PDA

View Full Version : IMPORTANT and BREAKING: Bullet Button Legal, Classic Prince 50 Will Be Deemed Illegal


Pages : [1] 2 3

hoffmang
02-02-2009, 11:53 AM
All,

This is important and the news is breaking as I type. In conversations with Chuck Michel at TMLLP a consensus is developing among District Attorneys due to DOJ BoF's continued silence.

The consensus is that a rifle with a bullet button (that otherwise complies with the no more than 10 round magazines, length, and off list receiver) is a legal semiautomatic rifle in California. Rifles equipped with the Classic Prince-50 Kit are not being deemed legal by otherwise friendly DA's.

Though I disagree with the interpretation when used properly, the reason that DA's are not supporting the classic Prince 50 is that people in day to day use are backing out the set screw to reload. When that set screw is backed out with the rifle intact you are manufacturing an assault weapon.

Those with Prince-50 classic kits should move to a bullet button ASAP for the safest risk profile. It is looking like the classic set screw is going to fall into the category of "defensible at trial but not worth the added cost/risk/expense." Bullet buttons are coming to be seen as not prosecutable in the first instance.

I should have some additional documentation of this in the next 30 days or so that can be shared publicly.

-Gene

Gator Monroe
02-02-2009, 11:55 AM
B16 also ?????:chris:

sorensen440
02-02-2009, 11:55 AM
are you kidding?

How the hell is my prince 50 illegal with the set screw installed tightly ?

ke6guj
02-02-2009, 11:56 AM
thanks for the info.

Would those B15/16 conversions be acceptable for those that still want to have "easy to convert to 49-state legality"/

supersonic
02-02-2009, 11:56 AM
Gene-
Any thoughts on the new Radd Bullet Button?
-Scott

5150Marcelo
02-02-2009, 11:56 AM
Wow, and most thought that the BB would have not been excepted for some reason. Ive always been a BB or MMG fan myself.
Thanks for the run down Hoffmang.

strangerdude
02-02-2009, 11:56 AM
So I can't use my bb? I'm not taking it off, F these dumb laws! What about bb for ak-47 type rifles?

elenius
02-02-2009, 11:56 AM
All,

This is important and the news is breaking as I type. In conversations with Chuck Michel at TMLLP a consensus is developing among District Attorneys due to DOJ BoF's continued silence.

The consensus is that a rifle with a bullet button (that otherwise complies with the no more than 10 round magazines, length, and off list receiver) is a legal semiautomatic rifle in California. Rifles equipped with the Classic Prince-50 Kit are not being deemed legal by otherwise friendly DA's.

Though I disagree with the interpretation when used properly, the reason that DA's are not supporting the classic Prince 50 is that people in day to day use are backing out the set screw to reload. When that set screw is backed out with the rifle intact you are manufacturing an assault weapon.

Those with Prince-50 classic kits should move to a bullet button ASAP for the safest risk profile. It is looking like the classic set screw is going to fall into the category of "defensible at trial but not worth the added cost/risk/expense." Bullet buttons are coming to be seen as not prosecutable in the first instance.

I should have some additional documentation of this in the next 30 days or so that can be shared publicly.

-Gene

What about the newer bullet button with the screw that converts it to a regular mag release.

ke6guj
02-02-2009, 11:57 AM
So I can't use my bb? I'm not taking it off, F these dumb laws! What about bb for ak-47 type rifles?re-read the OP. Gene is saying that they want you to use a BB, not the set-screw locked mag release.

RobG
02-02-2009, 11:58 AM
Wow, interesting stuff. As always, you are "Johnny-on-the-spot" with info:thumbsup:

CRQuarto
02-02-2009, 11:58 AM
So I can't use my bb? I'm not taking it off, F these dumb laws! What about bb for ak-47 type rifles?

Maybe you missed this part:

The consensus is that a rifle with a bullet button (that otherwise complies with the no more than 10 round magazines, length, and off list receiver) is a legal semiautomatic rifle in California.

strangerdude
02-02-2009, 11:59 AM
re-read the OP. Gene is saying that they want you to use a BB, not the set-screw locked mag release.

Ahhh thanks. That's wierd, I would imagine they would rather us use the prince 50.

ke6guj
02-02-2009, 12:00 PM
Ahhh thanks. That's wierd, I would imagine they would rather us use the prince 50.no, because as mentioned, too many people are using the P50 illegally. The BB does not have that same "illegal method" of usage.

RobG
02-02-2009, 12:02 PM
Holy sh&t! It just hit me. Does this mean BB's will now cost 100.00+;) :43:

QuarterBoreGunner
02-02-2009, 12:04 PM
sticked.
Or stuck. One of those.

Matt C
02-02-2009, 12:05 PM
We really need an appeals court ruling on this.

For the time being I would recommend loctite if you want to keep your Prince-50s.

hoffmang
02-02-2009, 12:07 PM
The B16 is directly comparable to a bullet button.

For clarity, the Classic Prince-50 is likely legal when used correctly. However, most people are not using them correctly. However, what DA's are starting to instruct their line prosecutors and LEAs is that bullet buttons are clearly legal and that Prince-50's are not clearly legal.

A Bullet Button or B16 does not require in normal usage that you remove the kit itself. You generally only do that when you travel out of state. The truth of the matter is that average gun owners are not top loading their Classic Prince-50 equipped rifles and are thus manufacturing AWs. Even the friendly DA's want to dissuade that activity. Non gun aware DA's are just going to follow suit.

Yes you can probably defend yourself if your Classic Prince-50 is used correctly. The question would be why you'd care to.

-Gene

IGOTDIRT4U
02-02-2009, 12:13 PM
The BB is more clearly following the law as it is currently written. The Prince 50 CAN be legal, but I have seen people back the set screw out at the range, making it instantly an illegal AW.

So, what Hoffmang is trying to say, if you want to be a test case for the Prince 50, go ahead and continue to use it. If, however, you prefer to keep your cash in your account instead of your lawyer's, then simply keep it in your mind that the BB is legal, and think of the Prince 50 as not, WHETHER YOU AGREE WITH IT OR NOT.

hoffmang
02-02-2009, 12:18 PM
So, what Hoffmang is trying to say, if you want to be a test case for the Prince 50, go ahead and continue to use it. If, however, you prefer to keep your cash in your account instead of your lawyer's, then simply keep it in your mind that the BB is legal, and think of the Prince 50 as not, WHETHER YOU AGREE WITH IT OR NOT. Emphasis added.

Exactly. :thumbsup:

-Gene

Antix
02-02-2009, 12:20 PM
Thankfully I had a bullet button on hand.

But I always top load my AR15 simply because it's easier than 10 turns out and back in on a small set screw.

But I installed the Bullet Button just now anyway.

bwiese
02-02-2009, 12:26 PM
This is very interesting in relation to the prior DOJ approved DSA CaliFAL (IIRC, exemplar fixed mag was not welded) and the DOJ approved Barrett M82CA with 'swing down' magazine bail - which was not perm. attached, and just used a screw too.

Gene's reference to "Bullet Button", I'm sure, means "devices that latch and require a tool to use when installed". So if company XYZ makes a similar mag latching device, this would still be applicable.

Given this late-breaking news one would be silly - esp on ARs/AKs - to not use a BB-like device and instead rely on a screwdown.

This 'controversy' about screwdown mag catches is also less about their absolute legality than their apparent frequent misuse by People Not Friggin' Clued In. Since late 2005, people have been repeatedly instructed to take down their rifle first before unloosening the mag catch.

RP1911
02-02-2009, 12:45 PM
There was a question regarding the newest Raddlock. It uses a flat blade screwdriver to screw in the lock mechanism. Then a bullet tip etc. can be used to drop the mag. However, the design also allows to loosen the screw 4 turns for use in free states.

Is the Raddlock considered a BB?

lumpia
02-02-2009, 12:45 PM
With the development of the BB I'm not sure I see the appeal of using a lock such as the classic P50 these days.

I hope since the DAs are taking notice that there is a definite trickle down effect to local PDs and individual officers. The more wide spread acceptance the better.

emc002
02-02-2009, 12:51 PM
There was a questionn regarding the newest Raddlock. Iit uses a flat blade screwdrk er to screw in the lock mechanism. Then a bullet tip etc. can be used to drop the mag. Howwever, the design also allows to loosen the screw 4 turns for use in free states.

Is the Raddlock considered a BB?

The B16 is directly comparable to a bullet button.

A Bullet Button or B16 does not require in normal usage that you remove the kit itself. You generally only do that when you travel out of state. The truth of the matter is that average gun owners are not top loading their Classic Prince-50 equipped rifles and are thus manufacturing AWs. Even the friendly DA's want to dissuade that activity. Non gun aware DA's are just going to follow suit.


It sounds like since the B15/B16/Raddlock allow you to drop magazines via a tool/bullet and you are not confined to top loading with these items, you're more in the realm of the BB.
I think I interpreted Gene's comments correctly, but I just bought two of the Raddlock so would like clarification before I install. :D

swhatb
02-02-2009, 12:52 PM
The B16 is directly comparable to a bullet button.

For clarity, the Classic Prince-50 is likely legal when used correctly. However, most people are not using them correctly. However, what DA's are starting to instruct their line prosecutors and LEAs is that bullet buttons are clearly legal and that Prince-50's are not clearly legal.

A Bullet Button or B16 does not require in normal usage that you remove the kit itself. You generally only do that when you travel out of state. The truth of the matter is that average gun owners are not top loading their Classic Prince-50 equipped rifles and are thus manufacturing AWs. Even the friendly DA's want to dissuade that activity. Non gun aware DA's are just going to follow suit.

Yes you can probably defend yourself if your Classic Prince-50 is used correctly. The question would be why you'd care to.

-Gene

TAG>>>>

BONECUTTER
02-02-2009, 12:54 PM
With the development of the BB I'm not sure I see the appeal of using a lock such as the classic P50 these days.

I still know a lot of people who use Prince50's legally/properly.

Not only do they require little modification when you go out of state but when shooting in state no one (not even LEO's) question a AR when they see people break down the action to feed them.

The rifle I built for my father had a BB and an extended take down pin with pull ring because its easier for him to defend the legality of his rifle at public ranges that way.

BONECUTTER
02-02-2009, 12:56 PM
Edited....already answered...sorry

sorensen440
02-02-2009, 12:56 PM
With the development of the BB I'm not sure I see the appeal of using a lock such as the classic P50 these days.

I prefer the P50

PolishMike
02-02-2009, 1:02 PM
I prefer the P50 and will continue to use it

I never understood why people used them...

Why would you want to top load all the time?

It takes me 10 seconds to convert my BB to a normal mag catch when I go out of state so that argument is moot to me.

Prince50
02-02-2009, 1:03 PM
I am working on a Buyback swap program now. Trying to figure out the logistics of such an endevor. Send the P50 back and get a discount on the BULLET-BUTTON from your favorite dealer.

Prices on the original BULLET-BUTTON will not increase.

All that being said, I still see no issue with it if it is used properly. If you do not back the screw out it is legal, so don't panic! Also, please do not back the screw out while the rifle is in an illegal configuration.

Regards,

Darin

tlillard23
02-02-2009, 1:06 PM
WOW :thumbsup:

I am working on a Buyback swap program now. Trying to figure out the logistics of such an endevor. Send the P50 back and get a discount on the BULLET-BUTTON from your favorite dealer.

Prices on the original BULLET-BUTTON will not increase.

All that being said, I still see no issue with it if it is used properly. If you do not back the screw out it is legal, so don't panic! Also, please do not back the screw out while the rifle is in an illegal configuration.

Regards,

Darin

BroncoBob
02-02-2009, 1:07 PM
What exactly is the difference between a BB and a Prince 50? Pic's would be greatly appreciated as I'm sure I have both and want to make sure which is the good to go one.

bwiese
02-02-2009, 1:09 PM
I am working on a Buyback swap program now. Trying to figure out the logistics of such an endevor. Send the P50 back and get a discount on the BULLET-BUTTON from your favorite dealer.

Prices on the original BULLET-BUTTON will not increase.

All that being said, I still see no issue with it if it is used properly. If you do not back the screw out it is legal, so don't panic! Also, please do not back the screw out while the rifle is in an illegal configuration.

Regards, Darin


Excellent and classy, leading by example.

This is what we call a first-rate Calguns vendor.

live2offroad
02-02-2009, 1:13 PM
are you kidding?

How the hell is my prince 50 illegal with the set screw installed tightly ?


It clearly reads that the problem is cases of owners backing out the set screw, this makes all P-50's suspect, and thats the problem. Thats also why I swapped to a bullet button months ago..

live2offroad
02-02-2009, 1:16 PM
I am working on a Buyback swap program now. Trying to figure out the logistics of such an endevor. Send the P50 back and get a discount on the BULLET-BUTTON from your favorite dealer.

Prices on the original BULLET-BUTTON will not increase.

All that being said, I still see no issue with it if it is used properly. If you do not back the screw out it is legal, so don't panic! Also, please do not back the screw out while the rifle is in an illegal configuration.

Regards,

Darin

This is really really a class move, thank you for being... Well just kinda awesome.

-Peter

f-ponce
02-02-2009, 1:16 PM
I am working on a Buyback swap program now. Trying to figure out the logistics of such an endevor. Send the P50 back and get a discount on the BULLET-BUTTON from your favorite dealer.

Prices on the original BULLET-BUTTON will not increase.

All that being said, I still see no issue with it if it is used properly. If you do not back the screw out it is legal, so don't panic! Also, please do not back the screw out while the rifle is in an illegal configuration.

Regards,

Darin



Classy! Great attitude.

sorensen440
02-02-2009, 1:21 PM
It clearly reads that the problem is cases of owners backing out the set screw, this makes all P-50's suspect, and thats the problem. Thats also why I swapped to a bullet button months ago..
I see that it clearly reads that some people are essentially removing the p50 and leaving a functioning mag button but that does not make the device illegal when used as designed.

Matt C
02-02-2009, 1:22 PM
I see that it clearly reads that some people are essentially removing the p50 and leaving a functioning mag button but that does not make the device illegal when used as designed.

Yeah, the thread title is a bit misleading.

sorensen440
02-02-2009, 1:23 PM
Yeah, the thread title is a bit misleading.
a bit ? lol
This is worse then gunshop fud

grammaton76
02-02-2009, 1:23 PM
Folks:

Can we get a flier for this? I would like to see it circulated to the various shooting ranges so that they can educate shooters.

10TH AMENDMENT
02-02-2009, 1:24 PM
There is no possible way...no possible way whatsoever that anyone could be charged and prosecuted for possessing an off list rifle with a 10 round magazine attached to it with a Prince-50 device that has the set screw properly torqued down. No possible way at all.

The only way that one could possibly be charged and prosecuted with a rifle configured as described above is if the person has actually backed the set screw out and the rifle is discovered in this condition by a proper arresting authority. Conduct that is absolutely lawful cannot be criminalized on the basis that an individual might choose to deviate from that lawful conduct and violate a statute at some future time. Such a propsition is patently absurd and 100% legally unsupportable.

"The right people" should be kicking some major *** on this one.

Outside of inchoate offenses such as solicitation, attempt and conspiracy, there is no "pre-crime" statute in the Penal Code that a prosecuting authority could even cite as having been violated and prosecutable for a rifle lawfully configured as described above...regardless of what fantasy "consensus" a DA can arbitrarily manufacture. Innumerable examples could be given to support this absolute fact.

sorensen440
02-02-2009, 1:27 PM
Thank you for changing the title of the thread

eta34
02-02-2009, 1:28 PM
a bit ? lol
This is worse then gunshop fud

Really? Gunshop FUD? Guess those who we call "The Right People" don't know what they are talking about. Perhaps we should direct all of our legal questions to sorenson440. Clearly he is in the know.

sorensen440
02-02-2009, 1:29 PM
Really? Gunshop FUD? Guess those who we call "The Right People" don't know what they are talking about. Perhaps we should direct all of our legal questions to sorenson440. Clearly he is in the know.
I respect "the right people" but dont follow what they say as the word of god.
If they told you to jump off a bridge would you do it ?

ETA: btw my issue was with the original wording that has now been modified

Fate
02-02-2009, 1:29 PM
Above all, it's good to see some actual leadership being shown by the DAs to fill the void created by the MIA CADOJ BOF (is that enough acronyms for you? :D )

IGOTDIRT4U
02-02-2009, 1:32 PM
Above all, it's good to see some actual leadership being shown by the DAs to fill the void created by the MIA CADOJ BOF (is that enough acronyms for you? :D )

Yes, don't do it again. :p

eta34
02-02-2009, 1:32 PM
I respect "the right people" but dont follow what they say as the word of god.
If they told you to jump off a bridge would you do it ?

