PDA

View Full Version : Bullet Button Legal?...Is it Resolved??


bcj128
02-03-2011, 9:11 AM
I am being told by an ffl that they will not ship BB receivers to CA because the DOJ is still undecided on the Bullet Button's legality. IN addition he seemed to "believe" they were leaning on the side of it beiong illegal.

Has there been any definitive word on this? I would like to assume there has, but we all know where assuming gets you. Especially with the hundreds of thousands of BB receivers bought in CA.

Any word on this?

CSACANNONEER
02-03-2011, 9:13 AM
How was this resolved so fast? Did the OOS FFL realize that CA DOJ does not approve any mag locks but, that doesn't mean they are illegal to own or use?

RobG
02-03-2011, 9:24 AM
Jeez... Stop listening to "gun shop guy." There is no legality/illegality in regards to the bullet buttons. It is simply a device to lock the mag in place requiring a tool, just like the doj states, to release it. It would be no different than the doj approving epoxy to permanantly attach a mag to the magwell.

jtmkinsd
02-03-2011, 9:26 AM
I am being told by an ffl that they will not ship BB receivers to CA because the DOJ is still undecided on the Bullet Button's legality. IN addition he seemed to "believe" they were leaning on the side of it beiong illegal.

Has there been any definitive word on this? I would like to assume there has, but we all know where assuming gets you. Especially with the hundreds of thousands of BB receivers bought in CA.

Any word on this?

I don't know who your FFL but he must have been living under a rock for the last few years.

No there has been no "definitive word" on this, and there never will be. The BB meets the definition of "fixed magazine" by both DOJ and ATF standards.

CSACANNONEER
02-03-2011, 9:29 AM
You guys aren't reading the OP's post right. He is talking about an out of state FFL who doesn't want to ship OLLs to Ca with maglocks installed.

BTW, why won't he ship a lower without a mag lock? If you build a featureless rifle, you don't need or want a mag lock anyway. So, just ask him to send them without mag locks.

jtmkinsd
02-03-2011, 9:34 AM
You guys aren't reading the OP's post right. He is talking about an out of state FFL who doesn't want to ship OLLs to Ca with maglocks installed.

BTW, why won't he ship a lower without a mag lock? If you build a featureless rifle, you don't need or want a mag lock anyway. So, just ask him to send them without mag locks.

I understood what he was saying...just wondering if the FFL was in a cabin up in the appalachian mountanins...only place I can think of where they might still be thinking this way.

CSACANNONEER
02-03-2011, 9:38 AM
I understood what he was saying...just wondering if the FFL was in a cabin up in the appalachian mountanins...only place I can think of where they might still be thinking this way.

Not every FFL in the country has the want or desire to pay attention to laws in states which he/she doesn't normally do bussiness with. Have they even discovered firearms chambered for metalic cartridges in the Appalachians yet? I wasw under the impression that they recently started transitioning from flinters to caplocks.

jtmkinsd
02-03-2011, 9:39 AM
:rofl2:

Window_Seat
02-03-2011, 9:44 AM
I am being told by an ffl that they will not ship BB receivers to CA because the DOJ is still undecided on the Bullet Button's legality. IN addition he seemed to "believe" they were leaning on the side of it beiong illegal.

Has there been any definitive word on this? I would like to assume there has, but we all know where assuming gets you. Especially with the hundreds of thousands of BB receivers bought in CA.

Any word on this?

One simple statement:

HIS LOSS is someone else's gain.

Erik.

Blackhawk556
02-03-2011, 10:04 AM
Why don't you buy elsewhere? They seem to be in stock everywhere. The Obama craze is over imo.

aermotor
02-03-2011, 10:40 AM
What the heck is a "bullet button receiver" ?

wash
02-03-2011, 10:49 AM
The only mag lock with questionable legality that I know of is the Prince50 set screw style because some people were using them improperly (not top loading and loosening the set screw while still attached to an upper). Everything I've seen that's called a "bullet button" is good to go.

There is not much to say if a person won't sell a lower to you but if the confusion is just over the legality of OLLs and bullet buttons, that may clear it up.

CSACANNONEER
02-03-2011, 10:54 AM
The only mag lock with questionable legality that I know of is the Prince50 set screw style because some people were using them improperly (not top loading and loosening the set screw while still attached to an upper). Everything I've seen that's called a "bullet button" is good to go.

There is not much to say if a person won't sell a lower to you but if the confusion is just over the legality of OLLs and bullet buttons, that may clear it up.

People use bullet buttons imporperly too. Just like all the "bullet button" type locks, there is nothing illegal labout the P50 locks as long as they are used properly.

Japsican
02-03-2011, 11:14 AM
People use bullet buttons imporperly too. Just like all the "bullet button" type locks, there is nothing illegal labout the P50 locks as long as they are used properly.

Just curious...how do you use a bullet button improperly? Do the people attach that magnet button that defeats the bullet button or is it just the fact that they use "High capacity" mags?

