PDA

View Full Version : Bullet button subtlety


GTIdentity
10-28-2009, 4:17 PM
New to the forum, and have a question of legal “subtlety”

I am assembling my first AR. I have done my California compliant research (thank you very much to everyone on this forum for great info), and I am left with a silly question.

The bullet button when installed prevents the user from dropping (changing) the mag without a tool. However, I am still able to insert a mag into the well.

Is this a subtle point that could cause undesirable attention from “anyone”, or am I being overly concerned?

Thanks for your opinions.

dantodd
10-28-2009, 4:20 PM
No law against attachable magazines just detachable ones. This has been beaten to death, try using google's site search if you really want to read more about it.

bwiese
10-28-2009, 4:43 PM
A magazine is a magazine is a magazine.

Its status as detachable vs. nondetachable is determined not by the magazine, but exclusively by the design of the gun.

Regulatory definition of 'detachable magazine' requires mag to be removed by hand without using tool. Thus, a rifle w/BulletButton maglock and magazine does not have a detachable magazine. A magazine that is removable does not necessarily meet the legal definition of 'detachable'.

When a mag is latched in it is not detachable. The rifle is not capable of accepting a detachable magazine because the magzine alone and on its own is neither category, and when it's latched in, it's not detachable per regulatory definition.

hoffmang
10-28-2009, 4:45 PM
Here is a nice background on the law of "detachable magazines" http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Non_detachable_magazines

-Gene

leelaw
10-28-2009, 5:17 PM
Short answer: an attachable magazine is legal, a detachable magazine is not (in the specific situation of a centerfire, semi-automatic rifle with one or more prohibited "features"). A magazine by itself is neither attachable or detachable, it's the mechanism that holds or locks it in place that determines such a thing. A Bullet Button determines that the magazine is "fixed" magazine, per the written law and the DOJ clarification on the term.

Long answer: read what's at Gene's link above.

Mstrty
10-28-2009, 6:54 PM
A magazine is a magazine is a magazine.

Its status as detachable vs. nondetachable is determined not by the magazine, but exclusively by the design of the gun.

Regulatory definition of 'detachable magazine' requires mag to be removed by hand without using tool. Thus, a rifle w/BulletButton maglock and magazine does not have a detachable magazine. A magazine that is removable does not necessarily meet the legal definition of 'detachable'.

When a mag is latched in it is not detachable. The rifle is not capable of accepting a detachable magazine because the magzine alone and on its own is neither category, and when it's latched in, it's not detachable per regulatory definition.

I have read about this 100 times before. I understand the law. But this^ explanation was the best and easiest to understand I have heard yet. It was almost symphonic.:D

tenpercentfirearms
10-29-2009, 5:29 AM
To answer you question, yes you could end up getting in trouble with law enforcement that only has access to the penal code. The Penal Code specifically states 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 LEO that only reads the penal code and sees your open magwell AR15 with Bullet Button could easily conclude that it has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine.

However, if they should take your firearm and decide to turn you over to the DA, please contact the Calguns Foundation and we will assist you in educating them. To further protect yourself, carry around CCR 978.20(a) [Now it is CCR 5469(a)].

So yes the Bullet Button is perfectly legal, but a police officer might not understand this. You should be fully prepared to educate them, even going so far as to carrying around the relevant penal code sections and CCR and being able to recite them nearly verbatim. I also reduce my risk by transporting my Bullet Button equipped firearms with an empty magazine in the magazine well. I do not have to tell the officer it is a Bullet Button, but can say it is a fixed magazine device and the only way to remove the magazine is to take a screw drive and take that whole thing apart. He doesn't have to know that as soon as he puts the screw driver in the hole, the magazine will release.

If he calls you on it and says, "That is a Bullet Button!" then odds are he owns one too.

mikehaas
10-29-2009, 6:18 AM
...This has been beaten to death...
Aw, I think people just like talking about it. This "beaten to death" question brought out half of the calguns power in almost as many posts! :donatello:

Anyone see the world's fastest speed reader on Glenn Beck a few days ago? This guy read the entire 1500+ page Baucus HC buill in about 40 minutes. And when he was done, he was an expert on HC. :notworthy:

Just one thread on calguns can make you feel like that. :sailor:

10TH AMENDMENT
10-29-2009, 6:20 AM
GTIdentity...Also understand this, and understand it good. ALL law enforcement agencies in the state of California are still carrying out their duties re. "Assault Weapons" under the original unamended, incomplete third edition of the "Assault Weapon Identification Guide" released by the DOJ in 2001. This Law Enforcement Manual is fundamentally erroneous in respect to the enforcement paradigm established in the California Supreme Court's Harrott ruling.

What that means in practical terms is that any owner of a weapon that is 100% legal under the law established in Harrott can still be put into the system by law enforcement under the "Assault Weapon Identification Guide" Category 2 erroneous definition of an "Assault Weapon".

Librarian
10-29-2009, 6:59 AM
GTIdentity...Also understand this, and understand it good. ALL law enforcement agencies in the state of California are still carrying out their duties re. "Assault Weapons" under the original unamended, incomplete third edition of the "Assault Weapon Identification Guide" released by the DOJ in 2001. This Law Enforcement Manual is fundamentally erroneous in respect to the enforcement paradigm established in the California Supreme Court's Harrott ruling.

What that means in practical terms is that any owner of a weapon that is 100% legal under the law established in Harrott can still be put into the system by law enforcement under the "Assault Weapon Identification Guide" Category 2 erroneous definition of an "Assault Weapon".
Well, let's say "substantially all", because we've seen a few instances of proper training here and there.

But it's true - just because they're wrong doesn't mean you cannot be arrested, charged and prosecuted.

GTIdentity
10-29-2009, 7:40 AM
Thank you one and all. Consider my education complete!

bombadillo
10-29-2009, 8:10 AM
Wow, the OP got tag teamed right off the bat. Bwiese and Hoffmang popped out the old 1, 2:boxing_smiley:

Timberwolf
10-29-2009, 8:43 AM
From a practical (RO at public range) standpoint seeing a mag out of an AR type rifle that is not featureless will prompt my attention and a closer. However, we also know, for the most part, what BBs are and can generally ID them on sight. Most LEOs that I know who frequent our range are savy as well.