PDA

View Full Version : Bullet button legality


Stone
05-20-2011, 8:34 PM
The theory behind the bullet button is that, because it requires a tool to remove the magazine, the magazine will be considered fixed under the law.

However, I do not see anywhere that the law defines the word "fixed" and one might argue that something that is designed to be removable with a tool is not actually fixed.

For example, a manufacturer would not describe the windage and elevation adjustment screws on the scope as being "fixed" yet I require a tool to adjust them.

Have their been any attempts to prosecute people using the bullet button, or any court cases involving someone using a bullet button, that could be referred to for additional peace of mind?

MUKAK
05-20-2011, 8:35 PM
i wanna know also

jchen76@gmail.com
05-20-2011, 8:40 PM
Check the 2nd amendment subforum or link to the following case
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=429902

soopafly
05-20-2011, 8:41 PM
the requirement is not for the magazine to be "fixed"

rather, the requirement is for the magazine to not be detachable

a magazine can be removable without meeting the legal definition of "detachable magazine"

CSACANNONEER
05-20-2011, 8:43 PM
Reread the California AW laws again. It is there.

97F1504RAD
05-20-2011, 8:43 PM
I would suggest that you use the search function this topic has been beat to death.

I would also suggest going and reading all the stickies and then if you are not comfortable purchasing or building a rifle that fits with the confines of the law then do not.

The answer to all your question are on this site.

Librarian
05-20-2011, 8:49 PM
the requirement is not for the magazine to be "fixed"

rather, the requirement is for the magazine to not be detachable

a magazine can be removable without meeting the legal definition of "detachable magazine"

^^^ This. ^^^

Detachable has a definition. Using a tool, including a bullet, avoids that definition. Magazine lock modifies the weapon so it CANNOT accept a detachable magazine, because a tool is needed to remove the magazine from the magazine well.

dieselpower
05-20-2011, 8:55 PM
You are looking at it the wrong way.

All you care about is the magazine is NOT defined as a detachable one...by requiring a tool in order to get it out of the firearm.

This does affix the magazine in the firearm, therefore have only 10rds as a capacity.

You are correct, there is no definition of fixed magazine in CA law.

762.DEFENSE
05-20-2011, 11:04 PM
Reread the California AW laws again. It is there.

+1 :thumbsup:

Cokebottle
05-20-2011, 11:06 PM
I would suggest that you use the search function this topic has been beat to death.
And we now have case law supporting the bullet button.

7.62 Charlie
05-20-2011, 11:24 PM
A detachable magazine can be removed without the use of a tool.
A Bullet Button requires a tool to remove the magazine thus its a non detachable magazine.

RLTW
05-20-2011, 11:39 PM
Alright not to sound like a D#*^ but why is it that everytime a question like this or something that is part of... New Members go here first .... They never do...

If after searching on this site and you can't find it... There is another great thing called Bing, Google.

Spend the time to inform yourself, look at the actually Penal Code...(yeap I said Penal...lol) The Reason being... None of us are going to be standing next to you when some informed or uninformed LEO is cuffing or taking your hard earned rifles or pistols. And your Saying "but this guy on Calguns said it was good" That crap doesn't fly... You own it.. Its your responsibility to know the law... NO EXCUSE..

Oh has the world ended yet?

NorCalDustin
05-20-2011, 11:45 PM
Alright not to sound like a D#*^ but why is it that everytime a question like this or something that is part of... New Members go here first .... They never do...

If after searching on this site and you can't find it... There is another great thing called Bing, Google.

Spend the time to inform yourself, look at the actually Penal Code...(yeap I said Penal...lol) The Reason being... None of us are going to be standing next to you when some informed or uninformed LEO is cuffing or taking your hard earned rifles or pistols. And your Saying "but this guy on Calguns said it was good" That crap doesn't fly... You own it.. Its your responsibility to know the law... NO EXCUSE..

Oh has the world ended yet?
Well said.

7.62 Charlie
05-20-2011, 11:50 PM
Well said.

Indeed

bwiese
05-20-2011, 11:53 PM
And we now have case law supporting the bullet button.

Um, let's rephrase that.

The CA Attorney General/DOJ has stated in a Federal Court (responsive to CGF's 42 USC 1983 challenge) that BulletButton-style maglocked ARs are not illegal AWs.

Cokebottle
05-21-2011, 12:10 AM
Um, let's rephrase that.

The CA Attorney General/DOJ has stated in a Federal Court (responsive to CGF's 42 USC 1983 challenge) that BulletButton-style maglocked ARs are not illegal AWs.
That should be good enough for 58 District Attorneys ;)

marcus_bervus
05-21-2011, 2:02 AM
Um, let's rephrase that.

