2017 California AW Regulations - DISCUSSION Thread

[bob.dakeelstripe]

Originally Posted by Kalashnikov007

Great point, the DOJ doesn't seem to understand the reason for these "evil features". Everything on a base gun has a function. The pistol grip is to be able to hold the gun firmly and use the firearm safely.

The magazine release is designed to drop a mag when there's a malfunction. Without it, the firearm could be left in a jammed dangerous position.

*Edit:
They also seem to not understand that until every state follows the same rules as these new regulations, these only infringe the rights of innocent good people in CA. A criminal can smuggle guns across state lines, and video evidence has been released where criminals have robbed gun stores taking hundreds of firearms. Those stolen guns will most likely get sold and travel across the United States.

Criminals NEVER do illegal acts

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[2Aallday]

Originally Posted by zhyla

Which is a time consuming past time. He pisses some people off because he's right and they really want to hear that we are going to win. I've been called all manner of things for stating things as benign as it being possible that firearms registration might pass Heller muster or that grenades might not be a good thing to have in civilian hands.

To those that think he is an "anti" -- you watch too much TV.

It's difficult for people to keep emotion out of it. We could all take a page from Pauling here:

"If you want to have good ideas you must have many ideas. Most of them will be wrong, and what you have to learn is which ones to throw away."

Most of our arguments against even this complete cluster...puff of regulations are going to be bad arguments, which won't win us back RKBA. We need to put ego aside and strike down the bad arguments, so that we don't present them where and when it counts for lack of better arguments.

[bob.dakeelstripe]

One. Registered one featureless and one In another state just in case

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[meno377]

Originally Posted by Discogodfather

I'm not trying to discourage people from buying, and I salute the companies providing the featureless rifles. I am also not trying to say it's some kind of huge safety hazard. It is just less safe, in general, than an actual pistol grip or conventional rifle stock.

The point is people are pushing featureless as a no brainier option to registering. This is a big problem, the same people push all kinds of FUD about registration. My choice is to choose the best option that has the most amount of options and helps, in general, the 2A cause. I'm trying to stay away from the featureless arguments but the fanbois keep appearing touting their agenda, so I feel the need to knock them back into reality.

We really need to read and think over the next couple of weeks. Legal eagles need to give us an answer to the questions of whether or not, in the future, this crazy registration system might work in our favor if we can remove BB, etc. Pushing one thing or the other is pointless until we have some good analysis.

Now that is funny and if you are referring to me, you are a liar. I have never said anything globally about registration being a huge problem. I don't believe in it, but I am not telling everyone else to not register. I replied today because of the FUD being spread around by you and at least one other user that featureless options are unsafe. And that is not true. Featureless is an option as opposed to registration. Stop spreading FUD about unsafe featureless options and I will stop replying.

[JDay]

Originally Posted by Discogodfather

Just give it a rest and lets all read and think about the regs and if it's still worth registering.

If you don't register, they win. Those regulations were written to discourage registration. However if you register they still win. They only winning move is to take your money and leave this state. The only way this state is going to get better is for it to become financially starved. Make it impossible for them to give freebies to their voter base. Defund all their socialist programs, let this mess implode on them.

[doggie]

How about if I just tell them I sold it?

[Discogodfather]

Originally Posted by JDay

If you don't register, they win. Those regulations were written to discourage registration. However if you register they still win. They only winning move is to take your money and leave this state. The only way this state is going to get better is for it to become financially starved. Make it impossible for them to give freebies to their voter base. Defund all their socialist programs, let this mess implode on them.

The key to understanding this is the cover letter. It outlines the legal theory and enforcement policy of the DOJ, and it reveals their intent. If we can understand better if their argument is legally correct, then we can get closer to understanding if their system will work or whether it will collapse under scrutiny. The argument is so crazy in the cover letter, explaining that a BB makes the rifle an AW, that I don't know what to think.

In the logic realm we laugh at it, since it seems like a completely ridiculous idea, along with plenty of other nuggets, but is it a good legal argument? The answer to that question is the answer as to whether or not registration makes any sense.

[doggie]

An "Assault Weapon" is by definition fully automatic. So one need go no further in the argument as they are wrong to begin with. The BB argument is a red herring.

[captainsavaho]

"MULTI" acceptable for caliber regs ???