Of course not. However, when the preeminent CA firearms attorney provides helpful advice, I respect it and generally follow it. I fully agree that the Prince 50 fully complies with the law. So does the bullet button. However, as the OP summarized, the Prince 50 would be fully defensible in trial, but may get you charged. That is all.

Hardly FUD.

sorensen440
02-02-2009, 1:33 PM
Of course not. However, when the preeminent CA firearms attorney provides helpful advice, I respect it and generally follow it. I fully agree that the Prince 50 fully complies with the law. So does the bullet button. However, as the OP summarized, the Prince 50 would be fully defensible in trial, but may get you charged. That is all.

Hardly FUD.
The fud was the original title "Prince 50's are illegal."

Heatseeker
02-02-2009, 1:35 PM
I am working on a Buyback swap program now. Trying to figure out the logistics of such an endevor. Send the P50 back and get a discount on the BULLET-BUTTON from your favorite dealer.

Prices on the original BULLET-BUTTON will not increase.

All that being said, I still see no issue with it if it is used properly. If you do not back the screw out it is legal, so don't panic! Also, please do not back the screw out while the rifle is in an illegal configuration.

Regards,

Darin

+1 for you Darin! Way to to back up your product. And without a price increase to boot!

This is a great development. Now I can worry a little less when I take my OLL's out shooting. Unfortunately, there will always be some uninformed yaywho LEO who knows the law better than anyone else...

Matt C
02-02-2009, 1:35 PM
There is no possible way...no possible way whatsoever that anyone could be charged and prosecuted for possessing an off list rifle with a 10 round magazine attached to it with a Prince-50 device that has the set screw properly torqued down. No possible way at all.


:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Guess I just dreamed up that whole thing that happened to me then huh? Not only did I get charged with having a prince-50 in the configuration you describe, they made up things not even in the penal code to charge me with. Yes it's absurd, yes if you have the $$$ you will eventually win, but it cost me nearly $60k. They can charge a ham sandwich with not being kosher if they want to.

Everyone has to do what they personally feel comfortable with. The real info being put out in this thread is that apparently some DAs are less likely to prosecute on a BB than a p-50. They are a hell of a lot less likely to prosecute a stock M1a with an CA legal SAI factory comp installed, and even less likely on a bold action hunting rifle. That is reality.

Just owning an OLL is a risk, and you could get prosecuted for ANY configuration. What your level of acceptable risk is only you can decide. We all know that a properly configured p-50 is legal, and if you choose to keep one than so be it. No one is saying you can't (except maybe a few DAs), but it MAY be a bit more risky if you end up before a judge.

Ironchef
02-02-2009, 1:36 PM
Does the bullet button maker/inventor have a patten? If not, might be good before some fool does it and makes them $100....or a greater anti-gun fool does it and stops producing them.

DDT
02-02-2009, 1:37 PM
Thankfully I had a bullet button on hand.

But I always top load my AR15 simply because it's easier than 10 turns out and back in on a small set screw.

But I installed the Bullet Button just now anyway.

THIS is exactly the problem. If you choose to back that set screw out in California with an upper attached you have created an AW. You should be top-loading not because it is easier but because the alternative is illegal.

ke6guj
02-02-2009, 1:40 PM
Does the bullet button maker/inventor have a patten? If not, might be good before some fool does it and makes them $100....or a greater anti-gun fool does it and stops producing them.I doubt Prince50 has a patent on the BB. Mulitple people had the same idea around the same time, and there are multiple versions of the BB out there buy different people.

And to have someone else come in and try to patent it now would most likely be a lost cause. Since the item is already in the wild, I don't think it can be properly patented now.

Matt C
02-02-2009, 1:43 PM
Of course not. However, when the preeminent CA firearms attorney provides helpful advice, I respect it and generally follow it.


No firearms attorney said the Prince 50 is illegal when properly used, and the thread title implied that before it was changed. Taken in that context, it was FUD.

As it stands now the title just makes me think, yeah, I knew that already, BBs are legal, prince 50 misused on a feature build is probably not.

It probably should read something like; "IMPORTANT and BREAKING: DAs may be more likely to prosecute Prince 50 builds than BB builds due to Prince 50 misuse by noobs/idiots." Or maybe just "Don't Panic".

Still, no need to :willy_nilly:, the gun in your safe is not going to call 911 right now and turn you in.

Dirtbiker
02-02-2009, 1:50 PM
Has anyone had a problem (arrest, hassle) with a MMG and a muzzle break?

sorensen440
02-02-2009, 1:51 PM
Prince 50 misuse by noobs/idiots." Or maybe just "Don't Panic".

The thing I'm seeing more and more of is people at the range using BB's with there hicaps

Matt C
02-02-2009, 1:55 PM
Has anyone had a problem (arrest, hassle) with a MMG and a muzzle break?

Yes, it's less likely now, but there is still no real legal definition in CA of a muzzle break v. a flash hider. Make sure whatever your are using leave no doubt, or better yet use a thread protector.

10TH AMENDMENT
02-02-2009, 2:12 PM
Originally Posted by 10TH AMENDMENT
There is no possible way...no possible way whatsoever that anyone could be charged and prosecuted for possessing an off list rifle with a 10 round magazine attached to it with a Prince-50 device that has the set screw properly torqued down. No possible way at all.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Guess I just dreamed up that whole thing that happened to me then huh? Not only did I get charged with having a prince-50 in the configuration you describe, they made up things not even in the penal code to charge me with. Yes it's absurd, yes if you have the $$$ you will eventually win, but it cost me nearly $60k. They can charge a ham sandwich with not being kosher if they want to.

OK, let me be more specific...

There is no possible way...no possible way whatsoever that anyone could be charged and prosecuted for possessing an off list rifle with a 10 round magazine attached to it with a Prince-50 device that has the set screw properly torqued down on the basis that the rifle has a detachable magazine. No possible way at all.

I figured that would be understood considering the specific issue that this thread is addressing.

Are you saying that your legal representation cost you personally $60,000.00 above and beyond the tens of thousands of dollars that was raised through contributions for your defense???

Turbinator
02-02-2009, 2:12 PM
I am not a lawyer, nor do I possess the critical thinking and analytical skills that Bill / Gene / Ben / and others do - however, I don't see how a Prince50 with TWO setscrews installed could possibly bring forth actionable arrests or detention from a law enforcement entity. As we know, the P50 ships with two set screws for maximum safety. Assuming I'm using those two, there is still a level of comfort that I have in going out with a P50 setup. IMHO.

Turby

Turbinator
02-02-2009, 2:16 PM
THIS is exactly the problem. If you choose to back that set screw out in California with an upper attached you have created an AW. You should be top-loading not because it is easier but because the alternative is illegal.

No, I thought you shouldn't be backing out your screw if you have a pistol grip attached, and a collapsible stock attached. The presence of an upper only matters if the upper has all the evil features that are restricted by CA.

Turby

eta34
02-02-2009, 2:16 PM
OK, let me be more specific...

There is no possible way...no possible way whatsoever that anyone could be charged and prosecuted for possessing an off list rifle with a 10 round magazine attached to it with a Prince-50 device that has the set screw properly torqued down on the basis that the rifle has a detachable magazine. No possible way at all.

I figured that would be understood considering the specific issue that this thread is addressing.

Are you saying that your legal representation cost you personally $60,000.00 above and beyond the tens of thousands of dollars that was raised through contributions for your defense???

Who cares how much it cost BWO? Why are we turning this to a discussion on that issue?

Hey BWO, was your torque screw set properly? If so, clearly there is "a way" that someone could be charged and prosecuted for this. Maybe BWO made the whole thing up in order to become a internet forum celebrity. That crazy BWO and his silly antics!

5150Marcelo
02-02-2009, 2:16 PM
Really? Gunshop FUD? Guess those who we call "The Right People" don't know what they are talking about. Perhaps we should direct all of our legal questions to sorenson440. Clearly he is in the know.

Well, actually yes... sometimes 'the right people" DONT KNOW WHAT THEYRE TALKING ABOUT.... believe it or not.

Matt C
02-02-2009, 2:18 PM
There is no possible way...no possible way whatsoever that anyone could be charged and prosecuted for possessing an off list rifle with a 10 round magazine attached to it with a Prince-50 device that has the set screw properly torqued down on the basis that the rifle has a detachable magazine. No possible way at all.

I'll post something tomorrow on this, but yes it's absolutely possible. You can pretty much bet that the DOJ will tell a DA that anything they ask about is illegal. They are clowns that don't know a BB from a grenade launcher.


Are you saying that your legal representation cost you personally $60,000.00 above and beyond the tens of thousands of dollars that was raised through contributions for your defense???

No, contributions covered about $45k. Saved my bacon, obviously.

10TH AMENDMENT
02-02-2009, 2:25 PM
Who cares how much it cost BWO? Why are we turning this to a discussion on that issue?

Hey BWO, was your torque screw set properly? If so, clearly there is "a way" that someone could be charged and prosecuted for this. Maybe BWO made the whole thing up in order to become a internet forum celebrity. That crazy BWO and his silly antics!

Obviously he cares to talk about it seeing that he found it necessary to emphasize in for some sort of effect in his reply to me. I'm just asking him a question about it. I couldn't give a rats *** whether you like it or not.

10TH AMENDMENT
02-02-2009, 2:27 PM
I'll post something tomorrow on this, but yes it's absolutely possible. You can pretty much bet that the DOJ will tell a DA that anything they ask about is illegal. They are clowns that don't know a BB from a grenade launcher.



No, contributions covered about $45k. Saved my bacon, obviously.

And I am entirely grateful that it did save your bacon. I said more than a few prayers for you during that time!:D:thumbsup:

artherd
02-02-2009, 2:28 PM
Conduct that is absolutely lawful cannot be criminalized on the basis that an individual might choose to deviate from that lawful conduct and violate a statute at some future time. Such a propsition is patently absurd and 100% legally unsupportable.

While I quite agree... a person can very well be charged with a crime for perfectly legal conduct. CGF has defended nearly a dozen and we don't yet have the budget to defend hundreds - so you'd better if you want to play with fire. (or even own a gun these days...)

Turbinator
02-02-2009, 2:30 PM
No, contributions covered about $45k. Saved my bacon, obviously.

Very nice - I was wondering how much the contributions helped. Thanks for sharing the info.

Turby

Matt C
02-02-2009, 2:35 PM
Who cares how much it cost BWO? Why are we turning this to a discussion on that issue?

Hey BWO, was your torque screw set properly? If so, clearly there is "a way" that someone could be charged and prosecuted for this. Maybe BWO made the whole thing up in order to become a internet forum celebrity. That crazy BWO and his silly antics!

It was torqued down quite tightly, and experts (from our side) confirmed this after it was seized. I was a bit nervous until they did. This did not stop a DOJ "expert" from calling it illegal. Did I mention there was not even an upper on it? Yeah.

eta34
02-02-2009, 2:39 PM
Obviously he cares to talk about it seeing that he found it necessary to emphasize in for some sort of effect in his reply to me. I'm just asking him a question about it. I couldn't give a rats *** whether you like it or not.

Nice. Very mature as well.

10TH AMENDMENT
02-02-2009, 2:40 PM
I'll post something tomorrow on this, but yes it's absolutely possible. You can pretty much bet that the DOJ will tell a DA that anything they ask about is illegal. They are clowns that don't know a BB from a grenade launcher.

I fully understand that you got totally railroaded during that terrible experience. I also understand that they compiled one of the most facially defective and embellished criminal complaints against you that they possibly could.

But if I remember correctly, that was before the CA DOJ issued its mea culpa on the infamous "IMPORTANT NOTICE" letter wherein they attempted to generate "submarine legislation" regarding the definition of a "detachable magazine".

My only point here is that thanks to Gene, Ben, and Bill and the boys, the playing field is such now that it would be asinine and patently ridiculous for any prosecuting authority to prosecute someone for possessing an illegal rifle on the basis that it had a detachable magazine if a Prince-50 device is properly installed on it. That's the only point that I'm making.

hoffmang
02-02-2009, 2:43 PM
My original title was not FUD.

A majority of DA's are going to opine that the Prince-50 Kit is illegal. That statement is directly from Chuck Michel.

Using a Prince-50 Classic is about to become much higher risk than anything else. Proving a DA wrong is expensive - especially when there are perfectly valid alternative solutions that have the added benefit of being safer for uninformed gun owners.

-Gene

DDT
02-02-2009, 2:44 PM
Obviously he cares to talk about it seeing that he found it necessary to emphasize in for some sort of effect in his reply to me. I'm just asking him a question about it. I couldn't give a rats *** whether you like it or not.

It is irrelevant what portion of the bill the kind folks here chose to help with. The relevant portion is that BWO was on the hook for $60K for something you felt the need to emphatically state no one would ever ever be arrested and prosecuted for.

Why did you ask if the $60K was his total bill? Just interested in sticking your nose into BWOs legal business? Trying to suggest that he was misrepresenting the costs by including all the money the legal defense took? Or were you trying to minimize the troubles that he faced?

artherd
02-02-2009, 2:51 PM
I am working on a Buyback swap program now. Trying to figure out the logistics of such an endevor. Send the P50 back and get a discount on the BULLET-BUTTON from your favorite dealer.

Prices on the original BULLET-BUTTON will not increase.

All that being said, I still see no issue with it if it is used properly. If you do not back the screw out it is legal, so don't panic! Also, please do not back the screw out while the rifle is in an illegal configuration.

Regards,

Darin

What a wonderful gesture - classy to say the least.

Best!
-Ben.

sorensen440
02-02-2009, 2:55 PM
My original title was not FUD.

A majority of DA's are going to opine that the Prince-50 Kit is illegal. That statement is directly from Chuck Michel.

Using a Prince-50 Classic is about to become much higher risk than anything else. Proving a DA wrong is expensive - especially when there are perfectly valid alternative solutions that have the added benefit of being safer for uninformed gun owners.

-Gene
Would the newest bb (B16) not be deemed illegal as well ?
its just as easy to remove as the p50

10TH AMENDMENT
02-02-2009, 2:56 PM
Originally Posted by 10TH AMENDMENT
Obviously he cares to talk about it seeing that he found it necessary to emphasize in for some sort of effect in his reply to me. I'm just asking him a question about it. I couldn't give a rats *** whether you like it or not.

Nice. Very mature as well.

Point taken. Sorry for being so snappy. I just sensed that you were somewhat impuning my motives for inquiring about the subject. I would not even play that kind of game with such a serious issue. I just sincerely wanted to know if he personally lost such a large amount as a result of the railroading that he took. At the time when everything wrapped up for him, I had actually taken great solace in the fact that such a substantial amount of resources was able to be raised for him.

Finding that it cost him 60k above and beyond that would have sucked really hard!

Toolbox X
02-02-2009, 2:57 PM
So we are clear, the B-15, B-16, and Radd BB are all Bullet Buttons, and are therefore legal.

eaglemike
02-02-2009, 2:57 PM
My original title was not FUD.

A majority of DA's are going to opine that the Prince-50 Kit is illegal. That statement is directly from Chuck Michel.

Using a Prince-50 Classic is about to become much higher risk than anything else. Proving a DA wrong is expensive - especially when there are perfectly valid alternative solutions that have the added benefit of being safer for uninformed gun owners.

-Gene
Gene,
Is there any way this can reversed? Or challenged?

I'm totally in agreement with your above note about the safest course. I'd personally like to see as much leeway as there can legally be.

While there have been gains made with the help of "the right people" I'm wishing we could keep things that are de jure legal de facto legal as well.

all the best,
Mike

sorensen440
02-02-2009, 2:59 PM
So we are clear, the B-15, B-16, and Radd BB are all Bullet Buttons, and are therefore legal.
Its not clear to me how b-16 is any more legal then a prince50.

Matt C
02-02-2009, 3:00 PM
A majority of DA's are going to opine that the Prince-50 Kit is illegal. That statement is directly from Chuck Michel.

And that's quite different from the thing actually being illegal.

There was certainly a time where a majority of DA's would have opined that any AR was illegal. Before Harrott and for some time after. They would not have been correct.

ke6guj
02-02-2009, 3:04 PM
Its not clear to me how b-16 is any more legal then a prince50.Because as installed, a b-16 is used as a BB. There is no need to remove the guard to drop the mag. So, most users of the B-16, like the BB, would be using it in a legal manner.

The problem is that with the P50, too many people are unscrewing the lock sot that they can change the mag on an assembled rifle.

To say that the B-16 is like a P50 because the guard could be taken off would be like saying the BB is like a P50 because one could install a permanent tool to the BB to make it a regular mag release.

