PDA

View Full Version : Bullet button---legal in CA


bodiebill
12-13-2009, 9:05 PM
An out-of-state gunsmith is building an AKM for me.
I sent him the bullet button to install.
He read on the instructions that it was not CA DOJ approved and is now spooked.
I had requested that my CA FFL send him some words of solace that the gunsmith could ship the AKM to the FFL dealer, and that the dealer would receive the gun and process the necessary paperwork---I don't know what the FFL sent to the gunsmith.
In any event could someone provide me with sufficient "official" information that the "bullet button" is OK in CA.
Edit/Delete Message

jamesob
12-13-2009, 9:08 PM
you wil not find any "official" approval.

professorhard
12-13-2009, 9:09 PM
If you have to just send it to a middle man.

Librarian
12-13-2009, 9:11 PM
Sigh.

DOJ will not approve anything (unless it makes things more difficult for gun owners - handgun and safety device rosters). Despite the fact that they also generally hate guns, it isn't really their job.

What you need to show is the California Code of Regulations describing a 'removable magazine' and a 'fixed magazine'.

See the wiki here (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Non_detachable_magazines).

Bullet button makes a 'fixed magazine' - it makes the rifle require a tool to release the magazine.

hoffmang
12-13-2009, 9:12 PM
You can send him the Sac PD memo (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/Sacramento-PD-OLL_Training_Bulletin-2008-11-18.pdf). Also, we should soon have another major LEA with documentary proof that they've adopted the AW Flow Chart.

-Gene

Cokebottle
12-13-2009, 9:12 PM
DOJ has neither approved nor disapproved any BB devices... they have remained silent on the issue. The manufacturer's note is their CYA should the DOJ ever in the future issue an "approved" list. The problem is, the statement may lead some to believe that there is an approved list and that this product does not qualify.

Wearing pink camo at the range is not "DOJ Approved" either.

Numerous OLL/BB guns have been confiscated by various LEA in the state. There have been exactly zero successful prosecutions, and the guns have been returned to their owners.

Bill Carson
12-14-2009, 1:18 AM
LSD was legal at one time. I spoke to a gun shop owner who spoke to a representative of the CA DOJ while he was getting his yearly inventory/inspection and she informed him that in all likelihood the "Bullet Button" will become illegal in Ca as soon as they get the money/time to push that law thru. Probably by the end of 2010. I could be wrong but this is what I Heard

Josh3239
12-14-2009, 2:21 AM
You should tell him the CA DOJ doesn't approve of him building guns or you buying them, but that doesn't mean you guys will get in trouble ;)

cbn620
12-14-2009, 3:49 AM
LSD was legal at one time. I spoke to a gun shop owner who spoke to a representative of the CA DOJ while he was getting his yearly inventory/inspection and she informed him that in all likelihood the "Bullet Button" will become illegal in Ca as soon as they get the money/time to push that law thru. Probably by the end of 2010. I could be wrong but this is what I Heard

Who's "they"?

ENTHUSIAST
12-14-2009, 4:13 AM
... I spoke to a gun shop owner who spoke to a representative of the CA DOJ while he was getting his yearly inventory/inspection and she informed him that in all likelihood the "Bullet Button" will become illegal in Ca as soon as they get the money/time to push that law thru. Probably by the end of 2010. I could be wrong but this is what I Heard

I spoke to my cousin's sister's neighbor's aunt's grandma's maid's busdriver's grandpa's brother's uncle's friend that heard from... :fud:

bodger
12-14-2009, 7:30 AM
LSD was legal at one time. I spoke to a gun shop owner who spoke to a representative of the CA DOJ while he was getting his yearly inventory/inspection and she informed him that in all likelihood the "Bullet Button" will become illegal in Ca as soon as they get the money/time to push that law thru. Probably by the end of 2010. I could be wrong but this is what I Heard


No big deal. Just slip in the ten round mag, drill a pilot hole for a #10 sheet metal screw, affix screw, and grind out the phillips head so no tool can turn the screw.

