PDA

View Full Version : Question: Haynie and RAW


notme92069
07-22-2011, 8:55 PM
The question is: If someone had a Registered Assault Weapon and installed a bullet button, in light of the AG's stance in Haynie, is it still an assault weapon?

Cokebottle
07-22-2011, 9:14 PM
For an OLL, until de-registered, yes.
If it is a listed lower, the BB does not negate it's AW status.

Do not read too much into the mention of "Colt AR-15"
Haynie's gun was NOT a Colt.

Librarian
07-22-2011, 9:20 PM
The question is: If someone had a Registered Assault Weapon and installed a bullet button, in light of the AG's stance in Haynie, is it still an assault weapon?

Gene said (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=6348460&postcount=13) This filing is an admission in a Federal Court by the Attorney General of California that a properly installed bullet button on an off list rifle is not a semiautomatic centerfire rifle with the capacity to accept a detachable magazine.

'On-list' is not there.

notme92069
07-22-2011, 9:23 PM
For an OLL, until de-registered, yes.
If it is a listed lower, the BB does not negate it's AW status.

Do not read too much into the mention of "Colt AR-15"
Haynie's gun was NOT a Colt.

I didn't read anything into the "Colt" issue. That just highlights how confusing the current law is.

Harris stated " However, the rifle possessed by Haynie was equipped with a “bullet button,” a device which required the use of a tool to remove the magazine, taking the weapon out of the statutory definition of an assault weapon." Harris did not make any distinction between registered assault weapons and unregistered weapons. How can a weapon still be an assault weapon (OLL), registered or otherwise, if it has a bullet button installed?

notme92069
07-22-2011, 9:32 PM
Gene said (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=6348460&postcount=13)

'On-list' is not there.

Yes, but aren't there off list weapons, possibly modified with "evil features" that were also registered?

Librarian
07-22-2011, 10:22 PM
Yes, but aren't there off list weapons, possibly modified with "evil features" that were also registered?

Yes, certainly. I apologize for forgetting those.

There is a procedure for un-registering those, but it has no direct relationship to Haynie. The procedure existed before that case was filed. But IIRC, they stay 'assault weapons' in whatever configuration, unless and until the un-registration of a properly configured rifle is complete.

notme92069
07-23-2011, 7:07 AM
Yes, certainly. I apologize for forgetting those.

There is a procedure for un-registering those, but it has no direct relationship to Haynie. The procedure existed before that case was filed. But IIRC, they stay 'assault weapons' in whatever configuration, unless and until the un-registration of a properly configured rifle is complete.

I understand the mechanics of de-registration. But now the AG of California has specifically stated that a weapon with a bullet button device installed is not an assault weapon. So once again I ask, how can a weapon still be an assault weapon (OLL), registered or otherwise, if it has a bullet button installed?

NotEnufGarage
07-23-2011, 9:06 AM
The question is: If someone had a Registered Assault Weapon and installed a bullet button, in light of the AG's stance in Haynie, is it still an assault weapon?

The bigger question is why would you want to?

If you have a RAW, you're free to use large cap magazine, change the upper to .50BMG or anything else you want. If you "deregister" it, you can't do any of those things.

notme92069
07-23-2011, 9:42 AM
The bigger question is why would you want to?

If you have a RAW, you're free to use large cap magazine, change the upper to .50BMG or anything else you want. If you "deregister" it, you can't do any of those things.

I know someone would ask this. If I wanted to start a thread on why would anyone want to de-register a RAW, I would have. In fact I would argue, based on the AG's own words, that de-registration is no longer required.

This is an "outside of the box" LEGAL question.

hoffmang
07-23-2011, 10:03 AM
As "make/model" AWs were not at issue in Richards/Haynie so I think a Busmaster lower is still an AW. However, that's likely to get explored in the vagueness analysis in the case based on the Bushy's that were approved with modification a few years back.

-Gene

Cokebottle
07-23-2011, 12:31 PM
Yes, but aren't there off list weapons, possibly modified with "evil features" that were also registered?
Yes, there were.

You could install a BB and then de-register the gun, but then you are "stuck" with the BB or featureless until the AW law is overturned, but adding the BB to a RAW does not automatically make it "not an assault weapon"

If a LEO pulls me over and runs my serial number, he gets no return because my long guns are not registered.
If a LEO pulls you over and runs your serial number, the rifle shows as a RAW and if not transported/used in accordance with the law, you are in violation.


You just have to balance the advantages vs disadvantages of having a RAW. No BB and the ability to use high-caps is nice, but we can have that with featureless.
Transportation, must be in a locked container and there are restrictions on destinations.
Can't let a friend borrow it.
Can't transfer to anyone.
Can't bequest it to your son.
Etc....

dantodd
07-23-2011, 8:55 PM
If I remember correctly Bill has said that adding a BB to an OLL RAW is a good idea because once the BB is installed it becomes a fixed mag OLL and therefore isn't limited by the same transportation restrictions as it is when in AW configuration. Once you are at your destination you can reinstall the standard mag release button and then treat the gun as a RAW.

