PDA

View Full Version : Bullet Buttons Classified as Detachable Magazines


tikolo
08-04-2011, 6:07 PM
I wanted to give you guys heads up on an issue that has surfaced recently. ATF posted Q&A a few days ago on Reporting of Multiple Sale. Check out the PDF posted on ATF’s site. http://www.atf.gov/firearms/industry/072911-qa-multiple-rifles.pdf. Pay attention to Q2 and Q3. Q2 states that “semiautomatic rifles capable of accepting a detachable magazine” are subject to reporting. Then, Q3 states that rifles with “bullet buttons” are subject to reporting, clearly making a statement that if a magazine can be removed even with a “bullet button” than it is “detachable”. I don’t know what kind of consequences this is going to have in California and how CADOJ defines a detachable magazine, but this is definitely worrisome and we should keep certainly keep an eye on it.

BannedinBritain
08-04-2011, 6:14 PM
I wanted to give you guys heads up on an issue that has surfaced recently. ATF posted Q&A a few days ago on Reporting of Multiple Sale. Check out the PDF posted on ATF’s site. http://www.atf.gov/firearms/industry/072911-qa-multiple-rifles.pdf. Pay attention to Q2 and Q3. Q2 states that “semiautomatic rifles capable of accepting a detachable magazine” are subject to reporting. Then, Q3 states that rifles with “bullet buttons” are subject to reporting, clearly making a statement that if a magazine can be removed even with a “bullet button” than it is “detachable”. I don’t know what kind of consequences this is going to have in California and how CADOJ defines a detachable magazine, but this is definitely worrisome and we should keep certainly keep an eye on it.

This is going to be a point of contention I'm sure...DOJ has conceded in court documents that a BB equipped rifle is a fixed magazine weapon. ATF has stated in an email from the Firearms Technology Branch that a BB equipped rifle is a fixed magazine weapon. But in the "Q&A", they demand they get reported along with the rifles that actually "fit the description". One can certainly tell...they're making it up as they go along. This should only bolster a suit to have the ATF spanked and sent to their room without dinner...and to toss this whole exercise in stupidity.

bwiese
08-04-2011, 6:17 PM
... ATF posted Q&A a few days ago on Reporting of Multiple Sale. Check out the PDF posted on ATF’s site.
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/industry/072911-qa-multiple-rifles.pdf. Pay attention to Q2 and Q3. Q2 states
that “semiautomatic rifles capable of accepting a detachable magazine” are subject to reporting. Then, Q3
states that rifles with “bullet buttons” are subject to reporting, clearly making a statement that if a magazine
can be removed even with a “bullet button” than it is “detachable”.

This is a new stance and reversal of prior statements elsewhere from ATF.

This stance may, for example, differentiate BB'd rifles from true SKSes.


I don’t know what kind of consequences this is going to have in California and how CADOJ defines a detachable
magazine, but this is definitely worrisome and we should keep certainly keep an eye on it.

It will not effect CA law nor rifle status in CA. Your gun will not magically become illegal.

CA definition of 'detachable magazine' is indeed defined in regulatory definition (11 CCR 5469(a)) as one not
requiring a tool to remove nor disassembly of action. You actually should know this if you own such a rifle.

Nothing the ATF does here or elsewhere will change CA law/definition/CA assault weapons status.

So this does seem to require people buying multiple ARs in CA w/BBs (as well as featureless) to be specially reported.

THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO RECEIVERS. (No differentiation was made btwn stripped vs. stuffed-with-grip/stock receivers.)

However this document may be useful for other reasons :-)

Connor P Price
08-04-2011, 8:13 PM
However this document may be useful for other reasons :-)

Blah Blah Blah. I Wanna know what you meant by this part!!!

Lol, I'm only kidding of course, if you could have told us I'm sure you would have.

ZombieTactics
08-04-2011, 8:24 PM
... Pay attention to Q2 and Q3. Q2 states that “semiautomatic rifles capable of accepting a detachable magazine” are subject to reporting. Then, Q3 states that rifles with “bullet buttons” are subject to reporting, clearly making a statement that if a magazine can be removed even with a “bullet button” than it is “detachable”. ...