Toolbox X
02-02-2009, 3:05 PM
Its not clear to me how b-16 is any more legal then a prince50.

The Prince50 is not a Bullet Button. The DA's are saying Bullet Buttons are legal. The DA's are saying the P50 is illegal.

The basis for the DA's saying the P50 is illegal is because (supposedly) most people are unscrewing them while at the range (creating an illegal AW) instead of top loading. I disagree with their reasoning, but that is what we have been told.

The most important piece of information here is the DA's are saying Bullet Buttons are legal, and the B-16 and Radd BB are clearly Bullet Buttons.

BONECUTTER
02-02-2009, 3:07 PM
Its not clear to me how b-16 is any more legal then a prince50.

Its not. Based on the original post the DA's are feeling that people with Prince50's are not actually top feeding. Hence breaking the law. While people with BB of any type still use tools.

No one here (that I know of) thinks the Prince 50 is illegal.

Its kindnof like that book "How to own a gun and stay out of jail".

Great book...but many things error on the side of caution. The law may give you more room to wander but you may have to go through legal hoops.

Cardinal Sin
02-02-2009, 3:14 PM
If you remove the spring from behind the button wouldn't that eliminate the function of the regular mag release? Couldn't you still use the P50?

ke6guj
02-02-2009, 3:16 PM
If you remove the spring from behind the button wouldn't that eliminate the function of the regular mag release? Couldn't you still use the P50? No, absense of the spring would not help. It doesn't need to have spring tension to be considered a detachable mag. You don't even need a mag catch at all for them to consider it a detachable magazine. You could hold the mag in by hand to shoot, and then remove it when empty.

AaronHorrocks
02-02-2009, 3:22 PM
With the development of the BB I'm not sure I see the appeal of using a lock such as the classic P50 these days.

I never understood why people used them...
Why would you want to top load all the time?
It takes me 10 seconds to convert my BB to a normal mag catch when I go out of state so that argument is moot to me.


For those of us with old worn pre-ban mags,
To prevent the accidental installation of a larger-than-10-round-magazine, thus instantly creating an "illegal" "assault weapon".

For those of us that often travel out of state, a simple tool and a few minutes to convert our rifles back to original-ish function, for true freedom and enjoyment.

bwiese
02-02-2009, 3:25 PM
Gene,
Is there any way this can reversed? Or challenged?

I'm totally in agreement with your above note about the safest course.
I'd personally like to see as much leeway as there can legally be.

See my final comment below.

My summary of the discussion:


BB devices have recently garnered 'traction': a de facto general understanding/awareness/
and grudging approval exists even by the Opposition;



Over the last three years, various asshats have decided to unscrew their mag catches to clear
jams, to reload mags, to use detachable mags, etc. and created AWs by that act - instead of
following the original late 2005 & early 2006 warnings/guidelines to take the rifle down into a
non-AW configuration before messing w/any mag catch/fixed mag issues.



Because of the above, a rifle with features using Prince50-style mag catch is regarded by at
least some fair fraction of DAs as "too readily convertable to AW form" - thus there can be an
elevated risk of prosecution, esp. when compared to a BulletButton-like 'latching' device.



UNCHANGED: the proper legal use of a Prince50 or similar device is still a defendable case.
[But why go there - if BB existence stops the case from being charged in first place??]


UNCHANGED: do not use a hicap magazine in a build requiring a non-detachable-mag.


CHANGED: risk of prosecution may be elevated for Prince50 (regardless of correctness);
risk of attempted proseuction for BB-like devices is reduced.


Prince50 & similar mag catch kits do offer risk of "evidence room reconfiguration". We've already
seen, in a San Jose case awhile back what PDs will do to remove a mag (they used a sledgehammer).
Removing and/or substituting a BB device w/illegal parts takes more time & effort if "evidence
management" by, say, the LA Gun Unit were attempted.
The BB device is sufficiently removable in a reasonable time into What Eugene Stoner Wanted
when travelling to a free state (i.e., after leaving CA).



IMHO, I think the best support of Prince50 builds is our defense support in any cases arising involving
a properly-configured rifle. But I don't think we need to waste valuable resources otherwise, given a
piece of hardware exists that now offers more user flexibility and even a fair amount of grudging legal
acceptance as well as "statewide knowledge" in PD bulletins/memos.

pepsi2451
02-02-2009, 3:32 PM
So what happens when to many people start using hi caps in their BB build and the DAs decide they don't like that? Will everyone go featureless?

Just wondering my AK is featureless and if prices come down and I build an AR it will featureless or use a BB.

sorensen440
02-02-2009, 3:34 PM
So what happens when to many people start using hi caps in their BB build and the DAs decide they don't like that? Will everyone go featureless?

Just wondering my AK is featureless and if prices come down and I build an AR it will featureless or use a BB.
That's a good question
I see people at the range quite often who are using high caps in bb builds

bwiese
02-02-2009, 3:41 PM
That's a good question
I see people at the range quite often who are using high caps in bb builds

1) Are we sure they're hicaps or are they 10/30s? [That being said, I
find '10/30' nonsense just risks added attention for dubious cosmetic
'cool factor'.]

2) There's really no way to support or defend idiotic violations, esp. with folks that
should know better. The best that could be hoped for would be a misdemeanor plea
or some sort of AB2728 resolution.

sorensen440
02-02-2009, 3:42 PM
1) Are we sure they're hicaps or are they 10/30s? [That being said, I
find '10/30' nonsense just risks added attention for dubious cosmetic
'cool factor'.]

2) There's really no way to support or defend idiotic violations, esp. with folks that
should know better. The best that could be hoped for would be a misdemeanor plea
or some sort of AB2728 resolution.
Yes I'm positive and have also tried explaining that its illegal and they usually just say "its legal there preban"

ProlificARProspect
02-02-2009, 3:45 PM
I dont like this move, We should not be complacent with the fact we still have the BB. What happens when they decide they dont like the BB?

We should not compromise, as long as people follow the LAW, used the P-50 properly it should be legal.

I prefer the BB, I have a BB in all my builds, but this is how they will come after us. They will put a gap between BB, P-50, and Futureless builds.

We Calguns should challenge this and not accept this as a victory.

DDT
02-02-2009, 3:49 PM
So what happens when to many people start using hi caps in their BB build and the DAs decide they don't like that? Will everyone go featureless?

Just wondering my AK is featureless and if prices come down and I build an AR it will featureless or use a BB.

I think the difference is that there is a higher probability for a P50 build to be in some sort of limbo state where the set screw isn't quite in tightly enough or someone is watching and sees it going through an illegal transition. With a BB it is quite obvious upon minimal investigation if the magazine attached is 10 rds. or high cap. Plus no amount of "inspection" is going to swap out a 10 rd. magazine but "inspection" may back out a set screw.

The BB is currently accepted by LE and it is a solution that is clearly acknowledged (a cartridge is a tool...) in the PC.

dfletcher
02-02-2009, 3:54 PM
My original title was not FUD.

A majority of DA's are going to opine that the Prince-50 Kit is illegal. That statement is directly from Chuck Michel.

Using a Prince-50 Classic is about to become much higher risk than anything else. Proving a DA wrong is expensive - especially when there are perfectly valid alternative solutions that have the added benefit of being safer for uninformed gun owners.

-Gene

Is there a specific case or event that resulted in this information or the Atty's offering this information? Not asking for names & dates of course, but am curious as to what brings this up now.

BOF's continuing inability or unwillingness to act as a statewide agency regarding state law does not reflect well on our current (and politically ambitious?) AG. Considering the importance of state pre-emption as recently espoused by Judge Warren, it would be nice to know a gun owner (or DA) living in LA or SF is expected to play by the same rules as someone in Barstow or Dunsmuir.

I realize DAs have discretion - but BOF absenting themselves from the field strikes me as very wrong.

elSquid
02-02-2009, 3:57 PM
I prefer the BB, I have a BB in all my builds, but this is how they will come after us. They will put a gap between BB, P-50, and Futureless builds.

We Calguns should challenge this and not accept this as a victory.

The way to challenge this is to wave a Prince 50 build under the nose of a DA and say "arrest me". And if they bite, then fork out money for the defense and resulting legal challenges. With Nordike fast approaching, I don't know if this a good value for CGF dollars. Plus it would take a lot of time for the test case to wind its way to a meaningful result.

Toolbox makes a good point: if we get a memo saying "Prince 50 bad", "BB good" then that is a practical short term win.

Post-Nordike CGF should be going after the AW laws as a whole. Resources should be saved for that.

-- Michael

ProlificARProspect
02-02-2009, 4:02 PM
So what happens when to many people start using hi caps in their BB build and the DAs decide they don't like that? Will everyone go featureless?

Just wondering my AK is featureless and if prices come down and I build an AR it will featureless or use a BB.

No one should use high caps in a BB build, you can only use Pre-Ban high caps in a featureless build.

10 rounds capacity max in a BB build with "evil" features.

sorensen440
02-02-2009, 4:02 PM
The way to challenge this is to wave a Prince 50 build under the nose of a DA and say "arrest me". And if they bite, then fork out money for the defense and resulting legal challenges. With Nordike fast approaching, I don't know if this a good value for CGF dollars. Plus it would take a lot of time for the test case to wind its way to a meaningful result.

Toolbox makes a good point: if we get a memo saying "Prince 50 bad", "BB good" then that is a practical short term win.
There may be a slight bias with toolboxes point ;)
Post-Nordike CGF should be going after the AW laws as a whole. Resources should be saved for that.
I agree the AW law is apparently so confusing that even the DA's are having a difficult time understanding them
-- Michael...

ProlificARProspect
02-02-2009, 4:08 PM
The way to challenge this is to wave a Prince 50 build under the nose of a DA and say "arrest me". And if they bite, then fork out money for the defense and resulting legal challenges. With Nordike fast approaching, I don't know if this a good value for CGF dollars. Plus it would take a lot of time for the test case to wind its way to a meaningful result.

Toolbox makes a good point: if we get a memo saying "Prince 50 bad", "BB good" then that is a practical short term win.

Post-Nordike CGF should be going after the AW laws as a whole. Resources should be saved for that.

-- Michael
No not like this, we should challange in the courts....

I DONATE will $150.00 now to Calguns, we need to make it happen, be aggressive in a legal stantpoint. Not much but more to come like always....

elSquid
02-02-2009, 4:17 PM
No not like this, we should challange in the courts....

I DONATE will $150.00 now to Calguns, we need to make it happen, be aggressive in a legal stantpoint. Not much but more to come like always....

In theory I agree with you, however practical considerations dictate otherwise IHMO.

I think the question you need to ask yourself is: would you rather spend $150 to confirm the legality of the Prince 50, or would you rather spend $150 to...

roll back the AW laws?
toss the safe handgun list?
get rid of magazine capacity restrictions?
enable shall issue CCWs?
enable NFA access in California?

I'd rather concede this battle and try to win the war.

-- Michael

bwiese
02-02-2009, 4:25 PM
No not like this, we should challange in the courts....

I DONATE will $150.00 now to Calguns, we need to make it happen, be aggressive in a legal stantpoint. Not much but more to come like always....


Thank you but no.

Please read my commentary post in this thread (maybe 10 posts back now)

Please don't let 'religious purity' get in the way of pure practicality.

If a legit Prince50 case comes up, we can indeed beat it though.

But otherwise, this is a battle not worth fighting w/precious resources (folks' time or money) by any act of our own instigation.

We do not need to overfocus here on this, esp as there's a superior device now - and which folks readily can transition to for pocket change.

More importantly, this gives us a uniform standard to proceed from. And it also indicates we've made a helluva lotta progress given DAs are acquiescing on this - with an implicit byproduct admission they understand Harrott matters and that there's a whole buncha guns out there that look like AWs but aren't and that caution must be exercised before charges filed.

I'm wondering why people are seeing this as a defeat - when really it's yet a another major step forward!

The future battles are the ones deserving of time & funds.

ProlificARProspect
02-02-2009, 4:26 PM
In theory I agree with you, however practical considerations dictate otherwise IHMO.

I think the question you need to ask yourself is: would you rather spend $150 to confirm the legality of the Prince 50, or would you rather spend $150 to...

roll back the AW laws?
toss the safe handgun list?
get rid of magazine capacity restrictions?
enable shall issue CCWs?
enable NFA access in California?

I'd rather concede this battle and try to win the war.

-- Michael
No I donate to put my 2 cents, I think we need to fight in all fronts, but I respect your view. I believe we should fight every bilge anti-gun law in the books and in the works. Conceding battles has obtain nothing but failure in California, We are now fighting back thanks to Calguns Faundation and Calguners.

bwiese
02-02-2009, 4:29 PM
No I donate to put my 2 cents, I think we need to fight in all fronts, but I respect your view. I believe we should fight every bilge anti-gun law in the books and in the works. Conceding battles has obtain nothing but failure in California, We are now fighting back thanks to Calguns Faundation and Calguners.

Thanks for the kind words, but we do want to Pick Our Battles.

JeffM
02-02-2009, 4:31 PM
I'd rather concede this battle and try to win the war.

+1

Sometimes we have to give an inch of ground in order to gain several yards. In World War II the US used the strategy of "Island Hopping" to accomplish the same. The same logic applies to the reasons why the Calguns Foundation is not supporting Open Carry cases. There is a bigger picture that is being worked on.

Thanks for passing this along Gene.

Ding126
02-02-2009, 4:38 PM
Silly question...

How can a DA rule that a prince 50 is illegal but the BB is acceptable? Does the DOJ & the state set the laws? Without either being addressed..pro or con..how can they make up their own interpretations?
The purpose of both set ups ( p50 & BB ) are to comply with how the law is currently written, correct?

So I'm a bit miffed

ke6guj
02-02-2009, 4:41 PM
No one should use high caps in a BB build, you can only use Pre-Ban high caps in a featureless build.

10 rounds capacity max in a BB build with "evil" features.Pepsi knows that. His point is that the DA's are looking at the P50's as illegal since they can be used in an illegal manner by using the set screw to unlock the mag release and then drop the mag normally. What is the difference between the P50 being used illegally and the BB being used in an illegal manner by using large-capacity magazine?

Ding126
02-02-2009, 4:43 PM
Pepsi knows that. His point is that the DA's are looking at the P50's as illegal since they can be used in an illegal manner by using the set screw to unlock the mag release and then drop the mag normally. What is the difference between the P50 being used illegally and the BB being used in an illegal manner by using large-capacity magazine?

exactly..so what stops them from going after OLL that can be used illegally?? Can be converted and is converted are two different things IMO

JeffM
02-02-2009, 4:46 PM
Silly question...

How can a DA rule that a prince 50 is illegal but the BB is acceptable? Does the DOJ & the state set the laws? Without either being addressed..pro or con..how can they make up their own interpretations?
The purpose of both set ups ( p50 & BB ) are to comply with how the law is currently written, correct?

So I'm a bit miffed

The law is ambiguous, and the DOJ is non-responsive when asked to clarify the law.

So it comes down to the DA's discretion whether or not to prosecute based on the best information they have available.

Legal or not, apparently some DAs have stated that they will move forward with prosecution against those that use the P50 while they would be less likely to do the same for BBs.

Gene and the rest are passing this info along to let the rest of us cover our assets.

I don't agree with the DAs who would do this, but I understand the need to conceded a small issue to focus resources on the bigger picture.

ProlificARProspect
02-02-2009, 4:49 PM
Pepsi knows that. His point is that the DA's are looking at the P50's as illegal since they can be used in an illegal manner by using the set screw to unlock the mag release and then drop the mag normally. What is the difference between the P50 being used illegally and the BB being used in an illegal manner by using large-capacity magazine?
Im sure He know this, he has 2 years on this board more than me. My comment was to all the newb's that appearently dont know that inserting a pre-ban high cap mag in a BB build is illegal, I have never seen this but according to previous comments other members have witness this.

Ding126
02-02-2009, 4:51 PM
The law is ambiguous, and the DOJ is non-responsive when asked to clarify the law.

So it comes down to the DA's discretion whether or not to prosecute based on the best information they have available.

Legal or not, apparently some DAs have stated that they will move forward with prosecution against those that use the P50 while they would be less likely to do the same for BBs.

Gene and the rest are passing this info along to let the rest of us cover our assets.

I don't agree with the DAs who would do this, but I understand the need to conceded a small issue to focus resources on the bigger picture.

Thanks Jeff

ke6guj
02-02-2009, 4:52 PM
My comment was to all the newb's that appearently dont know that inserting a pre-ban high cap mag in a BB build is illegal,

OK, gotcha.