I don't know if it is advisable to lend a RAW that has had a BB installed. I suspect it would be legal but way too susceptible to drama.

bwiese
07-24-2011, 1:59 AM
The question is: If someone had a Registered Assault Weapon and installed a bullet button, in light of the AG's stance in Haynie, is it still an assault weapon?

Depends.

If it is a Category 1 (Roberti-Roos, 12276PC/11 CCR 5495) or Category 2 (Kasler-identifiede AR/AK "series", 11 CCR 5499) registered assault weapon, a change of features generally will not remove AW status. [There is some handwaving if not semiautomatic and/or not a pistol/rifle/shotgun but You Should Not Go Here for now.]

If the gun is a Category 3 reg'd AW, making it into a non-AW configuration removes AW *status*. Such a gun's current AW *status* is determined by its configuration at time of examination; its AW registration merely determines its eligibility to legally *be* an AW.

Haynie matterswere addressing the original off-list rifle status and was not, despite any perceived lack of clarity, referring to any *listed* rifle status.


.... the rifle possessed by Haynie was equipped with a “bullet button,” a device which required the use
of a tool to remove the magazine, taking the weapon out of the statutory definition of an assault weapon."
Harris did not make any distinction between registered assault weapons and unregistered weapons.

How can a weapon still be an assault weapon (OLL), registered or otherwise, if it has a bullet button installed?


Regardless of what "Harris" (read: her staff attorneys) said, the lack of a detachable magazine does NOT change the status of a semiautomatic rifle or semiautomatic pistol or semiautomatic shotgun that has been specifically banned by name. The statute (or regulation) bans them this way without reference to any 12276.1PC "characteristic features" (many of which were defined in 11CCR 5469 regulation in late 2000).


...aren't there off list weapons, possibly modified with "evil features" that were also registered?

Many guns registered in 2000 registration period were in fact not listed, though at the time all ARs/AKs were regarded as listed regardless of features. Harrott hit in late June 2001 and made certain ARs/AKs "off list". (In fact, I own a couple of off-list AR reg'd AWs.)

A registered AR-pattern AW that is not banned by name - in fact any not-banned-by-name AW that was AW only by features - can have sufficient evil features removed/changed to render it a non-AW for the time the gun is not an AW. Its AW registration merely is eligibility to legally return to AW status in CA, but its actual AW status is determined by the configuration.

However, a 'banned-by-name' gun again is an AW without regard to features and most any modification would NOT remove AW status.

Please do NOT infer any casualness of DOJ language in certain parts of Haynie about prospective banned-by-name status somehow changing. The original Haynie matter - along with Richards - did NOT involve any 'named' gun.



... "make/model" AWs were not at issue in Richards/Haynie ... I think a Bushmaster lower is still an AW. However, that's
likely to get explored in the vagueness analysis in the case based on the Bushys that were approved with modification
a few years back.

Certainly to some extent. The fact midlevel staff was confused on the issue half a decade past Harrott being handed down is indicative of problems with the law.

However CA DOJ covered its rear by allowing the FFL to 're-manufacture' the rifle by stamping a new name on it - after he got a hurry-up manufacturing FFL on top of the existing AW permit and guidance on 'cleanup' (after a half-day high level DOJ meeting in late November 2006).

Such banned-by-name rifles - inadvertently approved at a lower staff level - transitioned into DOJ-sanctioned 'off-list' rifles by being 'remanufactured' with/into another off-list make. ("Bushmaster XM15" --> "Bushmaster-Evans 15" etc.)



If I remember correctly Bill has said that adding a BB to an OLL RAW is a good idea because once the BB is installed it becomes a fixed mag OLL and therefore isn't limited by the same transportation restrictions as it is when in AW configuration.

Once you are at your destination you can reinstall the standard mag release button and then treat the gun as a RAW.

Correct. A non-AW is a non-AW, which means it's an ordinary rifle after such a BB mod - or, say "Featureless + MonsterMan grip".

Again, its AW registration is just eligibility to be (or be restored to) an AW configuration; its actual AW status [if truly off-list] is solely determined by its configured features suite at time of examination. Restoral of a non-AW to AW status is legal because, well, hey - it's a registered AW. (The relevant 12280PC charge is possession or transport of an unreg'd AW.)

I don't know if it is advisable to lend a RAW that has had a BB installed. I suspect it would be legal but way too susceptible to drama.



There is no priority, difference or separateness of lack of AW status for transport vs. lack of AW status for lending. Violations involving a registered assault weapon do meas the guns involve have to be assault weapons in the first place.

Yes, drama could ensue when the gun comes up as a registered AW on AFS via an LEO MDT inquiry and the LEO not understanding this. However, the situation where I take my Cat 3 AR reg'd AW and maglock it (or run it as a rimfire) for transport ease is prospective drama I'm willing to live and move forward with.

notme92069
07-24-2011, 9:42 AM
Depends.

