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
  #1  
Old 12-28-2018, 2:11 PM
jlist jlist is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 534
iTrader: 95 / 100%
Default Will there be a lawsuit against RAW BB requirement?

Many people expected to be able to remove BB after AW registration. It turned out that the DOJ regs require them to stay on. As far as I understand the text of SB880 does not require keeping the BB devices and does not differentiate the original RAW and the new BB-RAW. Is it reasonable to expect a law suit against DOJ for overstepping the law? If yes, how big of a chance of winning?

Last edited by jlist; 12-28-2018 at 2:30 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-28-2018, 2:26 PM
jj8325 jj8325 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 20
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I don't know the answer to your question, but I would be curious to see what they would charge you (or anyone) on. Possessing an unregistered assault weapon (that's registered)? I certainly don't want to be the test case....
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-28-2018, 2:49 PM
daninger4995's Avatar
daninger4995 daninger4995 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 35
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jj8325 View Post
I don't know the answer to your question, but I would be curious to see what they would charge you (or anyone) on. Possessing an unregistered assault weapon (that's registered)? I certainly don't want to be the test case....


I think your right in that there needs to be a test case for this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-28-2018, 5:44 PM
blubullett blubullett is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 237
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The chance of winning in the 9th circuit is 5%. The chance of it going to the supreme court? Not sure. Not too hopeful either. The chance of it winning in the supreme court if it makes it there? 95%.

I think CRPA and FPC have pretty full plates right now unless people start donating a bunch of money. Maybe something will happen if a case or two of theirs ends and they have some resources to apply to it.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-28-2018, 8:46 PM
SmallShark's Avatar
SmallShark SmallShark is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Sacramento 95834
Posts: 1,521
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

DOJ's reason is "removing the BB creates a new weapon" therefore, the registration is voided.

but, changing the barrel is fine.


i wonder how this BS holds in court.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-28-2018, 9:26 PM
tenemae's Avatar
tenemae tenemae is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: CommieLand
Posts: 680
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

There are much, much bigger fish to fry- like contesting the banning of BB rifles in the first place. Spending time on this is a ridiculous waste
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-29-2018, 1:14 AM
Xerxes Xerxes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,671
iTrader: 63 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmallShark View Post
DOJ's reason is "removing the BB creates a new weapon" therefore, the registration is voided.

but, changing the barrel is fine.


i wonder how this BS holds in court.
Be careful what you wish for lest putting a new round of ammunition in the rifle will be considered a "NEW FIREARM". Be thankful that they are only attacking the bullet button and not the barrel, the 26", the folding stock, or even the color as apparently changing color of a firearm is enough to make it dangerous enough to require new drop testing.

Hey...….does anyone know if they hire former French Military Personal to pefor the handgun drop tests since they are well experienced in doing such nonsense?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-29-2018, 8:27 AM
1911su16b870's Avatar
1911su16b870 1911su16b870 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,841
iTrader: 142 / 100%
Default

That is why the Radlock is so awesome
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-29-2018, 10:07 AM
SmallShark's Avatar
SmallShark SmallShark is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Sacramento 95834
Posts: 1,521
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1911su16b870 View Post
That is why the Radlock is so awesome
also no court case
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-29-2018, 11:44 AM
aklon's Avatar
aklon aklon is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Leandro, Alameda County
Posts: 2,269
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jlist View Post
Many people expected to be able to remove BB after AW registration. It turned out that the DOJ regs require them to stay on. As far as I understand the text of SB880 does not require keeping the BB devices and does not differentiate the original RAW and the new BB-RAW. Is it reasonable to expect a law suit against DOJ for overstepping the law? If yes, how big of a chance of winning?
LOL!

You gave a little of your freedom to the state in exchange for ... what?

Where did you get the idea that government was going to agree to any compromise with you about your rifles?
__________________
"Talent hits a target no one else can hit. Genius hits a target no one else can see."
- Arthur Schopenhaur
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12-29-2018, 1:15 PM
champu's Avatar
champu champu is offline
NRA Member, CRPA Member,
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Redondo Beach
Posts: 807
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blubullett View Post
The chance of winning in the 9th circuit is 5%. The chance of it going to the supreme court? Not sure. Not too hopeful either. The chance of it winning in the supreme court if it makes it there? 95%.
I could see fighting DoJ in the California courts over them running afoul of state law (good luck with that) but what would be the nature of the challenge that would bring it to the federal courts? 14th amendment due process clause?

The constant screwing around with the regulations: revoking, adding, changing which sections of the penal code they apply to and are written pursuant to certainly makes it impractical for a reasonable person to know what is legal and what is not, given that modifications to those semi-automatic firearms affected by the ban is commonplace.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-29-2018, 1:29 PM
CALI-gula's Avatar
CALI-gula CALI-gula is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,018
iTrader: 27 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tenemae View Post
There are much, much bigger fish to fry- like contesting the banning of BB rifles in the first place. Spending time on this is a ridiculous waste
Absolutely...


Quote:
Originally Posted by aklon View Post
LOL!

You gave a little of your freedom to the state in exchange for ... what?

Where did you get the idea that government was going to agree to any compromise with you about your rifles?
My thoughts exactly; from the moment they pitched "allowing" registration of bullet-buttoned adorned firearms. Anyone in observance of how much animosity the current legislature and career elitist politicians have for the 2nd Amendment, firearm ownership by the People, and vilification of firearms for an ulterior motive, could have easily predicted their approach; and did.

.

Last edited by CALI-gula; 12-29-2018 at 1:32 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-29-2018, 1:42 PM
darkshire's Avatar
darkshire darkshire is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: San Jose
Posts: 1,175
iTrader: 75 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmallShark View Post
DOJ's reason is "removing the BB creates a new weapon" therefore, the registration is voided.

but, changing the barrel is fine.


i wonder how this BS holds in court.
throwing in a .22LR BCG makes a whole new firearm as well ! why doesn't that void registration as well ?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-29-2018, 2:54 PM
walmart_ar15 walmart_ar15 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,005
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmallShark View Post
DOJ's reason is "removing the BB creates a new weapon"therefore, the registration is voided.
but, changing the barrel is fine.


i wonder how this BS holds in court.
DOJ never said that part. The wording was meant to lead people to think that way. It was never written that way. Words matters. It also did not say a “new” weapon, just a “different” one. Ie, changing color makes it also different but not new.

Bottom line, need a court case to clarify.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-29-2018, 7:14 PM
jlist jlist is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 534
iTrader: 95 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkshire View Post
throwing in a .22LR BCG makes a whole new firearm as well ! why doesn't that void registration as well ?
In what situation dose a .22lr bolt make a new firearm? My understanding is if you put a .22 bolt in a featureless you can get all features back but for RAW, you still can't take off BB - BB is explicitly required to stay on by DOJ regs.

Last edited by jlist; 12-29-2018 at 11:23 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-29-2018, 9:39 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 483
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CALI-gula View Post
Absolutely...




My thoughts exactly; from the moment they pitched "allowing" registration of bullet-buttoned adorned firearms. Anyone in observance of how much animosity the current legislature and career elitist politicians have for the 2nd Amendment, firearm ownership by the People, and vilification of firearms for an ulterior motive, could have easily predicted their approach; and did.

.
You point out one of the grand hypocrisies of the whole registrations system. The Legislature declared that it wanted all BB firearms registered--and then the DOJ made it as difficult and as onerous as possible to comply, suggesting that the DOJ, at least, didn't want you to be able to successfully register. It makes no sense the way they went about it, unless you infer that they wanted to create a whole class of illegal weapons out there that they could confiscate because people either did not know or could not comply with the registration mandate.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-30-2018, 1:41 AM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 26,991
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Hi folks,

1.) It is likely that removing a BB maglock on a RAW is defendable. The relevant crimes would be
"possession of an unregistered AW" and/or "transport of an unregistered AW" ... except the AW is
registered! There are no levels or tiers of AW registration, period: you cannot make an AW "more
AW-ey".

