There's another possible outcome I think, i.e., summary disposition letter, maybe under 270(f)(2)(E).
I'm trying to figure out if there's a way to wager around your possible outcome number 4.
I want to make sure I'm following you when you say "interpret...in some way that alters the definition of 'detachable magazine' as it relates to rifles." Do you mean interpret in some way that is inconsistent with the literal construction of 12276.1(a)(1) (with the regulatory definition substituted for "detachable magazine") as applied to BB equipped rifles?
If so, I'm not sure I'd want to bet on this; any interpretation that BB equipped rifles are not lawfully configured would be inconsistent with the literal construction which results in the rifle not having the capacity to accept a detachable magazine. If it gets past acceptance and summary disposition it's likely to end up this way.
Betting on whether literal construction is the "only legally tenable interpretation" is another story but that's basically what I proposed above, and I agree it is unlikely that OAL would decide that. Betting on the whether literal construction is the "correct" interpretation I'd consider, but OAL isn't deciding that either.
This is my thinking on Bullet Button rifles: I think they're assault weapons if they have any of the prohibited features. I'm not going to even try to convince anyone here about it!
I think OAL would fairly assess the competing arguments but it's hard for me to see how to construct a legal/not legal bet around an OAL decision on the petition. I'm serious about doing it though if we can figure out a way to decide a winner.