Anthonysmanifesto
02-02-2009, 4:56 PM
This post was heads up...

This community gets these now and again,and I for one, am grateful.

We are all grown ups and can decide what risk level we are willing or able to take.Here on calguns you have a more educated assesment than some.

so thanks to the Calguns leadership and TMLLP for this important information.

bwiese
02-02-2009, 4:57 PM
Silly question...

How can a DA rule that a prince 50 is illegal but the BB is acceptable? Does the DOJ & the state set the laws? Without either being addressed..pro or con..how can they make up their own interpretations? The purpose of both set ups ( p50 & BB ) are to comply with how the law is currently written, correct?


The DA doesn't 'rule', he picks cases he thinks he can win.

The DAs we've discussed appear now to feel that BBs are not winnable cases - and thus likely won't file.

They may think P50 cases are winnable because they somehow think most people are abusing them, and may well thus file charges.

Yes, that latter statement means the DA is still asserting an unwritten uncodified level of permanence of attachment. It does not mean the case is not winnable.

What we're trying to do is keep Calgunners out of jail/being charged and also using their rifles to the maximum possible legal capability. The BB device allows that, so it's kinda senseless in general to continue operating down the P50 road.

Librarian
02-02-2009, 4:58 PM
Silly question...

How can a DA rule that a prince 50 is illegal but the BB is acceptable? Does the DOJ & the state set the laws? Without either being addressed..pro or con..how can they make up their own interpretations?
The purpose of both set ups ( p50 & BB ) are to comply with how the law is currently written, correct?

So I'm a bit miffed

BB does not have a failure mode in ordinary use. BB always requires a tool.

P50 initially requires a tool to loosen the set-screw, but can be left in that state (think of having good locks on your door, but forgetting to use them) but worse, loosening the set screw with, say, a pistol grip on the rifle immediately makes a legal OLL into an AW, because in that state the rifle is a semi-automatic center-fire capable of accepting detachable magazines -- 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.

With the set screw tightened, no problem.

Ding126
02-02-2009, 5:07 PM
Thank you,

Bill & Librarian

I understand a bit more

artherd
02-02-2009, 5:29 PM
Guys - this is an insanely huge win!

The BB reigns, long live the BB.

The P50- so what, it will cost far less for me to personally buy back all the P50s than it would to mount even the initial legal challenge.

What many are missing here is that the bb is now acknowledged as so legal it's essentially un-prosecutable!

sorensen440
02-02-2009, 5:33 PM
What many are missing here is that the bb is now acknowledged as so legal it's essentially un-prosecutable!
Is that set in stone (on paper somewhere) ?
If so then I agree this is a big win

Whats to stop them from having a consensus tomorrow deciding that the bb's are not legal ?

DisgruntledReaper
02-02-2009, 5:35 PM
:kest:WHAT A BUNCH OF FU***IN GARBAGE-:inquis:

These DA's are basically NOTHING more than poli****ins looking to further their OWN dubious and questionable agendas and are basically NOT interested in ANY form of 'legally' executing the laws on the books...never mind that ALL the AW bans since 1989 basically FORCED,EXTORTED,COERCED the owners into 'volunteering' firearms information that the state DOES NOT have access to WITHOUT a LEGAL and DETAILED SEARCH WARRANT ISSUED BY A JUDGE after PRESENTING reputable evidence as to WHY a search warrant should be authorized. So if you dont want to be a 'felon' then just give up your 4th,5th,6th and more RIGHTS..

Sorry-back to topic- MOST DA's are just interested in conviction #'s whether legit and correct OR OTHERWISE.......

Get this as a final 'WTF! ARE YOU KIDDING! on my post......
i called the DOinJ in 'Stupidmento' and spoke to a person in the firearms division regarding a question-'HOW does the state measure the OAL of 30" on a rifle?'.......guess I got the typical answer of 'with the stock folded'-federal is a flat 26" OAL and barrel of 16" min.- So anyway asked a couple more questions and then was told...and I quote-

"we leave it up to the PERSONAL INTERPRETATION' of the PROSECUTING DA in the local cities/counties as to how to interpret and IMPLEMENT the AW Ban laws and characteristics of what makes an AW"
--So I said 'So what you are saying is that a person may find themselves facing legitimate or bogus charges SIMPLY based on how a DA is FEELING on that given day and the STATE DOJ DOES NOT have ANY FORM of UNIFORM enforcement regarding this mess?!"--

She Replied Flatly----'YES'

I told her 'thank you and hope you are prepared for a bunch of lawsuits .....'

I mean christ the lunatics are running the asylum and THEY cannot even real in the voices in their head...!!

I am at a loss for words and the only way to correct this rampant assault on ALL our freedoms would be to abolish the governments,boot out all the POS's and try to reconstitute ALL the socilaist states back to how the US Constitution states the government(s) should be set up...matter of fact...WHY did the founding fathers make it IMPERATIVE that ALL the states set up their respective goverments according to the FEDERAL Constitution and basically state NO modifications or rewording.....this is basically the only place I see an 'oops'

Now we have to deal with all these asshats....god i am pissed!!! Again!

Sorry-rant is off and i am off my box...just getting tired of this garbage of CONSTANTLY trying to be made a criminal by IDIOTS who have no clue what is going on....like all gangbangers and other crooks abide by the laws anyway....:censored:

DisgruntledReaper
02-02-2009, 5:37 PM
Sorry, I do applaud the bulletButton issues but what about the 1000's of setscrew guys who do not know this and face problems...that was why I went off.....

Hopi
02-02-2009, 5:37 PM
I am at a loss for words

I don't think you quite understand that phrase.

elSquid
02-02-2009, 5:38 PM
BB does not have a failure mode in ordinary use. BB always requires a tool.

P50 initially requires a tool to loosen the set-screw, but can be left in that state (think of having good locks on your door, but forgetting to use them) but worse, loosening the set screw with, say, a pistol grip on the rifle immediately makes a legal OLL into an AW, because in that state the rifle is a semi-automatic center-fire capable of accepting detachable magazines --
With the set screw tightened, no problem.

That's an interesting point.

A P50 OLL can exist in one of two states: legal and maglocked or illegal and AW. No parts are required to transition between these two states.

A featureless OLL can be made into an AW, but you have to add part(s) to do so.

A BB equiped OLL can be made into an AW, but you have to add a "high capacity" mag to do so.

With a P50 OLL the question is not "what is a detachable magazine" but rather "does this rifle have the _capacity_ to accept a detachable mag."

And intrinsically, a P50 OLL does have that capacity, without the addition of parts. A particular rifle could spend its whole life in a legal state, but it does have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine with trivial effort, even if that illegal state is never realized.

Maybe that's the logic?

I guess if I had to reach for something parallel...

An individual is arrested for owning a full auto AR. The rifle can exist in one of three states: safe, semi, and full auto. At his trial, his defense is that while he owned the firearm in question he only alternated between "safe" and "semi". He never used the "full auto" position. Would anyone accept that as a valid defense? Clearly the weapon is capable of full auto fire, even if he never used it as such. Granted, the effort to rotate the selector lever to "full auto" is much less than unscrewing a P50, but still...

-- Michael

sorensen440
02-02-2009, 5:40 PM
That's an interesting point.

A P50 OLL can exist in one of two states: legal and maglocked or illegal and AW. No parts are required to transition between these two states.

A featureless OLL can be made into an AW, but you have to add part(s) to do so.

A BB equiped OLL can be made into an AW, but you have to add a "high capacity" mag to do so.

With a P50 OLL the question is not "what is a detachable magazine" but rather "does this rifle have the _capacity_ to accept a detachable mag."

And intrinsically, a P50 OLL does have that capacity, without the addition of parts. l
as does the new b16 bb

Hopi
02-02-2009, 5:42 PM
That's an interesting point.

A P50 OLL can exist in one of two states: legal and maglocked or illegal and AW. No parts are required to transition between these two states.

A featureless OLL can be made into an AW, but you have to add part(s) to do so.

A BB equiped OLL can be made into an AW, but you have to add a "high capacity" mag to do so.

With a P50 OLL the question is not "what is a detachable magazine" but rather "does this rifle have the _capacity_ to accept a detachable mag."

And intrinsically, a P50 OLL does have that capacity, without the addition of parts. A particular rifle could spend its whole life in a legal state, but it does have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine with trivial effort, even if that illegal state is never realized.

Maybe that's the logic?

I guess if I had to reach for something parallel...

An individual is arrested for owning a full auto AR. The rifle can exist in one of three states: safe, semi, and full auto. At his trial, his defense is that while he owned the firearm in question he only alternated between "safe" and "semi". He never used the "full auto" position. Would anyone accept that as a valid defense? Clearly the weapon is capable of full auto fire, even if he never used it as such. Granted, the effort to rotate the selector lever to "full auto" is much less than unscrewing a P50, but still...

-- Michael

I think that's the logic.


It troubles me a little that they're expending such an effort to criminalize our activity.

It makes me happy to know just bad they are still losing after all their efforts.

elSquid
02-02-2009, 5:45 PM
as does the new b16 bb

Yup.

-- Michael

DisgruntledReaper
02-02-2009, 5:47 PM
I don't think you quite understand that phrase.

Oh I do understand the phrase,just that no one can see me shake my head in disbelief everytime I hear this stuff on the computer and there may come a time where someone will be at enough of a loss for words that action is taken......
I have like a 3 INCH tall pile of legal crap regarding all the laws--just to keep my stuff,not be arrested for BS, and hope I do not run into some glory hound cop or DA......:eek:

glockman19
02-02-2009, 5:51 PM
are you kidding?

How the hell is my prince 50 illegal with the set screw installed tightly ?

Mine too. I even used locktight so it is permanently attached. ans YES ypou would require a tool to remove the magazine.

I'd like to hear more.

cryptkeeper
02-02-2009, 6:05 PM
as does the new b16 bb

And the Raddlock.

97F1504RAD
02-02-2009, 6:07 PM
Would this then not also make the Raddlock an illegal BB?

cryptkeeper
02-02-2009, 6:10 PM
I'm confused too on this. The Raddlock can be readily converted to an AW with a few turns of the screw.

larryb
02-02-2009, 6:14 PM
I'm confused too on this. The Raddlock can be readily converted to an AW with a few turns of the screw.
The nice thing about the Raddlock is it still releases the mag like a BB. No need to loosen the screw to remove the mag thus creating a potential AW. I can see where it would be a gray area though since it combines both the features of a P50 and BB.

sorensen440
02-02-2009, 6:14 PM
I'm confused too on this. The Raddlock can be readily converted to an AW with a few turns of the screw.
And thats going to be another part of this problem I see here

Without it being against the law and without case law its going to make it damn near impossible to explain OLL law to newbs

sorensen440
02-02-2009, 6:15 PM
The nice thing about the Raddlock is it still releases the mag like a BB. No need to loosen the screw to remove the mag thus creating a potential AW.
There is no need to remove the mag at all

larryb
02-02-2009, 6:21 PM
There is no need to remove the mag at all
I completely understand your point but i think it comes down to P50 users can loosen the screw and quickly create a AW condition where a BB user has to use a tool to remove the mag and can not be quickly turned into a detachable mag mode with out disassembling the BB and replacing with a standard mag release. That is where the gray area with the Raddlock would come into play.

wash
02-02-2009, 6:26 PM
No, I thought you shouldn't be backing out your screw if you have a pistol grip attached, and a collapsible stock attached. The presence of an upper only matters if the upper has all the evil features that are restricted by CA.

Turby
It's my understanding that if you have any feature you need a fixed magazine so a lower with either a collapsible stock, a pistol grip or both will be an instant AW when the screw is backed out.

For a complete rifle, if you have any of those or a flash hider it's an instant AW as soon as you back out the screw.

I went featureless for my AR but on my last range trip I saw two or three AR's that looked like they had standard capacity magazines and pistol grips. I'm pretty sure some are illegal because one of the owners came over to me and asked me why I had a funny monster man grip on my rifle.

There are lots of clueless people making it hard for the rest of us to get ahead.

I didn't look too closely but I didn't see anything that looked like a bullet button on them either.

I didn't say anything but it looked like they heard about OLL's and magazine parts kits and proceeded to make brand new AW's. For all I know they could have been registered but the guy I talked to seemed oblivious.

Hopefully we will get the AW ban thrown out but if there are enough idiots getting busted I'm sure we'll hear about a "Rash of newly manufactured Assault Weapons" and it will just be bad PR for gun rights.

In my opinion, featureless is the way to go but for a fixed magazine AR, get a bullet button, it might keep you out of jail. It doesn't matter how innocent you are, staying out of jail is more important.

We need to get all of the FFL's selling OLL's to print out a copy of the AW flow chart and explain the legalities before they sell anything. For a person that knows the law, they should be able to say I'm getting a bullet button or I'm going featureless, but talking for a few minutes might keep some idiot from landing in jail and giving us a bad name.

I've heard about gun stores being careful, trying not to sell OLL's to gang bangers and that is a legitimate concern but I'm just as concerned about some guy that gets busted for a 30 round magazine in an AR with a bullet button and a pistol grip. The difference is that we should be able to stop the idiots that unintentionally break the law.

Lastly, I have to endorse the featureless build, it's as idiot proof as they come. You literally have to add or change parts (beside the magazine) to make it in to an AW. It's not as good for all the mall ninjas out there but for hunting or target practice, an AR doesn't get any better.

ke6guj
02-02-2009, 6:31 PM
As you mentioned, they could have been Registered AWs. I take my RAWs out and get funny looks from people because they have evil features and I'm running detachable mags. Sometimes they'll come over and tell me that my guns are illegal. Hello McFly, some of us have legal AWs and high-capacity magazines.

sorensen440
02-02-2009, 6:36 PM
As you mentioned, they could have been Registered AWs. I take my RAWs out and get funny looks from people because they have evil features and I'm running detachable mags. Sometimes they'll come over and tell me that my guns are illegal. Hello McFly, some of us have legal AWs and high-capacity magazines.
I have yet to see anyone put a prince 50 on a reg. assault weapon nor have I seen a LCW15 or stag15 reg. assault weapon

RP1911
02-02-2009, 6:39 PM
I completely understand your point but i think it comes down to P50 users can loosen the screw and quickly create a AW condition where a BB user has to use a tool to remove the mag and can not be quickly turned into a detachable mag mode with out disassembling the BB and replacing with a standard mag release. That is where the gray area with the Raddlock would come into play.

Two of us asked about the Raddlock early on in this thread. We have yet to get a definitive answer.

If you unscrew the Raddlock 4 turns the button functions like a standard mag release. On the other hand, using a bullet when the screw is all the way in makes it a bullet button.

dfletcher
02-02-2009, 6:41 PM
BB does not have a failure mode in ordinary use. BB always requires a tool.

P50 initially requires a tool to loosen the set-screw, but can be left in that state (think of having good locks on your door, but forgetting to use them) but worse, loosening the set screw with, say, a pistol grip on the rifle immediately makes a legal OLL into an AW, because in that state the rifle is a semi-automatic center-fire capable of accepting detachable magazines --
With the set screw tightened, no problem.

So many good posts - I'm not sure where to place my meager effort. :(

I use all BB on my builds, I don't have the P50. But here's my concern.

The BB can be used improperly - simply back out the nut a bit and you can manually drop the magazine without the use of a tool. I believe it is more time consuming that the P50, but it can be done rather easily.

When installed and used as directed, the P50 ensures an otherwise CA legal OLL; when installed or used improperly, it does not.

When installed and used as directed, the BB ensures an otherwise CA legal OLL; when installed or used improperly, it does not.

If it is allowed that misuse of a product by some determines its legality for all, where does one draw the line? Is not the appropriate approach to advise people to use the product correctly or suffer the legal consequences?

I believe it is proper to take a stand at the right moment - the difficulty of course lies in knowing when the moment is right. The "P50 not legal" news does seem to be the start of the same kind of creeping incrementalism that brought us the "not unsafe roster" & a whole host of state gun control laws.

sorensen440
02-02-2009, 6:46 PM
and if were going off the opinions of the DA's what do you think there opinions are on Nrf guns ?

ke6guj
02-02-2009, 6:51 PM
I have yet to see anyone put a prince 50 on a reg. assault weapon nor have I seen a LCW15 or stag15 reg. assault weaponI was commenting on wash's post. He said he didn't look close enought to see if they had a BB, so maybe he didn't look close enough to see if it was an OLL either. Even if it was an OLL, it could have been a RAW, either an LEO's or a military member. Maybe I'll need to go to the range one day with a P50 on one of my bushmasters and see what attention I can draw up :D

bwiese
02-02-2009, 6:51 PM
and if were going off the opinions of the DA's what do you think there opinions are on Nrf guns ?