Fixed mag, no mag release.

I think I'll go ahead and drill the pilot holes now, just in case.

glock_this
12-14-2009, 7:38 AM
all DOJ approval/lack of aside, the funny thing here is the BB was created out of a need specifically for those of us in CA.... so for someone to hem and haw about its legality in CA is kind of funny

adamsreeftank
12-14-2009, 1:03 PM
If someone can find it, send him a link the the interview with (then) DOJ guy Iggy Chin showing off the bullet button and stating that it was legal.

jamesob
12-14-2009, 8:22 PM
If someone can find it, send him a link the the interview with (then) DOJ guy Iggy Chin showing off the bullet button and stating that it was legal.

if i remember he never said it was legal, the reporter did.

cbn620
12-14-2009, 8:51 PM
No big deal. Just slip in the ten round mag, drill a pilot hole for a #10 sheet metal screw, affix screw, and grind out the phillips head so no tool can turn the screw.

Fixed mag, no mag release.

I think I'll go ahead and drill the pilot holes now, just in case.

I can dig it, but I didn't realize you could load the mag on an AR from the top like that. Isn't it kinda difficult?

Cokebottle
12-14-2009, 9:02 PM
I can dig it, but I didn't realize you could load the mag on an AR from the top like that. Isn't it kinda difficult?
Mod the takedown pins to allow for top-loading like the Carbon-15.
PITA, but better than not having a x-15 at all.

But IMHO, the DOJ rep simply fed a spoon of FUD to the shop owner.
The BB has been acceptable for what, 5 years now? At least 2.
There's too many in use to not have yet another grace period.

glock_this
12-14-2009, 9:06 PM
I can dig it, but I didn't realize you could load the mag on an AR from the top like that. Isn't it kinda difficult?

this IS how it was done when we first started getting AR's CA legal back in the 2005ish days. you used a nice rear take down pin and flipped the upper up, loaded from the top into the mag. I modified speed loaders to fit the mag while in the magwell/receiver to try to speed it up. it was a PITA.

glock_this
12-14-2009, 9:10 PM
Mod the takedown pins to allow for top-loading like the Carbon-15.


why mod them when you can buy YHM or Prince or some other custom ones off the web that have key chain holes and stick out so as to grab easier and pull

The BB has been acceptable for what, 5 years now? At least 2..

def not 5. 5 would be back before 2005 into 2004 and heck, it was just starting around then for CA AR people. in 2005 the best we could do was pinned mags like with Vulcan.. BB is maybe 2-3 years

Cokebottle
12-14-2009, 9:19 PM
why mod them when you can buy YHM or Prince or some other custom ones off the web that have key chain holes and stick out so as to grab easier and pull
That's what I meant. Shouldn't have said "mod".
def not 5. 5 would be back before 2005 into 2004 and heck, it was just starting around then for CA AR people. in 2005 the best we could do was pinned mags like with Vulcan.. BB is maybe 2-3 years
Ya, wasn't really sure when it started. I knew the OLL thing started in '05 and the BB was much more recent. I figured probably 2 years.

Top loading won't really be an option on AK-platform rifles, right?
That means another grace period and another round of registration....
Meaning tens of thousands of new RAW in the state and the ability to remove the freaking maglocks and run 30rd mags.

No... I seriously doubt they are going to declare the BB illegal.

CHS
12-15-2009, 8:24 AM
One thing that you need to tell the out-of-state dealer is that the DoJ is not like the BATFE. They don't have a "tech branch" who's job it is to write opinion letters and rulings all day long. They have a small bureau of firearms who's job is primarily to process background checks for gun purchases in CA. They do not approve or disapprove of firearms or devices in CA, with the exception of handguns that are qualified to appear on the Roster of Certified Handguns for Sale.

