making a lame argument about a semi-auto centerfire rifle not having a fixed magazine and not having the capacity to accept a detachable magazine either. Anyways, are you saying that if a regulatory definition is different from a plain meaning definition, the regulatory definition is the one you have to use?

The regulatory definitions for detachable magazine and various 'characteristic features' (11 CCR 5469) are the only definitions to be used.

[b]5469. Definitions.
The following definitions apply to terms used in the identification
of assault weapons pursuant to Penal Code section 12276.1:
(a)....

eje
12-29-2008, 9:11 AM
Is that a "yes"?

hoffmang
12-29-2008, 9:45 AM
Is that a "yes"?

Yes. The qualification is that a court could find the regulatory ruling back in 2000 somehow invalid. However, the deference to the rulemaking agency is quite high - much like the Feds.

Also, here the definition was driven by the facts surrounding the ban on "SKS with detachable magazine" which was passed before the ban on semiautomatic centerfire rifles with a detachable magazine and one or more "features."

The Penal Code has to be read as follows:


12276.1. (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following:
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action nor use of a tool being required. A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool. [A]nd any one of the following:

My OAL petition (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/oal/OAL-280-Suspension-Notice-2007-09-21-w-Attachments.pdf) gives some decent background.

-Gene

eje
12-29-2008, 10:07 AM
Yes. The qualification is that a court could find the regulatory ruling back in 2000 somehow invalid. However, the deference to the rulemaking agency is quite high - much like the Feds.

Understood. You do agree there is a conflicting plain meaning definition of detachable magazine, right?

Just to make sure I'm reading post 131 correctly, you think it's "either has a fixed magazine or has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine," and a bullet button AR always has a fixed magazine?

Mute
12-29-2008, 11:30 AM
Understood. You do agree there is a conflicting plain meaning definition of detachable magazine, right?

Just to make sure I'm reading post 131 correctly, you think it's "either has a fixed magazine or has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine," and a bullet button AR always has a fixed magazine?

I won't speak for the others as far as their conclusions, but bottom line, yes. A BB AR cannot by its very nature, ever have the "capacity to accept a detachable magazine", because the AW regulations do not define magazines in and of themselves. They are only defined in relation to a rifle. Without any rifles, they are just magazines. Period. The magazines are neither fixed nor detachable.

This whole plain meaning issue is irrelevant. The laws conflict with plain meaning on all sorts of things. Why should guns be any different?

artherd
12-29-2008, 11:31 AM
A BB AR either always has a fixed magazine, or no magazine. In any case - it's a purely academic question.

What's your endgame? There's no need to be cagey and go one step at a time here, we're not DOJ...

eje
12-29-2008, 12:45 PM
A BB AR either always has a fixed magazine, or no magazine.

So a bullet button AR is not always a fixed magazine rifle. A bullet button AR with a magazine installed has a fixed magazine. A bullet button AR with an empty mag well does not have a fixed magazine, it does not have a magazine at all. Is that what you're saying?

Do you agree that it doesn't matter if a semi-auto centerfire rifle has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine under a plain meaning definition of "detachable magazine" so long as the rifle does not have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine under the regulatory definition of "detachable magazine"?

I don't have a specific "endgame" other than the one I've already articulated.

hoffmang
12-29-2008, 1:50 PM
So a bullet button AR is not always a fixed magazine rifle. A bullet button AR with a magazine installed has a fixed magazine. A bullet button AR with an empty mag well does not have a fixed magazine, it does not have a magazine at all. Is that what you're saying?

Agree: A bullet button AR with a magazine in the well is a fixed magazine rifle. A bullet button AR with no magazine in the well is an argument that has no compelling evidence either way. One can hold that the opposite of a rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine is a fixed magazine rifle and that is bolstered by the example of a non prohibited SKS with the magazine out. However a bullet buttoned AR with an open magwell doesn't appear to have a fixed magazine at that point in time, and it remain incapable of accepting a "detachable magazine." That open question doesn't matter as to the legality of the rifle however as I'm about to agree below.