AWs and such 'look evil'. Ordinary NERF guns generally look just like other handguns.

1. Risk, if any, is misdemeanor only.

2. DAs/cops have no idea of Rostering. Many guns folks have now fell off the Roster just a few months or a year ago.

3. NERF gun will come back DROSed to you.

sorensen440
02-02-2009, 6:52 PM
I was commenting on wash's post. He said he didn't look close enought to see if they had a BB, so maybe he didn't look close enough to see if it was an OLL either. Even if it was an OLL, it could have been a RAW, either an LEO's or a military member. Maybe I'll need to go to the range one day with a P50 on one of my bushmasters and see what attention I can draw up :D
ahhh my bad then lol

cryptkeeper
02-02-2009, 6:58 PM
Seems like it's less trouble to just become a cop or join the military and get stationed here than it is to deal with DAs and the laws on AR-15 clones in California.

trashman
02-02-2009, 6:59 PM
This is an interesting development. I personally had figured we'd never see this kind of guidance emerge without a major lawsuit first.

A fantastic development, in all. Let the floodwaters rise...

--Neill

lowracer
02-02-2009, 7:03 PM
This thread gives me a headache. What if I just skip the BB or P50 or other mag locking device altogether? What if I just keep the lower half disconnected from the upper half, and only assemble the two when I get to Arizona, where I prefer to shoot, and then take them apart again before driving back to CA?

artherd
02-02-2009, 7:03 PM
...nor have I seen a LCW15 or stag15 reg. assault weapon

I know of quite a few - most are LE reg'd AWs. Some are Military. All were purchased & assembled lawfully after 2000.

H2H
02-02-2009, 7:15 PM
tag

wash
02-02-2009, 7:24 PM
As you mentioned, they could have been Registered AWs. I take my RAWs out and get funny looks from people because they have evil features and I'm running detachable mags. Sometimes they'll come over and tell me that my guns are illegal. Hello McFly, some of us have legal AWs and high-capacity magazines.
I've only had my AR to the range twice and it doesn't look as shiny new as the AR's with pistol grips, collapsible stocks, possibly flash hiders and what looked like 30 round magazines and no bullet button.

It's possible that their registered AW was unused or refinished but from my perspective it didn't seem very likely.

I didn't ask questions because it's none of my business. It's really a job for the range officers. But we all know that LEO's frequent the range so if someone gets called out on an AW violation, a cop might be forced to act when they would normally look the other way.

I don't know what the probable cause requirement for inspecting an AR15 at a range would be, but the safe bet would be to never remove the magazine of a fixed magazine AR.

Also, this DA opinion would seem to apply to the traditional fixed magazine FAL with a set screwed magazine release. All of them will need something more permanent if they want to stay on the right side of that opinion.

tenpercentfirearms
02-02-2009, 7:28 PM
Honestly, nothing has changed for me.

I have always explained the Prince50 to customers as my last choice. If you are going to leave the state a lot, they aren't a bad idea, but you must not unscrew the set screw while in state. If you do, you are committing a felony. Period.

The Bullet Button enables you to remove the magazine with the use of a tool and you can always remove it when you leave the state.

Your DA might not agree with any of this and prosecute you. There is no way to tell you this is all perfectly safe no matter what we do. Purchase these firearms at your own risk, but here is my lowers agreement to lay out the law and keep with your firearm.

I don't have any Prince50 builds anymore because the Bullet Button is just better. Add in a Bullet Button Wrench to your gun bag, and you are good to go should you ever leave the state.

This reminds me of the old days. Lots of speculation and theory but still there really are no guarantees.

I say use a Bullet Button type device because they are just superior. You do what you want as long as you stay legal.

ke6guj
02-02-2009, 7:36 PM
I've only had my AR to the range twice and it doesn't look as shiny new as the AR's with pistol grips, collapsible stocks, possibly flash hiders and what looked like 30 round magazines and no bullet button.

It's possible that their registered AW was unused or refinished but from my perspective it didn't seem very likely.I dunno, my stuff looks pretty new still even though they are more than 10 years old. Plus, many of us that have RAWs have updated our builds since 2004 when the federal AW ban expired.

Also, this DA opinion would seem to apply to the traditional fixed magazine FAL with a set screwed magazine release. All of them will need something more permanent if they want to stay on the right side of that opinion.It could, but I think that many/most of the CAL FALs are set up to use stripper clips. So, you don't have the pain of having to shotgun the upper like on an AR P50 build. And if they aren't routinely dropping the FAL mag, then the DAs may feel it isn't an issue.

bplvr
02-02-2009, 7:43 PM
My original title was not FUD.

A majority of DA's are going to opine that the Prince-50 Kit is illegal. That statement is directly from Chuck Michel.

Using a Prince-50 Classic is about to become much higher risk than anything else. Proving a DA wrong is expensive - especially when there are perfectly valid alternative solutions that have the added benefit of being safer for uninformed gun owners.

-Gene

This is very well said. In the end ,Darin ,a true gentleman of the highest caliber, is willing to swop out 50's for BB's to keep us all safe. Personally,I am going to order a BB and remove the 50 and put it back in it's original package.In 20 years I will offer it for sale on the CG auctions page as "non-installable item that helped pave the way from oppression to more open gun rights". These will be collectables,some of the first items available when Ca. gun owners fought back. J.M.H.O.

trashman
02-02-2009, 7:43 PM
The Bullet Button enables you to remove the magazine with the use of a tool and you can always remove it when you leave the state.

[...]

I say use a Bullet Button type device because they are just superior

That's my take as well. Honestly the BB is just about perfect in its simplicity of function and design. I love all the innovation on the different devices, but...the BB just friggin works.

--Neill

bwiese
02-02-2009, 7:50 PM
It could, but I think that many/most of the CAL FALs are set up to use stripper clips. So, you don't have the pain of having to shotgun the upper like on an AR P50 build. And if they aren't routinely dropping the FAL mag, then the DAs may feel it isn't an issue.

I think the DOJ approval letter for any fixed mag FAL builds will help avert drama, especially if the receiver says DSArms on it.

Fate
02-02-2009, 7:53 PM
Because of the above, a rifle with features using Prince50-style mag catch is regarded by at


least some fair fraction of DAs as "too readily convertable to AW form" - thus there can be an
elevated risk of prosecution, esp. when compared to a BulletButton-like 'latching' device.


This also kinda makes me wonder about the JumboPanda AK bullet button.

bplvr
02-02-2009, 7:57 PM
See my final comment below.

My summary of the discussion:


BB devices have recently garnered 'traction': a de facto general understanding/awareness/
and grudging approval exists even by the Opposition;



Over the last three years, various asshats have decided to unscrew their mag catches to clear
jams, to reload mags, to use detachable mags, etc. and created AWs by that act - instead of
following the original late 2005 & early 2006 warnings/guidelines to take the rifle down into a
non-AW configuration before messing w/any mag catch/fixed mag issues.



Because of the above, a rifle with features using Prince50-style mag catch is regarded by at
least some fair fraction of DAs as "too readily convertable to AW form" - thus there can be an
elevated risk of prosecution, esp. when compared to a BulletButton-like 'latching' device.



UNCHANGED: the proper legal use of a Prince50 or similar device is still a defendable case.
[But why go there - if BB existence stops the case from being charged in first place??]


UNCHANGED: do not use a hicap magazine in a build requiring a non-detachable-mag.


CHANGED: risk of prosecution may be elevated for Prince50 (regardless of correctness);
risk of attempted proseuction for BB-like devices is reduced.


Prince50 & similar mag catch kits do offer risk of "evidence room reconfiguration". We've already
seen, in a San Jose case awhile back what PDs will do to remove a mag (they used a sledgehammer).
Removing and/or substituting a BB device w/illegal parts takes more time & effort if "evidence
management" by, say, the LA Gun Unit were attempted.
The BB device is sufficiently removable in a reasonable time into What Eugene Stoner Wanted
when travelling to a free state (i.e., after leaving CA).



IMHO, I think the best support of Prince50 builds is our defense support in any cases arising involving
a properly-configured rifle. But I don't think we need to waste valuable resources otherwise, given a
piece of hardware exists that now offers more user flexibility and even a fair amount of grudging legal
acceptance as well as "statewide knowledge" in PD bulletins/memos.


The one thing that stands out here is that maybe the P50 is a challenge to defend ,but, ............. the DA's think the BB is legal.
Say that 5 times ,and this comes off as a 2A win !

bwiese
02-02-2009, 8:02 PM
The one thing that stands out here is that maybe the P50 is a challenge to defend, but, .......... the DA's think the BB is legal.
Say that 5 times ,and this comes off as a 2A win !

Now you got it.

wash
02-02-2009, 8:10 PM
I think the DOJ approval letter for any fixed mag FAL builds will help avert drama, especially if the receiver says DSArms on it.
Well, DSA's have the magazine welded to the ejector block the last I heard.

My FAL's do not.

I always top load because it's easy on a FAL but if the DA's think a setscrew on an AR is something they want to prosecute, then I'm not going to have that on any of my FAL's.

I don't want to be an un-planned test case. No one else should want that either.

Any way, the FAL solution is to get a ~1/4" 4-40 socket head cap screw and a standard magazine release and install the cap screw where the mag release spring would usually go. It only costs about $0.25 and you have to use a screwdriver to remove the bolt hold open screw to take it out but it is 100% reversible.

It's an easy and cheap fix, I hope no one gets busted over it.

Everyone needs to be cautious and let the lawyers stick with their game plan.

Darklyte27
02-02-2009, 8:24 PM
yay for BB

sorensen440
02-02-2009, 8:24 PM
Now you got it.
I think I get it as well now but I am still not happy about the prince50 being "deemed illegal" and wonder how long it will take before the bb is "deemed illegal"

I still want to know where the b15 b16 and some of the other locks stand

bassgruvn
02-02-2009, 8:25 PM
Very interesting, I chose the p50 because it seemed more permanent. I used locktight on it and always flip to upper open to load. Very interesting indeed.

bwiese
02-02-2009, 8:29 PM
Well, DSA's have the magazine welded to the ejector block the last I heard.

My FAL's do not.

I believe the exemplar submitted to DOJ for testing and which led to the approval letter written by Dept. AG Nancy Palmieri does not have the spot weld.

cryptkeeper
02-02-2009, 8:31 PM
Still curious on the Raddlock.

DDT
02-02-2009, 8:33 PM
Mine too. I even used locktight so it is permanently attached. ans YES ypou would require a tool to remove the magazine.

I'd like to hear more.

No your P50 doesn't require a tool to release the mag. This is where a lot of people are probably going to get hung up. If you release a mag with your P50 and have a pistol grip installed you have created an assault weapon in California.

Once you back out the set screw the mag lock can be released with no tool. This is a BIG difference. While it requires a tool to make the mag RELEASABLE the tool isn't used to actually release the magazine. This is the logical difference between a BB and a P50.

Prince50
02-02-2009, 8:34 PM
Does the bullet button maker/inventor have a patten? If not, might be good before some fool does it and makes them $100....or a greater anti-gun fool does it and stops producing them.

Fear not, the BULLET-BUTTON patent has been applied for forever ago. The prices will not rise.

Thanks,

Darin

fusionstar
02-02-2009, 8:34 PM
So let me get this straight and as simple as it can be.

No
http://www.lanworldinc.com/prince50.jpg





Yes
http://www.lanworldinc.com/bullbutt1.jpg
http://www.lanworldinc.com/800_B-16%20Off%20-%20angle%20close.JPG
http://www.riflegear.com/images/PRODUCT/medium/470.jpg
http://www.riflegear.com/images/PRODUCT/icon/58.jpg

Tunis
02-02-2009, 8:38 PM
I am working on a Buyback swap program now. Trying to figure out the logistics of such an endevor. Send the P50 back and get a discount on the BULLET-BUTTON from your favorite dealer.

Prices on the original BULLET-BUTTON will not increase.

All that being said, I still see no issue with it if it is used properly. If you do not back the screw out it is legal, so don't panic! Also, please do not back the screw out while the rifle is in an illegal configuration.

Regards,

Darin

Darin,

When you work out the logistics...let me know how I can help!

Tunis

NRAhighpowershooter
02-02-2009, 8:50 PM
ok. all this talk about BB's and P50's is fine and dandy.. but Gene.. are those of us that still use the Sporting Conversion kits in the clear?

dfletcher
02-02-2009, 9:20 PM
Well, DSA's have the magazine welded to the ejector block the last I heard.
My FAL's do not.

I always top load because it's easy on a FAL but if the DA's think a setscrew on an AR is something they want to prosecute, then I'm not going to have that on any of my FAL's.

I don't want to be an un-planned test case. No one else should want that either.

Any way, the FAL solution is to get a ~1/4" 4-40 socket head cap screw and a standard magazine release and install the cap screw where the mag release spring would usually go. It only costs about $0.25 and you have to use a screwdriver to remove the bolt hold open screw to take it out but it is 100% reversible.

It's an easy and cheap fix, I hope no one gets busted over it.

Everyone needs to be cautious and let the lawyers stick with their game plan.

Complete DSA FALs do not have mags welded to the e block and the mags can be removed from the gun. The spot of weld on the e block is separate from the mag and serves to only prevent the mag release lever from pivoting. In short, it serves the same function as a set screw.

bplvr
02-02-2009, 9:21 PM
So let me get this straight and as simple as it can be.

No
http://www.lanworldinc.com/prince50.jpg





Yes
http://www.lanworldinc.com/bullbutt1.jpg
http://www.lanworldinc.com/800_B-16%20Off%20-%20angle%20close.JPG
http://www.riflegear.com/images/PRODUCT/medium/470.jpg
http://www.riflegear.com/images/PRODUCT/icon/58.jpg


I think the issue here is that anything that can be made LEGAL out of Ca.
with a few turns of a set screw ,can be made ILLEGAL in Ca.as well. The RaddLock on the bottom pic MAY be a problem,and what if the O-rings break?
Please believe me,I am not trying to be a pain in the pelosi,I just want everybody to stay out of the big house.

savageevo
02-02-2009, 9:34 PM
After reading all that I seem to see this addressing more to the AR platform. How about the AK. For example, The jumbopanda ak BB. There is one setscrew that holds this in place and If an idiot backs it out it would make it a AW status. Same concept as P50. Gene, Bill, Any comments?

GMONEY
02-02-2009, 9:38 PM
I think the issue here is that anything that can be made LEGAL out of Ca.
with a few turns of a set screw ,can be made ILLEGAL in Ca.as well. The RaddLock on the bottom pic MAY be a problem,and what if the O-rings break?
Please believe me,I am not trying to be a pain in the pelosi,I just want everybody to stay out of the big house.

Actually to me it looks to be more like the issue of people backing out the screws to release the magazine. With the AR radd you can drop the mag without backing out the screw... Can the OP please comment on the AR Raddlock... Actually just installed mine and what a great design!

wash
02-02-2009, 9:42 PM
Complete DSA FALs do not have mags welded to the e block and the mags can be removed from the gun. The spot of weld on the e block is separate from the mag and serves to only prevent the mag release lever from pivoting. In short, it serves the same function as a set screw.
I didn't know that.

I never bought a complete DSA FAL, only stripped uppers.

The complete guns seemed overpriced and the replicas were not as correct as I could do myself so I never went there.

JeffM
02-02-2009, 9:49 PM
The B16 is directly comparable to a bullet button.

For clarity, the Classic Prince-50 is likely legal when used correctly. However, most people are not using them correctly. However, what DA's are starting to instruct their line prosecutors and LEAs is that bullet buttons are clearly legal and that Prince-50's are not clearly legal.

A Bullet Button or B16 does not require in normal usage that you remove the kit itself. You generally only do that when you travel out of state. The truth of the matter is that average gun owners are not top loading their Classic Prince-50 equipped rifles and are thus manufacturing AWs. Even the friendly DA's want to dissuade that activity. Non gun aware DA's are just going to follow suit.

Yes you can probably defend yourself if your Classic Prince-50 is used correctly. The question would be why you'd care to.

-Gene

I'm going to quote what Gene said earlier in this thread for those asking about B16s and Radlocks.

Seems like the highlighted section would apply to the Radlock and Jumbopanda's BB, TheDrickles FAL bullet-button, and whatever else out there that work on the same BB principle.

It looks like a hard and fast rule hasn't been stated as to why the various DAs might be more willing to prosecute P50 style locks versus BBs.

It seems that those who know more than others are saying that it's likely due to the fact that the ONLY way to remove the magazine from a P50 gun, as built into a featured/mag-locked rifle, is to back out the screw, making it an illegal Assault Weapon. This makes these rifles and their owners a better target for prosecution.

