PDA

View Full Version : Possible BATFE Rule changes.


bussda
01-24-2011, 8:26 PM
Found this http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-national/atf-technical-classifications-create-back-door-gun-control

It appears the new technical experts at ATF headquarters are making another technical determination in their new bid to classify firearms in a prohibitive way. We are all now aware that ATF will be requiring a multiple sales report an all rifles with a detachable magazine and a caliber larger than .220. The rationale for this is to stop assault type rifles going south of the border. It was not very well thought out in the planning stages. But when headquarters personnel make a plan it generally isnít good and it is implemented and who cares. If ATF was so concerned with monitoring what types of firearms were being trafficked why were the firearms they want to stop not properly described? What are these* boneheads really doing? All firearms owners know the .22 caliber rimfire is .224 in diameter. So if someone buys more than one Ruger 10/22 is a multiple sale form required? In accordance with the ATF plan it is. This plan also brought up the true ATF anti gun agenda which is what to do about the California bullet button. If you donít know, gun owners in California cannot own an AR15 that accepts a detachable magazine. A well thought out design was created in which the magazine off an AR15 can only come out with a tool. The magazine release is replaced with a latch with an internal release. A tool called a bullet button is inserted into the replacement magazine release to drop the magazine. In California, the most restrictive state for gun owners, this was defined as not being a detachable magazine. Yet ATF is going to redefine this system. To further the anti gun agenda ATF is classifying the bullet button system as a detachable magazine. ATF has the intention of defining, what a tool is, how much time it takes in the use of the tool to remove the magazine, and the time to install the replacement magazine catch. The reason this is such critical issue is because the ATF experts were watching U Tube and found a young kid rapidly detaching the magazine. If this young kid could* do it then it must be a new super device that all the drug cartels will be buying and replacing the normal magazine release on all of their AR type rifles. (Just sarcasm.) In this fervor to prohibit gun ownership by* attacking any detachable magazine gun above .220 they never thought about receivers. Under the new reporting instructions AR15 receivers are not regulated, nor are completely assembled AR15 receivers without an upper receiver regulated. I am sure that ATF must know this which lends credence* that this is just a new agenda for the ATF gun grabbers. Does anyone believe that if the ATF defines the bullet button as a detachable magazine federally that California will not redefine their law? Sorry California gun owners we really donít care.

Continue reading on Examiner.com: ATF technical classifications create back door Ďgun controlí - National gun rights | Examiner.com [url]

BKinzey
01-24-2011, 8:51 PM
The Bullet Button is to pass CA laws. ATF is Federal. Why would the Feds try to define CA law? Doesn't add up.

A tool called a bullet button is inserted into the replacement magazine release to drop the magazine.

That's not really correct either.

Hump0311
01-24-2011, 8:59 PM
Fail.

bussda
01-24-2011, 9:19 PM
I think someone is annoyed by CGF.

What it means is the current state definition of a detachable magazine can be superceded by a federal definition and allow prosecution of a currently legal configuration.

Easy convictions.

ke6guj
01-24-2011, 9:29 PM
The Bullet Button is to pass CA laws. ATF is Federal. Why would the Feds try to define CA law? Doesn't add up.


I recall a dealer here getting a letter from ATF stating that a maglocked firearm with something like a Bullet Button would be considered a fixed-mag per federal law. Why would that be important, for the reason in the OP, and perhaps regarding importation of some firearms that are consided "unsporting" with a standard mag release, but could be considered "sporting" with a maglock.

socal-shooter
01-24-2011, 9:32 PM
ruh-roh :(

tmncali
01-24-2011, 9:35 PM
just when i get around to building a BB'd AR!

Helpful_Cub
01-24-2011, 9:37 PM
First Saigas and now my beloved AR-15 and AR-10, say it isn't so!

oldyeller
01-24-2011, 9:39 PM
Kamila strike a deal with the Feds? I sure hope this is more FUD

zum
01-24-2011, 9:46 PM
OH MY....

wildhawker
01-24-2011, 9:48 PM
I think someone is annoyed by CGF.

What it means is the current state definition of a detachable magazine can be superceded by a federal definition and allow prosecution of a currently legal configuration.

Easy convictions.

Annoyed by CGF, doubtful. ATF isn't the agency we work with most often.

Any change in the Federal definition of detachable is limited to that jurisdiction.

jtmkinsd
01-24-2011, 9:50 PM
I have an email from ATF stating ATF would not consider BB equipped rifles as detachable magazine weapons. I forwarded the email to "the right people".

Here is the thread: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=383250

RRangel
01-24-2011, 9:52 PM
When Congress enacted the multiple sales reporting for handguns they could have required multiple sales of long guns but they specifically chose not to. How would BATFE get around not having authority to override congress? This is probably why the reporting plan has so far been nixed. I'm just saying.

oldyeller
01-24-2011, 9:55 PM
Can ATF change descriptions anytime they want?

bussda
01-24-2011, 10:05 PM
Can ATF change descriptions anytime they want?