[doggie]

Arguing that a BB makes a semi-auto an AW is like arguing that a set of mag wheels on a Buick makes it an Indy Car.

[Discogodfather]

Originally Posted by doggie

Arguing that a BB makes a semi-auto an AW is like arguning that a mag wheel on a Buick makes it an Indy Car.

But then LEO will not be able to correctly identify the weapon as an AW if they can take it off. They can't tell which registration period it came from.

This is their logic.

[JDay]

Originally Posted by Discogodfather

The key to understanding this is the cover letter. It outlines the legal theory and enforcement policy of the DOJ, and it reveals their intent. If we can understand better if their argument is legally correct, then we can get closer to understanding if their system will work or whether it will collapse under scrutiny. The argument is so crazy in the cover letter, explaining that a BB makes the rifle an AW, that I don't know what to think.

In the logic realm we laugh at it, since it seems like a completely ridiculous idea, along with plenty of other nuggets, but is it a good legal argument? The answer to that question is the answer as to whether or not registration makes any sense.

Doesn't matter. I'm packing up and getting my family out of this state. Been planning this for a few years.

[doggie]

Originally Posted by Discogodfather

But then LEO will not be able to correctly identify the weapon as an AW if they can take it off. They can't tell which registration period it came from.

This is their logic.

The LEOs have better things to do with the money I pay them, like hunting down criminals, not harassing upstanding citizens protected by the 2A.

[meno377]

The best advice given by Kestryll is to listen to next week's webinar:

Originally Posted by Kestryll

To better help California gun owners understand the proposal, NRA and CRPA attorneys will be hosting a free live webinar next week on Thursday, May 25 at 12:00 pm (PT).

To attend this live webinar for this free, register online here.

If you are unable to attend, don’t worry. The webinar will be recorded and made freely available on CRPA’s website at www.crpa.org/webinars.

NRA and CRPA attorneys are also reviewing the proposal to ensure DOJ has not overstepped its authority. As you may recall, DOJ voluntarily withdrew their first attempt proposal as a direct result of NRA and CRPA submitting a joint-pre-litigation demand letter to the Department of Justice and a joint-opposition letter to the Office of Administrative Law. Both letters highlighted how DOJ’s first attempt went far beyond what is necessary for the registration of newly classified “assault weapons,” and instead read like a wish-list from the gun ban lobby which DOJ attempted to shoehorn into their proposed regulations.

[ugimports]

Originally Posted by Discogodfather

Like I said, retailers. Manufactures stay away because of the many legal liabilities.

Not entirely true:
https://www.smith-wesson.com/firearm...ca-compliant-0

http://www.guns.com/2017/04/18/kriss...or-california/

I received this from my POF rep, but didn't see a pic online yet:

POF USA has started shipping our Featureless rifles into California! Each rifle will ship with the stock pinned in the last position, the Mission First Tactical paddle grip, and a muzzle brake, as well as a standard and ambi mag release.

[ugimports]

Originally Posted by doggie

An "Assault Weapon" is by definition fully automatic. So one need go no further in the argument as they are wrong to begin with. The BB argument is a red herring.

That's not how they define it in California. If you look at the regs and our laws they redefine lots of words to fit the definition they want.

[meno377]

Originally Posted by ugimports

Not entirely true:
https://www.smith-wesson.com/firearm...ca-compliant-0

http://www.guns.com/2017/04/18/kriss...or-california/

I received this from my POF rep, but didn't see a pic online yet:

I was told that LMT will follow suit. We will see.

[ugimports]

Originally Posted by Discogodfather

But then LEO will not be able to correctly identify the weapon as an AW if they can take it off. They can't tell which registration period it came from.

This is their logic.

What I don't get is why it matters. If the DOJ allowed you to register it that really should be all LEO care about...

[johnsta]

This might be a really stupid question so forgive me....

There exists many different kinds of Bullet Buttons. Some are easier to convert the rifle to an "Assault Weapon" than others.

For example, I use all RadLocks on my ARs. Technically I need to use a tool, but i just unscrew it and it works like a normal mag release. Will that style of BB be ok for registration purposes?

So basically I unscrew it and it is an Assault Weapon. I screw it in and lock the magazine and it isn't.

Aren't we back to square one?

[9M62]

Originally Posted by ugimports

What I don't get is why it matters. If the DOJ allowed you to register it that really should be all LEO care about...

It's also BS.