The document makes no such statement at all. This is simply an illogical conclusion on your part based upon independent statements.

mag360
08-04-2011, 8:36 PM
the pdf says this:

"Q3. Are rifles equipped with parts/accessories that encase/enclose the magazine release
button (i.e. “bullet button”) required to be reported?

A3. Yes. Firearms with parts and/or accessories that allow the exchange of removable
(including clip or drum-type) magazines meet the reporting requirements for certain
rifles. Contact the Firearms Industry Programs Branch at (202) 648-7190 for determinations as
to whether particular rifles are subject to the reporting requirements."


Foghorn leghorn "No I say no, I say ATF, its not, I repeat its not a removable magazine if it's locked in by a bullet button requiring a tool to remove now is it boy?"

"you just making things up as you go now boy?"

"you are not a chicken hawk!"

mag360
08-04-2011, 8:38 PM
Q8. Is the reporting of multiple sales applicable to transfers made to law enforcement officers?
A8. Yes, multiple sales to law enforcement officers must be reported to ATF.


gotcha bit**es in my best Dave Chappelle voice!

bigcalidave
08-04-2011, 8:41 PM
That little omission was our little california victory in the reporting requirements, so it's not a big loss having the atf take it away. These reporting requirements are going to cause them huge headaches as an organization, hand them the rope...

IllTemperedCur
08-04-2011, 9:21 PM
However this document may be useful for other reasons :-)

Cue maniacal Simon Bar Sinister laughter......

hoffmang
08-04-2011, 9:34 PM
It's damn amusing that a little idea I had has gone national!

The ATF technical branch loves me!

-Gene

CSACANNONEER
08-04-2011, 9:38 PM
P50s FWIW!!!!!!

proclone1
08-04-2011, 9:49 PM
Oh cool, so since the ATF now regards detachable-magazined weapons just as dangerous (and therefore reportable) as bullet-button weapons in the hands of criminals, can the CA legislators now explain why they continue to punish and enforce the law-abiding citizens with a clearly ineffective gun-control measure?

Yeah i know its not all cut & dry like that :P Please turn your sarcasm detectors back on

jeff762
08-04-2011, 10:12 PM
the pdf says this:

"Q3. Are rifles equipped with parts/accessories that encase/enclose the magazine release
button (i.e. “bullet button”) required to be reported?

A3. Yes. Firearms with parts and/or accessories that allow the exchange of removable
(including clip or drum-type) magazines meet the reporting requirements for certain
rifles. Contact the Firearms Industry Programs Branch at (202) 648-7190 for determinations as
to whether particular rifles are subject to the reporting requirements."


Foghorn leghorn "No I say no, I say ATF, its not, I repeat its not a removable magazine if it's locked in by a bullet button requiring a tool to remove now is it boy?"

"you just making things up as you go now boy?"

"you are not a chicken hawk!"

i think they is a loud mouth smuck.

Ubermcoupe
08-04-2011, 10:23 PM
...Please turn your sarcasm detectors back on

"Beep Beep Beep Beeeeeeeeep"

Seems the ATF has turned into a publishing company recently.

adamsreeftank
08-05-2011, 12:17 AM
It's damn amusing that a little idea I had has gone national!

The ATF technical branch loves me!

-Gene

:whistling:

adrenalinemedic
08-05-2011, 3:19 AM
However this document may be useful for other reasons :-)

I would bet a five spot I know where you're going with this.



And I like it.

Write Winger
08-05-2011, 3:28 AM
Just a little addition to the "unconstitutionally vague" argument....... "even the all knowing, all seeing, ATF can't get it right... how is the average citizen supposed to stay legal or an average LEO supposed to enforce the law?"

rod
08-05-2011, 6:02 AM
If the ATF is going to classify BB'd rifles with non-BB'd rifles, and call them one and the same, there might be an argument to get rid of the whole BB requirement all together.

franklinarmory
08-05-2011, 7:43 AM
This issue was brought up to the ATF at the NFATCA conference in Washington D.C. on Tuesday. During the Q&A period I tried to convey to them the concept of detachable magazines and "attachable" magazines in that they might look the same but perform differently given a BB equipped rifle. I expressed to them my concern that they might be setting precedence re the BB and AW regs. The response by the panel was that this was simply a record keeping issue for tracking weapons along border states and that it had no impact on state or federal AW definitions.