Do you agree that it doesn't matter if a semi-auto centerfire rifle has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine under a plain meaning definition of "detachable magazine" so long as the rifle does not have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine under the regulatory definition of "detachable magazine"?

I don't just agree to that, it also happens to be the law as it regards statutory interpretation. The plain meaning of detachable magazine is not relevant to the AW sections of the Penal Code as a specific meaning was adopted for the term "detachable magazine" in those sections of the Penal Code.

-Gene

eje
12-29-2008, 2:09 PM
hoffmang, before I reply to your post, I'd like to hear artherd's response to the questions you just answered. Also, whether bwiese agrees that if a regulatory definition is different from a plain meaning definition, the regulatory definition is the one that must be followed. (You agree with this as a general proposition, right?)

bwiese
12-29-2008, 3:13 PM
whether bwiese agrees that if a regulatory definition is different from a plain meaning definition, the regulatory definition is the one that must be followed. (You agree with this as a general proposition, right?)

Almost invariably this is true. Exceptions may be where the regulation or regulatory definition itself lacked clarity or was structurally unsound.

Note that these regulatory definitions are 'technical terms' specific to the law and the field. Loose colloquial terminology is not applicable or precise enough.

artherd
12-29-2008, 3:26 PM
A bullet button AR with a magazine installed has a fixed magazine. A bullet button AR with an empty mag well does not have a fixed magazine, it does not have a magazine at all. Is that what you're saying?

Yes.

Do you agree that it doesn't matter if a semi-auto centerfire rifle has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine under a plain meaning definition of "detachable magazine" so long as the rifle does not have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine under the regulatory definition of "detachable magazine"?

Yes, but it's irrelevant - since a BB AR does not.

You're inserting an assumption here - that there is a conflict in plain meaning vs regulatory. I am not sure there is.

The fact of the matter is - all magazines are either fixed or detachable - as determined by the firearm in question. That this plain meaning issue has never before come up - is not indicitive of a conflict, rather it means that law has created a question nature never bothered to ask of us in the first place.

The law created a need for firearms that could 'fix' a magazine that had been only used as detachable in the past.

In plain meaning, before you stick a magazine into any particular gun - it is just ONLY A MAGAZINE. It has no attachability or detachability properties at all.

I don't have a specific "endgame" other than the one I've already articulated.

Which is, what exactly?

artherd
12-29-2008, 3:28 PM
if a regulatory definition is different from a plain meaning definition, the regulatory definition is the one that must be followed. (You agree with this as a general proposition, right?)

I'll answer this one too - Yes, generally.

Unless the regulatory definition is substantially inconsistent with the reasonable plain meaning, and is subsequently struck down by a higher court - regulatory definition stands.

eje
12-29-2008, 3:29 PM
Ok thanks bwiese. Same question that I am asking artherd (and that hoffmang has answered): Do you agree that it doesn't matter if a semi-auto centerfire rifle has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine under a plain meaning definition of "detachable magazine" so long as the rifle does not have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine under the regulatory definition of "detachable magazine"?

bwiese
12-29-2008, 3:53 PM
Ok thanks bwiese. Same question that I am asking artherd (and that hoffmang has answered): Do you agree that it doesn't matter if a semi-auto centerfire rifle has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine under a plain meaning definition of "detachable magazine" so long as the rifle does not have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine under the regulatory definition of "detachable magazine"?


Gene said it nicely and I agree: the plain meaning of detachable magazine is not relevant to the AW sections of the Penal Code as a specific meaning was adopted for the term "detachable magazine" in those sections of the Penal Code.

bridgeport
12-29-2008, 4:06 PM
Another way to think of a "fixed" magazine is as integral to the machine.
There is a tendency to assign place to objects based on common assumptions of possible use. When a magazine is fixed, it becomes integral to the machine just like the integral magazine in an SKS or garand. It is possible to remove the magazine using a tool and then to use it in another fashion
or to de-integrate that part from the machine just like taking a piston out of an engine. In Cali, 10 round integral magazines comply with the law.

hoffmang
12-29-2008, 4:40 PM
the regulatory definition is the one that must be followed. (You agree with this as a general proposition, right?)