Let's say for a minute that the notion of "Registration Categories" matter.

It's simple: If a cop runs the serial number of the firearm and it comes back registered as an assault weapon, it will have a registration date associated with it. If that date is after 2016, then the cop would know it needs to have a bullet button. Simple as that.

The notion that the bullet button needs to be there in the first place to help identify which "category" of registration it belongs to is just false, and stupid.

They want their cake and eat it too -- and they're going to end up getting nothing.

Fixed mag I'll stay. Thanks.

[Discogodfather]

Originally Posted by ugimports

What I don't get is why it matters. If the DOJ allowed you to register it that really should be all LEO care about...

It matters because they didn't want to be accused of manufacturing 1.5 million standard rifles in CA, and because they would rather die than give us any moniker of reasonable action.

[John Browning]

It's May. There has been zero outreach to anybody who may be affected by this. The regulations themselves are designed as to make registration a Herculean and intentionally impossible task. These surely are designed with the intention of being overly vague, completely misapplying law, writing new law into existence, and being otherwise aimed at getting you to provide the evidence they'll need to incriminate you later.

At this point, they might get a couple thousand registrations. That will be a really awkward spot for CA and the DOJ when a million new criminals are made overnight. This is basically how marijuana became legal. Enforcement of the law became practically impossible because of the sheer numbers of "criminals."

This has to be headed to the courts and an injunction. There is no way this can really be a registration scheme they think can succeed on any level.

[Discogodfather]

Originally Posted by John Browning

It's May. There has been zero outreach to anybody who may be affected by this. The regulations themselves are designed as to make registration a Herculean and intentionally impossible task. These surely are designed with the intention of being overly vague, completely misapplying law, writing new law into existence, and being otherwise aimed at getting you to provide the evidence they'll need to incriminate you later.

At this point, they might get a couple thousand registrations. That will be a really awkward spot for CA and the DOJ when a million new criminals are made overnight. This is basically how marijuana became legal. Enforcement of the law became practically impossible because of the sheer numbers of "criminals."

This has to be headed to the courts and an injunction. There is no way this can really be a registration scheme they think can succeed on any level.

So don't comply? I can respect that perspective. Organize a mass non compliance and prepare a giant legal defense fund. Problem is, we can all not comply and then what? They aren't going to come to your home or safe. It will only work if people follow through on the civil disobedience side, and actually go to the range and hunt and do everything else. That's where it becomes a very difficult plan.

If you mean go featureless, then that is just another form of compliance. After you go featureless, the state retains it's valid argument that they gave people a chance and they did not take it. Your not in violation of the law, so all you have to do is wait until they make that illegal.

You see the problems with a blind no-registration argument? It only works if people have the guts to see it through by really not complying and openly so.

[ugimports]

Originally Posted by johnsta

This might be a really stupid question so forgive me....

There exists many different kinds of Bullet Buttons. Some are easier to convert the rifle to an "Assault Weapon" than others.

For example, I use all RadLocks on my ARs. Technically I need to use a tool, but i just unscrew it and it works like a normal mag release. Will that style of BB be ok for registration purposes?

So basically I unscrew it and it is an Assault Weapon. I screw it in and lock the magazine and it isn't.

Aren't we back to square one?

Not sure what you mean. Any raddlock made prior to 2017 and in use today is on an assault weapon.

[ugimports]

Originally Posted by 9M62

It's also BS.

Let's say for a minute that the notion of "Registration Categories" matter.

It's simple: If a cop runs the serial number of the firearm and it comes back registered as an assault weapon, it will have a registration date associated with it. If that date is after 2016, then the cop would know it needs to have a bullet button. Simple as that.

The notion that the bullet button needs to be there in the first place to help identify which "category" of registration it belongs to is just false, and stupid.

They want their cake and eat it too -- and they're going to end up getting nothing.

Fixed mag I'll stay. Thanks.

From the bolded -- have you seen what comes up when they run a serial number for assault weapons? I have not. There's a registration date on the screen?

How do they make a distinction between LEO that have AWs registered for work > 2017? Does this mean that all LEO that register (for duty) after 2017 will need to have BB AWs now?

[Discogodfather]

Originally Posted by johnsta

This might be a really stupid question so forgive me....

There exists many different kinds of Bullet Buttons. Some are easier to convert the rifle to an "Assault Weapon" than others.

For example, I use all RadLocks on my ARs. Technically I need to use a tool, but i just unscrew it and it works like a normal mag release. Will that style of BB be ok for registration purposes?

So basically I unscrew it and it is an Assault Weapon. I screw it in and lock the magazine and it isn't.

Aren't we back to square one?

If you unscrew the button on a raddlock you are manufacturing an assault weapon, but a different kind of AW than you have. You have converted a BBAW to a AW (call it an SB23 or Roberti Roo if you like) and this is also a felony.

The question is, will this hold up in court. If a judge or panel hears this argument, will it stick? Can we manufacture an AW from an AW?

[Lonestargrizzly]

This whole debate really makes me wish I had 2 rifles...

[Discogodfather]

Originally Posted by ugimports

From the bolded -- have you seen what comes up when they run a serial number for assault weapons? I have not. There's a registration date on the screen?

How do they make a distinction between LEO that have AWs registered for work > 2017? Does this mean that all LEO that register (for duty) after 2017 will need to have BB AWs now?

I have, it will come up as RAW if it is. Been this way forever.

Their argument is that they can see and verify the BB, therefore know it is a BBAW and was from the 2001-2016 period. Without the BB, they cannot know when it was from unless they run the serial, then they would know.

[Fox Mulder]

Originally Posted by doggie

An "Assault Weapon" is by definition fully automatic. So one need go no further in the argument as they are wrong to begin with. The BB argument is a red herring.

Sorry, no. An assault weapon has a specific legal definition in CA, and it's not a full auto.

[ugimports]

Originally Posted by Discogodfather

I have, it will come up as RAW if it is. Been this way forever.

Their argument is that they can see and verify the BB, therefore know it is a BBAW and was from the 2001-2016 period. Without the BB, they cannot know when it was from unless they run the serial, then they would know.

Sounds like there is no date though as the other poster was saying IS on the screen to determine the vintage of AW.

[John Browning]

Originally Posted by Discogodfather

So don't comply? I can respect that perspective. Organize a mass non compliance and prepare a giant legal defense fund. Problem is, we can all not comply and then what? They aren't going to come to your home or safe. It will only work if people follow through on the civil disobedience side, and actually go to the range and hunt and do everything else. That's where it becomes a very difficult plan.

If you mean go featureless, then that is just another form of compliance. After you go featureless, the state retains it's valid argument that they gave people a chance and they did not take it. Your not in violation of the law, so all you have to do is wait until they make that illegal.

You see the problems with a blind no-registration argument? It only works if people have the guts to see it through by really not complying and openly so.

We all think here that this is some conscious decision. Even if 100% of the people who know about this law and how to comply actually do it, that's probably 5% of gun owners at best. Most folks have zero idea what's going on. I was at a gun buyback and the guy behind me had a Tec-9 and 2 30 round mags that the never registered. He turned it in and that was that, telling the cop he was with he had no idea about any of the gun laws since he bought it in the 90s.

People won't comply with this. I can promise you that. They haven't complied with past registrations. It isn't out of bravery or even as an active decision, it is because they have no idea they actually needed to do something. They will go to the range, they will hunt, etc. They'll do it because they (and rightly so) think they already registered it when they bought it and nobody has said anything to them since. Out of all this cloud of chaos, that's the only thing I'm certain about.

There is going to be mass non-compliance with registration and mass civil disobedience simply because people don't know. It will get very awkward for the DAs office.

[Discogodfather]

Originally Posted by John Browning

We all think here that this is some conscious decision. Even if 100% of the people who know about this law and how to comply actually do it, that's probably 5% of gun owners at best. Most folks have zero idea what's going on. I was at a gun buyback and the guy behind me had a Tec-9 and 2 30 round mags that the never registered. He turned it in and that was that, telling the cop he was with he had no idea about any of the gun laws since he bought it in the 90s.

People won't comply with this. I can promise you that. They haven't complied with past registrations. It isn't out of bravery or even as an active decision, it is because they have no idea they actually needed to do something. They will go to the range, they will hunt, etc. They'll do it because they (and rightly so) think they already registered it when they bought it and nobody has said anything to them since. Out of all this cloud of chaos, that's the only thing I'm certain about.

There is going to be mass non-compliance with registration and mass civil disobedience simply because people don't know. It will get very awkward for the DAs office.

I agree, this is going to happen regardless of anything due to people not being informed. Honestly though, I see it being common but remember what happened last reg periods. There was no mass incarceration after those periods, just occasional stories of this guy and that guy getting busted for an on list lower, featured rifle, etc. Most people who don't know don't shoot either, and they only occasionally will be out and about with their rifles.

But those past reg periods had such smaller numbers, and by the State's own admission there are 1.5 million rifles out there right now that are BBAW. So we will see higher numbers.

What if the DOJ, in an unspoken rule, doesn't criminally prosecute people and just ends up confiscating? That's the rub and the problem, they achieve confiscation quietly and without much legal recourse, or at least less recourse because people will be glad to get out of a larger problem.

You see how that is more likely a scenario to achieve confiscation than anything that has to do with registering? It's also a lot cheaper.

[JDay]

Originally Posted by doggie

An "Assault Weapon" is by definition fully automatic. So one need go no further in the argument as they are wrong to begin with. The BB argument is a red herring.

You're thinking of "assault rifle".

[doggie]

Originally Posted by JDay

You're thinking of "assault rifle".

Of course. Are there assault pistols?

[Discogodfather]

There is no such thing, in reality, as an assault rifle or assault weapons. Yes, there are legal definitions. They are not valid and are being challenged.

Logically, they do not exist, and in the realm of physical science and physics they do not exist.

[9M62]

Originally Posted by ugimports

From the bolded -- have you seen what comes up when they run a serial number for assault weapons? I have not. There's a registration date on the screen?

How do they make a distinction between LEO that have AWs registered for work > 2017? Does this mean that all LEO that register (for duty) after 2017 will need to have BB AWs now?

Yes, I have, and yes there is a date.

The "AFS" (Automated Firearms System) return shows the date of purchase, the purchaser, and firearm specific information. This is also true with RAW registration.

LEO's will be able to register duty AW's with a Chief's letter under the prior category of registration and thus, remove the BB. That is only if their Chief signs a letter and if it's purchased in whole.

In theory, if you agree with the DOJ wording as being legal and correct, a LEO can get a Chief letter to buy a "duty AR" and register that "duty AR" under the old registration scheme (which was to buy the firearm as an assault weapon, from an assault weapon dealer) and send in a paper CARD listing the owner and firearm information. This would allow the LEO to remove the bullet button.

Now, the AFS return would still show a 2017 date of registration -- but the LEO's Police ID and/or Chief letter would probably suffice in proving that it was a duty weapon and thus valid under the "prior" registration rules.

My personal opinion is I don't see the DOJ regulations on the BB staying on as being lawful or maintaining validity, but what I wrote above is merely an example of "what if", if it were to be the final case.

[JDay]

Originally Posted by Discogodfather

There is no such thing, in reality, as an assault rifle or assault weapons. Yes, there are legal definitions. They are not valid and are being challenged.

Logically, they do not exist, and in the realm of physical science and physics they do not exist.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dict...ssault%20rifle

[Discogodfather]

Originally Posted by JDay

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dict...ssault%20rifle

You need to take a look at the latest lawsuit filed by Michel and the NRA-IL.

Please read the history of the term. It is a BS political term of ever changing meaning. If we, as gun enthusiasts, can't see through this mechanism of control, we are doomed.

You respect a term coined by the Sugarman, the head of the Violence Policy Center, in 1989:

"Many attribute its popularization to a 1988 paper written by gun-control activist and Violence Policy Center founder Josh Sugarmann and the later reaction to the Cleveland School massacre in Stockton, California, in January 1989."[5] Sugarmann had written:

Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons."

[JDay]

Originally Posted by Discogodfather

You need to take a look at the latest lawsuit filed by Michel and the NRA-IL.

Please read the history of the term. It is a BS political term of ever changing meaning. If we, as gun enthusiasts, can't see through this mechanism of control, we are doomed.

You respect a term coined by the Sugarman, the head of the Violence Policy Center, in 1989:

"Many attribute its popularization to a 1988 paper written by gun-control activist and Violence Policy Center founder Josh Sugarmann and the later reaction to the Cleveland School massacre in Stockton, California, in January 1989."[5] Sugarmann had written:

Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons."

Can you read? I did not say "assault weapon".

[Discogodfather]

Originally Posted by JDay

Can you read? I did not say "assault weapon".

Assault anything bro. It's not real.