CSACANNONEER
02-03-2011, 11:24 AM
Just curious...how do you use a bullet button improperly? Do the people attached that magnet button that defeats the bullet button or is it just the fact that they use "High capacity" mags?

Yep, a magnet or other attached "tool" (would make it no longer a tool but part of the firearm) would be illegal. Some BBs are designed in such a way that they can be adjusted for free states. It's just a quick turn of a wrench to do this. I don't see how imporper use of a BB is any different than imporper use of any other mag lock including a P50.

CHS
02-03-2011, 11:28 AM
Just curious...how do you use a bullet button improperly? Do the people attached that magnet button that defeats the bullet button or is it just the fact that they use "High capacity" mags?

Both.

I know of many police officers who build bullet button'ed OLL's, and then because they are allowed to BUY large-capacity magazines, they buy them and feel they are allowed to use them in their guns. Some of them just understand the law incorrectly, and will probably never be called out on it due to their LEO status, while some just don't care due to their LEO status.

People get the little red bullet button wrenches and use them when they're out shooting in the desert because "no one will ever know".

bcj128
02-03-2011, 9:07 PM
Thanks for the quick responses guys.

It was actually a HUGE well known throughout the internet distributor that claimed to have spoken with and gotten the info directly from DOJ.

I am an LEO, and am building a JD Machine Tech lower with bullet button to replace my bushmaster lower when I retire in a few years. I'll surrender my RAW lower to the local PD and put in the new lower to appease the AG.

SJgunguy24
02-03-2011, 9:47 PM
Thanks for the quick responses guys.

It was actually a HUGE well known throughout the internet distributor that claimed to have spoken with and gotten the info directly from DOJ.

I am an LEO, and am building a JD Machine Tech lower with bullet button to replace my bushmaster lower when I retire in a few years. I'll surrender my RAW lower to the local PD and put in the new lower to appease the AG.

Why though? There is no law stating you must surrender your RAW, only an opinion. Who cares what she thinks, the next AG may think every citizen must have a RAW but the law only allows exemptions for certain people.

Don29palms
02-03-2011, 10:53 PM
I was just at a large gun show in Costa Mesa last weekend. There were atleast 4 different vendors selling those magnets for the bullet buttons. Those things are going to get people in trouble that don't know any better.

furyous68
02-03-2011, 11:04 PM
Why though? There is no law stating you must surrender your RAW, only an opinion. Who cares what she thinks, the next AG may think every citizen must have a RAW but the law only allows exemptions for certain people.

I don't know which law it is exactly, but when I picked up a couple cable locks from my local PD, I struck up a conversation with the duty officer. He said the current law is that at retirement, all LEO's must surrender any assault weapons that they owned/ purchased as officers.

CHS
02-03-2011, 11:08 PM
I don't know which law it is exactly, but when I picked up a couple cable locks from my local PD, I struck up a conversation with the duty officer. He said the current law is that at retirement, all LEO's must surrender any assault weapons that they owned/ purchased as officers.

If they're registered, they are yours. Period.

SJgunguy24
02-04-2011, 12:10 AM
I don't know which law it is exactly, but when I picked up a couple cable locks from my local PD, I struck up a conversation with the duty officer. He said the current law is that at retirement, all LEO's must surrender any assault weapons that they owned/ purchased as officers.

He is wrong. If that was the case they will need to surrender all high cap mags and off roster guns.
There is no law against owning an AW, the acquisition of that AW must have been before the ban (unless there is an exemption used) and it must have paperwork. If a LEO gets a letter to buy an AW with his own money and it's registered, it's his property period.

bwiese
02-04-2011, 12:54 AM
He is wrong. If that was the case they will need to surrender all high cap mags and off roster guns.
There is no law against owning an AW, the acquisition of that AW must have been before the ban (unless there is an exemption used) and it must have paperwork. If a LEO gets a letter to buy an AW with his own money and it's registered, it's his property period.

Not quite. Actually there's a recent opinion letter from AG office stating that LE AWs are for term of duty only and they can't have them in retirement.

This is going to lead to interesting situations and drama over costs & detrimental reliance over cops buying them thinking they were not only for duty but personal use. It's also muddied the difference between 'registration' and 'permit'.

ale014
02-04-2011, 3:09 AM
Not quite. Actually there's a recent opinion letter from AG office stating that LE AWs are for term of duty only and they can't have them in retirement.

This is going to lead to interesting situations and drama over costs & detrimental reliance over cops buying them thinking they were not only for duty but personal use. It's also muddied the difference between 'registration' and 'permit'.

:eek:

That can't be good!

I know there's going to be a good amount of LEO's that wouldn't like this, but then again, it may not matter when we bury the AW law thingy mah-gig :D

xr650r
02-04-2011, 3:18 AM
If you wait too long, rubber band guns will be deemed "illegal" here in CA.

