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 > How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #241  
Old 01-03-2017, 3:47 PM
dwightlooi dwightlooi is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 453
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The following PROPOSED REGULATIONS:-

$5477. Registration of Assault Weapons Pursuant to Penal Code Section 30900(b)(11); Post-Registration Modification of Registered Assault Weapons, Prohibition.

(a) The release mechanism for an amnunition feeding device on an assault weapon registeredpursuant to Penal Code section 30900, subdivision (b)(1) shall not be changed after the assault weapon is registered.

(b) The prohibition in subdivision (a) does not extend to the repair or like-kind replacement of the mechanism.

(c) This prohibition in subdivision (a) does not extend to a firearm that is undergoing the de-registration process pursuant to section 5478. Written
confirmation from the Department that acknowledges the owner's intent to
de-register his or her assault weapon pursuant to section 5478 shall be proof the de-registration process has been initiated.

Note: Authority cited: Section 30900 Penal Code. Reference: Sections 30515, 30680, 30900 and 30950 Penal Code.


Will be challenged very simply under the grounds that: Penal Code 30900 Subdivision

(b) (1) Any person who, from January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2016, inclusive, lawfully possessed an assault weapon that does not have a fixed magazine, as defined in Section 30515, including those weapons with an ammunition feeding device that can be readily removed from the firearm with the use of a tool, shall register the firearm before January 1, 2018, but not before the effective date of the regulations adopted pursuant to paragraph (5), with the department pursuant to those procedures that the department may establish by regulation pursuant to paragraph (5).

(2) Registrations shall be submitted electronically via the Internet utilizing a public-facing application made available by the department.

(3) The registration shall contain a description of the firearm that identifies it uniquely, including all identification marks, the date the firearm was acquired, the name and address of the individual from whom, or business from which, the firearm was acquired, as well as the registrant’s full name, address, telephone number, date of birth, sex, height, weight, eye color, hair color, and California driver’s license number or California identification card number.

(4) The department may charge a fee in an amount of up to fifteen dollars ($15) per person but not to exceed the reasonable processing costs of the department. The fee shall be paid by debit or credit card at the time that the electronic registration is submitted to the department. The fee shall be deposited in the Dealers’ Record of Sale Special Account to be used for purposes of this section.

(5) The department shall adopt regulations for the purpose of implementing this subdivision. These regulations are exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code).


Does not prohibit the alteration, addition or removal of any feature on Registered Assault Weapons. It merely requires that such weapons, legally obtained between 2000 and 2016 (inclusive) be-registered within the allowed time window. Hence, the CA DOJ does not have the legal basis or authority to enact any prohibition to this regard. Specifically, the CA DOJ does not have the legal basis or authority to prohibit the addition, removal or alteration of the magazine release method, pistol grip, adjustable/foldng stock, thumb hole, flash hider, bayonet lug, grenade launcher or forward pistol grip on legally owned and registered assault weapons.