While this could be the camel's nose under the tent, we do have the benefit of the fact that this conference was public and video recorded. I'm sure NSSF will be able to utilize the ATF verbal response in future years if they intend to twist the meaning of the form, definition, and application.

Hopefully J&G and NRA will simply get the form quashed in court.

ldsnet
08-05-2011, 7:49 AM
ATF are not complete fools. They know with 5 minutes and a screw driver, the button can be removed and a regular mag release replaced, placing the firearm in question into their reporting category.

I would advise caution on this, we push the legislature on this issue alone, and they may write us out of existence again (until the next Supreme Court Ruling). I agree its BS!

Wherryj
08-05-2011, 9:00 AM
I wanted to give you guys heads up on an issue that has surfaced recently. ATF posted Q&A a few days ago on Reporting of Multiple Sale. Check out the PDF posted on ATF’s site. http://www.atf.gov/firearms/industry/072911-qa-multiple-rifles.pdf. Pay attention to Q2 and Q3. Q2 states that “semiautomatic rifles capable of accepting a detachable magazine” are subject to reporting. Then, Q3 states that rifles with “bullet buttons” are subject to reporting, clearly making a statement that if a magazine can be removed even with a “bullet button” than it is “detachable”. I don’t know what kind of consequences this is going to have in California and how CADOJ defines a detachable magazine, but this is definitely worrisome and we should keep certainly keep an eye on it.

Q3. Are rifles equipped with parts/accessories that encase/enclose the magazine release button (i.e. “bullet button”) required to be reported?
A3. Yes. Firearms with parts and/or accessories that allow the exchange of removable (including clip or drum-type) magazines meet the reporting requirements for certain rifles. Contact the Firearms Industry Programs Branch at (202) 648-7190 for determinations as to whether particular rifles are subject to the reporting requirements.

I am not a lawyer, but the way that I read this is as such. This is intended to imply/suggest that the bullet button makes it a detachable magazine, but the ATF's release doesn't specifically state that it is.

The separate Q3, after Q2 dealt with "all semi-auto with detachable magazine above 1 micron barrel diameter...blah, blah, blah", seems to ADD an additional requirement for rifles equipped with "parts/accessories that encase/enclose the magazine release". It means that this policy goes beyond the decisions that have decided that a bullet button wasn't a "detachable magazine", but this policy will still require these rifles to be reported if bought in multiples.

Perhaps I am reading it incorrectly? I think that what you are saying is what was intentionally applied, yet wasn't specifically what is stated in the release. I feel that it was probably an intentional bit of misinformation?

Wherryj
08-05-2011, 9:03 AM
This issue was brought up to the ATF at the NFATCA conference in Washington D.C. on Tuesday. During the Q&A period I tried to convey to them the concept of detachable magazines and "attachable" magazines in that they might look the same but perform differently given a BB equipped rifle. I expressed to them my concern that they might be setting precedence re the BB and AW regs. The response by the panel was that this was simply a record keeping issue for tracking weapons along border states and that it had no impact on state or federal AW definitions.

While this could be the camel's nose under the tent, we do have the benefit of the fact that this conference was public and video recorded. I'm sure NSSF will be able to utilize the ATF verbal response in future years if they intend to twist the meaning of the form, definition, and application.

Hopefully J&G and NRA will simply get the form quashed in court.

Well, IF they ever do manage to set a new precedent for a BB equipped rifle to be "detachable", doesn't that open another period for AW registration? That isn't exactly the best outcome, as it disenfranchises those who haven't already made their purchase/are too young to purchase yet, etc., but it DOES mean a whole lot more of us can take those blasted bullet buttons off and have unadulterated "AW"s.

Wherryj
08-05-2011, 9:06 AM
If the ATF is going to classify BB'd rifles with non-BB'd rifles, and call them one and the same, there might be an argument to get rid of the whole BB requirement all together.

The BB isn't a requirement, it is an alternative to a top loading-or other more restrictive-type of arrangement that would allow one of these "evil LOOKING rifles" to still be owned by the "peons".