In fact, if you have a handgun that would be exempt from that roster (single shot or single-action revolver, etc) and you call the DoJ about approval, they'll simply tell you to read the law and make sure it's exempt and exempt guns don't need approval.

thedrickel
12-15-2009, 11:08 AM
BB illegal? Who cares . . . there is an option known as "featureless" which is quite superior, both functionally and legally, IMHO.

Except when it comes to FALs, of course. :D

glock_this
12-15-2009, 11:10 AM
BB illegal? Who cares . . . there is an option known as "featureless" which is quite superior, both functionally and legally, IMHO.

Except when it comes to FALs, of course. :D

but then you have to use one of those fugly, IMHO, stock/grip combos.. ick ;)

AndrewMendez
12-15-2009, 11:17 AM
LSD was legal at one time. I spoke to a gun shop owner who spoke to a representative of the CA DOJ while he was getting his yearly inventory/inspection and she informed him that in all likelihood the "Bullet Button" will become illegal in Ca as soon as they get the money/time to push that law thru. Probably by the end of 2010. I could be wrong but this is what I Heard

Where did she get the Crystal ball from?

If we are waiting for California to have money, then I think its pretty safe to say we are in the clear for the next 50 Years!!

Suvorov
12-15-2009, 1:47 PM
Originally Posted by Bill Carson View Post
LSD was legal at one time. I spoke to a gun shop owner who spoke to a representative of the CA DOJ while he was getting his yearly inventory/inspection and she informed him that in all likelihood the "Bullet Button" will become illegal in Ca as soon as they get the money/time to push that law thru. Probably by the end of 2010. I could be wrong but this is what I Heard

Hmm, didn't realize the DOJ had the power to make laws :confused:

ke6guj
12-15-2009, 1:54 PM
Hmm, didn't realize the DOJ had the power to make laws :confused:

"push that law through" would be code for have anti-gun legislators do CADOJ's bidding and submit legislation to do what CADOJ wanted.

Suvorov
12-15-2009, 2:01 PM
"push that law through" would be code for have anti-gun legislators do CADOJ's bidding and submit legislation to do what CADOJ wanted.

So then, I didn't know it was the job of the DOJ to advocate or fund new laws, I though it was their job to enforce them :confused:

I think I am confused on this whole "tyranny thing" :rolleyes:

ke6guj
12-15-2009, 2:14 PM
So then, I didn't know it was the job of the DOJ to advocate or fund new laws, I though it was their job to enforce them :confused:

I think I am confused on this whole "tyranny thing" :rolleyes:you actually think that LE-agencies don't push for new laws from time to time? That they don't ask for "loopholes" to be closed?

Suvorov
12-15-2009, 2:17 PM
you actually think that LE-agencies don't push for new laws from time to time? That they don't ask for "loopholes" to be closed?

Bullet buttons are not "loopholes", they are simply ways to comply with law. You assume nativity on my part, trust me, I know the way it rolls. Just pointing out that it is NOT the role of Law Enforcement to legislate. :cool:

IF this DOJ agent did say what the poster claimed, then she would have been far out of line (in addition to spreading FUD).

ke6guj
12-15-2009, 2:31 PM
Bullet buttons are not "loopholes", they are simply ways to comply with law. You assume nativity on my part, trust me, I know the way it rolls. Just pointing out that it is NOT the role of Law Enforcement to legislate. :cool:
I know a BB isn't a "loophole", why do you think I put it in quotes?

My point is that it wouldn't take much for CADOJ to go to an anti-gun legislator and say "those pesky gun nuts found a loophole in your AW law. If you were to amend it to say XYZ, it could close the loophole that is allowing those gun nuts to buy AWs."

It may not be the role of LE to legislate, but are they prohibited from talking to legislators about laws they'd like to see passed, no.

bodger
12-15-2009, 4:04 PM
I can dig it, but I didn't realize you could load the mag on an AR from the top like that. Isn't it kinda difficult?

I was being sarcastic. But I did have a Carbon 15 that toploaded. It was ridiculously cumbersome. I hope we never go back to that in lieu of BB's.

