PDA

View Full Version : Bullet Button, FFL, and Old Parts


Bonedoc
07-23-2011, 5:46 AM
Is there a requirement that the 'old' (illegal in CA ) mag release NOT be returned to the buyer upon installation of the BB by the (in this case) FFL shop? Tried to find by search, no luck, thanks for help.

edgerly779
07-23-2011, 5:55 AM
Not illegal to own mag release not installed. Comes in almost every lower parts kit shipped here. I drill and tap mine as soon as i get them in case someone needs them. Someone paranoid out there would disagree.

Bonedoc
07-23-2011, 6:03 AM
I understand that... "but" is there a requirement that the armorer (in this case the FFL) NOT return the original 'part' to the buyer / owner of the newly purchased OLL?

Thanks...

morrcarr67
07-23-2011, 6:30 AM
Just me thinking out loud.

I don't how they can make you; the ffl, not return a part to the original owner. It is his property and there is no law saying he can't own it.

Bonedoc
07-23-2011, 7:08 AM
I agree completely. I cannot find any 'rules' on it but was told (by FFL doing the button) "I cannot return the original parts to you"... so trying to figure out why .

morrcarr67
07-23-2011, 7:43 AM
I agree completely. I cannot find any 'rules' on it but was told (by FFL doing the button) "I cannot return the original parts to you"... so trying to figure out why .

Sounds to me like he just wanted your parts.

Bonedoc
07-23-2011, 7:49 AM
Sounds to me like he just wanted your parts.

Certainly possible but seems a bit petty. I mean for $8 you can get all those parts.

I am reading as many of the notices re: replacing requirements and such for the OLL and CA laws to find anything that might indicate a 'best practice' type issue. Thanks!!

CSACANNONEER
07-23-2011, 7:58 AM
Not illegal to own mag release not installed. Comes in almost every lower parts kit shipped here. I drill and tap mine as soon as i get them in case someone needs them. Someone paranoid out there would disagree.


What's illegal about having a standard mag release INSTALLED on a lower which is going to be a featureless, rimfire or non semi auto build?

Answer: It's not illegal. The OP is wrong to think that standard mag releases are not legal in Ca an the FFL is wrong in not returning the customers extra parts.

BannedinBritain
07-23-2011, 8:01 AM
"Armoror" is wrong...nothing against giving the original mag release to the customer.

proclone1
07-23-2011, 9:04 AM
Sounds like typical dealer-fud to me. The other day I bought a mag release & spring (remember the spring! sometimes the bullet button [like radlock] uses a different sized spring than the original) and told the dealer it was for the sole purpose of potential trips w/ my rifle out of state to AZ or NV. You don't even need an excuse, either.

cdtx2001
07-23-2011, 9:24 AM
I agree completely. I cannot find any 'rules' on it but was told (by FFL doing the button) "I cannot return the original parts to you"... so trying to figure out why .

You won't find any rules. It's not illegal to own an original mag release. The dealer is trying to feed you a bunch of BS. Tell him you want your parts back or he can buy them from you.

tenpercentfirearms
07-23-2011, 10:14 AM
It is not illegal, but it could be company policy.

My shop doesn't care, but I have you sign a lowers agreement when I deliver anything exotic that outlines the law so you know it and also says what I delivered to you and in what condition so you don't try and claim I delivered it in an illegal configuration.

CHS
07-23-2011, 6:31 PM
What 10% said.

It's not that the FFL "can't" deliver the parts to you, it's that it's probably his policy not to. If it's from work on YOUR gun with YOUR parts, not returning them is equal to theft.

But if the FFL purchases lowers or rifles, installs bullet buttons, and keeps the parts, and THEN you buy the gun well he doesn't owe you anything and it's just a courtesy on his part IF he decides to include all the parts replaced.

However, if he's saying he can't, he's dead wrong and spreading more FUD.

bigcalidave
07-23-2011, 7:58 PM
If you didn't sign something that agrees with that policy, get your parts back. You paid extra to add the mag lock, I assume, so you own the rifle as you saw it when you made the agreement to purchase it.

Absolutely no requirement.

CHS
07-23-2011, 8:13 PM
If you didn't sign something that agrees with that policy, get your parts back. You paid extra to add the mag lock, I assume, so you own the rifle as you saw it when you made the agreement to purchase it.


Until you pay for it, the FFL owns it as part of his inventory. When you pay for it, you own exactly what the FFL says you get. If you disagree with that, you're free to get your money back. But the FFL doesn't OWE you the original equipment out of the inventory that HE OWNS.

The only exceptions would be if you dropped off parts for an FFL to assemble for you, or you transferred in a firearm that he then modified.

But if you're talking about dealer inventory, you get what the FFL says you get. THATS what you agree to pay for. You aren't magically owed parts that the original gun may have come with if the FFL doesn't want you to have them.

ldsnet
07-23-2011, 10:51 PM
Complete FUD. If you have a .22 rimfire upper you can use a regular release.

bigcalidave
07-23-2011, 11:06 PM
Wouldn't the state of the gun as you see it when you make the purchase be the state you should receive it, without written authorization to change? Nothing to do with firearms, just basic retail laws. Once you pay for it, you own it as is.

tenpercentfirearms
07-24-2011, 12:01 AM
Wouldn't the state of the gun as you see it when you make the purchase be the state you should receive it, without written authorization to change? Nothing to do with firearms, just basic retail laws. Once you pay for it, you own it as is.