The revocation of registration without formal process etc is not that kosher and I see lotsa

procedural issues. This is replay of Allison's "Category 4" memo back in 2006 (before her
reregulation proposal on detachable mags was fought against back then and BulletButtons
took off).


2.) Despite #1, YMMV in a CA metro area courtroom with antigun judges and might well go to
$appellate$ level.

3.) In discussion with gun lawyers, not going for a frontal challenge on this and having individuals quietlly
win at trial court is prob the best thing to "let sleeping dogs lie"... (see 4 below)....

4.) The current politics in CA is that any technical gun win at state level that goes up the tree further in CA
courts overturning CA law at state level, esp relating to AW matters, will just be "fixed" by antigunners in the
CA legislature in the next session or so [SSE vs roster? => AB1964; BulletButton => SB880, and so on.]


The real 'fix' is Federal crackdown on AW bans under 2A.
__________________

Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

CGF Board Member / NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA life member

No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are
to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net
ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my
employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as
legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.

Last edited by bwiese; 12-30-2018 at 1:45 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-30-2018, 12:36 PM
CALI-gula's Avatar
CALI-gula CALI-gula is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,018
iTrader: 27 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
You point out one of the grand hypocrisies of the whole registrations system. The Legislature declared that it wanted all BB firearms registered--and then the DOJ made it as difficult and as onerous as possible to comply, suggesting that the DOJ, at least, didn't want you to be able to successfully register. It makes no sense the way they went about it, unless you infer that they wanted to create a whole class of illegal weapons out there that they could confiscate because people either did not know or could not comply with the registration mandate.
Except for the fact... that this is exactly what they have been doing; limited, but doing it nonetheless. They have gone after those that were befuddled by the proper configurations in the advent of Bullet-Button adorned firearms, seeking to register who attempted to do so, photos and all, and in the process, DOJ wishing to "see" the gun depicted discovering other maladies that required confiscation of that firearm and others within tow.

And then I give you two words for anything else that should remain: 'Eric Swalwell.'

Another proof of concept? Having banned possession of high-capacity magazines in California after "allowing" people to retain ownership the past 18 years. Luckily that is being stayed by the courts, but for how much longer? What they aid they would never do, they did. What they said was sufficient at the time for acting on regulation of high-capacity magazines they then turned on its ear and went full contraband. The only saving grace there is that they aren't registered or carry serial numbers. And if they had?

Should you have any misconception about the true intents and pursuit of these purposes, it has been divulged in the past:

https://www.mercurynews.com/2013/03/...d-author-says/

It will take them a few tries, but with the current legislature proportion the way it is, and the next Governor whom will be at the helm, their days of try, try again are well be over. However, this time around, like a bullet-train to nowhere, cost will be irrelevant, logistics be damned.

If you don't think it a viable reality, you are merely kidding yourself.



.

Last edited by CALI-gula; 12-30-2018 at 12:40 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-31-2018, 8:22 AM
Sousuke Sousuke is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,849
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese View Post
Hi folks,

1.) It is likely that removing a BB maglock on a RAW is defendable. The relevant crimes would be
"possession of an unregistered AW" and/or "transport of an unregistered AW" ... except the AW is
registered! There are no levels or tiers of AW registration, period: you cannot make an AW "more
AW-ey".

The revocation of registration without formal process etc is not that kosher and I see lotsa

procedural issues. This is replay of Allison's "Category 4" memo back in 2006 (before her
reregulation proposal on detachable mags was fought against back then and BulletButtons
took off).


2.) Despite #1, YMMV in a CA metro area courtroom with antigun judges and might well go to
$appellate$ level.

3.) In discussion with gun lawyers, not going for a frontal challenge on this and having individuals quietlly
win at trial court is prob the best thing to "let sleeping dogs lie"... (see 4 below)....

4.) The current politics in CA is that any technical gun win at state level that goes up the tree further in CA
courts overturning CA law at state level, esp relating to AW matters, will just be "fixed" by antigunners in the
CA legislature in the next session or so [SSE vs roster? => AB1964; BulletButton => SB880, and so on.]