Bullet buttons are not "loopholes", they are simply ways to comply with law. You assume nativity on my part, trust me, I know the way it rolls. (snip)


Okay, that's the funniest typo I've seen in a while. Assuming nativity. :D:D

Away in a manger. Happy holidays.

Hopi
12-15-2009, 4:06 PM
BB illegal? Who cares . . . there is an option known as "featureless" which is quite superior, both functionally and legally, IMHO.

Except when it comes to FALs, of course. :D

LOL. Bullet buttons are for tools. ;) :p

Bill Carson
12-21-2009, 7:07 AM
" they" would be the government and yes the DOJ does have an agenda regarding firearms. Who do you think is in the lawmakers ears ? California may never have the money to get this bullet button illegalized but I would not bet on it. It does not matter who my source of information is, anyone in their right mind can see that the DOJ, goverment, politicians in California are mostly anti-2A. Just because the " bullet button" was invented to circumnavigate the current laws does not mean it will be invincible. This is not a game of cat and mouse this is a war with each side using changing tactics and strategies to win.

Bill Carson
12-21-2009, 7:15 AM
One shooting spree by one wacko with a gun with the bullet button feature and watch what happens. The baby gets thrown out with the bath water and the bullet button will be demonized for allowing aforementioned wacko to reload so quickly. Common sense does not make laws, popular opinion does.

Cokebottle
12-21-2009, 1:28 PM
One shooting spree by one wacko with a gun with the bullet button feature and watch what happens. The baby gets thrown out with the bath water and the bullet button will be demonized for allowing aforementioned wacko to reload so quickly.
And we go back to top-loading with a pinned-down P50

n2k
12-21-2009, 1:53 PM
you wil not find any "official" approval.



DOJ will not approve anything (unless it makes things more difficult for gun owners - handgun and safety device rosters). Despite the fact that they also generally hate guns, it isn't really their job.



About that, Gun World in Burbank for years stated that OLL, BB and AK were illegal and would make you a felon.

They now state that they have a letter from the DOJ stating the legality of these and are now carrying them in their shop with the BB.

The only reason I use this example is because we know what kind of reputation Gun World has.

Would it be possible that DOJ actually provided them with some type of conformation letter?

ke6guj
12-21-2009, 2:15 PM
About that, Gun World in Burbank for years stated that OLL, BB and AK were illegal and would make you a felon.

They now state that they have a letter from the DOJ stating the legality of these and are now carrying them in their shop with the BB.

The only reason I use this example is because we know what kind of reputation Gun World has.

Would it be possible that DOJ actually provided them with some type of conformation letter?

Does GW show a copy of that letter to customers? If not, can it be PRAR'ed from CADOJ?

n2k
12-21-2009, 2:18 PM
Does GW show a copy of that letter to customers? If not, can it be PRAR'ed from CADOJ?

I asked to see it, they stated that it is in their files. :rolleyes:

That is why I brought it up here, to see if anyone else has heard of this unseen letter.

ddeu
01-05-2010, 1:39 PM
I have heard, seen and read all kinds of info on the "bullet button' and how it makes guns w/ detachable magzines 'legal' in California... after research the CA Attorney General website and CA penal codes on the assault weapon ban, I found that what appears to be a ruling in February, 2000.... a bullet is not a tool, and therefore a bullet button does not make the gun legal... here is an excerpt:

978.20(a) - Detachable Magazine
The proposed definition as originally noticed to the public defined a detachable magazine as “any
magazine that can be readily removed without the use of tools.” During the initial public comment
period (December 31, 1999 through February 28, 2000), comments were received that caused the
Department to make revisions to the definition. Comments expressed concern about the use of the
term “magazine,” which is often erroneously used to describe clips that are used to load
ammunition into a fixed magazine. Recognizing that to be true, the Department changed the word
“magazine” to the statutory term “ammunition feeding device” (PC section 12276.1(c)(1)). The
Department also added the phrase “without disassembly of the firearm action” as a result of public
comment stating that there are firearms with fixed magazines that can be field stripped
(disassembled in the field) without using any tools (such as the M1 Garand). Including those
firearms in the definition of a “detachable magazine” would have been inconsistent with the
legislative intent of the statute. Several comments were made that claimed that an assault weapon
pursuant to PC section 12276 has a detachable magazine requiring the use of a bullet tip or
cartridge to remove it from the firearm. The comments claimed that if a bullet or ammunition
cartridge were to be considered a tool, these types of firearms statutorily defined as assault
weapons would not meet the definition of having a detachable magazine. For that reason the
Department added “For the purpose of this definition, a bullet or ammunition cartridge is not a
tool.” It was also necessary to add linked or belted ammunition to the definition of an ammunition
feeding device because that type of ammunition system feeds cartridges directly into the firing
chamber, like the spring and follower of a box-type magazine. The definition was accordingly
revised to read “detachable magazine means any ammunition feeding device that can be removed
readily from the firearm without disassembly of the firearm action or the use of a tool(s). For the
purpose of this definition, a bullet or ammunition cartridge is not a tool. Ammunition feeding
device includes any belted or linked ammunition.”

Does anybody know as a fact, that the "bullet button' is actually legal in CA ... or is this just marketing whoey to sell kits??

SP1200
01-05-2010, 1:46 PM
I think they should take the "not CA DOJ approved" quote of the inscructions. It is confusing! Out of state FFL's don't realize that the DOJ doesn't approve anything! The fact that NO ONE has ever been arrested and charged when properly using BB's is proof that it is approved by the laws of CA!

bwiese
01-05-2010, 1:52 PM
My point is that it wouldn't take much for CADOJ to go to an anti-gun legislator and say "those pesky gun nuts found a loophole in your AW law. If you were to amend it to say XYZ, it could close the loophole that is allowing those gun nuts to buy AWs."

BoF is kinda cornered.

1) pressure from above from friendly powers

2) doing this has to open an AW reg period for all OLL rifles and
SKSes (as well as a few others); seizures/confiscations (and likely compensation!) of 300K rifles would be a disaster and huge PR to
NRA [in CA and nationally] and Calguns. Aside from a practical
nightmare, it'd be a political nightmare and really wake gunnies
up.

3) the BoF really doesn't want more "AWs" and this action would produce that.

4) BoF staff smarter than Alison realize that this could lead to
a surge in reconfigured rifles that allow detachable magazines,
which are much more useable than BB rifles even if the grip is ugly.



[quote]It may not be the role of LE to legislate, but are they prohibited from talking to legislators about laws they'd like to see passed, no.

True. DOJ has their own lobbyists - "legislative relations" guys. For awhile one was Aaron McGuire, a Deputy AG III that was doing Alison's bidding - when OLL drama was occurring he was out there trying to solve the problem for AG Billy Lockyer.

I think McGuire is doing other things now, certainly the AG thru Bureau of Firearms is not really doing legislative outreach on gun matters and has not offered recent support for recent gun laws.

SJgunguy24
01-05-2010, 1:53 PM
Ok then have the builder remove the pistol grip and ship the gun that way, and mail the grip to the OP's address.

SP1200
01-05-2010, 2:09 PM
WTF! Where did you get this? Can you post a link? I have never seen this.
Are you sure it not just opinion of the DOJ form their FUD website???

Hoff? Have you seen this?