Yes. And remember, their roots are in tax collection, not criminal law.

hoffmang
01-24-2011, 10:10 PM
ATF is well aware of the bullet button. As such, the intent of HQ was to get multiple sales reports on AR style rifles. However, the bulk of AR style rifle sales in CA aren't "detachable magazine." As such, ATF is trying to come up with a way to define AR style rifles into their regs while respecting the CA definition.

I wish them luck, and this could have very positive unintended consequences for California.

-Gene

curtisfong
01-24-2011, 10:16 PM
I wish them luck, and this could have very positive unintended consequences for California.


!

Let me guess, if the ATF says a rifle is a AR, but CA says it's not, it automatically becomes a RAW to BOTH the ATF and CA if registered as a RAR with the ATF, but not CA?

If so, LOL. Just LOL.

bwiese
01-24-2011, 10:21 PM
PLEASE RELAX.

These writers don't understand CA regulatory or AW laws and any side effects that would result. Please understand that various Calgunners (CGFers) have dealt with a chunk of this back in 2006 and it went nowhere.


All this proposed Fed stuff does is increase paperwork for OLL sales. It has no bearing on restricting sales or configuration of CA-legal rifles


DOJ already tried to redefine 'detachable magazine' definition in 2006 and failed for a variety of reasons. With 300+K black rifles in CA, the problem becomes near-galactic in scope and would trigger huge problems (like a new fleet of true assault weapons requiring registration or buyback) - which is why CA will let sleeping dogs lie.

Again, this proposed ATF rulemaking/redefinition DOES NOT CHANGE CA LAW. It merely triggers some FFL sales procedures.


I posted the reply below...

.................................................. ........................................



The regrettable federal redefinition has no real bearing on CA's 'detachable magazine' definition in 11 CCR 5469(a).



This definition specifically applies to the statutory generic "by features" AW definition in 12276.1PC and overrides any 'commonsense' word usage. Legally, a magazine regarded as nondetachable per this definition can be removable: this is why the BulletButton maglock (as well as similar devices for non-AR platforms) exists and has withstood significant, repeated legal scrutiny in CA.


Formal CA regulatory procedures - meaning per CA Govt Code 11340 et seq - would have to be followed to even attempt to change this definition. Furthermore, any change to this definition would trigger a slew of 'underground regulation' - that is, an illegal extension of the scope of the law, which would be fought in the state Office of Administrative Law. Among the problems would be how to handle the transition to AW status for the DOJ-approved DSArms "CaliFAL", the Barrett M82CA, and the plain ol' fixed-mag SKS.


This was was *already* attempted in 2006 (trying to add a concept of 'permanence' to nondetachable magazine configurations in an attempt to curtail black rifle sales) - and it failed to go thru for a variety of legal, technical and political reasons.

Connor P Price
01-24-2011, 10:29 PM
I wish them luck, and this could have very positive unintended consequences for California.

-Gene

You certainly do know how to stir up some excitement.

Flopper
01-25-2011, 12:25 PM
I wish them luck, and this could have very positive unintended consequences for California.

-Gene

:drool5:

Vette6T8
01-25-2011, 1:08 PM
Not to threadjack; but this is not entirely different from the EPA shutting down facilities or prohibiting new ones based on random emission standards.
Or the TSA's new radiation or pat-down policy.
Or the Federal Reserve issuing new money from nothing to offset the bank bailouts.
Or the ATF banning Saiga-12 imports.

It is rule by fiat; and often without oversight. Besides, issuing a memo is far easier than actually passing a law.

They will get this done if they decide they really want to.

MasterYong
01-25-2011, 3:18 PM
First Saigas and now my beloved AR-15 and AR-10, say it isn't so!

Wait, what happened to Saigas?

Nothing that would affect a current owner of a maglocked Saiga-12, I hope...

bussda
01-25-2011, 4:02 PM
Wait, what happened to Saigas?

Nothing that would affect a current owner of a maglocked Saiga-12, I hope...

Over at http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=5688776&postcount=9 bwiese said:


...The Saiga stuff vs. DD classification is worrisome. And I'm unclear if homebuilt Saiga 12s built from flats or non-RAAC Saiga OLL receivers and parts kits will be affected. This does seem to indicate a parallel reprise of the StreetSweeper (and Striker-12??) DD situations in the past.
...



Nothing yet. Be aware, but don't panic.

Pred@tor
01-25-2011, 7:14 PM
The ATF is pissed they cant screw us over anymore because there is no federal AW ban and they hate the fact we can own our ugly semi-autos. Why else are they wanting to pull this bull **** on us? www.atfabuse.org Their job is to make non violent law abiding people into criminals because their gun hobbies. It isnt right and it is very wrong.

luckystrike
01-25-2011, 7:20 PM
"how much time it takes in the use of the tool to remove the magazine"

Ok honor system, insert tool, hold for 15 seconds then release

sorensen440
01-25-2011, 7:22 PM
Everyone panic !

IrishPirate
01-25-2011, 7:29 PM
looks like ATF is throwing out another easy pitch so CGF/NRA can hit yet ANOTHER home run...

rimfire78
01-25-2011, 8:27 PM
looks like ATF is throwing out another easy pitch so CGF/NRA can hit yet ANOTHER home run...

:punk:

yellowfin
01-26-2011, 3:30 AM
Are the ATF's official cars all Fiats?