It is a rather ingenious application of engineering to an imprecisely worded law. Fortunately our Congress Critters aren't as bright as their real world legal counterparts.

msteel
08-05-2011, 10:43 AM
I expressed to them my concern that they might be setting precedence re the BB and AW regs.

If I am understanding you correctly, that was my first thought as well upon learning this. Here we have the ATF talking about BB's now, Next thing you know, this retarded ill-conceived California legislation on AW definitions becomes a federal definition and the whole country is having to put up with this 10rd mag & BB crap. Its bad enough us Californian's have to put up with this craziness, I would feel sorry if this BS spread to a nationwide level.

bwiese
08-05-2011, 11:00 AM
If I am understanding you correctly, that was my first thought as well upon learning this. Here we have the ATF talking about BB's now, Next thing you know, this retarded ill-conceived California legislation on AW definitions becomes a federal definition and the whole country is having to put up with this 10rd mag & BB crap. Its bad enough us Californian's have to put up with this craziness, I would feel sorry if this BS spread to a nationwide level.

This simply cannot happen.

The ATF cannot end up banning such guns or requiring mods, that would take a law passed by Congress. Which won't happen.

msteel
08-05-2011, 11:17 AM
I hear ya, but don't have alot of faith in the system these days. I do hope your right though bwiese.

advocatusdiaboli
08-05-2011, 1:03 PM
While this could be the camel's nose under the tent, we do have the benefit of the fact that this conference was public and video recorded. I'm sure NSSF will be able to utilize the ATF verbal response in future years if they intend to twist the meaning of the form, definition, and application.

There are reasons why laws are written down and encoded in permanent records as opposed to being just verbal and this shows why. Although they might say this now, verbal agreements (and positions and interpretation) are not worth the paper they are written on. I am concerned that the Obama Admin plus our new AG Harris might be up to something. And yes, my tin foil hat is a bit tight and shiny, but it comforts me.

vincewarde
08-05-2011, 1:07 PM
ATF are not complete fools. They know with 5 minutes and a screw driver, the button can be removed and a regular mag release replaced, placing the firearm in question into their reporting category.

Bingo. You nailed it.

The line from ATF is that Semis bought here are modified by cartel "gunsmiths" into full auto weapons. I am sure this has happened to some limited degree. Compared to that removing a BB is easy.

As for California law, we have nothing to worry about since state law has it's own, very specific definition of a detachable magazine. The BB does not fall into that category, period. The Feds could pass a law tomorrow defining them all as detachable magazines and it would have zero effect on CA law.

The bottom line is that we would all love to have Federal law trump CA law, because Federal law gives us many more rights - but it just doesn't happen. Federal firearms law has generally been written in such a way as to allow states to effectively enforce their own firearms laws. For instance there are controls on buying forearms in other states that in most cases prevent a buyer from a more restrictive state from crossing a state line to buy in a less restrictive state.

PixelBender
08-05-2011, 3:02 PM
I wonder if that gangbanger even knows what a "bullet button" is. Probably thinks thats what the trigger is called.

Bullet button... christ.. sometimes I just want to move out of this stupid state. The only people crippled by the bullet button are law abiding citizens, the only freaking people actually buying them in the first place.

Fjold
08-05-2011, 4:41 PM
I love it!

Legal rifles in the State of California now not meeting a federal definition. If the laws change..............................Hello Grandfather!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

hoffmang
08-05-2011, 5:00 PM
Anyone worried about the state law impact - just remember the CA AG is bouncing up and down claiming that bullet buttons are legal (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.225676/gov.uscourts.cand.225676.26.1.pdf) (page 7/11.)

-Gene

franklinarmory
08-05-2011, 5:34 PM
This simply cannot happen.

The ATF cannot end up banning such guns or requiring mods, that would take a law passed by Congress. Which won't happen.

I agree that that is the way it ought to be, but that isn't the way it is always done. Look at all the M1 carbines in S. Korea that are not being allowed to come back home. Another example would be the importation of of "sporting use" shotguns. There was talk last week that DDTC (not necessarily ATF) maybe won't allow shotguns in with picatinny rails. Nowhere was there a mention of congress having a say. While these examples don't effect existing stock in American hands, they do effect future generations.