The real 'fix' is Federal crackdown on AW bans under 2A.
The few cases that have rolled on to Calguns seem to support this (3 thus far by my count). Where the DOJ saw photos of regular mag releases, they showed up at the residence and confiscated but did not prosecute as long as there was nothing else illegal present.
__________________
WTB: Chronograph
WTB: T Series Hi Power
WTB: Bisley Revolver (Uberti type)
WTB: Pietta 45lc conversion cylinder
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-31-2018, 9:45 AM
God Bless America's Avatar
God Bless America God Bless America is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 4,246
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese View Post
Hi folks,

1.) It is likely that removing a BB maglock on a RAW is defendable. The relevant crimes would be "possession of an unregistered AW" and/or "transport of an unregistered AW" ... except the AW is registered! There are no levels or tiers of AW registration, period: you cannot make an AW "more
AW-ey".

The revocation of registration without formal process etc is not that kosher and I see lotsa procedural issues. This is replay of Allison's "Category 4" memo back in 2006 (before her reregulation proposal on detachable mags was fought against back then and Bullet Buttons took off).
Bill that is quite a controversial thing to state, and as much as I appreciate your participation and advice, I wonder just how "defendable" you think it is, and the legal path to your conclusion.

Why do we not yet have a volunteer to see how this gets resolved? I would not do it - would you?

I don't see people stepping up to do this.

Mind you, I hope you are right, the AW laws are 100% BS, and I wish a pox upon all who voted for them, but bad laws can be validly written.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 12-31-2018, 10:05 AM
Sousuke Sousuke is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,849
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless America View Post
Bill that is quite a controversial thing to state, and as much as I appreciate your participation and advice, I wonder just how "defendable" you think it is, and the legal path to your conclusion.

Why do we not yet have a volunteer to see how this gets resolved? I would not do it - would you?

I don't see people stepping up to do this.

Mind you, I hope you are right, the AW laws are 100% BS, and I wish a pox upon all who voted for them, but bad laws can be validly written.
Thus far, I would argue that the CADOJ won't actually give you the opportunity to volunteer even if you wanted to.
__________________
WTB: Chronograph
WTB: T Series Hi Power
WTB: Bisley Revolver (Uberti type)
WTB: Pietta 45lc conversion cylinder
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 12-31-2018, 11:47 AM
jlist jlist is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 534
iTrader: 95 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese View Post
4.) The current politics in CA is that any technical gun win at state level that goes up the tree further in CA courts overturning CA law at state level, esp relating to AW matters, will just be "fixed" by antigunners in the CA legislature in the next session or so [SSE vs roster? => AB1964; BulletButton => SB880, and so on.]
The real 'fix' is Federal crackdown on AW bans under 2A.
The fight against BB rifle ban is going to be a much tougher case in CA. Given the current supreme court justices I'm not so optimistic at federal level, either (it looks to me that Roberts has flipped.) If we can get rid of BB it'd be a smaller win compared to that but it's not so small either. I'd be very happy to take that win.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 12-31-2018, 12:39 PM
God Bless America's Avatar
God Bless America God Bless America is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 4,246
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sousuke View Post
Thus far, I would argue that the CADOJ won't actually give you the opportunity to volunteer even if you wanted to.
It's not up to the DOJ. This challenge could have been addressed through a petition for a writ of mandate last year, to which DOJ must reply, or lose. Otherwise, one may still today sue just as Heller did.

It can be challenged. I notice however that it has not been challenged yet, despite the ardent opinion of some that a litigant would prevail.

My takeaway is that the "AW is an AW" crowd is not really that sure of their position.

If the latest AW ban is such a joke as many on CGN said (not bweise, to my knowledge), then why has it not yet been invalidated?

Last edited by God Bless America; 12-31-2018 at 12:44 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 12-31-2018, 5:05 PM
Sousuke Sousuke is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,849
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless America View Post
It's not up to the DOJ. This challenge could have been addressed through a petition for a writ of mandate last year, to which DOJ must reply, or lose. Otherwise, one may still today sue just as Heller did.

