PDA

View Full Version : April issue of Small Arms Review


B Strong
03-21-2011, 6:51 PM
In The Legal Side column by Mark Barnes -

Page 30 second paragraph.

"In closing, I would note that ATF still has several important technical issues to resolve, especially with respect to certain California penal code compliant firearms. ATF has, in preliminary discussions, advised that firearms containing a "bullet button" magazine release are firearms of interest to ATF and will likely be subject to the proposed initiative, notwithstanding the fact that these firearms do not contain detachable magazines per se.

ATF plans to put guidance on this issue on their website. Hopefully ATF will note that subjecting such guns to long gun multiple sales reports has no effect on any legal determinations on the status of these firearms under California law."

The context of this statement is the new ATF letter requiring multiple sales of long guns that are semi-auto, over .22LR to be reported as multiple handgun sales are currently.

bwiese
03-21-2011, 6:58 PM
1.) This ATF determination (or lack thereof, if efforts cancelled) will
NOT affect CA status of 'detachable magazine', which is solely defined
in regulation in 11 CCR 5469(a).

2.) While grief-causing nationally, we put up with a lotta crap in CA
anyway - so this is a relatively small delta to worry about.

3.) The fact the Feds may wish to regard BB'd vs. non-BB'd EBRs
as equivalent in reporting may be very very helpful for future litigation
against CA AWB :-)

4.) I'm unclear how far this ATF effort will go (i.e, to implementation)
given recent exposure of ATF shenanigans intersecting with these concerns.

B Strong
03-21-2011, 7:45 PM
1.) This ATF determination (or lack thereof, if efforts cancelled) will
NOT affect CA status of 'detachable magazine', which is solely defined
in regulation in 11 CCR 5469(a).

2.) While grief-causing nationally, we put up with a lotta crap in CA
anyway - so this is a relatively small delta to worry about.

3.) The fact the Feds may wish to regard BB'd vs. non-BB'd EBRs
as equivalent in reporting may be very very helpful for future litigation
against CA AWB :-)

4.) I'm unclear how far this ATF effort will go (i.e, to implementation)
given recent exposure of ATF shenanigans intersecting with these concerns.

I'm not particularly concerned, and the CPC isn't going to be modified anytime soon, but I like to keep an eye on them...

Ford8N
03-21-2011, 8:39 PM
3.) The fact the Feds may wish to regard BB'd vs. non-BB'd EBRs
as equivalent in reporting may be very very helpful for future litigation
against CA AWB :-)



I see where you are going with this. :43: