PDA

View Full Version : Why not just build ar's with cast bullet buttons???


corrosively_armed
07-17-2012, 10:52 PM
Build it into the gun so that you have to insert a tool to remove the magazine. Don't make it optional. Create a new design with the bullet button mechansim cast into the frame. Problem solved. Come up with an AK design that does the same thing. Would look better too.

rero360
07-17-2012, 10:54 PM
And do tell, why would you want this?

mossy
07-17-2012, 10:54 PM
i don't plan on living here forever. when i move i don't want to have to replace all my lowers.

ICONIC
07-17-2012, 10:57 PM
Hopefully the bullet button/raddock is only a temporary situation. Some day we will be able to have a magazine release like all the other states.

Endofcomment
07-17-2012, 11:00 PM
Troll.. Lol. Its not a game of finding loopholes to get what we want we want the state to start being more conscious of the constitution and the 2A as all they are doing is whittling the 2A down to mean nothing.

I have a new criteria for all who want to create firearms legislation, all politicians should be forced to take all basic firearms training programs and use different types of firearms especially the type that would be affected by their bill before the house would even touch the bill.. I know this would never happen and is more of a dream but I think if would open some eyes.

corrosively_armed
07-17-2012, 11:00 PM
The reason we still can have SKSs in california is because of the fixed magazine. Do the same thing with ARs but give them a mag release requiring a tool. No bullet button as we know it now. Just redesign the thing to require a tool. This seems to me at least an elegant solution.

corrosively_armed
07-17-2012, 11:04 PM
You're already walking a fine line with olls. Following your logic EOC, we shouldn't have them because we should just fight to legalize the originals like the colts and bushmasters etc. My way creates a new design that is entirely legal unless of course they make a law saying a gun requiring a tool to remove the magazine is still a detachable magazine weapon.

mossy
07-17-2012, 11:06 PM
The reason we still can have SKSs in california is because of the fixed magazine. Do the same thing with ARs but give them a mag release requiring a tool. No bullet button as we know it now. Just redesign the thing to require a tool. This seems to me at least an elegant solution.

if a rifle has a bullet button it IS by law a fixed magazine. to the best of my Knowledge certain SKS's can have detachable mags in CA because they are SKS is not stamped on them and they are a featureless rifle.

Chaos47
07-17-2012, 11:08 PM
The reason we still can have SKSs in california is because of the fixed magazine. Do the same thing with ARs but give them a mag release requiring a tool. No bullet button as we know it now. Just redesign the thing to require a tool. This seems to me at least an elegant solution.

You need to read the law and actually learn how things work here in California.

Magazine locked rifles are not the only legal configuration here. There are featureless rifles that can legally have a magazine release.

12276.1 (a) Notwithstanding PC section 12276, assault weapon shall also
mean the following: Rifles
[Featureless Builds]
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a
detachable magazine CCR 11 5469 (a) and any one of the following:
(A) A pistol grip CCR 11 5469 (d)
(B) A thumbhole stock. CCR 11 5469 (e)
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor. CCR 11 5469 (b)
(F) A forward pistol grip. CCR 11 5469 (c)

[Magazine locked builds]
(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the
capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

“Detachable magazine” means any ammunition feeding
device that can be removed readily from the firearm with neither
disassembly of the firearm action nor use of a tool being required.

A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool

Bullet buttons can use tools including a bullet. I don't know why you think they should be redesigned when they fit the law. Also its a little silly to say that it should be cast in but offer no real solution as to how they would work differently.


BTW you sound like an anti :rolleyes:

bob7122
07-17-2012, 11:12 PM
You're already walking a fine line with olls. Following your logic EOC, we shouldn't have them because we should just fight to legalize the originals like the colts and bushmasters etc. My way creates a new design that is entirely legal unless of course they make a law saying a gun requiring a tool to remove the magazine is still a detachable magazine weapon.

what fine line are you talking about?

there is only legal and illegal, if it does not follow a specific list of things then it is illegal. there is no, "oh you are pushing the envelope, you are sort of muddling the legal jargon," no we follow what the law says is allowed in a safe manner, but one that can also be worthwhile. for one might not remain in CA forever, they may leave to say nevada. ^^^top is a flowchart and oll assembly guide with an interactive guide as well.
The bullet button was created to be a cheap, economical, and most importantly SAFE solution to 2a infringement.

why redesign a great firearm, waste $ in R&D to find the right design that would work with ARs and then sell something that is specifically for CA, when you can just buy a bullet button that follows the law, safe, reliable, economical, and a big F U to CA?

not everyone believes that the laws here in CA will remain an infringement on our 2a rights. and there are featureless builds that also are clearly legal because it follows a specific set of restrictions to the t.
just my 2cents.

Jason_2111
07-18-2012, 12:55 AM
Plus, a lot of folks here in CA train in other states where the silly neutered AR isn't an issue. When you run out to Front Sight for a weekend, it only takes a minute to change out a bullet button for a normal mag release, but if it was built in, that would pretty much just be more hassle than it's worth.

dantodd
07-18-2012, 6:43 AM
Actually an interesting idea IMO. Naturally, we'd much prefer to kil SB249 but it is possible that a "cast in" BB collar might be useful for showing the futility of trying to ban evil black rifles.

The downside, of course, is that it will rquire custom tooling that is only useful in CA and would thus be more expensive etc.

CSACANNONEER
07-18-2012, 6:55 AM
If you want to become an 07FFL and start machining your own lowers, go for it. Who knows, you might find a market for your new lowers. However, we've already gone way past that. Do you remember FAB10s? How about Evan's sealed mag well lowers? Then, there were the fixed mag lowers from Vulcan and all the fixed mag OLLs created by the end user. We've slowly and legally evolved our OLLs to the point that we're at now. Why would someone want to spend extra money to get a special lower that can't be used for a featureless or rimfire rifle? I don't see a market for them. But, I've been wrong before. So, why don't you either make your own or commission a small batch and see if you're on to something?

mud99
07-18-2012, 7:13 AM
You cant cast that part in, because it would need a nut between the inner and outer castings.

The theoretical solution I have come up with uses a remote controlled actuator to drop the magazine.

If a bullet is a tool, a remote control is a tool as well, right?

Just need to convince someone to build it and pay the legal bills LOL.

stix213
07-18-2012, 8:25 AM
What problem is this solving exactly?

stix213
07-18-2012, 8:29 AM
You're already walking a fine line with olls. Following your logic EOC, we shouldn't have them because we should just fight to legalize the originals like the colts and bushmasters etc. My way creates a new design that is entirely legal unless of course they make a law saying a gun requiring a tool to remove the magazine is still a detachable magazine weapon.

What makes you think these guns have to have bullet buttons at all? Neither of these need them.

http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/2148/img1065cr.jpg

rero360
07-18-2012, 8:43 AM
In addition to thinking its a retarded idea, I just want to throw some terminology correction out there for the OP:

AR receivers are not cast, they are either forged or machined out of a solid block of aluminum aka billet, although while not a truly correct term itself, its popular use enough to suffice.

Maybe do some research in the three different manufacturing methods, might learn something.

Fate
07-18-2012, 9:48 AM
Everyone say "Hi" to Carolyn McCarthy!

Thordo
07-18-2012, 10:23 AM
There's a Bay Area manufacturer that makes a lower similar to what the OP is describing. I'm looking for the name. They'll be at the Vallejo show this weekend. The model # is M22 I think.

Whether its convertible back to a regular push button? IDK.

Thordo

Thordo
07-18-2012, 10:25 AM
Here it is.

http://www.rehindustries.com/Home_Page.php

Thordo

NYsteveZ
07-18-2012, 10:44 AM
i don't plan on living here forever. when i move i don't want to have to replace all my lowers.

THIS^^^. Also, perhaps we can design AR's that dont use bullets. They can use water instead, and then there is no need for bullet buttons.

Sorry OP, I would rather we as gun owners and the manufacturers put our resources into FIGHTING the draconian laws we already have on the books, not appease the anti's and gain our rights back.

nocomply25
07-18-2012, 11:15 AM
THIS^^^. Also, perhaps we can design AR's that dont use bullets. They can use water instead, and then there is no need for bullet buttons.