I have heard, seen and read all kinds of info on the "bullet button' and how it makes guns w/ detachable magzines 'legal' in California... after research the CA Attorney General website and CA penal codes on the assault weapon ban, I found that what appears to be a ruling in February, 2000.... a bullet is not a tool, and therefore a bullet button does not make the gun legal... here is an excerpt:

978.20(a) - Detachable Magazine
The proposed definition as originally noticed to the public defined a detachable magazine as “any
magazine that can be readily removed without the use of tools.” During the initial public comment
period (December 31, 1999 through February 28, 2000), comments were received that caused the
Department to make revisions to the definition. Comments expressed concern about the use of the
term “magazine,” which is often erroneously used to describe clips that are used to load
ammunition into a fixed magazine. Recognizing that to be true, the Department changed the word
“magazine” to the statutory term “ammunition feeding device” (PC section 12276.1(c)(1)). The
Department also added the phrase “without disassembly of the firearm action” as a result of public
comment stating that there are firearms with fixed magazines that can be field stripped
(disassembled in the field) without using any tools (such as the M1 Garand). Including those
firearms in the definition of a “detachable magazine” would have been inconsistent with the
legislative intent of the statute. Several comments were made that claimed that an assault weapon
pursuant to PC section 12276 has a detachable magazine requiring the use of a bullet tip or
cartridge to remove it from the firearm. The comments claimed that if a bullet or ammunition
cartridge were to be considered a tool, these types of firearms statutorily defined as assault
weapons would not meet the definition of having a detachable magazine. For that reason the
Department added “For the purpose of this definition, a bullet or ammunition cartridge is not a
tool.” It was also necessary to add linked or belted ammunition to the definition of an ammunition
feeding device because that type of ammunition system feeds cartridges directly into the firing
chamber, like the spring and follower of a box-type magazine. The definition was accordingly
revised to read “detachable magazine means any ammunition feeding device that can be removed
readily from the firearm without disassembly of the firearm action or the use of a tool(s). For the
purpose of this definition, a bullet or ammunition cartridge is not a tool. Ammunition feeding
device includes any belted or linked ammunition.”

Does anybody know as a fact, that the "bullet button' is actually legal in CA ... or is this just marketing whoey to sell kits??

bwiese
01-05-2010, 2:30 PM
The above is outdated crap, and is just part of proposed regulation.

The actual regulatory definition in 11 CCR 978.20 has been renumbered to 11 CCR 5469(a) and is as follows.

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


Please rest assured that the BulletButtond device, when used properly and other concerns (min. length, etc.) are addressed, ensures a semiauto centerfire rifle is not an AW. Otherwise we'd all be in jail now.

The Calguns Foundation will defend anyone legitimately using/ transporting a legitimately configured BB'd semiauto rifle from AW charges.

NiteQwill
01-05-2010, 2:46 PM
Please, stop. You have all the wrong information and you are spreading it unwisely.


I have heard, seen and read all kinds of info on the "bullet button' and how it makes guns w/ detachable magzines 'legal' in California... after research the CA Attorney General website and CA penal codes on the assault weapon ban, I found that what appears to be a ruling in February, 2000.... a bullet is not a tool, and therefore a bullet button does not make the gun legal... here is an excerpt:

978.20(a) - Detachable Magazine
The proposed definition as originally noticed to the public defined a detachable magazine as “any
magazine that can be readily removed without the use of tools.” During the initial public comment
period (December 31, 1999 through February 28, 2000), comments were received that caused the
Department to make revisions to the definition. Comments expressed concern about the use of the
term “magazine,” which is often erroneously used to describe clips that are used to load
ammunition into a fixed magazine. Recognizing that to be true, the Department changed the word
“magazine” to the statutory term “ammunition feeding device” (PC section 12276.1(c)(1)). The
Department also added the phrase “without disassembly of the firearm action” as a result of public
comment stating that there are firearms with fixed magazines that can be field stripped
(disassembled in the field) without using any tools (such as the M1 Garand). Including those
firearms in the definition of a “detachable magazine” would have been inconsistent with the
legislative intent of the statute. Several comments were made that claimed that an assault weapon
pursuant to PC section 12276 has a detachable magazine requiring the use of a bullet tip or
cartridge to remove it from the firearm. The comments claimed that if a bullet or ammunition
cartridge were to be considered a tool, these types of firearms statutorily defined as assault
weapons would not meet the definition of having a detachable magazine. For that reason the
Department added “For the purpose of this definition, a bullet or ammunition cartridge is not a
tool.” It was also necessary to add linked or belted ammunition to the definition of an ammunition
feeding device because that type of ammunition system feeds cartridges directly into the firing
chamber, like the spring and follower of a box-type magazine. The definition was accordingly
revised to read “detachable magazine means any ammunition feeding device that can be removed
readily from the firearm without disassembly of the firearm action or the use of a tool(s). For the
purpose of this definition, a bullet or ammunition cartridge is not a tool. Ammunition feeding
device includes any belted or linked ammunition.”

