Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1881  
Old 05-23-2017, 9:45 PM
Fox Mulder's Avatar
Fox Mulder Fox Mulder is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: The Truth Is Out There.
Posts: 310
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by franklinarmory View Post
Let me try again.... How many people have been arrested for modifying their registered AW?

If CADOJ's logic was sound today, it would apply to older AWs as well. Would changing a handguard (or even a magazine) on a pre 2000 AW be considered "manufacturing?"
Yup. I could throw a RAW M1A into a Sage EBR chassis, add a VFG, mount a red dot and a bipod on it. Perfectly legal.

I could switch out a thumb hole stock on a RAW AK for a folding stock... legal


I could tak a RAW AR with an A2 stock and no muzzle device and put a collapsible stock, rail system with a VFG and a flare launcher, and a flash hider on it. Legal.



But swapping the BB for a mag release, both of which do not create a fixed mag, as per the PC...well...
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by CADOJ
The ability to register an Assault Weapon pursuant to Assembly Bill 1135 and Senate Bill 880, is not yet available. Pursuant to AB 1135 and SB 880, Assault Weapon registration regulations must be effective before any registrations can take place. At this time, the regulations are still pending, however they should be effective in the very near future. Please continue to check the Bureau of Firearms website for updates.
Reply With Quote
  #1882  
Old 05-23-2017, 9:51 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 3,496
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by franklinarmory View Post
Let me try again.... How many people have been arrested for modifying their registered AW?

If CADOJ's logic was sound today, it would apply to older AWs as well. Would changing a handguard (or even a magazine) on a pre 2000 AW be considered "manufacturing?"
No, because the alterations you're using as examples for a 2000 RAW were legal prior to 2000. The only way you'd be manufacturing an 89 AW would be to add names to a 2000 AW.

Adding a standard magazine release to a BBRAW would be manufacturing a rifle that has been illegal since 2000 (minus some exemptions) according to CA-DOJ. However nothing stops you from switching out other features on a BBRAW because it was legal to do that on bullet button rifles prior to 2017.
Reply With Quote
  #1883  
Old 05-23-2017, 9:52 PM
Fox Mulder's Avatar
Fox Mulder Fox Mulder is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: The Truth Is Out There.
Posts: 310
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
Correct, but by altering your BBRAW into a pre-2000 assault weapon, you have just manufactured a firearm that has been banned for the past 17 years.

I believe the regulation allow for BBRAWs to be altered in other ways. For example, you can add a flash hider to a BBRAW that was originally equipped with a muzzle break. The reason for this is it falls within legal changes before 2017.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
Obviously NFA rules do not apply, but I am giving you an example of how altering a firearm can "create" a new firearm despite the fact that the function of the weapon really isn't any different. AND that example highlights a regulation BATFE created despite the fact it's not encoded in the actual NFA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
No, because it was completely legal for you to add a bullet button to a legally registered 2000 assault weapon. However it has never been legal to add a standard magazine release to a rifle with features post 2000 unless you have some type of exemption (LE, FFL w/ permit, etc.)

I can tell you right now that trying to outsmart their regulations while still working within those regulations is not going to fly in court. The only way to fix this is to argue the CA-DOJ has gone beyond their powers and created a new law. Even then I can't imagine we'd win in court.

I believe that the change in the PC to omit any language re: detachable magazine, able to accept a detachable magazine, etc. to:

"(b) For purposes of this section, “fixed magazine” means an ammunition feeding device contained in, or permanently attached to, a firearm in such a manner that the device cannot be removed without disassembly of the firearm action."


Has screwed the DOJ on this. In the PC now there is only "fixed magazine" or not a "fixed magazine". That's it. No more language about able to accept a detachable magazine, no more talk about "with a tool", nothing. Only fixed magazine or not a fixed magazine.