The BB/B16/Radlocked rifles can be used legally to drop mags without triggering AW status. This may make court cases against them appear to be less "winnable"

tophatjones
02-02-2009, 10:16 PM
Oh the irony. Many folks were using the P50s specifically because they were perceived as "less grey" than the BB. I suppose it comes down to the ones who used the P50 in an illegal manner who (un?) screwed it for the rest.

toolman9000
02-02-2009, 10:26 PM
Actually to me it looks to be more like the issue of people backing out the screws to release the magazine. With the AR radd you can drop the mag without backing out the screw... Can the OP please comment on the AR Raddlock... Actually just installed mine and what a great design!

But you must use a tool, that is the key.

evollep3
02-02-2009, 10:38 PM
you know what they say it takes a few bad apples to ruin it for others on the Mag locks

mquejr
02-02-2009, 10:43 PM
I was on the fence regarding BB, and has been top-loading since I built mine. Now that a ruling has been made, it's time for me to shop for a BB.

SwissFluCase
02-02-2009, 10:56 PM
This is a huge win!!! Who cares about which temporary solution we use. If we need a second type, I'm sure one can be invented.

The point is that now we can get AR type rifles to the masses! The next step will be to overturn the AWB, and the fixed bullet button mag builds is going to be how we do it.

No offense to the great minds that came up with the raddlock and the BB, but no one is going to remember these bits of metal in 20 years. People will remember the battle that was fought, and the people who won it. By then we will have used these wonderful devices to split the AWB in two and kill it.

The DAs just rolled on this one. Let's move on to the next battle.

Thanks Gene!

Regards,


SwissFluCase

383green
02-02-2009, 11:04 PM
ok. all this talk about BB's and P50's is fine and dandy.. but Gene.. are those of us that still use the Sporting Conversion kits in the clear?

In the context of this discussion, there's essentially no difference between the Prince 50 magazine lock, the Sporting Conversions kit, or any of the home-made kits that involved replacing the magazine release button with a nut. In all of those cases, it is necessary (when in CA) to remove all restricted features from the gun BEFORE releasing the magazine.

In other words, if the gun jams at the range, then it is necessary to remove any pistol grip(s), flash hider, telestock, and grenade/flare launcher(s) BEFORE removing the magazine. Even if there are still rounds in the gun. Even if the bolt is stuck open and the upper can't be removed. You'll be there at the range dropping the selector spring and detent in the dirt while you unscrew the flash hider from a potentially loaded gun, or else you'll drop the magazine first and thus commit a felony. Neither case sounds very appealing to me.

This is why I replaced all of my home-made Sporting Conversions equivalent setups with Bullet Buttons as soon as the BB became available. It's technically superior, and it's much safer (both legally, and in terms of responsible gun handling). Whether you prefer to top-load or mag-swap, the BB-like designs are vastly superior because they allow a quick, safe and legal way to drop the magazine without first performing any other disassembly of the gun... especially when it becomes necessary to clear a jammed gun.

I remember the introductions of both the Sporting Conversions kit and the P50 kit. Both were great ideas at the time, and they both played key roles in making OLLs real in CA. Both have also been obsolete for a long time.

It's great that Darin is willing to eat some of the cost of replacing his product in light of this news. He is by no means obligated to do this; after all, it has been understood from day one that it's necessary to disassemble a P50-equipped rifle before loosening the setscrew, and the DAs' opinions that a P50 is automatically illegal even if used as designed is incorrect. Still, Darin is clearly a man of great character and conviction.

I am morally offended at the incorrect assertion that the P50 is automatically illegal even when used properly. I certainly understand why many of us are steamed about that. However, given both the significant safety benefit to the BB-like designs vs. the setscrew/nut designs and the expectation that the entire AW ban may become vulnerable post-incorporation, I feel that this simply isn't a fight that's worth fighting. I also feel that "losing" the P50 design is greatly outweighed by the benefit of the DAs conceding the legality of the BB-like designs.

When looking at the big picture, I think it's best to choke down the unpleasant taste of not fighting for the P50, spread the word about this, get all of the P50 folks converted over to one of the BB-like designs, and gear up for the next big battle. For that matter, it's not even necessary to think about this as giving up on the P50: it's really just a tactical decision to not fight that fight right now.

Somebody mentioned island-hopping, so I'll bring up a nice Patton quote:

"The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his."

It's not beneficial to charge into every possible fight even if it's not winnable or there's no big benefit to winning it. The goal is to win the whole war. Even thought it doesn't always feel good, it doesn't make sense to fight for every little scrap when there's a bigger war to be won (and one which we're winning, even!). Fighting for every last scrap made sense a few years ago when we were desperately defending ourselves against every new Brady invasion. Post-OLL, post-AB2728, post-Heller, and soon post-NRF and post-Incorporation, the tides have turned. We're no longer fighting for survival. We're taking ground and winning strategically.

Despite the minor setback for P50 users, we're still gaining ground on the balance, and we fully expect to take still bigger steps in the future. Let's not lose sight of that.

383green
02-02-2009, 11:08 PM
I was on the fence regarding BB, and has been top-loading since I built mine. Now that a ruling has been made, it's time for me to shop for a BB.

Even with a BB, you can still top-load if you feel more comfortable that way. The important things are:

1) Now DAs are less likely to prosecute the next owner of a BB-like build that JBTs like the LA gun squad hauls in.

2) With a BB, you'll be able to clear your rifle more safely in case of a jam.

Whether you choose to drop the mag or open the top for a reload (or even alternate on a whim) is a matter of personal preference.

Edited to add: Just as the P50 originally looked attractive to folks who took their rifles out of CA at times, there are now BB-like options for rifles that travel to free states, too.

dawson8r
02-02-2009, 11:27 PM
I bought 3 Prince50s and top loaded. I didn't like the things I had to do to clear a jam so I bought 3 BBs and retrofitted. I just recently bought AR Raddlocks and retrofitted again. What can I say? Spending money makes me happy.

SoundFX
02-03-2009, 12:02 AM
Ok, related to this. Is there criminalization of "constructive possession" with these rifles if, what say, you were traveling with a BB-equipped gun but had the normal mag-release parts uninstalled and in a baggie in the butt stock? Obviously, this would mean that you have the ability to quickly change to AW status. Is that ability in an of itself criminalized?

Because, if we're talking about how Prince 50's are "a little too close to AW for many DA's comfort", is that not a de facto criminalization of "constructive possession", because it's criminalizing what one might do, not something one has done?

Sorry if this is a stupid question.

Stormfeather
02-03-2009, 12:23 AM
My original title was not FUD.

A majority of DA's are going to opine that the Prince-50 Kit is illegal. That statement is directly from Chuck Michel.

Using a Prince-50 Classic is about to become much higher risk than anything else. Proving a DA wrong is expensive - especially when there are perfectly valid alternative solutions that have the added benefit of being safer for uninformed gun owners.

-Gene

Why should we use an alternative solution when the one we have hasnt been deemed illegal. The DA's do not make law, they only enforce the current law. My ar's are configured to comply with the letter of the law.


Silly question...

How can a DA rule that a prince 50 is illegal but the BB is acceptable? Does the DOJ & the state set the laws? Without either being addressed..pro or con..how can they make up their own interpretations?
The purpose of both set ups ( p50 & BB ) are to comply with how the law is currently written, correct?

So I'm a bit miffed

as am i. . .

fairfaxjim
02-03-2009, 1:06 AM
Interesting that the legality of posession of an article that is the subject of so many words and sections in the CA penal code is in reality determined by "a consensus" "developing among District Attorneys due to DOJ BoF's continued silence." AM must have peed herself today with glee!! At last, her "58 DA's", at least a portion of them, have made legally configured OLL's prosecutable as AW's, even in the minds of those who conceived the OLL concept!!

BTW, if all it takes is the consensus of some California DA's having coffee at Denny's some morning to make legal things prosecutable, then we will all be eating with sporks before long. There are lots of potential ways to commit illegal acts with a knife and fork. (Smily intentionally left blank!)

Blackhawk556
02-03-2009, 1:15 AM
ok is this final or are they still going to "talk about it" or something???
i just want to know if it's in the works still or if the final word has been said
anyone?????????????

elSquid
02-03-2009, 1:29 AM
So if the DAs are going to come up with recommendations about mag locks, what are the chances that they might also address MMG/gripless/featureless builds at the same time?

-- Michael

tenpercentfirearms
02-03-2009, 6:34 AM
Seriously, nothing has changed. Nothing. This is the same 58 DAs crap that we have known ever since December 2005. Some DAs might not like your products. Some DAs might.

The key here is to stay legal and as always, be prepared to foot your own defense. If you think your lawfully configured Prince50 is legal and love it, stick with it.

If you are a reed in the wind and are buying into this hype, then by all means go out and replace your Prince50 with a Bullet Button. Prince50 will appreciate the sales, you will use the Bullet Button and feel legally safer, and then you will find out the Bullet Button is a superior design and wonder why it took some FUD level action from a few DAs to get you to change and also wonder why you didn't change it sooner.

If you care, buy a Bullet Button. If you don't care, keep doing what you were doing. Just don't have an assault weapon and you will be fine.

As far as the Sporting Conversions kits go, even if you loosened that thing a bit, getting the magazine on and off isn't like the Prince50. There is no regular magazine release there. However, the point remains, why are you still living in the stone age? Upgrade and use your rifle with attachable magazines.

Seriously, this thread will die in a few weeks and within the next year or two we are going to probably see some great court cases come up and this might be a silly bump in the road on the way to true reform in California. Continue on.

jksupplyco
02-03-2009, 6:47 AM
If you care, buy a Bullet Button, and a Bullet Button Wonder Wrench. If you don't care, keep doing what you were doing. Just don't have an assault weapon and you will be fine.




Fixed it for ya! :thumbsup:

Suvorov
02-03-2009, 8:14 AM
I think the issue here is that anything that can be made LEGAL out of Ca.
with a few turns of a set screw ,can be made ILLEGAL in Ca.as well. The RaddLock on the bottom pic MAY be a problem,and what if the O-rings break?
Please believe me,I am not trying to be a pain in the pelosi,I just want everybody to stay out of the big house.

I also run a RaddLock and love it. I think the issue here is that you have identified a risk and you need to take the responsibility to make sure your O-Ring is is good shape. Just like you make sure that your disconnector is working properly to keep the rifle from doubling when fired. As long as it is tightened down, the RaddLock is a BB and allows use of a tool to drop the magazine. The problem with the Prince50 is that it REQUIRES you to turn your rifle into an "Assault Weapon" in order to drop the magazine (unless you perform additional disassembly steps first). Nothing has changed and those of us who use something other than the standard BB still need to take a little effort to make sure our weapons are PRK compliant.

The whole issue brings up a couple of interesting points:
1) It does seem that the DOJ and California Justice System are finally having to come to terms with the OLL movement instead of just ignoring it. In that way this is a victory for us.
2) Like others have said, I don't like the idea of DAs deciding to make the law. This is the job of the legislature and the DOJ to clarify. Obviously it is not being done and I really wish our Governor/Legislature would hold someone accountable.

Like said before, hopefully in the next year or so this whole issue will be just a dark memory and we will be able to remove our magazine locks, Monsterman grips, and the like and cast them to our parts boxes where they will never again see the light of day.

WokMaster1
02-03-2009, 8:31 AM
Another option for those with time on your hands. Tell me if it's kosher or not.

Mod your Prince50 by filling up the hole completely with epoxy making it a regular mag release button. Then reinstall it on a featureless built rifle with U-15 stocks or Monstergrip. Don't forget that you must change your flash suppressor to a muzzle brake when going this route. Preban, more than 10 rounds magazines can be used here & freely dropped, etc.

To Radd (of Raddlock), are you going to come up with an aluminium spacer to replace the O-ring? Something more durable?

7x57
02-03-2009, 9:03 AM
I do *NOT* understand the complaints about DA's making up the law. That is precisely backwards. It sounds like they're doing what DA's do: deciding what they will prosecute. "Deemed illegal" means "I think this case is worth filing." That's it. That doesn't mean it *is* illegal, which is what making up law would mean--it means you have to go to court and pay a bunch of your money to TMLLP to prove your legality. The letter of the law actually says that backing out a screw manufactures a CA-AW, and saying that isn't so would be making up law. They're doing the opposite--they're working with the law *as written,* which is what people claim to want. OK, you got it--it's the *law* that sucks.

The only problem I see here is *not* making up law, but in implying that possessing a Prince 50 carries with it an assumption that you've been backing out the screw while evil features are attached. Now, it seems that isn't a bad assumption in actual fact, but I don't like the government presuming guilt without a witness to actual illegal behavior, even if the illegal behavior is known to be widespread. Fine, whine about that. But don't forget that the previous situation was that the presumption of guilt might apply to having any kind of OLL rifle. How is narrowing it to something that in actual fact people are abusing *not* a step in the right direction?

So: the DA's provided a little consistency and made it easier to obey the law without harassment. Your chances of being prosecuted and having to pay $$$ to prove the legality of your BB are now lower, if some cop decides to arrest you and "let the DA sort it out." Isn't that what people wanted: to be able to use their OLL rifles legally without harassment? That's what the DAs are providing. The fact that they seem to have agreed that the most popular and convenient option should not be prosecuted, and the one they said might be prosecuted is known to be used to illegally manufacture a CA-AW (proven simply by comments on this thread), even if inadvertently, is sufficient indication that they're not on a vendetta to get OLL people. It's fairly reasonable DA behavior (with the caveat about a presumption of guilt, but still less than before), any stupidity is stupidity in the law itself.

7x57

dfletcher
02-03-2009, 9:04 AM
An AR equipped with a BB can be "adjusted" so as to allow the BB to be manually depressed (no tool) and drop magazines. In that respect, I don't see it as being different from the P50. It's fine these DAs have for now said OK to the BB, but they won't be around forever - they can change their collective mind. We're dependant on the kindness of DAs, not the letter of the law?

If the DAs think they can win on a properly used P50, I suppose they will end up in court trying their case. Given their position, they get to exercise discretion - but as final arbiters of the law, I don't think that's their role.

Why not take an approach with the DAs that says "Thanks for the OK on the BB, we disagree on the P50 and will stand our ground" if need be.

Fair or not, this is why out of state gun owners take shots at us. We've been on a roll & are now putting on the brakes a bit, waiting for incorporation or waiting for an AW ban overturn. I don't criticize anyone for their position, it just makes me uneasy to rely on people and not the law.

wash
02-03-2009, 9:17 AM
The DA's have their own game plan and they don't like to loose.

They feel that they have a chance to get AW convictions on P50 AR's.

Why let them try?

foxtrotuniformlima
02-03-2009, 9:18 AM
featureless builds are looking better all the time.

At least from a stay out of court standpoint.

JasonDavis
02-03-2009, 9:24 AM
This is interesting, especially since there is a letter from the DOJ stating that the DS Arms SA 58, which operates EXACTLY the same as the Prince 50, is not an "assault weapon" as configured.

7x57
02-03-2009, 9:39 AM
We're dependant on the kindness of DAs, not the letter of the law?


In what alternate universe would that not be true? Any DA can prosecute anything anytime, regardless of any consensus. I think the lawyers have a saying, something like a DA can prosecute a ham sandwich for not being kosher if he wants to. This seems to be inherent in the system. Call it a flaw if you like (I do), but if you're honest it's *very* difficult to figure out how to get rid of it without creating something as bad or worse via unintended consequences. For example, you say a case must pass a "reasonability test." Reasonable to whom? You've done nothing but shuffled the cards and given the arbitrary discretion to another person, not removed it.


Why not take an approach with the DAs that says "Thanks for the OK on the BB, we disagree on the P50 and will stand our ground" if need be.


As Don Kilmer said at the panel discussion after Nordyke: "what do you want to challenge, and how much money do you have?" No reason at all not to take that approach, if you want to spend the money. All Gene did was provide an advisory about the odds of having to prove your legality in court. He did not say you couldn't do it with your own money.

But I think we have better things to do with our money. The problem with what you suggest is that it works for a priority-less abstract world. In our world the pool of money is not infinite, and so priorities must be set. Fighting over BB vs. Prince-50 seems like a *real* waste of money, and the DAs are moving toward allowing us to avoid the fight. That means we can spend that money on, say, challenging the ban entirely. Why would you want to spend our limited money on skirmishing over the fine details of the ban when there is a realistic option to tossing the ban entirely and making the question meaningless? Which do you want--your preferred interpretation of the ban, or moving toward eliminating the ban?