Last edited by dwightlooi; 01-03-2017 at 3:55 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #242  
Old 01-04-2017, 2:06 AM
trackerdan trackerdan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 124
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiskey_Tango View Post
Wow, didn't know there was a mandatory minimum 4 year sentence.
That's so they can take once law abiding, tax paying citizens and turn them into hard core felons. All the while releasing the real hardcore nonproductive felons onto the streets to murder and main at their leisure.
Reply With Quote
  #243  
Old 01-04-2017, 7:05 AM
tokyodrftr's Avatar
tokyodrftr tokyodrftr is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Beverly Hills, Odessa & Tokyo
Posts: 85
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This is pretty stupid question. But I assume I can't put my RAW (AR pistol) on my CCW card but what about a non-RAW pistol?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
Money is not everything, lack of money is everything
Reply With Quote
  #244  
Old 01-04-2017, 8:34 AM
Virginian Virginian is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 127
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tokyodrftr View Post
This is pretty stupid question. But I assume I can't put my RAW (AR pistol) on my CCW card but what about a non-RAW pistol?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Isn't a non-RAW pistol just a pistol. From that point you exempt a number of laws with a CCW, so I think the choice to permit would be with the issuing agency.
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems that the one to ask is the guy that signs your card. Best advice you'll get from me is "don't assume anything". ;-)
Reply With Quote
  #245  
Old 01-04-2017, 9:45 AM
lordmorgul lordmorgul is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 798
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tokyodrftr View Post
This is pretty stupid question. But I assume I can't put my RAW (AR pistol) on my CCW card but what about a non-RAW pistol?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Not a stupid question. You would almost uselessly waste a slot on your card though, because the "defined destination" requirements for transport of a RAW and the transport condition requirements of a RAW make it impossible to carry one concealed even if you have license to do so... it would be illegal transport while legal possession.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #246  
Old 01-04-2017, 2:05 PM
dwightlooi dwightlooi is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 453
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lordmorgul View Post
Not a stupid question. You would almost uselessly waste a slot on your card though, because the "defined destination" requirements for transport of a RAW and the transport condition requirements of a RAW make it impossible to carry one concealed even if you have license to do so... it would be illegal transport while legal possession.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Actually, that is an arguable case. The transport requirements for RAWs is essentially the same as that for handguns in general. If the handgun's transport requirement is voided by the CCW so should the RAW's transport requirements. The simplest of argument is that the transport requirements are for conveyance of the firearm from it's place of storage (home) to the place of legal use (range). The CCW turns the entire USA, with the exception of certain "gun free zones" and other prohibited locales, to the place of use (range). Therefore, there is no transport requirement because you are ALWAYS already on a legitimate shooting location.
Reply With Quote
  #247  
Old 01-04-2017, 2:09 PM
icefire icefire is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Northwest California
Posts: 172
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M1A Rifleman View Post
NO, BLM and the National Forest allow them. Search Calguns for the letters from these agencies regarding authorization.
USFS allows them in certain areas, not a blanket ok for all national forests. And remember, NPS (Park Service) runs national parks, a whole separate Agency with separate lands form BLM and USFS (Forest Service).
Reply With Quote
  #248  
Old 01-04-2017, 6:35 PM
Cokebottle's Avatar
Cokebottle Cokebottle is offline
Señor Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: IE, CA
Posts: 32,499
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dwightlooi View Post
Actually, that is an arguable case. The transport requirements for RAWs is essentially the same as that for handguns in general. If the handgun's transport requirement is voided by the CCW so should the RAW's transport requirements.
Not true. This is a commonly confused issue, but there are two sections of law at work. One section covers transportation within a motor vehicle, the other covers other forms of transport (presumably on foot)

Handgun transport laws only include specific destination requirements when NOT transported within a motor vehicle.

There is nothing illegal about carrying a "trunk gun" 24/7 provided it is unloaded and in a locked container.
When the gun is removed from the vehicle, the specific destination requirements come into play.

RAW transportation laws include the specific destination requirement at all times.
Quote:
25610.
(a) Section 25400 shall not be construed to prohibit any citizen of the United States over the age of 18 years who resides or is temporarily within this state, and who is not prohibited by state or federal law from possessing, receiving, owning, or purchasing a firearm, from transporting or carrying any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, provided that the following applies to the firearm:
(1) The firearm is within a motor vehicle and it is locked in the vehicle’s trunk or in a locked container in the vehicle.
(2) The firearm is carried by the person directly to or from any motor vehicle for any lawful purpose and, while carrying the firearm, the firearm is contained within a locked container.
(b) The provisions of this section do not prohibit or limit the otherwise lawful carrying or transportation of any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person in accordance with the provisions listed in Section 16580
The second statute is 25505:

Quote:
25505. In order for a firearm to be exempted under this article, while being transported to or from a place, the firearm shall be unloaded and kept in a locked container, and the course of travel shall include only those deviations between authorized locations as are reasonably necessary under the circumstances.
25610 provides a blanket exemption for transport within a motor vehicle.
__________________
- Rich

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
A just government will not be overthrown by force or violence because the people have no incentive to overthrow a just government. If a small minority of people attempt such an insurrection to grab power and enslave the people, the RKBA of the whole is our insurance against their success.
Reply With Quote
  #249  
Old 01-04-2017, 11:55 PM
dwightlooi dwightlooi is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 453
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cokebottle View Post
Not true. This is a commonly confused issue, but there are two sections of law at work. One section covers transportation within a motor vehicle, the other covers other forms of transport (presumably on foot)

Handgun transport laws only include specific destination requirements when NOT transported within a motor vehicle.

There is nothing illegal about carrying a "trunk gun" 24/7 provided it is unloaded and in a locked container.
When the gun is removed from the vehicle, the specific destination requirements come into play.

RAW transportation laws include the specific destination requirement at all times.
The second statute is 25505:

25610 provides a blanket exemption for transport within a motor vehicle.
Right, and the argument is simply that a qualifying specific location (eg. shooting range, home, etc.) is a location at which the RAW may be legally used (ie. fired). Transportation requirements do not apply at the shooting range for moving the RAW from bench to bench for instance.