It can be challenged. I notice however that it has not been challenged yet, despite the ardent opinion of some that a litigant would prevail.

My takeaway is that the "AW is an AW" crowd is not really that sure of their position.

If the latest AW ban is such a joke as many on CGN said (not bweise, to my knowledge), then why has it not yet been invalidated?
They have had a choice thus far with regards to facilitating prosecution. Thus far confiscation has been the only result (with the exception of the farmer caught with suppressors). When you mentioned volunteering I had assumed you meant via prosecution.

Regarding challenging the regulations, well they haven’t even been finalized yet.
__________________
WTB: Chronograph
WTB: T Series Hi Power
WTB: Bisley Revolver (Uberti type)
WTB: Pietta 45lc conversion cylinder
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-31-2018, 9:36 PM
chris's Avatar
chris chris is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: In Texas for now
Posts: 18,632
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmallShark View Post
DOJ's reason is "removing the BB creates a new weapon" therefore, the registration is voided.

but, changing the barrel is fine.


i wonder how this BS holds in court.
If the 9th circus has anything to say about it. Yes it will.


The logic for saying it does is stupid.
__________________
http://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php

Thank your neighbor and fellow gun owners for passing Prop 63. For that gun control is a winning legislative agenda.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6Dj8tdSC1A
contact the governor
https://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php
In Memory of Spc Torres May 5th 2006 al-Hillah, Iraq. I will miss you my friend.
NRA Life Member.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 01-01-2019, 10:00 AM
God Bless America's Avatar
God Bless America God Bless America is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 4,246
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sousuke View Post
When you mentioned volunteering I had assumed you meant via prosecution.
Either way.

Quote:
Regarding challenging the regulations, well they haven’t even been finalized yet.
Interesting point. You sure they are not effective?

Quote:
They have had a choice thus far with regards to facilitating prosecution. Thus far confiscation has been the only result (with the exception of the farmer caught with suppressors).
So they have confiscated under invalid regulations? Hopefully, but I don't see it.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 01-01-2019, 10:04 AM
God Bless America's Avatar
God Bless America God Bless America is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 4,246
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chris View Post
The logic for saying it does is stupid.
The logic is sound. The law is odious and misdirected, but the logic is there.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 01-01-2019, 12:14 PM
Sousuke Sousuke is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,849
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless America View Post
Either way.



Interesting point. You sure they are not effective?



So they have confiscated under invalid regulations? Hopefully, but I don't see it.
The current OAL deadline is January 8th.

Its virtually impossible to fight confiscation during this process. Worst case, they could simply say the registration was rejected due to an improper configuration. Now that the deadline is closed there is no way to register and therefore no legal way to possess. Gun lost.

Regarding if they are "effective", until OAL approves latest PC reference, they are only effective for registration. Not holding my breath with regards to OAL, but if they reject it will get interesting. There were 30 to 40 issues raised during the public comment period that needed addressing but received a "no change required" response and in some cases weren't even really responded to. If OAL approves over these, then the system is broken.
__________________
WTB: Chronograph
WTB: T Series Hi Power
WTB: Bisley Revolver (Uberti type)
WTB: Pietta 45lc conversion cylinder

Last edited by Sousuke; 01-01-2019 at 12:25 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 01-01-2019, 3:18 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Low-Functioning Genius
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,302
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless America View Post

Why do we not yet have a volunteer to see how this gets resolved? I would not do it - would you?
Some rumors going around that a magnet on BB arrest occurred recently in Sacramento and this might be the first case. I can't find anything at all on it however.

I could see the magnet BB being an easy entrance into the courts. Very few are going to simply take off the BB out of fear and have the wait and see approach that is the common consensus here on CG. But people who missed the one line in the regs simply stating a magnet is a standard mag release are the ones most likely to get into a bad situation.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 01-01-2019, 4:34 PM
tonyxcom's Avatar
tonyxcom tonyxcom is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: NorCal
Posts: 5,567
iTrader: 42 / 100%
Default

The regs dont say removing the BB creates a new weapon. They say it creates a new class of weapon, one that wasn’t registered.