Does anybody know as a fact, that the "bullet button' is actually legal in CA ... or is this just marketing whoey to sell kits??

SP1200
01-05-2010, 3:42 PM
The above is outdated crap, and is just part of proposed regulation.

The actual regulatory definition in 11 CCR 978.20 has been renumbered to 11 CCR 5469(a) and is as follows.

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


Please rest assured that the BulletButtond device, when used properly and other concerns (min. length, etc.) are addressed, ensures a semiauto centerfire rifle is not an AW. Otherwise we'd all be in jail now.

The Calguns Foundation will defend anyone legitimately using/ transporting a legitimately configured BB'd semiauto rifle from AW charges.


Jesus F'N Christ! Dude that scared the hell out of me.
I travel to CA a lot with my OLL BB rifle!!!!

Suvorov
01-05-2010, 3:45 PM
Jesus F'N Christ! Dude that scared the hell out of me.
I travel to CA a lot with my OLL BB rifle!!!!

Yeah, not bad for his FIRST POST :TFH: :rolleyes:

Vtec44
01-05-2010, 3:59 PM
I have heard, seen and read all kinds of info on the "bullet button' and how it makes guns w/ detachable magzines 'legal' in California... after research the CA Attorney General website and CA penal codes on the assault weapon ban, I found that what appears to be a ruling in February, 2000.... a bullet is not a tool, and therefore a bullet button does not make the gun legal... here is an excerpt:


I'd like to see a direct link for this.

Here's the link to the Assault Weapon Identification Guide 3rd Edition 2001 (http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/awguide.pdf), directly from the CA Attorney General office. In the Glossary, Page 80, "Magazine, Detachable"

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

bwiese
01-05-2010, 5:54 PM
User 'ddeu' is all screwed up with outdated information during the regulatory proposal stage.

11 CCR 5499(a) holds for definition of 'detachable magazine' - one that requires a tool to remove.

Again, we'd all be in jail otherwise.

A BB renders a magazine nondetachable and renders the rifle "not capable of accepting a detachable magazine".

Remember, a magazine is neither detachable nor nondetachable on its own: the detachable vs. nondetachable status is solely determined by its relationship with the rifle, which in this case has a BB device.

'Constructive possession' does not apply to AWs due to expresio unius concept - thus the rifle must be regarded as it stands and not in consideration of any prospective modification into an illegal status.

Vtec44
01-05-2010, 6:02 PM
'Constructive possession' does not apply to AWs due to expresio unius concept - thus the rifle must be regarded as it stands and not in consideration of any prospective modification into an illegal status.

That's the best part :D

BroncoBob
01-05-2010, 6:29 PM
User 'ddeu' is all screwed up with outdated information during the regulatory proposal stage.



'Constructive possession' does not apply to AWs due to expresio unius concept - thus the rifle must be regarded as it stands and not in consideration of any prospective modification into an illegal status.

Just makes you feel really good all over when you read stuff like this.

Crusader Matt
01-05-2010, 7:44 PM
Dude that scared the hell out of me.
I travel to CA a lot with my OLL BB rifle!!!!

That scared me too. I just felt hours of AR building ideas and research begin to fall by the wayside, and that old feeling of wanting an AR but feeling helpless due to useless restrictions began to resurface. lol. The BB is like toilet paper, simple and bleepin genius.