So if that's the PC, and the whole reason for registration is that they're not fixed magazine rifles, then it doesn't matter HOW they're not fixed mag rifles. They simply are or are not.
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by CADOJ
The ability to register an Assault Weapon pursuant to Assembly Bill 1135 and Senate Bill 880, is not yet available. Pursuant to AB 1135 and SB 880, Assault Weapon registration regulations must be effective before any registrations can take place. At this time, the regulations are still pending, however they should be effective in the very near future. Please continue to check the Bureau of Firearms website for updates.
Reply With Quote
  #1884  
Old 05-23-2017, 9:53 PM
CreamyFettucini's Avatar
CreamyFettucini CreamyFettucini is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 385
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

The idea that the legislature intended the bullet button stay is crazy. Just listening to the justification to pass these bills; they made it seem like the bullet button was just a loophole which allows mag changes as fast or faster than the standard mag release.
Reply With Quote
  #1885  
Old 05-23-2017, 9:57 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 3,496
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox Mulder View Post
I believe that the change in the PC to omit any language re: detachable magazine, able to accept a detachable magazine, etc. to:

"(b) For purposes of this section, “fixed magazine” means an ammunition feeding device contained in, or permanently attached to, a firearm in such a manner that the device cannot be removed without disassembly of the firearm action."


Has screwed the DOJ on this. In the OC now there is only "fixed magazine" or not a "fixed magazine". That's it. No more language about able to accept a detachable magazine, no more talk about "with a tool", nothing. Only fixed magazine or not a fixed magazine.

So if that's the PC, and The Who,e reason for registration is that they're not fixed magazine rifles, then it doesn't matter HOW they're not fixed mag rifles. They simply are or are not.
Right, but you're arguing a point that ignores CA-DOJ's ability to create rules that encompass the "spirit" of the law, which SCOTUS has said government agencies have the ability to do with certain limits. In this case CA-DOJ has decided the goal of the legislature was not to allow people to manufacture rifles that were illegal from 2000-now simply because people legally owned the "base rifle" components.

It's exactly why BATFE decided shouldering an arm brace manufactured a SBR, then changed their minds, or adding a third pinhole creates a machine gun despite the fact that the firearm lacks parts necessary to fire as a machine gun, or that SD tacticals empty tubes and freeze plugs constitute a silencer, even though no baffles actually exist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CreamyFettucini View Post
The idea that the legislature intended the bullet button stay is crazy. Just listening to the justification to pass these bills; they made it seem like the bullet button was just a loophole which allows mag changes as fast or faster than the standard mag release.
Correct, but CA-DOJ gets to decides what the "spirit of the law is". They've decided this.
Reply With Quote
  #1886  
Old 05-23-2017, 9:58 PM
Fox Mulder's Avatar
Fox Mulder Fox Mulder is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: The Truth Is Out There.
Posts: 310
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CreamyFettucini View Post
The idea that the legislature intended the bullet button stay is crazy. Just listening to the justification to pass these bills; they made it seem like the bullet button was just a loophole which allows mag changes as fast or faster than the standard mag release.
It's Schrodingers bullet button. It is simultaneously exactly the same as a standard mag release, and as such requires registration, and also very different from a standard mag release, and cannot be changed.
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by CADOJ
The ability to register an Assault Weapon pursuant to Assembly Bill 1135 and Senate Bill 880, is not yet available. Pursuant to AB 1135 and SB 880, Assault Weapon registration regulations must be effective before any registrations can take place. At this time, the regulations are still pending, however they should be effective in the very near future. Please continue to check the Bureau of Firearms website for updates.
Reply With Quote
  #1887  
Old 05-23-2017, 10:01 PM
Fox Mulder's Avatar
Fox Mulder Fox Mulder is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: The Truth Is Out There.
Posts: 310
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
Right, but you're arguing a point that ignores CA-DOJ's ability to create rules that encompass the "spirit" of the law, which SCOTUS has said government agencies have the ability to do with certain limits. In this case CA-DOJ has decided the goal of the legislature was not to allow people to manufacture rifles that were illegal from 2000-now simply because people legally owned the "base rifle" components.

It's exactly why BATFE decided shouldering an arm brace manufactured a SBR, then changed their minds, or adding a third pinhole creates a machine gun despite the fact that the firearm lacks parts necessary to fire as a machine gun, or that SD tacticals empty tubes and freeze plugs constitute a silencer, even though no baffles actually exist.