Yes.

-Gene

DDT
12-29-2008, 5:11 PM
Am I missing something? I am not seeing the value of arguing with eje.

eje
12-29-2008, 5:17 PM
Yes, but it's irrelevant - since a BB AR does not.

Since a BB AR does not have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine under a plain meaning definition? Or since a BB AR does not have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine under the regulatory definition?

(Edited to add question from previous post: A bullet button AR is not always a fixed magazine rifle. A bullet button AR with a magazine installed has a fixed magazine. A bullet button AR with an empty mag well does not have a fixed magazine, it does not have a magazine at all. Is that what you're saying?)

eje
12-29-2008, 5:47 PM
Agree: A bullet button AR with a magazine in the well is a fixed magazine rifle. A bullet button AR with no magazine in the well is an argument that has no compelling evidence either way. One can hold that the opposite of a rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine is a fixed magazine rifle and that is bolstered by the example of a non prohibited SKS with the magazine out. However a bullet buttoned AR with an open magwell doesn't appear to have a fixed magazine at that point in time, and it remain incapable of accepting a "detachable magazine." That open question doesn't matter as to the legality of the rifle however as I'm about to agree below.

A bullet button AR with an empty mag well is still a semi-auto centerfire rifle, isn't it?

bwiese
12-29-2008, 5:57 PM
A bullet button AR with an empty mag well is still a semi-auto centerfire rifle, isn't it?


Yes, but there's tons of legal semiauto centerfire rifles. This parts conglomeration of which you write is a "noncovered entity", one outside the scope of 12276.1.

Even w/empty magwell, it doesn't have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine (per 11 CCR 5469): the moment a separate magazine (which is not detachable or anything else, since it's a separate entity from the rifle, and 'detachable magazine' definition requires there to be a joined relationship btwn the mag and the rifle) is inserted it locks in. Once that occurs, it is, if not a true fixed magazine, certainly a magazine setup not dissimilar to that of the SKS as well as the DOJ-approved Barrett M82CA and the DSA SA58 "CaliFAL" - and certainly one that requires a tool for removal making it fall outside the scope of the regulatory definition and also AW status.

Were you to assert a BB-equipped rifle with empty magwell [but BB maglock system installed and itself requiring a tool for removal, just for safety's sake] is not a fixed-mag rifle, that's a legally irrelevant consideration. I don't care what kinda taxonomy such a configuration falls under, as it's simply not a configuration prohibited by 12276.1PC(a)(1) + 11 CCR5469(a).

high_revs
12-29-2008, 6:41 PM
So re: the contra costa case, do we know the exact details as to what the conviction was? Was it a BB with a mag > 10 rd? or was it case of OLL with evil features w/o a BB?

hoffmang
12-29-2008, 6:55 PM
(Edited to add question from previous post: A bullet button AR is not always a fixed magazine rifle. A bullet button AR with a magazine installed has a fixed magazine. A bullet button AR with an empty mag well does not have a fixed magazine, it does not have a magazine at all. Is that what you're saying?)
It is unclear whether a BB AR is or is not always a fixed magazine rifle. If the definition of fixed magazine is the opposite of "detachable magazine" rifle, then it is. The SKS issue strongly points to the argument that a BB AR is a fixed magazine rifle at all times as an SKS without a "detachable magazine" doesn't become an AW simply due to disassembly for cleaning.


A bullet button AR with an empty mag well is still a semi-auto centerfire rifle, isn't it?
Yes - just like an M1 Carbine that has the capacity to accept a "detachable magazine" and just like the SKS without "detachable magazine."