The answer seems pretty clear to me.


Fair or not, this is why out of state gun owners take shots at us. We've been on a roll & are now putting on the brakes a bit, waiting for incorporation or waiting for an AW ban overturn.


As an ex Montanan who is quite willing to take part in the CA-bashing fun, anyone who complains about that is either an idiot or does not understand the nature of the fight we are in. This is exactly equivalent of yelling at a boxer because he's conserving his strength instead of going on the attack 100% of the time, no matter what the situation.

It sounds nice: punch, punch, punch forever. But human bodies don't work that way, and winning boxers know that. I don't care about making an abstract "touch me anywhere and you'll get a nuclear response" sort of point. I want to win the endgame.


I don't criticize anyone for their position, it just makes me uneasy to rely on people and not the law.

Now you must decide whether you can accept reality. The reality is that there is *no situation* in which you do not rely on people, because people apply the law. You rely on the beat cop to not arrest you and let them sort it out back at the station. You rely on his superiors to decide to let you go instead of sending it to the DA. You rely on the DA not to file the case "just in case it works out." You rely on the judge to actually apply the law properly. You rely on the jury to convict only if the evidence is "beyond a reasonable doubt." You rely on them not to nullify the law unless the law is creating a real travesty of justice (still true even though the Mansfield-ites largely won and nobody likes to talk about this). And so on....

Short of having God Himself rule personally on your case, what system would *not* be forced to rely on the fallible human judgement? I was a physicist once--what we call "natural law" is indeed not subject to human judgment, precisely because it is not applied by humans. That's why mathematical physics works--the application is consistent and absolute. Since people apply criminal law, the application can be no more consistent than human beings are consistent.

This leads to a vast philosophical question of whether we would, after all, like objectively applied law in a way similar to physical law. It's not clear that we should wish too hard for absolute justice, because what we really want is for justice to be tempered by some measure of mercy. But I won't pursue that....

7x57

hoffmang
02-03-2009, 9:59 AM
"The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his."


We're doing our part making some folks in Sacramento be on the receiving end of that...

A couple of questions and answers:

1. Was this related to a specific case?
Yes. This came up from a group of related cases in a specific DA's jurisdiction. The hold up has been that he attempted to get clarification from Sacramento and from what I understand it was deficient in certain ways.

2. Will there be Paper?
Yes. As I said in my original post, we are going to have a letter from a DA that says that Bullet Buttons are legal. Read that again.

3. AK and other firearm locks?
If the lock stays on when the magazine comes off, you are fine. If its very clear and easy to top load and the magazine stays on you're probably fine.

This is a huge win. We are up to something very specific on point 1 that doesn't require us to waste money on the wrong battle to see if we can't get the DA in question to understand the classic Prince-50 issues better.

For all of you worry warts that think a DA can just change his mind on this, we have tools to enforce correct interpretations of the law. DA's don't usually take it on themselves to opine that certain behavior is legal. That they do should be seen as the HUGE win that it is.

-Gene

CHS
02-03-2009, 10:10 AM
Bill/Gene/anyone, can you please give a little more data to back up the claim that people are backing out their set screws to drop mags with P50's?

If DA's are involved then I'm assuming these are not just range anecdotes, but in fact seized weapons and ongoing cases?

Can you give us some numbers?

Personally, I can't stand the P50 and top-loading. I've always used a BB. But I'm still curious why the DA's are so interested. Interested usually means past and/or current violations.

sorensen440
02-03-2009, 10:14 AM
Bill/Gene/anyone, can you please give a little more data to back up the claim that people are backing out their set screws to drop mags with P50's?

Almost every time I see one at the Livermore range I see them pulling the screw out and dropping the mags.
Ive tried explaining it to a few but they either say the gunstore told them or a friend told them it was ok because they used a tool.

dfletcher
02-03-2009, 10:15 AM
In what alternate universe would that not be true? Any DA can prosecute anything anytime, regardless of any consensus. I think the lawyers have a saying, something like a DA can prosecute a ham sandwich for not being kosher if he wants to. This seems to be inherent in the system. Call it a flaw if you like (I do), but if you're honest it's *very* difficult to figure out how to get rid of it without creating something as bad or worse via unintended consequences. For example, you say a case must pass a "reasonability test." Reasonable to whom? You've done nothing but shuffled the cards and given the arbitrary discretion to another person, not removed it.

As Don Kilmer said at the panel discussion after Nordyke: "what do you want to challenge, and how much money do you have?" No reason at all not to take that approach, if you want to spend the money. All Gene did was provide an advisory about the odds of having to prove your legality in court. He did not say you couldn't do it with your own money.

But I think we have better things to do with our money. The problem with what you suggest is that it works for a priority-less abstract world. In our world the pool of money is not infinite, and so priorities must be set. Fighting over BB vs. Prince-50 seems like a *real* waste of money, and the DAs are moving toward allowing us to avoid the fight. That means we can spend that money on, say, challenging the ban entirely. Why would you want to spend our limited money on skirmishing over the fine details of the ban when there is a realistic option to tossing the ban entirely and making the question meaningless? Which do you want--your preferred interpretation of the ban, or moving toward eliminating the ban?

The answer seems pretty clear to me.

As an ex Montanan who is quite willing to take part in the CA-bashing fun, anyone who complains about that is either an idiot or does not understand the nature of the fight we are in. This is exactly equivalent of yelling at a boxer because he's conserving his strength instead of going on the attack 100% of the time, no matter what the situation.

It sounds nice: punch, punch, punch forever. But human bodies don't work that way, and winning boxers know that. I don't care about making an abstract "touch me anywhere and you'll get a nuclear response" sort of point. I want to win the endgame.

Now you must decide whether you can accept reality. The reality is that there is *no situation* in which you do not rely on people, because people apply the law. You rely on the beat cop to not arrest you and let them sort it out back at the station. You rely on his superiors to decide to let you go instead of sending it to the DA. You rely on the DA not to file the case "just in case it works out." You rely on the judge to actually apply the law properly. You rely on the jury to convict only if the evidence is "beyond a reasonable doubt." You rely on them not to nullify the law unless the law is creating a real travesty of justice (still true even though the Mansfield-ites largely won and nobody likes to talk about this). And so on....

Short of having God Himself rule personally on your case, what system would *not* be forced to rely on the fallible human judgement? I was a physicist once--what we call "natural law" is indeed not subject to human judgment, precisely because it is not applied by humans. That's why mathematical physics works--the application is consistent and absolute. Since people apply criminal law, the application can be no more consistent than human beings are consistent.

This leads to a vast philosophical question of whether we would, after all, like objectively applied law in a way similar to physical law. It's not clear that we should wish too hard for absolute justice, because what we really want is for justice to be tempered by some measure of mercy. But I won't pursue that....

7x57

I understand DAs have discretion and we ultimately end up relying on fallible human beings, either the DA or a jury or a judge. I don't know which worries me more - a zealous DA, a not so impartial jurist or the typical slack jawed juror, so yes I have a concern for "unintended consequences".

But I believe going to court and winning your case must have an effect on the DA. I suppose a DA can continue to haul people into court and lose over and over again - and keep on doing it, but isn't there a presumption that at some point the DA decides it just isn't worth it? This is of course, predicated on our being able to win in court.

I don't know how much of a fight this whole issue is worth. I am not of the mind to fight for a losing cause on principle alone , I'd like to fight where we may win. But I am concerned that we look forward to the big win and out of deference, let slip by these less substantial events.

I am of course very happy that BBs have a "stamp of approval" and that DAs will be held to that position.

Regarding out of staters & to borrow your boxing analogy - fine, conserve strength but be certain to throw a few punches along the way. We have thrown punches, I'm wondering if this is a time for another punch or two to be thrown. We do want to be in the ring for the 15th round.

And there are out of staters who are absolute jerks - the "rise up & march" types. But let's not dismiss them as a group the same way they might dismiss CA gun owners, as a group. We can take a little constructive criticism from time to time.

At the risk of going off topic - from Montana, Mansfield, as in Mike - correct?

E Pluribus Unum
02-03-2009, 11:01 AM
Due to this new (ignorant) policy of the local DA's, one would think that the manufacturer of the Price50 kit would have cause to sue for the spreading of misinformation regarding the sale of lawful firearm parts.

Suvorov
02-03-2009, 11:08 AM
Bill/Gene/anyone, can you please give a little more data to back up the claim that people are backing out their set screws to drop mags with P50's?

I volunteer as an RSO one day a month at a local Bay Area range. I won't say it is common as really Prince 50s are not all that common anymore, but I will say that I have seen shooters doing this one 3 or more occasions in the past year. Given the prolific nature of OLLs, I would say this is a very small percentage of owners (much less than 5%), but still they are out there.

7x57
02-03-2009, 11:53 AM
But I believe going to court and winning your case must have an effect on the DA.


Fine. But again, that alone does not pass a quantitative test. You have to ask how much effect, and then you have to subtract the effect of some other action you could have done instead. So in the big picture it's not even true that every win has a net positive effect, if you give up something big in order to achieve something little.

Surely every win in a war has an effect on the enemy. So why did we bypass all those little pacific islands occupied by the Japanese and drive for the home islands? Because the effect of seizing every scrap of coral with no strategic significance would have sapped the resources needed to cut off strategic supplies and make progress toward the overall win. I haven't looked, but I bet at the time MacArthur (I think made the decision) took a lot of heat for that one too.

Notice how after the surrender, it simply didn't matter that we'd never taken the little coral bits by force.


I don't know how much of a fight this whole issue is worth.


People like Gene are pretty clearly saying it isn't worth it, and that seems to be based on the advice of the Right People.


But I am concerned that we look forward to the big win and out of deference, let slip by these less substantial events.


Fair enough, but that doesn't seem to be the danger right now. Look at it this way--incorporation will change everything. I'm going to do a little guessing here based on what those in the know say.

If we get incorporation, then we'll want every penny to follow up on the consequences. Gene has said the roster, discretionary CCW, and the CA-AW ban will all be challengable. We'll want to do it very fast, because every public defender in the country will have a duty to raise a 2A claim in every liquor store holdup, drug deal gone bad, and domestic shooting. Do you want the precedent to be set in that context? The lawyers tell us that would be really, really bad. But to beat them to court with a clean case and respectable clients, we need money. It seems that we need all the money we can get, including the money it would cost to defend a part that has a readily available (and more popular) alternative.

OTOH, suppose we lose incorporation. Then, again, strategy will have to be devised, either to appeal to an en banc panel or SCOTUS, or to create a split in the circuits. That will be absolutely #1 priority, because once Heller came down we were committed to pursuing incorporation. If we were to lose incorporation with SCOTUS (however unlikely) then to some degree we'd be *worse* off than without Heller (that depends on stuff I don't understand yet).

Either way, we need money, and we have to make sure we can support the litigation.


I'm wondering if this is a time for another punch or two to be thrown. We do want to be in the ring for the 15th round.


You worry that we're waiting too long. That is really an artifact of the net vs. the courts. Sure, in net.time it's been forever. But in legal time, it's been barely a heartbeat since Heller. From the legal point of view, we're hardly waiting at all. That may suck, but it seems to be true.

It helps that I spent some time watching the SCO vs. the world cases on the net, so I have already learned that the wheels of justice turn at about the earth's precession rate, while the net and people's expectations are more like atomic vibrations. :-)

That's just my deductions from what the lawyers say. The *real* reason not to worry about waiting too long is that our friendly neighborhood lawyers aren't worrying. I've met enough of them to know that they're not doing this just because we pay them--they really care. But of course whenever we "throw a punch" they get paid too (well, except Don Kilmer :kest:), and everybody likes to get paid. So they have every incentive to be throwing punches now. They don't seem to want to do it just now, and I have a hard time understanding why we would second-guess smart, pro-2A lawyers on legal timing.


And there are out of staters who are absolute jerks - the "rise up & march" types. But let's not dismiss them as a group the same way they might dismiss CA gun owners, as a group. We can take a little constructive criticism from time to time.


That's fair, but I don't hear much from out of state that is knowledgeable enough to make any sense. For that matter, the same is true in-state: most CA gun owners seem to believe that the NRA has abandoned them. To know why so much of what the NRA does is not all that visible, you'd have to know more than apparently the average gun owner knows (or what I knew before I started trying to go to the right meetings to listen to the right people).

I can tell you that most of what native Montanans would say is entirely worthless, because what works in a generally pro-gun state seems to be suicide here. Simple example: something that would be political suicide there would be held up as an example of "standing up to the gun lobby" here.

The reason we win is that we have more passionate, dedicated, idealistic people. But those attributes are double-edged, and can hurt us if they are not tempered with cold realism.


At the risk of going off topic - from Montana, Mansfield, as in Mike - correct?

Um, yeah.

7x57

Cypren
02-03-2009, 12:07 PM
The reason we win is that we have more passionate, dedicated, idealistic people. But those attributes are double-edged, and can hurt us if they are not tempered with cold realism.

Very well said. But don't forget "rational" -- the gun-grabbers have lots of passionate, dedicated, idealistic people, too. They've just abandoned all reason for emotional fury.

fairfaxjim
02-03-2009, 12:18 PM
Very well said. But don't forget "rational" -- the gun-grabbers have lots of passionate, dedicated, idealistic people, too. They've just abandoned all reason for emotional fury.

Emotional fury is very effective when you are using it on an appreciative audience. Remember, all of these left leaning anti 2A hacks that we have in office here weren't elected in a vacuum. Maybe a vacuum between a lot of voters' ears, but, for whatever reasons, a large part of CA - at least those who vote - seem to eat this crap up!

DedEye
02-03-2009, 2:13 PM
May I ask a question, in this sea of accusations and bile:

What is the best place to buy BBs, so Darin gets the largest possible share of the price? I don't want to go through several layers of dealers, but I want to support Darin as much as easily possible.

I also have a few Prince50 kits sitting around, but I don't think I'll return them to Darin for a refund. I'll add them to my drawer full of parts that have come off guns; in a few years, they will be a tangible reminder of what we had to go through, in the bad old days.

Just about any Calguns vendor is the way to go.

sorensen440
02-03-2009, 2:14 PM
May I ask a question, in this sea of accusations and bile:


Accusations and bile ???

dfletcher
02-03-2009, 2:53 PM
It's "Accusations and Bile" - I think they open for Marilyn Manson? :p

7x57
02-03-2009, 2:53 PM
Very well said. But don't forget "rational" -- the gun-grabbers have lots of passionate, dedicated, idealistic people, too. They've just abandoned all reason for emotional fury.

I was more or less paraphrasing Ed Worley. I used to think as you do, but he said that our big advantage is we have lots of dedicated, passionate voters who will place 2A rights above everything else. The other side has many fewer people who are that committed. After he said that, I started thinking. How many antis turned out to Nordyke? Apparently only about a half-dozen to our 100+. Where were the protests in the streets? How many anti-CCW people turned out at the hearing in OC? I didn't hear about very many. And I recall being told that there are a *lot* of anti-gun organizations that hide behind fancy organizational names but do not reveal their membership lists and only have two or three people visibly contributing. That's not how we work.

So I think they only have relatively few passionate people. They also have many very anti politicians, but this isn't their only issue. So (well, at least outside of CA) they have to wait to take advantage of a public outcry over a shooting or something to take momentary advantage of public opinion. The reason this works is that it is like a rachet--it is very, very hard to repeal gun laws, so even if you can only pass one in exceptional circumstances you can make "progress" (toward total gun bans, of course) as long as there is an asymmetry in the difficulty of passing gun laws and the difficulty in repealing them.

This may explain a lot of the NRA's stances. They seem more comfortable working the legislative angle, and its really hard to get votes to repeal a gun law, so they've tended to publicly argue the line about "enforce the laws we have." That's more focused on not losing another step. What makes the judicial approach so exciting, particularly if/when we get incorporation, is that you can actually get some of those laws struck down. You don't just have to play defense, you can go on the offensive.

I'm not saying the NRA won't be right there on the offensive, they certainly were ready to file follow-ons to Heller, I'm just saying the reason they were originally opposed to the lawsuit seems to me to have been based on a defensive mindset that reflects legislative more than (post-Heller) judicial reality. If CGF was stuck lobbying Sacramento rather than filing lawsuits, I suspect the mood here would be nearly so upbeat.

Assuming things go well, I suspect the NRA will become more and more willing institutionally to go on the offensive just as they've done post-Heller. That would certainly signal the brave new world that to some extent drives the ambitions of the CGF.

7x57

evollep3
02-03-2009, 4:24 PM
Almost every time I see one at the Livermore range I see them pulling the screw out and dropping the mags.
Ive tried explaining it to a few but they either say the gunstore told them or a friend told them it was ok because they used a tool.