Except the DOJ was only given the latitude to write the rules governing the actual registration process. The nuts and bolts of it. Which is why the rules were "file and print" with no provision for public comment. These regs clearly go way beyond that scope. They don't have the authority to add to the PC. They're trying to do so, and are going to be challenged in court.
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by CADOJ
The ability to register an Assault Weapon pursuant to Assembly Bill 1135 and Senate Bill 880, is not yet available. Pursuant to AB 1135 and SB 880, Assault Weapon registration regulations must be effective before any registrations can take place. At this time, the regulations are still pending, however they should be effective in the very near future. Please continue to check the Bureau of Firearms website for updates.
Reply With Quote
  #1888  
Old 05-23-2017, 10:09 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 3,496
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox Mulder View Post
Except the DOJ was only given the latitude to write the rules governing the actual registration process. The nuts and bolts of it. Which is why the rules were "file and print" with no provision for public comment. These regs clearly go way beyond that scope. They don't have the authority to add to the PC. They're trying to do so, and are going to be challenged in court.
CA-DOJ has done exactly what they were allowed to do. They created a set of guidelines governing the registration process of the law, which includes deciding which firearms do not meet that criteria, or how to remove firearms from said list. Which goes back to my point before. The DA gets to decide what to charge you with. Good luck making that case in court among a jury of your peers.
Reply With Quote
  #1889  
Old 05-23-2017, 10:13 PM
JDHCA JDHCA is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 21
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by franklinarmory View Post
Yep, they can indict a ham sandwich, but that doesn't make it ethical. They should have the moral clarity to follow the law they wrote and swore to uphold. Then again, some animals are more equal than others.
I am designating my AR as a ham sandwich which requires no registration.
Reply With Quote
  #1890  
Old 05-23-2017, 10:26 PM
Fox Mulder's Avatar
Fox Mulder Fox Mulder is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: The Truth Is Out There.
Posts: 310
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
No, because it was completely legal for you to add a bullet button to a legally registered 2000 assault weapon. However it has never been legal to add a standard magazine release to a rifle with features post 2000 unless you have some type of exemption (LE, FFL w/ permit, etc.)

I can tell you right now that trying to outsmart their regulations while still working within those regulations is not going to fly in court. The only way to fix this is to argue the CA-DOJ has gone beyond their powers and created a new law. Even then I can't imagine we'd win in court.
I missed this bit before. I didn't ask if it was legal to add a BB to a pre 2000 RAW. I asked if doing so changed the rifle so fundamentally that it would be considered a different rifle, so much so that it would no longer be the rifle that was registered.

I asked this because the DOJ is stating the inverse. They aren't saying it's illegal to do so, because this would require the PC to say that. They're saying that removing the BB and adding a mag release so fundamentally changes the rifle that is is no longer the same weapon that was registered.

So by that logic doing the inverse would so fundamentally change a pre 2000 RAW, as to make it a different weapon, and anyone who did so would be in posession of an unregistered RAW, would they not?
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by CADOJ
The ability to register an Assault Weapon pursuant to Assembly Bill 1135 and Senate Bill 880, is not yet available. Pursuant to AB 1135 and SB 880, Assault Weapon registration regulations must be effective before any registrations can take place. At this time, the regulations are still pending, however they should be effective in the very near future. Please continue to check the Bureau of Firearms website for updates.
Reply With Quote
  #1891  
Old 05-23-2017, 10:27 PM
Fox Mulder's Avatar
Fox Mulder Fox Mulder is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: The Truth Is Out There.
Posts: 310
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
CA-DOJ has done exactly what they were allowed to do. They created a set of guidelines governing the registration process of the law, which includes deciding which firearms do not meet that criteria, or how to remove firearms from said list. Which goes back to my point before. The DA gets to decide what to charge you with. Good luck making that case in court among a jury of your peers.
No, that haven't. They've overreached.
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by CADOJ
The ability to register an Assault Weapon pursuant to Assembly Bill 1135 and Senate Bill 880, is not yet available. Pursuant to AB 1135 and SB 880, Assault Weapon registration regulations must be effective before any registrations can take place. At this time, the regulations are still pending, however they should be effective in the very near future. Please continue to check the Bureau of Firearms website for updates.
Reply With Quote
  #1892  
Old 05-23-2017, 10:45 PM
Crazed_SS's Avatar
Crazed_SS Crazed_SS is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 3,797
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

You guys are rehashing arguments we went through 6 months ago
I think the DOJ's current argument is basically Fabio's "That Assault Weapon" argument.

PC 30680 gives your protection against PC 30605 (unlawful AW possession) if 3 conditions are met:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SB880
(a) Prior to January 1, 2017, the person was eligible to register that assault weapon pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 30900.
(b) The person lawfully possessed that assault weapon prior to January 1, 2017.
(c) The person registers the assault weapon by January 1, 2018, in accordance with subdivision (b) of Section 30900.
Ok, let's assume (B) and (C) are/will be true for people. The DOJ's argument seems to be that A is no longer true if you change out the mag release because the rifle is no longer "that assault weapon" that you would have been eligible to be register prior to Jan 1,2017 pursuant to Section 30900..

EDIT: I dont agree with this, but it is what it is. Not something I'd want to test lol.
__________________

Last edited by Crazed_SS; 05-23-2017 at 10:49 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #1893  
Old 05-23-2017, 11:12 PM
Fox Mulder's Avatar
Fox Mulder Fox Mulder is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: The Truth Is Out There.
Posts: 310
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed_SS View Post
You guys are rehashing arguments we went through 6 months ago
I think the DOJ's current argument is basically Fabio's "That Assault Weapon" argument.

PC 30680 gives your protection against PC 30605 (unlawful AW possession) if 3 conditions are met:


Ok, let's assume (B) and (C) are/will be true for people. The DOJ's argument seems to be that A is no longer true if you change out the mag release because the rifle is no longer "that assault weapon" that you would have been eligible to be register prior to Jan 1,2017 pursuant to Section 30900..

EDIT: I dont agree with this, but it is what it is. Not something I'd want to test lol.

Which is exactly why I asked this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox Mulder View Post
I missed this bit before. I didn't ask if it was legal to add a BB to a pre 2000 RAW. I asked if doing so changed the rifle so fundamentally that it would be considered a different rifle, so much so that it would no longer be the rifle that was registered.

I asked this because the DOJ is stating the inverse. They aren't saying it's illegal to do so, because this would require the PC to say that. They're saying that removing the BB and adding a mag release so fundamentally changes the rifle that is is no longer the same weapon that was registered.

So by that logic doing the inverse would so fundamentally change a pre 2000 RAW, as to make it a different weapon, and anyone who did so would be in posession of an unregistered RAW, would they not?

Can you imagine a defense attorney putting up a picture of a standard M1A with a flash hider, which could be registered as an AW in 2000, and then the same rifle in a Sage EBR chassis, with a pistol grip, different barrel, and a red dot on the rail and saying, "according to the DOJ, these are the same rifle."

And then putting up a picture of an AR with a bullet button, and the exact same AR with a standard mag release, and saying "according to the DOJ these are not the same rifle. It's the same receiver, same serial number, same stock, everything is exactly the same except the magazine release, which has been changed. Now, neither magazine release created a fixed magazine, which is why this rifle has been registered as an assault weapon. The PC says' and I quote

'For purposes of this section, “fixed magazine” means an ammunition feeding device contained in, or permanently attached to, a firearm in such a manner that the device cannot be removed without disassembly of the firearm action.'

"When the rifle had this magazine release (holds up BB) it didn't have a fixed magazine, and as required, it was registered as an assault weapon. Now it has this magazine release, (holds up regular mag release), which also doesn't create a fixed magazine.
The state is arguing that changing one magazine release for another so fundamentally changes the rifle, that it is no longer the registered weapon. How can that be?
The rifle in those other pictures has been completely changed. So much so that it's hardly recognizable as the same type of weapon, but since it retains the same receiver and the same serial number it is recognized as the same firearm. Clearly it is the same, registered rifle, and the State is simply wasting all of our time with this misguided accusation."



Or even better, taking a pre 2000 RAW and swapping the mag release for a BB and saying "same rifle". Then doing the exact opposite on the 2017 RAW and saying "different rifle? How can it be a different rifle?"


Yeah.
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by CADOJ
The ability to register an Assault Weapon pursuant to Assembly Bill 1135 and Senate Bill 880, is not yet available. Pursuant to AB 1135 and SB 880, Assault Weapon registration regulations must be effective before any registrations can take place. At this time, the regulations are still pending, however they should be effective in the very near future. Please continue to check the Bureau of Firearms website for updates.

Last edited by Fox Mulder; 05-23-2017 at 11:18 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #1894  
Old 05-23-2017, 11:16 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 3,496
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox Mulder View Post
I missed this bit before. I didn't ask if it was legal to add a BB to a pre 2000 RAW. I asked if doing so changed the rifle so fundamentally that it would be considered a different rifle, so much so that it would no longer be the rifle that was registered.

I asked this because the DOJ is stating the inverse. They aren't saying it's illegal to do so, because this would require the PC to say that. They're saying that removing the BB and adding a mag release so fundamentally changes the rifle that is is no longer the same weapon that was registered.

So by that logic doing the inverse would so fundamentally change a pre 2000 RAW, as to make it a different weapon, and anyone who did so would be in posession of an unregistered RAW, would they not?

If you add a bullet button a 2000 RAW you no longer have an AW. You must legally deregister it, but it is no longer an assault weapon (2000-2016). Unless you're asking something else because I'm not following.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox Mulder View Post
No, that haven't. They've overreached.
Legislature writes the law. Agencies have the ability to interpret and execute the law, which includes the "spirit of the law", it's called Agency Statutory Interpretation, which SCOTUS has ruled falls well within the government's ability govern The People.

CA-DOJ crafted these regulations to fit well within their powers. They created a registration scheme that dictates what can and can't be registered based on the legislature's intent, which if you don't agree with you can argue in front of a judge, but good luck with that. A firearm that they've determined no longer fits the registration scheme is now an illegal assault weapon. The DA is left to decide to file charges or not, which once again they will file in California in most places. My point before where you or whoever else was trying to say "but what would they charge you with". They'd charge you with manufacturing an assault weapon or possession of an assault weapon if you're lucky.

So once again, coming back to the point that I've been trying to make all night. If you want to sue and argue that the CA-DOJ exceeded the scope of their statutory interpretation that's fine. We could win, but probably not based who the state and federal judges are, but maybe with SCOTUS we'd win eventually, although they'd probably ignore the 2A aspect altogether. That's one thing, but trying to say the DA doesn't have PC to charge you with, or that a jury won't convict, or some how try to compare these regulations to other features being switched and some how outsmarting the CA-DOJ with their own language is not going to fly.

As I said before, I believe CA-DOJ has exceeded their abilities, but if the courts don't believe they have then their is absolutely no way around this, because the CA-DOJ's argument that you are manufacturing a new assault weapon by changing the magazine release (but not a flash hider/adjustable stock/etc) is sound reasoning. It's no different than many other rules that BATFE has made up for decades (third pinholes, braces, tubes=silencers, shoelace = machine gun if used improperly, etc.)

Last edited by wireless; 05-23-2017 at 11:20 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #1895  
Old 05-23-2017, 11:21 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 3,496
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox Mulder View Post


Or even better, taking a pre 2000 RAW and swapping the mag release for a BB and saying "same rifle". Then doing the exact opposite on the 2017 RAW and saying "different rifle? How can it be a different rifle?"


Yeah.
CA-DOJ has long held the policy that adding a bullet button to a 2000 RAW between 2000-2016 means the firearm is no longer an assault weapon.
Reply With Quote
  #1896  
Old 05-23-2017, 11:22 PM
Mr. Torgue Mr. Torgue is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 140
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcwatchdog View Post
No, the law says nothing of the kind. The regulations say it, and it's not backed by any penalty that is outlined in the law since the law doesn't say anything about removing the bullet button.
Oh, you're one of those people. I won't waste my time then.
Reply With Quote
  #1897  
Old 05-23-2017, 11:27 PM
Fox Mulder's Avatar
Fox Mulder Fox Mulder is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: The Truth Is Out There.
Posts: 310
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
If you add a bullet button a 2000 RAW you no longer have an AW. You must legally deregister it, but it is no longer an assault weapon (2000-2016). Unless you're asking something else because I'm not following.
It would still be a RAW. The R stands for Registered, and unless, and until you deregistered it it would remain a RAW. No where does it say you MUST legally deregister it if you add a BB. My point is that it's still the same weapon you registered, regardless of which style of mag release.

Quote:
Legislature writes the law. Agencies have the ability to interpret and execute the law, which includes the "spirit of the law", it's called Agency Statutory Interpretation, which SCOTUS has ruled falls well within the government's ability govern The People.

CA-DOJ crafted these regulations to fit well within their powers. They created a registration scheme that dictates what can and can't be registered based on the legislature's intent, which if you don't agree with you can argue in front of a judge, but good luck with that. A firearm that they've determined no longer fits the registration scheme is now an illegal assault weapon. The DA is left to decide to file charges or not, which once again they will file in California in most places. My point before where you or whoever else was trying to say "but what would they charge you with". They'd charge you with manufacturing an assault weapon or possession of an assault weapon if you're lucky.

So once again, coming back to the point that I've been trying to make all night. If you want to sue and argue that the CA-DOJ exceeded the scope of their statutory interpretation that's fine. We could win, but probably not based who the state and federal judges are, but maybe with SCOTUS we'd win eventually, although they'd probably ignore the 2A aspect altogether. That's one thing, but trying to say the DA doesn't have PC to charge you with, or that a jury won't convict, or some how try to compare these regulations to other features being switched and some how outsmarting the CA-DOJ with their own language is not going to fly.

As I said before, I believe CA-DOJ has exceeded their abilities, but if the courts don't believe they have then their is absolutely no way around this, because the CA-DOJ's argument that you are manufacturing a new assault weapon by changing the magazine release (but not a flash hider/adjustable stock/etc) is sound reasoning. It's no different than many other rules that BATFE has made up for decades (third pinholes, braces, tubes=silencers, shoelace = machine gun if used improperly, etc.)
I fundamentally disagree that the regs, as currently proposed, are within the scope of file and print regulations. They've over reached.
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by CADOJ
The ability to register an Assault Weapon pursuant to Assembly Bill 1135 and Senate Bill 880, is not yet available. Pursuant to AB 1135 and SB 880, Assault Weapon registration regulations must be effective before any registrations can take place. At this time, the regulations are still pending, however they should be effective in the very near future. Please continue to check the Bureau of Firearms website for updates.
Reply With Quote
  #1898  
Old 05-23-2017, 11:31 PM
Fox Mulder's Avatar
Fox Mulder Fox Mulder is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: The Truth Is Out There.
Posts: 310
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
CA-DOJ has long held the policy that adding a bullet button to a 2000 RAW between 2000-2016 means the firearm is no longer an assault weapon.
Perhaps they held that if it wasn't an AW by name, it COULD be deregistered if you added a BB.

I guarantee they didn't say it MUST be deregistered, and they didn't say it was no longer the same firearm and no longer considered a RAW.



Edit: I'm going to bed.
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by CADOJ
The ability to register an Assault Weapon pursuant to Assembly Bill 1135 and Senate Bill 880, is not yet available. Pursuant to AB 1135 and SB 880, Assault Weapon registration regulations must be effective before any registrations can take place. At this time, the regulations are still pending, however they should be effective in the very near future. Please continue to check the Bureau of Firearms website for updates.
Reply With Quote
  #1899  
Old 05-23-2017, 11:33 PM
Mr. Torgue Mr. Torgue is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 140
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox Mulder View Post
The thing is, they can't convict you based on guidelines. There must be a PC charge, and having the RAW paperwork would be a positive defense for anything they could charge you with. Not to mention that you could get 10,000 gun experts, and documentation from the BATFE that says the serial numbered receiver IS the firearm. It's registered as an AW. They CAN'T convict you for breaking a guideline. There must be a PC violation, and I just don't see what it could be.

Edit to respond to your edit.

There is nothing saying you MUST be charged if arrested. Happens all the time that people are arrested and not charged. They might try to find something, but if it ain't in the PC, it ain't in the PC.
And if you accept your registration you're agreeing to the term that says the magazine release cannot be changed. You can't pick and choose what parts you agree with in the regs. You get arrested, they will see you violated the terms of the registration, you will be charged and you most likely will be convicted in any liberal leaning area. You probably will in conservative areas too but you might eek out a defense.
Reply With Quote
  #1900  
Old 05-23-2017, 11:35 PM
Mr. Torgue Mr. Torgue is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 140
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JDay View Post
That's what they want you to think so that you decide not to register. This will not hold up in court but the DOJ is counting on the rules discouraging a majority of people from registering their rifles. They want you to be stuck with a gimped out featureless rifle.
I could give a **** what they want, but I don't. I'll do with my firearms as I see fit within the letter of the law. It clearly states for registration you cannot change the magazine release. There's nothing there to debate.
Reply With Quote
  #1901  
Old 05-23-2017, 11:37 PM
Fox Mulder's Avatar
Fox Mulder Fox Mulder is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: The Truth Is Out There.
Posts: 310
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Torgue View Post
And if you accept your registration you're agreeing to the term that says the magazine release cannot be changed. You can't pick and choose what parts you agree with in the regs. You get arrested, they will see you violated the terms of the registration, you will be charged and you most likely will be convicted in any liberal leaning area. You probably will in conservative areas too but you might eek out a defense.