If the regs define a weapon based on specific features or functions and the barrel length or color of gun aren’t part of that definition, it stands to reason you can change the barrel, the color, or any non defined parts without changing the class. Weather or not the law gave the authority to create a new class is up for the courts to decide.

If someone submitted photos with a standard mag release they’ve self incriminated themselves and are lucky they only got the rifle confiscated IMO, as the AW laws are pretty clear.

Finally, as difficult the process to register was, it was clear the legislature did not want people to register them. And our resistance to registration is so high we will just continue to neuter them of features and functions as they continue to reclassify what an AW is. It’s only a matter of time, which is on their side not ours, till being semi automatic is an evil feature.

Then what would you rather have, a 2000 RAW, a BB RAW, or a bolt action AR?
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 01-01-2019, 5:10 PM
chris's Avatar
chris chris is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: In Texas for now
Posts: 18,632
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese View Post
Hi folks,

1.) It is likely that removing a BB maglock on a RAW is defendable. The relevant crimes would be
"possession of an unregistered AW" and/or "transport of an unregistered AW" ... except the AW is
registered! There are no levels or tiers of AW registration, period: you cannot make an AW "more
AW-ey".


The revocation of registration without formal process etc is not that kosher and I see lotsa

procedural issues. This is replay of Allison's "Category 4" memo back in 2006 (before her
reregulation proposal on detachable mags was fought against back then and BulletButtons
took off).

Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless America View Post
The logic is sound. The law is odious and misdirected, but the logic is there.
Uh no the logic is not sound. Taking the BB off does not make it another firearm.

As Bill as said it doesn't make it more AW-ey

Make all the excuses you want to justify what you want there is no logic or reason behind any gun law in California. Let alone the slew of new crap that we are going have to deal with in 2019.
__________________
http://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php

Thank your neighbor and fellow gun owners for passing Prop 63. For that gun control is a winning legislative agenda.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6Dj8tdSC1A
contact the governor
https://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php
In Memory of Spc Torres May 5th 2006 al-Hillah, Iraq. I will miss you my friend.
NRA Life Member.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 01-01-2019, 6:44 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Low-Functioning Genius
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,302
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonyxcom View Post
The regs dont say removing the BB creates a new weapon. They say it creates a new class of weapon, one that wasn’t registered.

If the regs define a weapon based on specific features or functions and the barrel length or color of gun aren’t part of that definition, it stands to reason you can change the barrel, the color, or any non defined parts without changing the class. Weather or not the law gave the authority to create a new class is up for the courts to decide.
What's a "class" of weapon? Even the "categories" of AW was only something that appeared on the DOJ website, not in law or regulation.

Remember the timeline:

1) Roberti Roos: AW is anything with these name on it
2) Lockyear: Here are more names
3) SB23: In addition to those named, anything that has these features is AW
4) SB880: A BB is the same as a standard mag release
5) Regs: You can never take BB off
6) Additional Regs shot down in 2018: The definitions in SB880 Regs are pursuant to (in accordance with) SB23 definitions (features)

So if they are not pursuant, meaning they are not in accordance with the new definitions, they are their own definitions unrelated to the old definitions.

They did lose a battle there to try and link the old definitions to the new ones, it opens up the question of what an AW is beyond what is called for during registration. It shows the weakness of the argument that the DOJ decides arbitrarily and there is no universally accepted PC that defines everything.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 01-01-2019, 9:27 PM
chris's Avatar
chris chris is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: In Texas for now
Posts: 18,632
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonyxcom View Post


Finally, as difficult the process to register was, it was clear the legislature did not want people to register them. And our resistance to registration is so high we will just continue to neuter them of features and functions as they continue to reclassify what an AW is. It’s only a matter of time, which is on their side not ours, till being semi automatic is an evil feature.