The CA Attorney General/DOJ has stated in a Federal Court (responsive to CGF's 42 USC 1983 challenge) that BulletButton-style maglocked ARs are not illegal AWs.

this was 1983 case, any recent jurisprudence of the subject of "bullet buttons" :confused::confused::confused:

Joe
05-21-2011, 2:09 AM
this was 1983 case, any recent jurisprudence of the subject of "bullet buttons" :confused::confused::confused:

No. This was 2 weeks ago.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=429902&highlight=button

bwiese
05-21-2011, 3:16 AM
this was 1983 case, any recent jurisprudence of the subject of "bullet buttons" :confused::confused::confused:

Dude, it's not a date - "42 USC 1983" is a section of Federal law regarding civil action for deprivation of rights.

This matter of which I wrote happened just a few weeks ago.

parcours
05-21-2011, 7:07 AM
Was stated above...

Let me Google that for you (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=california+bullet+button+legality);)

Stone
05-21-2011, 7:09 AM
No. This was 2 weeks ago.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=429902&highlight=button

Great!! Thanks, that's all I wanted to see.
---
By the way, I have read the penal code and the forum stickies and a lot of other websites about bullet button legality already. I did not previously see any case law on the subject which is what I came here to ask for. This case law link does not even come up on the Google search either...

rareair
05-21-2011, 7:49 AM
Dude, it's not a date - "42 USC 1983" is a section of Federal law regarding civil action for deprivation of rights.

This matter of which I wrote happened just a few weeks ago.

Lol That's funny right thur.....:rofl:

blazeaglory
05-21-2011, 7:57 AM
Alright not to sound like a D#*^ but why is it that everytime a question like this or something that is part of... New Members go here first .... They never do...

If after searching on this site and you can't find it... There is another great thing called Bing, Google.

Spend the time to inform yourself, look at the actually Penal Code...(yeap I said Penal...lol) The Reason being... None of us are going to be standing next to you when some informed or uninformed LEO is cuffing or taking your hard earned rifles or pistols. And your Saying "but this guy on Calguns said it was good" That crap doesn't fly... You own it.. Its your responsibility to know the law... NO EXCUSE..

Oh has the world ended yet?

please dont take this the wrong way and dont think im upset or attacking you but ALOT of people come here for HELP, remember? not everyone has the same intellect and therefore SOME PEOPLE need more help to inform themselves than others. not everyone is just lazy to use the search function. it seems newbs get their heads bit off for asking questions arrogant "Seniors" dont like

i agree with what you said about educating yourself in regards to the "penal" (hehe) code but you could leave the rest out.

just because some grumpy older member know more than some "newbs" or are frustrated at the same questions being asked, does not give them the right to respond in a condensing tone. keep the negative to your self, or dont type. not everyone is a gun law genius or OLL expert.

you want to further the cause for 2A rights? have more respect for the new members who are would be gun owners

RLTW
05-21-2011, 10:00 AM
please dont take this the wrong way and dont think im upset or attacking you but ALOT of people come here for HELP, remember? not everyone has the same intellect and therefore SOME PEOPLE need more help to inform themselves than others. not everyone is just lazy to use the search function. it seems newbs get their heads bit off for asking questions arrogant "Seniors" dont like

i agree with what you said about educating yourself in regards to the "penal" (hehe) code but you could leave the rest out.

just because some grumpy older member know more than some "newbs" or are frustrated at the same questions being asked, does not give them the right to respond in a condensing tone. keep the negative to your self, or dont type. not everyone is a gun law genius or OLL expert.

you want to further the cause for 2A rights? have more respect for the new members who are would be gun owners
Dude its all good under the hood....

I thought the world was ending today... so I was letting it out.

By no means am I a gun legal eagle guru... Yet I know what is legal, so I know my rights. How did I come by that? Reading posts, doing searches and educating myself, only when I have exhausted that is when I post a question.

Anyways. I said not trying to be a D*^&... So that excuses anything I wrote...lol

Stone
05-21-2011, 11:59 AM
I thought the world was ending today... so I was letting it out.

....

Anyways. I said not trying to be a D*^&... So that excuses anything I wrote...lol

Hahaha, you're hilarious man :D

Corona762
05-28-2011, 2:14 PM
The theory behind the bullet button is that, because it requires a tool to remove the magazine, the magazine will be considered fixed under the law.

However, I do not see anywhere that the law defines the word "fixed" and one might argue that something that is designed to be removable with a tool is not actually fixed.

For example, a manufacturer would not describe the windage and elevation adjustment screws on the scope as being "fixed" yet I require a tool to adjust them.

Have their been any attempts to prosecute people using the bullet button, or any court cases involving someone using a bullet button, that could be referred to for additional peace of mind?

I believe the DOJ was struggling with the definition of what a removeable magazine was when the lowly SKS came to the rescue. With the SKS you can remove the fixed 10 round magazine if so inclined. However, to remove the magazine on an SKS, you have to use a bullet or a tool. During legal arguments DOJ conceded a bullet was a tool....and Waa Laa, the bullet button was born. Now, I am just spouting this from memory...like everyone else said...look it up for yourself. Knowledge is power!