If I accept my registration? What! If I register it'll be because the PC mandates it. They're the ones accepting registrations, not me.
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by CADOJ
The ability to register an Assault Weapon pursuant to Assembly Bill 1135 and Senate Bill 880, is not yet available. Pursuant to AB 1135 and SB 880, Assault Weapon registration regulations must be effective before any registrations can take place. At this time, the regulations are still pending, however they should be effective in the very near future. Please continue to check the Bureau of Firearms website for updates.

Last edited by Fox Mulder; 05-23-2017 at 11:39 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #1902  
Old 05-23-2017, 11:38 PM
Fox Mulder's Avatar
Fox Mulder Fox Mulder is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: The Truth Is Out There.
Posts: 310
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Now I'm really going to bed. Goodnight CalGuns.
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by CADOJ
The ability to register an Assault Weapon pursuant to Assembly Bill 1135 and Senate Bill 880, is not yet available. Pursuant to AB 1135 and SB 880, Assault Weapon registration regulations must be effective before any registrations can take place. At this time, the regulations are still pending, however they should be effective in the very near future. Please continue to check the Bureau of Firearms website for updates.
Reply With Quote
  #1903  
Old 05-23-2017, 11:47 PM
Mr. Torgue Mr. Torgue is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 140
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
Correct, but by altering your BBRAW into a pre-2000 assault weapon, you have just manufactured a firearm that has been banned for the past 17 years.

I believe the regulation allow for BBRAWs to be altered in other ways. For example, you can add a flash hider to a BBRAW that was originally equipped with a muzzle break. The reason for this is it falls within legal changes before 2017.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
Obviously NFA rules do not apply, but I am giving you an example of how altering a firearm can "create" a new firearm despite the fact that the function of the weapon really isn't any different. AND that example highlights a regulation BATFE created despite the fact it's not encoded in the actual NFA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
No, because it was completely legal for you to add a bullet button to a legally registered 2000 assault weapon. However it has never been legal to add a standard magazine release to a rifle with features post 2000 unless you have some type of exemption (LE, FFL w/ permit, etc.)

I can tell you right now that trying to outsmart their regulations while still working within those regulations is not going to fly in court. The only way to fix this is to argue the CA-DOJ has gone beyond their powers and created a new law. Even then I can't imagine we'd win in court.
You realize they don't understand the correct points you're arguing, right? Whether they're going for willful ignorance or something else, I don't know but they're already convinced they know the law and setting themselves up for felonies and firearm confiscation.
Reply With Quote
  #1904  
Old 05-23-2017, 11:53 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 3,496
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox Mulder View Post
It would still be a RAW. The R stands for Registered, and unless, and until you deregistered it it would remain a RAW. No where does it say you MUST legally deregister it if you add a BB. My point is that it's still the same weapon you registered, regardless of which style of mag release.



I fundamentally disagree that the regs, as currently proposed, are within the scope of file and print regulations. They've over reached.
I still don't understand how your point changes anything.

You are free to convert a pistol to a rifle and back to a pistol without violating the law. You cannot convert a rifle to a pistol because the BATFE has arbitrarily decided that pistol is actually a short barrel rifle, despite the fact that it doesn't have a stock on it.

So if you want to argue that CA-DOJ is going beyond the scope of their powers that's one thing, but if they have not gone beyond those powers, their regulations are 100% logical, even if I do not like them or agree with them.
Reply With Quote
  #1905  
Old 05-23-2017, 11:53 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 2,779
iTrader: 1 / 67%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed_SS View Post
You guys are rehashing arguments we went through 6 months ago
I think the DOJ's current argument is basically Fabio's "That Assault Weapon" argument.

PC 30680 gives your protection against PC 30605 (unlawful AW possession) if 3 conditions are met:


Ok, let's assume (B) and (C) are/will be true for people. The DOJ's argument seems to be that A is no longer true if you change out the mag release because the rifle is no longer "that assault weapon" that you would have been eligible to be register prior to Jan 1,2017 pursuant to Section 30900..