Then what would you rather have, a 2000 RAW, a BB RAW, or a bolt action AR?
you can bet the farm that a semi auto ban is coming. This time it will become law.
__________________
http://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php

Thank your neighbor and fellow gun owners for passing Prop 63. For that gun control is a winning legislative agenda.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6Dj8tdSC1A
contact the governor
https://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php
In Memory of Spc Torres May 5th 2006 al-Hillah, Iraq. I will miss you my friend.
NRA Life Member.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 01-01-2019, 9:57 PM
caliguy93's Avatar
caliguy93 caliguy93 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: North Koreafornia
Posts: 1,171
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless America View Post
My takeaway is that the "AW is an AW" crowd is not really that sure of their position.
I have to disagree. It’s not that I am not sure of my position. I’m very certain my position is correct. That a firearm cannot be more assualty. If DOJ says it’s a new class of weapon what penal code definition of a weapon do I own, an assault weapon? Great, a firearm with that unique identifying marks is a registered assault weapon.

What I’m not certain of is the what hell the state will put me through to defend my position. I’m certain I can beat the rap, but I don’t want to go for the ride.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 01-01-2019, 10:27 PM
tonyxcom's Avatar
tonyxcom tonyxcom is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: NorCal
Posts: 5,567
iTrader: 42 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
4) SB880: A BB is the same as a standard mag release
I don't think that's quite true. What it says is that a bullet button no longer meets the definition of a fixed magazine.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 01-02-2019, 8:35 AM
HibikiR HibikiR is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: LA County
Posts: 1,381
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chris View Post
you can bet the farm that a semi auto ban is coming. This time it will become law.
We have to control the courts before that happens. RBG must go!
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 01-02-2019, 9:12 AM
tonyxcom's Avatar
tonyxcom tonyxcom is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: NorCal
Posts: 5,567
iTrader: 42 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HibikiR View Post
We have to control the courts before that happens. RBG must go!
I expect the next semi auto ban to be submitted for the next legislative session. We won't control the courts by then.

Newsom signs it to go into effect 2020.
It goes into effect.
We sue in 2020.
We lose in district in 2022
We lose appeals in the 9th in 2024
We ask Supreme Court to review, they agree in 2025?
We win in 2025-26

Time is on their side, not ours.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 01-02-2019, 10:09 AM
champu's Avatar
champu champu is offline
NRA Member, CRPA Member,
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Redondo Beach
Posts: 807
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonyxcom View Post
I don't think that's quite true. What it says is that a bullet button no longer meets the definition of a fixed magazine.
A bullet button never met the definition of a fixed magazine, it met the definition of “not a detachable magazine.”

“Not a detachable magazine” is not equal to “fixed”, they are two different lines in the sand, and bullet buttons sit between them. “Not a detachable magazine” is a line in the sand between a bullet button and a standard magazine release.

The point being made is that “not a detachable magazine” was REMOVED from the penal code as a line in the sand that helped define an assault weapon and replaced with “fixed.” There are no longer any lines in the sand in the penal code between a bullet button and a standard magazine release. If you manufacture either, you will be charged with violation of the exact same section and paragraph of the penal code.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 01-02-2019, 10:40 AM
AdamVIP AdamVIP is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 367
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blubullett View Post
The chance of winning in the 9th circuit is 5%. The chance of it going to the supreme court? Not sure. Not too hopeful either. The chance of it winning in the supreme court if it makes it there? 95%.

I think CRPA and FPC have pretty full plates right now unless people start donating a bunch of money. Maybe something will happen if a case or two of theirs ends and they have some resources to apply to it.
I think in this particular test case you would be facing prison time so it may get heard at the SCOTUS level. Most of our gun laws that get skipped just involve the ability to acquire something.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 01-02-2019, 10:59 AM
BigPimping's Avatar
BigPimping BigPimping is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Roasting those freaks in the hood
Posts: 16,450
iTrader: 57 / 100%
Default

I think that urinating into the wind would probably be a better use of your time. given the current state of California politics and the fact that the Gavin is now ascending the throne.
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 2:00 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.