-Gene

oaklander
12-29-2008, 7:27 PM
A bullet button AR with an empty mag well is still a semi-auto centerfire rifle, isn't it?

I've kind of been watching this thread. I wish I hadn't. You are now getting into absurdities.

A judge isn't going to read through all this crap. Exactly what are you trying to prove here? Who are you? And why should we continue to waste our time with you?

The law can't be any clearer - see:

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Non_detachable_magazines

EDIT: not trying to sound harsh - but (1) where have you been all this time and why are you posting about this now, 3 years after the fact? (2) you must know that a judge isn't going to go into this much detail, like I said above, and have pointed out previously, he or she is just going to look at the AW rules and the CCR definitions.

Solidmch
12-29-2008, 7:39 PM
I've kind of been watching this thread. I wish I hadn't. You are now getting into absurdities.

A judge isn't going to read through all this crap. Exactly what are you trying to prove here? Who are you? And why should we continue to waste our time with you?

The law can't be any clearer - see:

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Non_detachable_magazines

I think it is clear that eje is a different kind of troll. Looks to me that is level of inquiry his that of a deposition on our knowledge.

oaklander
12-29-2008, 7:45 PM
I think it is clear that eje is a different kind of troll. Looks to me that is level of inquiry is that of a deposition on our knowledge.

Yup, that's why I asked him who he is and why he's here. . .

There's two levels of inquiry that are relevant here:

1) What the law says and what a judge will do - that's the most important level. That's what I am addressing. That's the important one.

2) The philosophical arguments along the lines of "what is the sound of one hand clapping?" That's what "eje" is addressing. Those arguments are not important, since they have no real world applicability.

That being said, Gene and Bill are being very gracious and patient.

:D

The correct objections during this deposition are:

"Objection: irrelevant, and assumes facts not in evidence. I will instruct my client not to answer, and you can bring a Motion to Compel if you wish."

SuperSet
12-29-2008, 7:54 PM
This feels more like a deathmatch than a debate.
Oak, make it stop man. :beatdeadhorse5:

oaklander
12-29-2008, 7:55 PM
This feels more like a deathmatch than a debate.
Oak, make it stop man. :beatdeadhorse5:

"eje" is replying as we speak. Should be interesting. . .

:)

383green
12-29-2008, 8:09 PM
I gave up caring what eje has to say when he flatly stated that I will never change his mind regarding his definition of "fixed magazine". At that point, it was clear that reasoned debate with him would not be possible, that he understands less about law than I do (that's saying a lot!), and that he doesn't care about the actual legal definitions which are applicable to the AW laws. IIRC, he even accused me of being in "candyland" with my attempts to apply legally-mandated definitions rather than his made-up ones.

I put him on my ignore list, so I haven't read any of his postings since then, but the responses by artherd, hoffmang, oaklander, etc. and their quotes from him show that he's still making the same argument.

The only reason I still subscribe to this thread is that I hope to see an update regarding the original topic.

Why bother arguing with eje? It's like trying to teach a cat to fold blankets (it doesn't work, and it annoys the cat). He's already stated that his mind is made up, and many of us (myself included) have already provided the same unambiguous legal cites repeatedly, with no effect. He can't be taught if he refuses to listen. This guy is almost as trollish as the great Jagger, but at least he doesn't resort to excessive use of boldface. IMHO, just ignore-list him and move on to more useful topics.

oaklander
12-29-2008, 8:16 PM
Might have to do that (ignore him). My two concerns are these:

1) I'm wondering what he is trying to prove here, and why.

2) I'm concerned that some of the newer Calgunners might drink his kool-aid, so that is why I am calling him out on this issue.

When even the DOJ is admitting that BB's are legal, it makes me wonder why someone would call their legality into question.

I gave up caring what eje has to say when he flatly stated that I will never change his mind regarding his definition of "fixed magazine". At that point, it was clear that reasoned debate with him would not be possible, that he understands less about law than I do (that's saying a lot!), and that he doesn't care about the actual legal definitions which are applicable to the AW laws. IIRC, he even accused me of being in "candyland" with my attempts to apply legally-mandated definitions rather than his made-up ones.

