PDA

View Full Version : what if we took to court AR-15 type rifles and bullet buttons...


bob7122
10-03-2011, 9:38 AM
so I was thinking about how easy it is to have a pin in a glove and use it on a bullet button for AR-15 type rifles. It could be used just as quickly as if it were featureless rifle.

couldn't we go to court and argue that this totally legal tool makes it just as easy as if it were featureless and that we might as well be allowed to use semi-auto rifles with pistol grips and detachable mags, since this trick negates the fact that it is a fixed mag rifle to the letter of law. at least with AR pattern rifles.

I got this idea from the regular capacity mag where some CGN'er said that they should eliminate the 10 rd mag law because we could do path A even if they continue to have the law, and if they choose to do B and/or C we would do X, Y, Z and they would be helpless to stop it.

I am just thinking of ideas sorry if it is a waste of time but thanks for reading and for posting your comments.

wash
10-03-2011, 9:46 AM
As a legal theory, that sucks.

Sorry.

CGF does have an "assault weapon" lawsuit filed, I don't recall the name.

The legal system doesn't work on common sense, Perry Mason would be a horrible lawyer if he ever had a client that was actually guilty.

bwiese
10-03-2011, 9:58 AM
The best ways of attacking CA AW laws are


Clarity/as applied [huge # of LE contacts, invalid arrests & seizures]
Possbily certain equal protection matters (Silviera-derived)
Can the state ban semauto rifles that are 'not dangerous and
unusual' - and are in such common use in rest of country that
several of these rifle types - indeed the general category - are
the highest-selling long gun type in US, and have been common
for decades?

Worrying about equivalence of legal vs not-legal features & workarounds is not the right legal path.

ALSystems
10-03-2011, 10:06 AM
CGF does have an "assault weapon" lawsuit filed, I don't recall the name.

The current California Assault Weapon case is Richards v. Harris.

Link for Calguns Wiki gun related litigation:
http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Litigation_Past_and_Present

bob7122
10-03-2011, 10:14 AM
okey dokey. never mind then.

wash
10-03-2011, 11:03 AM
We like the enthusiasm but it would be more effective if it were directed in to a CGF donation.

I gave on Saturday.

If you find a more effective direction, let me know!

jamesob
10-03-2011, 11:59 AM
the aw ban is so screwed up that they have weapons listed that do not have any evil features. that would be one of your good battles right there.

djleisure
10-03-2011, 12:20 PM
the aw ban is so screwed up that they have weapons listed that do not have any evil features. that would be one of your good battles right there.
In fact, the AW ban is so screwed, they have a rail (Knights: RAS (all)) listed as an AW. Now that would be one of your good battles right there. ;) (Not that the one you mentioned isn't either. :))

OC-Indian
10-03-2011, 12:23 PM
Common sense and CA gun laws do not mix

Ubermcoupe
10-03-2011, 12:30 PM
You can always help by volunteering! There are several active threads that only require your time. :thumbsup:

Tango_Whiskey
10-03-2011, 1:06 PM
In fact, the AW ban is so screwed, they have a rail (Knights: RAS (all)) listed as an AW. Now that would be one of your good battles right there. ;) (Not that the one you mentioned isn't either. :))

So, would I be charged with an AW if I had a Knights RAS mounted on an upper attached to a OLL with bullet button?

donw
10-03-2011, 1:08 PM
Common sense and CA gun laws do not mix


well said!

be careful...a suggestion like (taking them to court about AW's, BB's etc) that might stir up thoughts from the likes of leno and Deleon about more legislation about "AW features"...they have warped, convoluted ideas anyway...why help them?

djleisure
10-03-2011, 1:18 PM
So, would I be charged with an AW if I had a Knights RAS mounted on an upper attached to a OLL with bullet button?
Well, technically unless you filled out the paper work to register your Knights RAS as an AW prior to the ban, you can't even have on in this state - it would be a federal offense. I'm sure the CGF would love an AW case that revolved around a KAC RAS as an AW - that would be pretty sweet. :)

...but, the point is, it perfectly illustrates how there are "things that are EXACTLY like other things" on that banned list and yet one is completely legal and the other is not, solely based on its name. Good stuff.

And, just in case you are completely seriously asking your question, you are fine with a KAC RAS on any rifle, don't worry about it. ;)

Tango_Whiskey
10-03-2011, 5:43 PM
Well, technically unless you filled out the paper work to register your Knights RAS as an AW prior to the ban, you can't even have on in this state - it would be a federal offense. I'm sure the CGF would love an AW case that revolved around a KAC RAS as an AW - that would be pretty sweet. :)

...but, the point is, it perfectly illustrates how there are "things that are EXACTLY like other things" on that banned list and yet one is completely legal and the other is not, solely based on its name. Good stuff.

And, just in case you are completely seriously asking your question, you are fine with a KAC RAS on any rifle, don't worry about it. ;)

Great, thanks. I do have one, it's mounted on my registered lower right now.
Thanks