EDIT: I dont agree with this, but it is what it is. Not something I'd want to test lol.
Yes, and this is where people have started to see how the Fabio argument that beat off all challengers 6 months ago found it's way into the cover letter, or at least a version of it.

It's circular logic at it's finest - you agreed to register a rifle that had a BB, which thus made it the defining feature of this AW, then you modified it and it ceased to meet the requirements of the registration. Building on that logic they arrived at the concept that LEO needs the BB to distinguish this registration period and the BB makes the rifle an AW, so if it's off then your not in compliance with the terms of the registration. LEO without AFS and no paperwork can't tell.

Welcome to Alice in Wonderland.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
So it sounds to me like you're outraged about something that isn't actually happening anywhere outside your imagination.
Reply With Quote
  #1906  
Old 05-24-2017, 12:00 AM
Mr. Torgue Mr. Torgue is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 140
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox Mulder View Post
If I accept my registration? What! If I register it'll be because the PC mandates it. They're the ones accepting registrations, not me.
Should have said accept registration, as opposed to going fixed magazine or featureless. Your little attempts at word games aren't going to end well if you actually try to follow them.
Reply With Quote
  #1907  
Old 05-24-2017, 12:07 AM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 2,779
iTrader: 1 / 67%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by franklinarmory View Post
How many people have been arrested for modifying their pre 89, pre 2000, or pre 2004 AWs? Are not they governed by the very same section?
You're looking at it wrong, or at least differently than the DOJ does.

We all thought before we laid eyes on the regulations that an AW was defined by the features set forth in SB23. We all thought that they would simply add a BB to the list of features, and the entire definition of an AW would be the same as it always was with the exception of a BB being thought of as NOT a fixed magazine. We all thought this because we were being logical.

The people that wrote the regs consciously decided, under direction from their political handlers, that this was going to produce 1.5 million standard rifles in CA overnight. This was unacceptable.

So they looked at the system and came up with this strategy: each registration period had different requirements for registration. The first and third were about names, the second was about features on a list. Why couldn't they just open this registration period with requirements they came up with? This would solve the standard rifle problem.

No one has ever been charged with altering a registered AW from the 89/00/01 periods to my knowledge. But that doesn't mean it could not happen. They could in fact get into legal problems changing the name of an on list lower to another name or model number. No one has ever done it. They could take a 89 period rifle and add a grenade launcher or get a length of under 26". They would not be charged by SB23 "features" PC, they would face the other CA SBR laws and Dangerous Device laws. Since each reg period had it's own criteria, then none of them intersect. We all thought SB23 was simply the new standard and governed everything, IT DOES NOT. Each of the reg periods have their own individual rules and mandates.

But they couldn't because the legislature didn't write it, and there was no PC for it. So they concocted this plan to use the old statues and PC from the SB23 list and use it for statute and PC reasons, while simultaneously adding underground regulations about the BB needing to be kept on and the rifle needing to be 30". They then went even further and fabricated law in the regulations directly, claiming the 30" needed to be obtained with a permanent muzzle device.

Then, when they get to court, they make the insidious claim that each reg period had it's own criteria, and that this was the intent of the legislature. Remember they have the full support of the legislature, so no one is ever going to say that it wasn't the intent. Their criteria for the registration is that the BB makes the rifle an AW, and thus it is the defining feature of the registration.

There could be a solid legal challenge to this, but ultimately it will probably fail because each individual reg period had it's own defining criteria for registration. The 9th will not care that the law said nothing about it, they will only see the value in the DOJ's systematic approach. They will see the horrible political consequences of making 1.5 million standard rifles overnight. They will push the obvious problems LEO will encounter when they don't have access to AFS to check serials. They'll claim that without the BB, LEO will be confiscating rifles and charging people FALSELY because they don't know what it is.

This is the reality of the spiderweb they have made for us. There is no escape.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
So it sounds to me like you're outraged about something that isn't actually happening anywhere outside your imagination.

Last edited by Discogodfather; 05-24-2017 at 12:14 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #1908  
Old 05-24-2017, 12:27 AM
unclerandy unclerandy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 499
iTrader: 30 / 100%
Default

bookmark
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 4:45 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.