I put him on my ignore list, so I haven't read any of his postings since then, but the responses by artherd, hoffmang, oaklander, etc. and their quotes from him show that he's still making the same argument.

The only reason I still subscribe to this thread is that I hope to see an update regarding the original topic.

Why bother arguing with eje? It's like trying to teach a cat to fold blankets (it doesn't work, and it annoys the cat). He's already stated that his mind is made up, and many of us (myself included) have already provided the same unambiguous legal cites repeatedly, with no effect. He can't be taught if he refuses to listen. This guy is almost as trollish as the great Jagger, but at least he doesn't resort to excessive use of boldface. IMHO, just ignore-list him and move on to more useful topics.

oaklander
12-29-2008, 8:56 PM
"eje" is replying as we speak. Should be interesting. . .

:)

Well, that was a big let-down. Eje logged back in after my initial reply to his post tonight. His user profile indicated that he was replying to this thread at about 9pm or so. Now he's logged back out. I still want to know the following:

1) Why is "eje" here?

2) Who he "eje"?

3) Why is "eje" debating this issue NOW?

4) Is "eje" LE or a DA, or something along those lines?

5) Who put him up to this?

It takes a lot of nerve to come into our community, and argue that something that is clearly legal, is "illegal." I'm trying to get the bigger picture here and figure out what this is really about. There's got to be more to the story.

EDIT: but I agree - this horse is dead and beaten. . . Unless "eje" comes back with something compelling, I'm moving on too. . .

becxltoo984
12-29-2008, 9:04 PM
"eje" = ignore list
some just enjoy it I think he's one !

lrdchivalry
12-29-2008, 9:23 PM
5) Who put him up to this?


CWDraco.

eje
12-29-2008, 9:52 PM
oaklander, I'm a gun owner who like everyone else is curious about a possible bullet button conviction. bwiese mentioned my profession, I do not practice criminal law and do not have any relation at all to DOJ or any other law enforcement agency.

I did not have an "endgame" when I initially posted in this thread other than to try to sort out various issues (e.g., does a bullet button AR with an empty mag well have a fixed magazine) which have not really been coherently or consistently stated in my opinion. But I can take a hint so let me cut to the chase: I'm not in the plain meaning is legally irrelevant camp, I'm in the plain meaning is everything camp. If the plain meaning of the statutory language is at odds with a regulatory definition, the plain meaning controls, not the other way around. This applies if a semi-automatic centerfire rifle has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine under the plain meaning definition of detachable magazine, but does not have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine under the regulatory definition.

The AW statute is susceptible of plain meaning, common sense definitions of detachable magazine and fixed magazine that can be stated simply without delving into minutiae; these have been articulated in this thread (detachable mag), in the AWID guide (fixed mag), in an appellate court opinion that can be found in print (detachable mag), etc. If a court thinks a semi-auto centerfire rifle has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine under the plain meaning definition of detachable magazine, it will not follow and is not required to follow a regulation (or the interpretation of a regulation), that de-criminalizes the configuration. If you want to throw plain meaning and common sense out the window when you're interpreting a statute, all I can say is I hope you can find some good authority for doing that,

I realize it's tedious to flesh out the minutiae so I will bow out of the discussion. You're right that hoffmang and bwiese have been patient and gracious, others not so much but that's par for the course here.

norcal-ar
12-29-2008, 9:57 PM
Anyone know what the deal is with the original topic of this post? I'm curious as to what really happened?

hoffmang
12-29-2008, 10:24 PM
I'm not in the plain meaning is legally irrelevant camp, I'm in the plain meaning is everything camp. If the plain meaning of the statutory language is at odds with a regulatory definition, the plain meaning controls, not the other way around. This applies if a semi-automatic centerfire rifle has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine under the plain meaning definition of detachable magazine, but does not have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine under the regulatory definition.

If you want to throw plain meaning and common sense out the window when you're interpreting a statute, all I can say is I hope you can find some good authority for doing that,


I'll point you to two very important points. First the legislature specifically delegated "quasi legislative power" to the Attorney General in this section of the Penal Code:

PC 12276.5 (c) The Attorney General shall adopt those rules and regulations that may be necessary or proper to carry out the purposes and intent of this chapter.

Second, Yamaha v. BOE is usually the case you would cite for your supposition that the statute controls the regulations. However it has this very important point:

An agency interpretation of the meaning and legal effect of a statute is entitled to consideration and respect by the courts; however, unlike quasi-legislative regulations adopted by an agency to which the Legislature has confided the power to "make law," and which, if authorized by the enabling legislation, bind this and other courts as firmly as statutes themselves, the binding power of an agency's interpretation of a statute or regulation is contextual: Its power to persuade is both circumstantial and dependent on the presence or absence of factors that support the merit of the interpretation.

This is a now long standing regulation validly adopted through the APA process and acquiesced in by all those regulated. Should the court attempt to claim that this is an invalid rulemaking or interpretation it would run smack into this ex-post-facto problem from the 2000 rulemaking (http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/fsor.pdf,):

Comment

A1.12 - The SKS rifle with a detachable magazine cannot be changed without using a bullet tip as a tool, thus the regulations conflict with the specific listing of SKS rifles with detachable magazines in the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act. DOJ has no authority to contradict existing law.

Response

The Department disagrees with the comment because any magazine that requires the use of a bullet or any other tool for its removal is a fixed magazine, not a detachable magazine. The SKS with a true detachable magazine does not require a bullet or any other tool to remove and is a controlled assault weapon under Penal Code section 12276. Identifying a bullet as a tool allows for the proper categorization of an SKS with a fixed magazine. Therefore, the SKS referred to in the comment has a fixed, not detachable magazine.

A court that attempts to change the "rules of the road" here would run smack into the SKS issue and would create felons of 10's of thousands of other gun owners who posses other centerfire semiautomatic rifles like the M82CA-1 .50BMG or the DSA FALs.

The "plain meaning" can't apply here or SB-23 is unconstitutional - no 2A or 14A needed and we both know that's a direction of last resort for a court.

I'm glad you finally decided to be honest about your concerns. You could have saved those of us willing to actually engage with you time by letting us actually respond to your real issues. If my CA Supreme Court cite is not enough there is plenty more to support the Bullet Button/CCR interpretation - not to mention In re Jorge M. and lenity.

-Gene

oaklander
12-29-2008, 10:41 PM
I realize it's tedious to flesh out the minutiae so I will bow out of the discussion. You're right that hoffmang and bwiese have been patient and gracious, others not so much but that's par for the course here.

I'm glad you finally got to the point. And I'm glad that Gene was able to refute your real argument. It's not tedious to flesh something out when everyone is being above the board - but it took 19 pages of thread, and me "calling you out" to finally get you to come clean with respect to your real argument.

Most people are patient and gracious on this board, but we don't take kindly to someone who wants to come here and play games. Things would have been a lot easier for everyone if you had simply said from the start that your argument was that the "CCR definition didn't control." Then we would have showed you why it did control, and that would have been the end of the argument.

You seem to think that the whole "bullet button" idea is somewhat half-baked. Nothing could be further from the truth. People have staked their freedom and their livelihood behind it. People much smarter than me have researched the issue inside and out. It takes a certain amount of gall to come on to this board 3 years after the fact and argue that it is illegal.

You should not feign surprise that your reception was less than gracious. That being said, folks here are always ready to clarify things - but it really helps if you come out right up front with your arguments, and not beat around the bush, so to speak.