Sorry OP, I would rather we as gun owners and the manufacturers put our resources into FIGHTING the draconian laws we already have on the books, not appease the anti's and gain our rights back.

ROFL! man that was funny.

Ya I think that is retarded idea,the law should be changed we shouldnt change things to try and comply to some BS law. lately i have been having this ****ing crazy dreams that people are breaking into my house and when i grab my AR i realize that i only have 10 rounds and i need a tool to release the mag to put another mag in....I freak out and wake up. Its funny that even in my dreams this law leaves you pretty helpless to attackers. Imagine real life...10 in the AR and 10 in the handgun....better make them count and better hope its only 1 or two guys max.

joemama
07-18-2012, 11:58 AM
Why would anyone do that to an ar? It's hard enough putting a bullet button on them let alone have it be a permanent fixture...

Khanan
07-18-2012, 12:28 PM
What makes you think these guns have to have bullet buttons at all? Neither of these need them.


Just to be clear, no gun needs them. It is the oppression of stupid politicians that don't understand what "shall not be infringed" means that force us to have them so we aren't arrested.

To the OP:

As soon as your solution is implemented, and "Problem solved.", a new problem will emerge. The legislators will just make new laws with more problems to solve. Eventually as someone has already stated, the only thing we will be able to fire from the AR platform legally is water. These legislators take an oath to uphold the Constitution while what they mean is to do is trample all over it.

Nice Troll, go post on the Brady boards.

IrishPirate
07-18-2012, 12:33 PM
rather than finding loopholes in the law, how about we elect officials that uphold our constitutional rights rather than trying to create loophole laws that infringe on them? We can b**ch all we want and spend 1000's of hours trying to come up with new ideas for workarounds or we can accept that it's our fault they are in power and fix the problem at the source by putting people in office who actually want to SERVE THE PEOPLE

tonelar
07-18-2012, 12:38 PM
I think the OP is kidding. Or are you mistaking this for the Leland Yee thread?

12voltguy
07-18-2012, 12:49 PM
There's a Bay Area manufacturer that makes a lower similar to what the OP is describing. I'm looking for the name. They'll be at the Vallejo show this weekend. The model # is M22 I think.

Whether its convertible back to a regular push button? IDK.

Thordo

it is just a bullet button
& can be switched to std release, but you need there special round reease
onlt difference is round instead of oval shape, not built in
just a bullet button

SuperSet
07-18-2012, 12:53 PM
I think the OP is kidding. Or are you mistaking this for the Leland Yee thread?

He aint jokin around and that's the :confused: part.

Munk
07-18-2012, 1:04 PM
I think the OP is kidding. Or are you mistaking this for the Leland Yee thread?

He aint jokin around and that's the :confused: part.

I think the OLL with a built-in method of making the mag fixed would be a partial solution to the Yee "Conversion Kit" BS if it gets enacted. That's my guess as to what the OP was suggesting.

DonFerrando
07-18-2012, 1:08 PM
Build it into the gun so that you have to insert a tool to remove the magazine. Don't make it optional. Create a new design with the bullet button mechansim cast into the frame. Problem solved. Come up with an AK design that does the same thing. Would look better too.

I prefer using guns the way they were meant to be used. Permanently altering a firearm to bring it in compliance makes me cringe. I rather not own a gun that I will have to turn into a bastardization of what it was meant to be just to have it comply with these sh*tty commie laws. My money, time and safe space is too precious to waste it on neutered and defiled hardware because some *sshole politician thinks he knows what's best for me. The bullet button is about as far as I will go because it is relatively small insult that can be reversed when I go out of state or when this POS assault weapons law gets finally flushed down the toilet.