Generally, I would suggest that the ATF folks are gun guys, but every now and then, the Justice Department hands down a mandate that is beyond their pay grade to ignore. In short.... Politics. Obama and company are contorting 18 U.S.C. 923(g)(5)(A) to fit their needs on the multiple long gun sales even though it is in derogation to 18 U.S.C. 926(a)(2).

pitchbaby
08-05-2011, 6:25 PM
It's damn amusing that a little idea I had has gone national!

The ATF technical branch loves me!

-Gene

Cha Ching

dfletcher
08-05-2011, 6:37 PM
During the 1994 AW ban ATF classified the FN49 as having a detachable magazine, despite the fact that a tool is required and once removed the darn thing pretty much disassembles itself into a mag kit. I've always read the ATF definition of detachable to mean "can be removed" while the CA definyion is "can be removed with a tool only".

The ATF approach is no surprise.

tenpercentfirearms
08-06-2011, 12:28 AM
P50s FWIW!!!!!!

Hells yeah!

I really need to see a federal definition of what a "parts/accessories that encase/enclose the magazine release button" is. That really confuses me to the extreme.

Anchors
08-06-2011, 2:28 AM
ATF are not complete fools. They know with 5 minutes and a screw driver, the button can be removed and a regular mag release replaced, placing the firearm in question into their reporting category.

I would advise caution on this, we push the legislature on this issue alone, and they may write us out of existence again (until the next Supreme Court Ruling). I agree its BS!

Yeah I can also take a stripped lower and turn it into a reportable rifle in about 25 minutes.
You can also buy a sheet of steel and turn it into an AK receiver in about five minutes.
It either meets the definition or it doesn't. Has nothing to do with the ATF being stupid or not since all gun laws/gun law enforcement agencies are stupid.
They aren't saying because you can convert it into one, they are saying that the bullet button itself is still detachable.
A serious distinction.

During the 1994 AW ban ATF classified the FN49 as having a detachable magazine, despite the fact that a tool is required and once removed the darn thing pretty much disassembles itself into a mag kit. I've always read the ATF definition of detachable to mean "can be removed" while the CA definyion is "can be removed with a tool only".

The ATF approach is no surprise.

Good point :(

killmime1234
08-06-2011, 9:10 PM
By this standard, sks's with traditional non-detachable (but removeable with a tool) magazines need to be reported as well.

I'm not giving the ATF the benefit of my concern. Their rational, from what I have heard was that the "receiver is capable of accepting a detachable magazine," regardless of the release/locking mechanism. That would make a much, much wider array of firearms subject to reporting requirements.

BannedinBritain
08-07-2011, 9:23 AM
ATF are not complete fools. They know with 5 minutes and a screw driver, the button can be removed and a regular mag release replaced, placing the firearm in question into their reporting category.

I would advise caution on this, we push the legislature on this issue alone, and they may write us out of existence again (until the next Supreme Court Ruling). I agree its BS!

In just a little more time than 5 minutes I can make my AR full auto...does that mean I own a machine gun?

CSACANNONEER
08-07-2011, 9:25 AM
In just a little more time than 5 minutes I can make my AR full auto...does that mean I own a machine gun?

I'm guessing that 4 1/2 of those minutes are used finding a paper clip.

BannedinBritain
08-07-2011, 9:30 AM
I'm guessing that 4 1/2 of those minutes are used finding a paper clip.

Shhhhh

:whistling::rofl2:

frankm
08-07-2011, 9:39 AM
It's damn amusing that a little idea I had has gone national!

The ATF technical branch loves me!

-Gene

You know you want to go before the Supreme Court on this. It's okay to admit it! We all know already! LOL!

Oh, and excuse my french, eff those commie rat bast-ds.

hoffmang
08-07-2011, 11:13 AM
You know you want to go before the Supreme Court on this. It's okay to admit it! We all know already! LOL!

Oh, and excuse my french, eff those commie rat bast-ds.

Actually I want the Supreme Court to destroy the market for bullet buttons. Just saying :43:

-Gene