It's my understanding that what's not illegal....is legal. Bullet button ARs are not illegal. :-)

goodlookin1
02-04-2011, 7:55 AM
To the OP:

Why even bother buying an out of state stripped lower? Most of the best lower deals I've seen have come from CA. Not to mention you'd be supporting a local FFL who actually respects CA customers.

cmichini
02-04-2011, 8:07 AM
:eek:

That can't be good!

I know there's going to be a good amount of LEO's that wouldn't like this, but then again, it may not matter when we bury the AW law thingy mah-gig :D

I think this is terrific. When they retire they are no longer part of the priveledged eilte and will have to bend over and succumb to the laws that the unwashed masses have to deal with. They may understand what it's like to be on the outside of 'equal protections'.

If LEO's will have to surrender AW's they obtained while in service when they retire we may get more on board to support the overturning of this unconstitutional infringement, including a powerful lobby group.

dilligaffrn
02-04-2011, 10:55 AM
Want to know what a BB is? Show him this...

http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product4_750001_750051_785515_-1_757785_757784_757784_ProductDisplayErrorView_Y

http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product4_750001_750051_786008_-1_757785_757784_757784_ProductDisplayErrorView_Y

Window_Seat
02-04-2011, 11:09 AM
Not quite. Actually there's a recent opinion letter from AG office stating that LE AWs are for term of duty only and they can't have them in retirement.

This is going to lead to interesting situations and drama over costs & detrimental reliance over cops buying them thinking they were not only for duty but personal use. It's also muddied the difference between 'registration' and 'permit'.

Actually this is a blessing... A HUGE blessing because what majority of LEOs would be willing to give up their non-BB SARs in the name of keeping us peasants from having ours, especially when nearly all of the other states don't even have a "ban"?

And as something related to that (not sure I recall addressing this in another thread), but could this also lead to a court ruling the LEOSA is unconstitutional because of EP issues based on Silveira v. Lockyer (9th Cir. 2002)?

Erik.

Gray Peterson
02-04-2011, 11:54 AM
Actually this is a blessing... A HUGE blessing because what majority of LEOs would be willing to give up their non-BB SARs in the name of keeping us peasants from having ours, especially when nearly all of the other states don't even have a "ban"?

And as something related to that (not sure I recall addressing this in another thread), but could this also lead to a court ruling the LEOSA is unconstitutional because of EP issues based on Silveira v. Lockyer (9th Cir. 2002)?

Erik.

You don't want LEOSA declared unconstitutional for numerous reasons, especially since you'll also entangle FOPA into it, as FOPA and LEOSA are "notwithstanding" statutes.

Window_Seat
02-04-2011, 1:00 PM
You don't want LEOSA declared unconstitutional for numerous reasons, especially since you'll also entangle FOPA into it, as FOPA and LEOSA are "notwithstanding" statutes.

You are correct, and I should have indicated by saying "not that I want the LEOSA to be lost to a court because of EP issues", but just thinking of what could become possible, but should we be "wishing" for an ultimatum if courts aren't as willing to give us the same kind of 50 state reciprocity that RLEOs have? Could this be a strategy that could be used by organizations like SAF?

I'm confident, and expect plenty of our retired LEO friends to be kicking & screaming (in the legal fight sense, as I would be too) over such a possibility.

Erik.

goober
02-04-2011, 1:47 PM
What the heck is a "bullet button receiver" ?

This is the only response that really is relevant IMO...

If you are purchasing a working firearm, then there may be some need for a BB or other maglock to be installed by the vendor, in order to prevent "AW" status by way of "evil features".

If you are purchasing just a receiver , there is no need to even worry about a BB since it is the rest of the firearm that will determine if it will or won't be an "AW" if it is capable of accepting a detachable mag.
Yes, the receiver is the serialized part and thus the part of the firearm that really matters. But the way the law is written, there is no situation I can think of where a receiver would need to have a maglock in order to be legal.
Just buy a stripped receiver.
Or ask the right question.
Oh and BTW the thread title is misleading.

bcj128
02-04-2011, 7:13 PM
....
Oh and BTW the thread title is misleading.

Sorry about that. Changes made.

goober
02-04-2011, 7:53 PM
Sorry about that. Changes made.

to the benefit of all. appreciated. :)

Fjold
02-04-2011, 9:48 PM
To the OP:

How would an out of state FFL have any more insider knowledge of which way the DOJ is leaning on a legal issue than we would have on here?

CHS
02-05-2011, 9:20 AM
To the OP:

How would an out of state FFL have any more insider knowledge of which way the DOJ is leaning on a legal issue than we would have on here?

You didn't know? FFL's in other states are ALL experts on CA law.

CSACANNONEER
02-05-2011, 9:28 AM
You didn't know? FFL's in other states are ALL experts on CA law.

Actually, some of them do know Ca law better than some Ca FFLs do.

CHS
02-05-2011, 9:47 AM
Actually, some of them do know Ca law better than some Ca FFLs do.

Sadly, this is true :(

bcj128
02-05-2011, 1:47 PM
Very true about misinformation among CA ffl's