CEDaytonaRydr
07-18-2012, 1:44 PM
The way it was explained to me:

Because if they try to ban bullet buttons (like SB249 is currently attempting to do), they will have to allow us to register them as RAWs. At that point, we should be able to configure them however we want. ;)

REH
07-18-2012, 1:53 PM
it is just a bullet button
& can be switched to std release, but you need there special round reease
onlt difference is round instead of oval shape, not built in
just a bullet button

Yes, it is a hex head nut instead of a oval nut to hold the catch. Switching the catch to a standard one will return it to a standard push to release. It is not a bullet button. It is part of the receiver. The differance between a standard AR receiver and a REH is the hole for the mag catch button.

missiondude
07-18-2012, 1:58 PM
Yes, it is a hex head nut instead of a oval nut to hold the catch. Switching the catch to a standard one will return it to a standard push to release. It is not a bullet button. It is part of the receiver. The differance between a standard AR receiver and a REH is the hole for the mag catch button.

Does the mag magnet work on your design?

REH
07-18-2012, 2:02 PM
Does the mag magnet work on your design?

NO...............................

Yemff
07-18-2012, 2:54 PM
Here it is.

http://www.rehindustries.com/Home_Page.php

Thordo

/thread

corrosively_armed
07-18-2012, 11:06 PM
Never owned an AR or AK. Mainly into old bolt action military rifles such as lee enfields, mausers, nagants and mas. Also the martini henry and blackpowder. It seems like some people are hostile to the idea of working within the system. You could have filed lawsuits claiming the original assault weapons ban was illegal, instead someone came up with the idea of the bullet button, hoffman? and we got away with it for awhile. I knew sooner or later they'd catch on. They'll likely catch on to the monsterman grips etc and similar gimmicks. I don't know what chance we have to defeat the legislation or the eventual lawsuit. Depends if it's heard in Fresno or not :) (That's where the ammo ban was overturned).

The eventual goal I'm sure is to simply ban all semi automatic rifles that fire centerfire rifle cartridges. So, mini 14s, ak and ar variants etc etc would all become illegal andor existing ones would be grandfathered in. I have an SKS with a fixed magazine. That's the only gun I have that would be affected. I have a semi auto ruger carbine but that fires a 40 sandw. I applaud any attempt to thwart mr yee but I think if you don't consider my idea as a solution then you may well be out of luck and you won't have any kind of ar or ak period. I'd say design an AK receiver as well that permanently requires a tool to remove the magazine. If we were so concerned about keeping the guns in their original configuration someone with some money should fight the original ban. Until then if you absolutely have to have an AK or AR 'style' weapon then you can always either go with the sealed magazine ars which I have seen in shops that load from the top with a stripper clip and in the case of the AK just get rid of the damned pistol grip. or, get a 22 ak.

We live in california. Each state in the US can unfortunately make laws stiffer than the federal law. A fact which I have never understood. But we choose to live here. We can fight but we always have to be aware that by living here we are subjecting ourselves to the rules of our 'host'. Our host is hostile to guns of certain types. I don't like it but that's the situation.

Shall we start a major campaign to legalize full auto? Good luck with that.

DonFerrando
07-18-2012, 11:41 PM
If we were so concerned about keeping the guns in their original configuration someone with some money should fight the original ban.

As far as I understand this is currently in progress:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=496479

guitar-nut
07-19-2012, 12:24 AM
Built-in non-removable bullet button? No thanks, sounds like an expensive and useless gimmick. Besides, featureless is the way to go.

gunsmith
07-19-2012, 12:32 AM
Shall we start a major campaign to legalize full auto? Good luck with that.

Really deep, man.

eaglemike
07-19-2012, 7:39 AM
Never owned an AR or AK. Mainly into old bolt action military rifles such as lee enfields, mausers, nagants and mas. Also the martini henry and blackpowder. It seems like some people are hostile to the idea of working within the system. You could have filed lawsuits claiming the original assault weapons ban was illegal, instead someone came up with the idea of the bullet button, hoffman? and we got away with it for awhile. I knew sooner or later they'd catch on. They'll likely catch on to the monsterman grips etc and similar gimmicks. I don't know what chance we have to defeat the legislation or the eventual lawsuit. Depends if it's heard in Fresno or not :) (That's where the ammo ban was overturned).