If it is a Category 1 (Roberti-Roos, 12276PC/11 CCR 5495) or Category 2 (Kasler-identifiede AR/AK "series", 11 CCR 5499) registered assault weapon, a change of features generally will not remove AW status. [There is some handwaving if not semiautomatic and/or not a pistol/rifle/shotgun but You Should Not Go Here for now.]

If the gun is a Category 3 reg'd AW, making it into a non-AW configuration removes AW *status*. Such a gun's current AW *status* is determined by its configuration at time of examination; its AW registration merely determines its eligibility to legally *be* an AW.

Haynie matterswere addressing the original off-list rifle status and was not, despite any perceived lack of clarity, referring to any *listed* rifle status.



Regardless of what "Harris" (read: her staff attorneys) said, the lack of a detachable magazine does NOT change the status of a semiautomatic rifle or semiautomatic pistol or semiautomatic shotgun that has been specifically banned by name. The statute (or regulation) bans them this way without reference to any 12276.1PC "characteristic features" (many of which were defined in 11CCR 5469 regulation in late 2000).



Many guns registered in 2000 registration period were in fact not listed, though at the time all ARs/AKs were regarded as listed regardless of features. Harrott hit in late June 2001 and made certain ARs/AKs "off list". (In fact, I own a couple of off-list AR reg'd AWs.)

A registered AR-pattern AW that is not banned by name - in fact any not-banned-by-name AW that was AW only by features - can have sufficient evil features removed/changed to render it a non-AW for the time the gun is not an AW. Its AW registration merely is eligibility to legally return to AW status in CA, but its actual AW status is determined by the configuration.

However, a 'banned-by-name' gun again is an AW without regard to features and most any modification would NOT remove AW status.

Please do NOT infer any casualness of DOJ language in certain parts of Haynie about prospective banned-by-name status somehow changing. The original Haynie matter - along with Richards - did NOT involve any 'named' gun.




Certainly to some extent. The fact midlevel staff was confused on the issue half a decade past Harrott being handed down is indicative of problems with the law.

However CA DOJ covered its rear by allowing the FFL to 're-manufacture' the rifle by stamping a new name on it - after he got a hurry-up manufacturing FFL on top of the existing AW permit and guidance on 'cleanup' (after a half-day high level DOJ meeting in late November 2006).

Such banned-by-name rifles - inadvertently approved at a lower staff level - transitioned into DOJ-sanctioned 'off-list' rifles by being 'remanufactured' with/into another off-list make. ("Bushmaster XM15" --> "Bushmaster-Evans 15" etc.)




Correct. A non-AW is a non-AW, which means it's an ordinary rifle after such a BB mod - or, say "Featureless + MonsterMan grip".

Again, its AW registration is just eligibility to be (or be restored to) an AW configuration; its actual AW status [if truly off-list] is solely determined by its configured features suite at time of examination. Restoral of a non-AW to AW status is legal because, well, hey - it's a registered AW. (The relevant 12280PC charge is possession or transport of an unreg'd AW.)



There is no priority, difference or separateness of lack of AW status for transport vs. lack of AW status for lending. Violations involving a registered assault weapon do meas the guns involve have to be assault weapons in the first place.

Yes, drama could ensue when the gun comes up as a registered AW on AFS via an LEO MDT inquiry and the LEO not understanding this. However, the situation where I take my Cat 3 AR reg'd AW and maglock it (or run it as a rimfire) for transport ease is prospective drama I'm willing to live and move forward with.


Thanks Bill! That was a very well thought out and complete response.

notme92069
07-24-2011, 9:49 AM
Yes, there were.

You could install a BB and then de-register the gun, but then you are "stuck" with the BB or featureless until the AW law is overturned, but adding the BB to a RAW does not automatically make it "not an assault weapon"

If a LEO pulls me over and runs my serial number, he gets no return because my long guns are not registered.
If a LEO pulls you over and runs your serial number, the rifle shows as a RAW and if not transported/used in accordance with the law, you are in violation.


You just have to balance the advantages vs disadvantages of having a RAW. No BB and the ability to use high-caps is nice, but we can have that with featureless.
Transportation, must be in a locked container and there are restrictions on destinations.
Can't let a friend borrow it.
Can't transfer to anyone.
Can't bequest it to your son.
Etc....

Just to be clear. I don't own a RAW. Someone else does.

dantodd
07-24-2011, 9:52 AM
Yes, drama could ensue when the gun comes up as a registered AW on AFS via an LEO MDT inquiry and the LEO not understanding this. However, the situation where I take my Cat 3 AR reg'd AW and maglock it (or run it as a rimfire) for transport ease is prospective drama I'm willing to live and move forward with.

I agree completely about transport. My comment was regarding the loan of a Reg. AW in non-AW configuration. I suspect that the possibility of drama is exponentially increased when the gun comes back as a Reg. AW but not to the possessor.