Yea there are some vendors that does advertise that with p50's you can just back the screw out i also have witness this at livermore. but to be honest why go through the trouble of just going through all that now when the bb is that much easier and faster with the tip of the bullet or a tool?

bigfoot-00
02-03-2009, 4:28 PM
I chose to use the P50 on my builds because it seemed less "gray" to me since I was not dropping mags. I am happy to change to the BB if it is now less likely to run into trouble with the DA's. I think they are a much safer product when encountering jams.

This brings up another question. When ordering a BB, I see I can now get a BB Wrench which screws into the mag release to make if function as intended when out of state. If this "Wrench" is so easily added, and makes the BB illegal when installed, will the DA's now say they want to chase them?

I am all for the path of least exposure while having engoyable firearms to shoot and will use whatever makes the most sense.

AaronHorrocks
02-03-2009, 6:04 PM
Sometimes we have to give an inch of ground in order to gain several yards.

We're not talking about ground here, we're talking about our ____ing rights!!!

CHS
02-03-2009, 6:13 PM
We're not talking about ground here, we're talking about our ____ing rights!!!

I'm sorry, but I have to say that I find this pretty funny.

We're talking about devices that are designed to create a situation where an AR style rifle is made to comply with an unconstitutional law.

Who. Effing. Cares.

Ditch your P50's, adopt BB's, and shut up.

The real RIGHTS issue will come when we finally beat the AW ban.

Alphahookups
02-03-2009, 6:29 PM
Anyone know whats up with Coldwarshooters asking 14 dollars shipping for the bullet button :O

JeffM
02-03-2009, 6:41 PM
We're not talking about ground here, we're talking about our ____ing rights!!!

Sooooo having a Prince50 on your gun rather than a bullet button is somehow more important to your RKBA than having several of the other unconstitutional laws, including the AW ban, overturned?


I swear, a good 1/3 of the people in this thread would have their a**es handed to them in a chess game against an 8 year old.

97F1504RAD
02-03-2009, 6:42 PM
Anyone know whats up with Coldwarshooters asking 14 dollars shipping for the bullet button :O

Maybe instead of asking a question that really has nothing to do with this thread, you either email or call them and ask. Or simply buy somewhere else like this.:thumbsup:

Even though i agree that it seems steep.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=150570

JeffM
02-03-2009, 6:42 PM
Anyone know whats up with Coldwarshooters asking 14 dollars shipping for the bullet button :O

They are affectionately referred to as "Cold War Gougers" on several firearms forums.

It's not just BBs they pull that kind of crap on.

Alphahookups
02-03-2009, 6:48 PM
Do I have any other options for purchasing the bullet button?

*EDIT* Sorry, I didn't see that post above

nobody_special
02-03-2009, 7:54 PM
Using a Prince-50 Classic is about to become much higher risk than anything else. Proving a DA wrong is expensive - especially when there are perfectly valid alternative solutions that have the added benefit of being safer for uninformed gun owners.
Proving the DA wrong is expensive... and prohibitively so for the people who would be involved. I can't help but wonder, though, if it is more expensive than replacing all the Prince 50 locks in California with Bullet Buttons...

CHS
02-03-2009, 9:37 PM
Do I have any other options for purchasing the bullet button?


Yes.

Take it to another thread though.

hoffmang
02-03-2009, 10:43 PM
Some people are concerned about the Radlock as I hadn't answered that question directly. Since the Radlock in CA mode doesn't need to be removed to remove the magazine it would most likely be considered a bullet button analog and would be fine.

Don't panic folks. Just move way from the old set screw on ARs.

-Gene

4thSeal
02-03-2009, 10:49 PM
I must say I am totally against removing my Prince 50, just on principle ... but I did it today,

DOJ/DA Blessing on BBs means good things for people with OLLs...

2nd Having had a double feed at the range with the P50 in was a nightmare. Not being able to dump the magazine meant i couldnt clear my malfunction without disassymbly...

3rd Top Feeding sucks balls... Dropping the magazine with a tool and reloading it is only way to fly.

Remember no one is saying you have to replace your P50... it is just highly recommended.

Dont cut off your noses to spite your face. If something is superior in design and fuction, plus has the blessings of law enforcement do it.

Soon we may not have to run a BB at all... one can only dream !

aplinker
02-03-2009, 10:58 PM
:shrug:

There's nothing really new here. This has been the way to go for a long while.

Thanks for the info, Gene. I'll look forward to the paperwork.

Darin, man, you're always on top of stuff. Thanks again.

E Pluribus Unum
02-03-2009, 11:01 PM
Some people are concerned about the Radlock as I hadn't answered that question directly. Since the Radlock in CA mode doesn't need to be removed to remove the magazine it would most likely be considered a bullet button analog and would be fine.

Don't panic folks. Just move way from the old set screw on ARs.

-Gene

I guess if I am at the range with my Bullet Button and I use a pencil to drop the mag, and that pencil tip breaks off and gets stuck in the bullet button thereby holding the button down, I have accidentally manufactured an assault weapon.

sorensen440
02-03-2009, 11:04 PM
I guess if I am at the range with my Bullet Button and I use a pencil to drop the mag, and that pencil tip breaks off and gets stuck in the bullet button thereby holding the button down, I have accidentally manufactured an assault weapon.
Sounds like a good reason not to use a pencil tip

aplinker
02-03-2009, 11:11 PM
I guess if I am at the range with my Bullet Button and I use a pencil to drop the mag, and that pencil tip breaks off and gets stuck in the bullet button thereby holding the button down, I have accidentally manufactured an assault weapon.

It doesn't really count if you just insert the tip.

GMONEY
02-03-2009, 11:16 PM
I wonder if the anti OLL pro 2A guys will finally jump on the bandwagon after they see the letter from DOJ. Imagine them now drafting that letter... How painful it must be... :D

hoffmang
02-03-2009, 11:17 PM
It doesn't really count if you just insert the tip.

:smilielol5:

If something breaks off in your Bullet Button you have a broken gun. Kinda like if something breaks off in your semiauto and it goes full auto you have a broken gun, not an illegal machine gun - assuming you move immediately to fix it.

-Gene

shirow
02-03-2009, 11:26 PM
I wonder if the anti OLL pro 2A guys will finally jump on the bandwagon after they see the letter from DOJ. Imagine them now drafting that letter... How painful it must be... :D

We can make laminated copies to bring to the FUD-based gun stores and EDUMACATE them. :D

anthonyca
02-03-2009, 11:27 PM
I fully understand that you got totally railroaded during that terrible experience. I also understand that they compiled one of the most facially defective and embellished criminal complaints against you that they possibly could.

But if I remember correctly, that was before the CA DOJ issued its mea culpa on the infamous "IMPORTANT NOTICE" letter wherein they attempted to generate "submarine legislation" regarding the definition of a "detachable magazine".

My only point here is that thanks to Gene, Ben, and Bill and the boys, the playing field is such now that it would be asinine and patently ridiculous for any prosecuting authority to prosecute someone for possessing an illegal rifle on the basis that it had a detachable magazine if a Prince-50 device is properly installed on it. That's the only point that I'm making.

The whole point of this thread as I read it is that the DAs are telling us they deem it illegal. Illegal does not mean logical or non asinine esp when it comes to gun laws in Cali.

DDT
02-04-2009, 12:02 AM
The whole point of this thread as I read it is that the DAs are telling us they deem it illegal. Illegal does not mean logical or non asinine esp when it comes to gun laws in Cali.

Also, DAs deeming it illegal doesn't make it so. But DAs deeming it illegal does mean you're more likely to wind up in front of a judge.

TheBundo
02-04-2009, 1:55 AM
Almost every time I see one at the Livermore range I see them pulling the screw out and dropping the mags.
Ive tried explaining it to a few but they either say the gunstore told them or a friend told them it was ok because they used a tool.

It may be an easy prosecution when someone with the P50 equipped gun is at the range with more than one magazine.

fairfaxjim
02-04-2009, 8:52 AM
It's interesting how these threads take on a life of their own. The OP by Gene specifically states that this is a "consensus" developing "among District Attorneys due to DOJ BoF's continued silence." By page 23 we have the DOJ painfully drafting a letter on the BB's legality, among other reported DOJ action in this arena.

It's also interesting how obtuse and confused CA gun laws have become when the legality of posessing a particular firearm depends on whether some mental midget can somehow, sometime, possibly create an illegal situation with a tiny set screw. Actually it is beyond interesting, it is F'ing moronic.

Cypren
02-04-2009, 9:34 AM
It's also interesting how obtuse and confused CA gun laws have become when the legality of posessing a particular firearm depends on whether some mental midget can somehow, sometime, possibly create an illegal situation with a tiny set screw. Actually it is beyond interesting, it is F'ing moronic.

That's what happens when the people writing them are trying to use them as a proxy for blanket banning and confiscation without outright saying so.

fairfaxjim
02-04-2009, 9:50 AM
That's what happens when the people writing them are trying to use them as a proxy for blanket banning and confiscation without outright saying so.

I believe they have termed that "sensible gun laws!" Go figure.

DDT
02-04-2009, 11:37 AM
It's interesting how these threads take on a life of their own. The OP by Gene specifically states that this is a "consensus" developing "among District Attorneys due to DOJ BoF's continued silence." By page 23 we have the DOJ painfully drafting a letter on the BB's legality, among other reported DOJ action in this arena.


It's funny, I thought the same thing and had to search for all of Gene's postings in this thread to see where he said the letter was coming. And I am sure it is quite painful.

artherd
02-04-2009, 1:30 PM
It doesn't really count if you just insert the tip.

LOL :eek: I've got some calls to make...

DDT
02-04-2009, 1:58 PM
LOL :eek: I've got some calls to make...

thought you might have more calls to make if you found out that it DID count.

Davidwhitewolf
02-04-2009, 3:11 PM
It doesn't really count if you just insert the tip.

:rofl2:

sorensen440
02-04-2009, 3:13 PM
It doesn't really count if you just insert the tip.
Yes unfortunately it does....:(

























jk :p

bobfried
02-04-2009, 6:07 PM
I swear some of the people on this board are the most PESSIMISTIC people I have ever read posts from.

This is one of those classic half-empty versus half-full analogy.

People, what is being told to us here is very simple:

Prince50's have been deemed a gray area by DA's JUST AS THEY ALWAYS HAVE!

Bullet Buttons are now deemed LESS PROSECUTABLE (and therefore de facto legal) unlike the past.

READ it closely and stop interpreting something that is not there. No one is saying that a Prince50 is more or less legal than it has ever been, the status of a Prince50 mag-lock have not change. It is rather that BB are now deemed MORE ACCEPTABLE by DA's. All of the people so far seems to completely miss the fact that the status of a Prince50 has not change. All those that keep on questioning and discussing why a Prince50 is now more illegal needs to read more closely and understand the way the law works a bit more. NOTHING has changed concerning the Prince50. The DA"s are not saying they have an opinion making the Prince50 illegal, just that they deem it to be the same limbo status as it have always been. What they ARE saying is that they will now concede the point that BB are perfectly legal.

To sum it all up in BOLD prints so people that does not like reading will notice the point:

NOTHING HAVE CHANGE CONCERNING THE PRINCE50.

WE HAVE GAINED THE POSITIVE OPINIONS OF DA's ON THE USE BB!

We have not lost anything, rather we have gained something concrete that would make any FFL be comfortable enough to DROS an OLL.

And on a side note, I just changed over to a BB today before even reading this post from my Prince50. Like many other have said, the evolution of BB's have clearly make the old Prince50 design obsolete.

Ford8N
02-04-2009, 6:21 PM
That's what happens when the people writing them are trying to use them as a proxy for blanket banning and confiscation without outright saying so.

Exactly.

And their puppets and minions run the BOF. Can you imagine all the money they have cost the tax payer of this state enforcing bad law and all the ill will it has created. Sad.

grywlfbg
02-04-2009, 8:29 PM
Some people are concerned about the Radlock as I hadn't answered that question directly. Since the Radlock in CA mode doesn't need to be removed to remove the magazine it would most likely be considered a bullet button analog and would be fine.

Don't panic folks. Just move way from the old set screw on ARs.

I don't have a dog in this fight as I run MMG's and brakes on my AR's but I don't see how a Raddlock, B15 or B16 are any less "safe" than a P50. Any of them can disabled by removing a screw.

So it seems to me that all of those are just as susceptible to "evidence tampering" as the P50.

I agree w/ some of the others. The thread should have been more about the victory of having a BB (but which one?) declared "legal" by at least one DA. This fear-mongering over the P50 is a bit over the top.

hoffmang
02-04-2009, 9:27 PM
I don't have a dog in this fight as I run MMG's and brakes on my AR's but I don't see how a Raddlock, B15 or B16 are any less "safe" than a P50. Any of them can disabled by removing a screw.


There is a difference between:

"Can be disabled by removing a single screw"

and

"Is disabled on every reload in routine operation."

-Gene

Harbinger
02-04-2009, 9:29 PM
Thanks for the insight, Gene. This is good info from the front lines.

Mike

peepshowal
02-04-2009, 10:12 PM
Since it was introduced, I've liked the Bullet Button more than the other mag locks so this information makes the choice that much easier. I'm looking forward to reading the letter from a DA that says that Bullet Buttons are legal. Thank you Gene.

bohoki
02-05-2009, 12:15 AM
the one using the set screw should never be backed out at the range for reloading cause if you back it out and drop the magazine and you are immediatly slapped in cuffs your firearm would be in an illegal configuration

of course i'm sure it has been said before that you have to take the upper off before you back off the set screw

but illegal of itself nope not going to happen it can be used legally and illegally

so its legal uses override its illegal ones

unlike a drop in auto sear still looking for a legal use for one of those

DDT
02-05-2009, 12:50 AM
the one using the set screw should never be backed out at the range for reloading cause if you back it out and drop the magazine and you are immediatly slapped in cuffs your firearm would be in an illegal configuration

of course i'm sure it has been said before that you have to take the upper off before you back off the set screw


Actually even if you aren't immediately cuffed your weapon is still an assault weapon and re-assembling it into a legal configuration doesn't get you off the hook.

I don't even know if you should be unscrewing the set screw with the upper shucked. The magazine is clearly still a centerfire and the pistol grip makes 2 evil features. If you have the semi-auto receiver sitting there and no bolt-action nearby a DA is likely to give it a go if a cop decides to arrest you. You will have a highly defendable case but you'll also havea higher chance of having to defend it.

fairfaxjim
02-05-2009, 8:48 AM
Actually even if you aren't immediately cuffed your weapon is still an assault weapon and re-assembling it into a legal configuration doesn't get you off the hook.

I don't even know if you should be unscrewing the set screw with the upper shucked. The magazine is clearly still a centerfire and the pistol grip makes 2 evil features. If you have the semi-auto receiver sitting there and no bolt-action nearby a DA is likely to give it a go if a cop decides to arrest you. You will have a highly defendable case but you'll also havea higher chance of having to defend it.

If I remember correctly, early on in the OLL evolution, the procdeure to stay legal was remove the upper, remove the pistol grip, then release the mag lock. Later on that seemed to become simply remove the upper, because a lower receiver by itself was no longer a "semiautomatic, centerfire rifle" and not subject to PC12276

mecam
02-05-2009, 9:04 AM
A Bullet Button or B16 does not require in normal usage that you remove the kit itself. You generally only do that when you travel out of state. The truth of the matter is that average gun owners are not top loading their Classic Prince-50 equipped rifles and are thus manufacturing AWs. Even the friendly DA's want to dissuade that activity. Non gun aware DA's are just going to follow suit.

-Gene

I see people do this all the time at the range. I'm like WTF are you doing, but it's really not my business so.... It's their attorney fee.

mecam
02-05-2009, 9:09 AM
What exactly is the difference between a BB and a Prince 50? Pic's would be greatly appreciated as I'm sure I have both and want to make sure which is the good to go one.

From www.riflegear.com


Bullet Button
http://www.riflegear.com/images/PRODUCT/icon/58.jpg


Prince 50
http://www.riflegear.com/images/PRODUCT/icon/57.jpg

RobG
02-05-2009, 9:15 AM
I see people do this all the time at the range. I'm like WTF are you doing, but it's really not my business so.... It's their attorney fee.

I have seen it as well. Not my issue BUT, if I am shooting mine at the same time (has BB) and they get questioned by some "po-po" at the range I may attract unwanted attention as well.

Some do not know that the p50 should be locked down ALL THE TIME.
If you loosen the set screw then push in the button, it is not legal. The tool did not release the mag, your finger did. Of course for some that is one in the same:p