The eventual goal I'm sure is to simply ban all semi automatic rifles that fire centerfire rifle cartridges. So, mini 14s, ak and ar variants etc etc would all become illegal andor existing ones would be grandfathered in. I have an SKS with a fixed magazine. That's the only gun I have that would be affected. I have a semi auto ruger carbine but that fires a 40 sandw. I applaud any attempt to thwart mr yee but I think if you don't consider my idea as a solution then you may well be out of luck and you won't have any kind of ar or ak period. I'd say design an AK receiver as well that permanently requires a tool to remove the magazine. If we were so concerned about keeping the guns in their original configuration someone with some money should fight the original ban. Until then if you absolutely have to have an AK or AR 'style' weapon then you can always either go with the sealed magazine ars which I have seen in shops that load from the top with a stripper clip and in the case of the AK just get rid of the damned pistol grip. or, get a 22 ak.

We live in california. Each state in the US can unfortunately make laws stiffer than the federal law. A fact which I have never understood. But we choose to live here. We can fight but we always have to be aware that by living here we are subjecting ourselves to the rules of our 'host'. Our host is hostile to guns of certain types. I don't like it but that's the situation.

Shall we start a major campaign to legalize full auto? Good luck with that.
The bolded part is really apparent. You might consider gaining some knowledge of the various arms you wish to discuss. BTW - you might not know this, but a properly set up AR pattern rifle can be a tack driver. See if you can find someone in your area that will let you shoot a bb'd AR pattern, and the non-featured AR pattern.

Part of the reason the initial ban in Ca was passed was because they separated the various disciplines. (also horrible mis-information, horrible lobbyists and no organization really active on our side) The .30 Garand shooters, the SASS people, and the bolt gun people saw no reason to fight the ban back then.

I used to think "reasonable" laws could be used to help control crime. I've since realized that "reasonable laws" are never enough for the gun controls types, and laws do almost nothing to control crime. Please stop and think about this.

The current situation (using a BB in a featured AR) is a way to own a legal sporing or HD arm. The BB does have a negative effect on the overall usefulness of the arm.

I'm really surprised you've been a member here since 2007 and haven't followed this stuff. All the law stuff going on for the last 5 years has been of crucial importance.

javalos
07-19-2012, 9:47 AM
Build it into the gun so that you have to insert a tool to remove the magazine. Don't make it optional. Create a new design with the bullet button mechansim cast into the frame. Problem solved. Come up with an AK design that does the same thing. Would look better too.

You got to be kidding! Why screw up a perfectly good gun? Many people don't plan on living in Kalifornia forever.

javalos
07-19-2012, 9:48 AM
You're already walking a fine line with olls. Following your logic EOC, we shouldn't have them because we should just fight to legalize the originals like the colts and bushmasters etc. My way creates a new design that is entirely legal unless of course they make a law saying a gun requiring a tool to remove the magazine is still a detachable magazine weapon.

What fine line? CA Supreme Court ruled possession and sale of OLL's are legal.

dfletcher
07-19-2012, 9:52 AM
What problem is this solving exactly?

I think the intent is to avoid the SB249 restriction? If SB 249 bans the BB as a separate device then having the BB "post" as an integral part of the receiver kills the issue. Seems like an interesting thought. I'm just guessing though.

As an aside, I'd hope that Yee's little exercise in gun hating futility makes clear to everyone that people who don't like guns don't like any of them, that they don't think some are OK while others are not OK. People who don't like guns don't want anyone to have any guns for any reason - period.

corrosively_armed
07-19-2012, 9:40 PM
I offered what I thought was an ingenious solution to the problem of owning what legislators have deemed an illegal weapon in California. I don't understand why my idea makes less sense than the removable bullet button. It seems to me that if you make the magazine removable only with a tool and that that ability is not modifieable then everyone should be happy including the people concerned about easily swapped out high capacity magazines in a mass shooting.

What is the enemy's goal here? Do they really think they are protecting the public or are they really intent on disarming people and throwing a great many of us into concentration camps? If they want to protect the populace are they just misguided because sooner or later some evil bastard will round us up?? Us being conservatives or rather people who have the right to freedom from tyranny through being armed.

I read a lot of apocalyptic fiction. One theme is often a totalitarian far left government has taken power in the US. I wonder how easily this would really happen. How many soldiers would follow orders and shoot other US citizens?

What are we really protecting here. Are we just paranoid nuts or are we really fighting for continued freedom?

I do know for a fact that there are traditional firearms people who have always hated the increase in use amongst shooters of 'black rifles'. Military style semi automatic weapons, they feel, makes us all look bad in the eyes of the non shooting public.

It is unfortunate that many members of Joe Public do not see people with AR-15s as hobbyists. They see them as threats.

The bolded part is really apparent. You might consider gaining some knowledge of the various arms you wish to discuss. BTW - you might not know this, but a properly set up AR pattern rifle can be a tack driver. See if you can find someone in your area that will let you shoot a bb'd AR pattern, and the non-featured AR pattern.

Part of the reason the initial ban in Ca was passed was because they separated the various disciplines. (also horrible mis-information, horrible lobbyists and no organization really active on our side) The .30 Garand shooters, the SASS people, and the bolt gun people saw no reason to fight the ban back then.

I used to think "reasonable" laws could be used to help control crime. I've since realized that "reasonable laws" are never enough for the gun controls types, and laws do almost nothing to control crime. Please stop and think about this.

The current situation (using a BB in a featured AR) is a way to own a legal sporing or HD arm. The BB does have a negative effect on the overall usefulness of the arm.

I'm really surprised you've been a member here since 2007 and haven't followed this stuff. All the law stuff going on for the last 5 years has been of crucial importance.

eaglemike
07-19-2012, 9:52 PM
I offered what I thought was an ingenious solution to the problem of owning what legislators have deemed an illegal weapon in California. I don't understand why my idea makes less sense than the removable bullet button. It seems to me that if you make the magazine removable only with a tool and that that ability is not modifieable then everyone should be happy including the people concerned about easily swapped out high capacity magazines in a mass shooting.

What is the enemy's goal here? Do they really think they are protecting the public or are they really intent on disarming people and throwing a great many of us into concentration camps? If they want to protect the populace are they just misguided because sooner or later some evil bastard will round us up?? Us being conservatives or rather people who have the right to freedom from tyranny through being armed.

I read a lot of apocalyptic fiction. One theme is often a totalitarian far left government has taken power in the US. I wonder how easily this would really happen. How many soldiers would follow orders and shoot other US citizens?

What are we really protecting here. Are we just paranoid nuts or are we really fighting for continued freedom?

I do know for a fact that there are traditional firearms people who have always hated the increase in use amongst shooters of 'black rifles'. Military style semi automatic weapons, they feel, makes us all look bad in the eyes of the non shooting public.

It is unfortunate that many members of Joe Public do not see people with AR-15s as hobbyists. They see them as threats.
You might consider building one from a bare lower. Test it, then tell others about your experience.

Ingenious solution? Ummm, not really. Those that choose to own arms with non-detachable magazines holding less than 10 rounds are in full compliance with the law. Why does this need another solution? Have you noticed any sort of crime wave by people owning these arms? NO? I thought not. So why change things for the worse?

You are looking to appease, compromise.... How has that worked so far?

Some of your remarks above sound pretty extreme.....

I've noticed that often those that want cooperation and promote acceptance insist on other people agreeing with their point of view.

ETA: I know in this age of PC it's popular to modify behavior to quell another person's fears. Where does one draw the line? If no one is harmed, why should one give in to someone else's phobia?

corrosively_armed
07-19-2012, 10:16 PM
But the bullet button is just an appeasement in itself. If you make it part of the gun then it can't be called a conversion kit and it solves the detachable magazine problem.

five.five-six
07-19-2012, 10:20 PM
I like this troll, he seems like a nice guy... I just hope he does not try any of his ideas, our prisons are overcrowded as it is.

corrosively_armed
07-19-2012, 10:30 PM
WTF am I missing here??? Is it illegal to make the damned thing physically part of the frame or what??

Donk310
07-19-2012, 10:51 PM
Hopefully the bullet button/raddock is only a temporary situation. Some day we will be able to have a magazine release like all the other states.

Don't hold your breath.

Josh3239
07-19-2012, 11:01 PM
WTF am I missing here??? Is it illegal to make the damned thing physically part of the frame or what??

Your missing the part where it is an expensive, no one wants solution for a problem that doesn't exist. You seem to be missing a lot, specifically the wordage of the bill and more importantly the rest of the law.

12voltguy
07-20-2012, 8:08 AM
I offered what I thought was an ingenious solution to the problem of owning what legislators have deemed an illegal weapon in California. I don't understand why my idea makes less sense than the removable bullet button. It seems to me that if you make the magazine removable only with a tool and that that ability is not modifieable then everyone should be happy including the people concerned about easily swapped out high capacity magazines in a mass shooting.

What is the enemy's goal here? Do they really think they are protecting the public or are they really intent on disarming people and throwing a great many of us into concentration camps? If they want to protect the populace are they just misguided because sooner or later some evil bastard will round us up?? Us being conservatives or rather people who have the right to freedom from tyranny through being armed.

I read a lot of apocalyptic fiction. One theme is often a totalitarian far left government has taken power in the US. I wonder how easily this would really happen. How many soldiers would follow orders and shoot other US citizens?

What are we really protecting here. Are we just paranoid nuts or are we really fighting for continued freedom?
I do know for a fact that there are traditional firearms people who have always hated the increase in use amongst shooters of 'black rifles'. Military style semi automatic weapons, they feel, makes us all look bad in the eyes of the non shooting public.

It is unfortunate that many members of Joe Public do not see people with AR-15s as hobbyists. They see them as threats.

this shoud be merged with the other thread

Question: What's so bad about registration?
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=596899

Capybara
07-20-2012, 8:27 AM
We can fight but we always have to be aware that by living here we are subjecting ourselves to the rules of our 'host'. Our host is hostile to ALL guns of certain types. I don't like it but that's the situation.


Fixed that for you.

Our Host is supposed to work for us, we elect them and pay their salaries. The downfall of this state I was born and raised in, is that the voters here somehow believe that they should just rollover and LET the government be in charge.

Chaos47
07-22-2012, 10:55 PM
WTF am I missing here??? Is it illegal to make the damned thing physically part of the frame or what??

You are missing the point that there are legal rifles in CA that do not need magazine locks and can legally use their magazine release.

Read my post over again
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=8950818&postcount=9

Your ingenious solution is severely flawed by your lack of basic knowledge of how CA law is actually written.

corrosively_armed
07-23-2012, 10:45 PM
Then by your logic everyone can take off their bullet buttons and openly shoot their ARs without fear of arrest. You must be splitting hairs over something because people USE bullet buttons. My idea gets rid of the whole problem entirely. Why bother with bullet buttons at all then if you don't think they are required.

You are missing the point that there are legal rifles in CA that do not need magazine locks and can legally use their magazine release.

Read my post over again
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=8950818&postcount=9

Your ingenious solution is severely flawed by your lack of basic knowledge of how CA law is actually written.

rero360
07-23-2012, 10:58 PM
Then by your logic everyone can take off their bullet buttons and openly shoot their ARs without fear of arrest. You must be splitting hairs over something because people USE bullet buttons. My idea gets rid of the whole problem entirely. Why bother with bullet buttons at all then if you don't think they are required.

You can, everyone can, if the AR (or other semi auto for that matter) does not have any other "evil" features. Does it need to be spoon fed to you and drawn in crayon for you?

I have an AR, ok? I currently have a collapsible stock on it and a pistol grip, thus I have to use a bullet button and 10 round mags. Having a flash hider would also be a contributing feature as well if I had one.

However, if I want to use the greater than 10 round mags that I own, I have to (and can 100% legally) replace the stock with one that is not adjustable, remove the pistol grip (putting a fin on it or replacing it with a hammerhead or similar grip) and if I had a flash hider I would replace that with a comp / brake/ thread protector. (This is called featureless by the way)

Also, and this is key, I have to remove the bullet button and use the original magazine release button in conjunction with the magazines that are greater than 10 rounds.

Does that clear it up for you? With the laws as they currently are, its a one or the other, you can do either or, both are completely legal.

The reason so many people use bullet buttons is because they either don't know that featureless is completely legal, or they don't own any greater than 10 round magazines, or they don't mind sticking with 10 rounders because they prefer the looks and or ergonomics of the normal stocks and grips.