EDIT: at the risk of appearing juvenile, I thought the following image was appropriate:

http://i39.tinypic.com/21l22j8.jpg

:D

383green
12-29-2008, 11:04 PM
EDIT: at the risk of appearing juvenile, I thought the following image was appropriate:

:rofl2:

I think we can overlook your juvenile presentation of a pwned juvenile just this once. ;)

bwiese
12-29-2008, 11:22 PM
I'll also add this bit...

Plain meaning is important, and tortured readings of a statute should be avoided. However, when a statute calls for a 'drop in' regulatory definition whose formulation had a clear statement of reason(s), and followed a clear adoption path outlined in the law (GC/APA)m then that subsitution takes priority over 'plain meaning'. The regulation or definition was added for clarification or restriction or shaping of scope of a statute. We are in a technical field so casual, colloquial language is not the order of the day, and precise wording drafted by an agency with some supposed expertise - and open to commentary/analysis by others - is necessary. (In reality, lawmakers only have a general idea of what they wanna do and so they scramble up some laws hoping that regulatory agencies can clean up after them afterward.)

Importantly, use of a 'plain language' definition contravening the regulatory definition would render the regulatory definition as surplusage - something not allowed.

While surplusage concept generally revolves around matters of interpreting phrasing to (or not to) render certain words or phrases irrelevant, I can't see that not extending to a whole regulatory definition - in fact, it may even extend more strongly there. Any general mindset of taking plain meaning of a statute vs. that statute being shaped by a contravening but accepted, formally approved regulatory definition would have the unsustainable result of 'surplusaging' much of the whole concept of regulatory law.

motorhead
12-30-2008, 12:48 AM
so, was there ever really a case and if so, what was the outcome?

Ballistic043
12-30-2008, 3:18 AM
yes please, some more actual information and less arguing

norcal-ar
12-30-2008, 9:18 AM
yes please, some more actual information and less arguing

+1:80:

artherd
12-30-2008, 9:33 AM
Since a BB AR does not have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine under a plain meaning definition? Or since a BB AR does not have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine under the regulatory definition?

Both.

My opinion: Magazine attachability is determined by the firearm, not the magazine.

Stop.

A BB AR has a capacity to accept a fixed magazine.

Full Stop.

artherd
12-30-2008, 9:45 AM
Well sheesh it's about time you came clean. I am going to send you a bill for all my time you've wasted with the last 19 pages of this thread. $2000 per page ought to do it.

If the plain meaning of the statutory language is at odds with a regulatory definition, the plain meaning controls, not the other way around.

Most of the time - yes. However there are tests. The meanings have to be substantially in conflict, which is quite arguable here.

Furthermore, the AW statues contain stipulated acquiescence to regulatory definitions precicely because of ambiguity in plain meaning

YOU WILL LOOSE!

This applies if a semi-automatic centerfire rifle has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine under the plain meaning definition of detachable magazine, but does not have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine under the regulatory definition.

My Barrett example is quite exactly relevant here. Same kind of mag, when used in this gun, is fixed not detachable.

ugly1
12-31-2008, 12:05 AM
shouldnt this have ended on page 1 with;

a magazine that is not attached to a rifle cannot be called 'detachable' since it is not attached to anything. (if you are worried about plain meaning definition)

so where is the BB conviction story? or was that completely made-up to give someone fuel to argue for 19 pages? if so, pretty low.

norcal-ar
12-31-2008, 2:16 PM
yeah wheres the story?

Mnort10x
12-31-2008, 5:00 PM
Hope this helps:

on/off/on/off/on/off...etc. = detachable
on/tool/off/on/tool/off/on/tool/off...etc. = non-detachable (a.k.a. fixed)

http://elouai.com/images/yahoo/45.gifK.I.S.S.

Ground Loop
12-31-2008, 10:37 PM
Maybe eje would be so kind as to go make his own thread to discuss his unique perspective?

I'd very much like to go know what happened to the "bullet button conviction" or news related to the same. 20 pages in, still nothing but OLL rehash.

NRAhighpowershooter
01-01-2009, 7:06 PM
20 pages in, still nothing but OLL rehash.


I agree.... locked.....