Retail laws? That cracks me up. As a consumer, you need to ask. "Does it come with the regular magazine parts?" before you pay. If they say no, then it doesn't come with them. It is totally up to the retailer.

Most Glocks come with two magazines. I don't have to sell my Glocks with two magazines. You can get pissed off and say it should come with two, but if I choose to pull one and sell it separate, that is my choice.

Now being a smart businessman, I don't pull stupid tricks like that as I know the negative experience is going to cost me a lot more business than the potential money I might profit off of parts that normally are sold with the gun.

jamesob
07-24-2011, 12:17 AM
Whoever owns it can do what they wish with it like Wes said. Sold as is basically but under factory warranty.

donw
07-24-2011, 8:39 AM
it would be logical for it to be illegal for a gun owner to install his own BB under that train of thought wouldn't it?

as convoluted as California state law is...nothing is surprising, though.

after all, the average gun owner can install a BB in less than five minutes under the worst of conditions...

i purchased a dedicated .22lr AR along with 5.56 uppers and a BB along with them. i asked the FFL if i could have them install it, or, if i could...they said "Yes" to both and said nothing about; "We cannot give you back the old parts." if they did the installation.

CHS
07-24-2011, 9:51 AM
Wouldn't the state of the gun as you see it when you make the purchase be the state you should receive it, without written authorization to change? Nothing to do with firearms, just basic retail laws. Once you pay for it, you own it as is.

The state of the gun as you see it when you make the purchase would likely have a bullet button installed, NOT the original magazine release.

So if that's exactly what you get, that's exactly what you get.

Bonedoc
07-25-2011, 5:49 PM
It is "my" firearm coming directly from a vendor/dealer needing FFL for final DROS and so forth. As the FFL cannot DROS a non-conforming firearm I let him replace the release with the BB but I have felt I "should" get the original parts back... still feel that way and will push for that. Do not know if it is a shop practice but doubt it. Thanks for the insightful commentary!!!!

CHS
07-25-2011, 6:05 PM
It is "my" firearm coming directly from a vendor/dealer needing FFL for final DROS and so forth. As the FFL cannot DROS a non-conforming firearm I let him replace the release with the BB but I have felt I "should" get the original parts back... still feel that way and will push for that. Do not know if it is a shop practice but doubt it. Thanks for the insightful commentary!!!!

In that case, you paid for the firearm directly and had it transferred in.

They certainly owe you the parts.

The only case where they could legally keep the parts if they wanted would be if the parts themselves were prohibited by law from being transferred to you like if they were a large-capacity magazine.

But if it's just a magazine release, they owe you the part.

stix213
07-25-2011, 6:28 PM
The standard magazine release isn't even illegal in CA. Not sure why the FFL would withhold it other than ignorance of their own industry/laws. Its only illegal to install on the firearm if you also want to have features like a pistol grip, collapsible stock, forward vertical grip, and a few others mentioned in PC 12276.1. At any time you're free to remove those features and install the original mag release.

Cokebottle
07-25-2011, 6:30 PM
I understand that... "but" is there a requirement that the armorer (in this case the FFL) NOT return the original 'part' to the buyer / owner of the newly purchased OLL?

Thanks...
No, there is no requirement to retain the parts.

There is no constructive possession under California AW laws.
The buyer may at some time in the future, decide to go featureless or install a rimfire upper onto that lower. At that point, it will be legal for him to remove the BB and install the original release.

CSACANNONEER
07-25-2011, 6:39 PM
The standard magazine release isn't even illegal in CA. Not sure why the FFL would withhold it other than ignorance of their own industry/laws. Its only illegal to install on the firearm if you also want to have features like a pistol grip, collapsible stock, forward vertical grip, and a few others mentioned in PC 12276.1. At any time you're free to remove those features and install the original mag release.

Even if you install "evil features" on a lower, it is not illegal unless a centerfire, semi auto rifle upper or any semi auto pistol upper (if building a pistol) is mounted to the lower. There are many rimfire rifle uppers and non semi auto rifle and pistol uppers available for AR lowers. Hell, there are even muzzle loading uppers, air gun uppers, crossbow uppers, etc.

bigcalidave
07-25-2011, 7:02 PM
There may not be many, but there are a few important ones.
http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/legal_guides/m-1.shtml

From what the OP posted, and later confirmed, he purchased a gun, then the dealer took off the regular mag release and kept it. They can't do that.


Retail laws? That cracks me up. As a consumer, you need to ask. "Does it come with the regular magazine parts?" before you pay. If they say no, then it doesn't come with them. It is totally up to the retailer.

Most Glocks come with two magazines. I don't have to sell my Glocks with two magazines. You can get pissed off and say it should come with two, but if I choose to pull one and sell it separate, that is my choice.

Now being a smart businessman, I don't pull stupid tricks like that as I know the negative experience is going to cost me a lot more business than the potential money I might profit off of parts that normally are sold with the gun.

CHS
07-25-2011, 10:30 PM
Even if you install "evil features" on a lower, it is not illegal unless a centerfire, semi auto rifle upper or any semi auto pistol upper (if building a pistol) is mounted to the lower. There are many rimfire rifle uppers and non semi auto rifle and pistol uppers available for AR lowers. Hell, there are even muzzle loading uppers, air gun uppers, crossbow uppers, etc.

You're assuming it's an AR-15 :)

CSACANNONEER
07-25-2011, 10:34 PM
You're assuming it's an AR-15 :)

Touche!