The existence of a CCW permit with that RAW listed makes ENTIRE STATES within which the CCW is recognized and valid -- with the exception of prohibited places like court houses or "gun free zones" -- a specific location or destination at which the RAW may be legally put to use. There is no legal limits to the size of a specific location. For all intents and purposes that specific location can be the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA if the owner of the RAW has a CCW recognized in 50 states or has multiple CCWs which collectively allows for him to conceal carry in 50 states.
Reply With Quote
  #250  
Old 01-05-2017, 10:54 AM
Astra21 Astra21 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 20
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

[QUOTE=dwightlooi;19438003]The following PROPOSED REGULATIONS:-

I've only just started reading through the new laws in preparation for a move to CA. From my understanding of Assembly Bill No. 1135, what was considered an 'assault weapon' prior to 1/1/17 will continue to be illegal to possess until it is registered in 2017 and then it becomes legal to possess. Can this be correct?
Reply With Quote
  #251  
Old 01-05-2017, 9:18 PM
worthingtontw worthingtontw is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 3
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Thank you all for contributing. I'm just starting to read up on the laws submitted to the DOJ and am a little unclear on destination requirements though it should be straight forward. I've searched for this but maybe I am phrasing my search poorly.

30945 states that a RAW maybe possessed "on property owned by another with the owner’s express permission". To be clear as it is a destination, is there any issue with leaving the RAW on location locked up appropriately. (eg. going to father-in-law's ranch for the week and leaving it behind locked up in a Pelican case while heading into town for groceries)

Additionally, If I recall correctly when you stay in a hotel, your room becomes your domicile. If you were to take a shooting course on the other side of the state which necessitated staying in a hotel for a few days, would that be considered your residence per 30945 and qualify as a destination? I'm guessing this is a no-go.

Thank you in advance for any light that can be shed on the matter.
Reply With Quote
  #252  
Old 01-07-2017, 4:18 PM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 6,731
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dwightlooi View Post
Actually, that is an arguable case. The transport requirements for RAWs is essentially the same as that for handguns in general. No, they aren't. If the handgun's transport requirement is voided by the CCW so should the RAW's transport requirements. The simplest of argument is that the transport requirements are for conveyance of the firearm from it's place of storage (home) to the place of legal use (range). The CCW turns the entire USA, with the exception of certain "gun free zones" and other prohibited locales, to the place of use (range). Therefore, there is no transport requirement because you are ALWAYS already on a legitimate shooting location.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dwightlooi View Post
Right, and the argument is simply that a qualifying specific location (eg. shooting range, home, etc.) is a location at which the RAW may be legally used (ie. fired). Transportation requirements do not apply at the shooting range for moving the RAW from bench to bench for instance.

The existence of a CCW permit with that RAW listed makes ENTIRE STATES within which the CCW is recognized and valid -- with the exception of prohibited places like court houses or "gun free zones" -- a specific location or destination at which the RAW may be legally put to use. There is no legal limits to the size of a specific location. For all intents and purposes that specific location can be the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA if the owner of the RAW has a CCW recognized in 50 states or has multiple CCWs which collectively allows for him to conceal carry in 50 states.
You need to read the statute. The issue is not "transportation" of the RAW. The statute focuses on specific locations at which you can possess the RAW.
Quote:
Unless a permit allowing additional uses is first obtained under Section 31000, a person who has registered an assault weapon or registered a .50 BMG rifle under this article may possess it only under any of the following conditions:
(a) At that person's residence, place of business, or other property owned by that person, or on property owned by another with the owner's express permission.
(b) While on the premises of a target range of a public or private club or organization organized for the purpose of practicing shooting at targets.
(c) While on a target range that holds a regulatory or business license for the purpose of practicing shooting at that target range.
(d) While on the premises of a shooting club that is licensed pursuant to the Fish and Game Code.
(e) While attending any exhibition, display, or educational project that is about firearms and that is sponsored by, conducted under the auspices of, or approved by a law enforcement agency or a nationally or state recognized entity that fosters proficiency in, or promotes education about, firearms.
(f) While on publicly owned land, if the possession and use of a firearm described in Section 30510, 30515, 30520, or 30530, is specifically permitted by the managing agency of the land.
(g) While transporting the assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle between any of the places mentioned in this section, or to any licensed gun dealer, for servicing or repair pursuant to Section 31050, if the assault weapon is transported as required by Sections 16850 and 25610.
- See more at: http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-co....RjCsc36X.dpuf
The CCW does not provide an exemption from any of these location constraints on the possession of the RAW..
Reply With Quote
  #253  
Old 01-08-2017, 6:30 AM
Quiet's Avatar
Quiet Quiet is offline
retired Goon
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 24,084
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
You need to read the statute. The issue is not "transportation" of the RAW. The statute focuses on specific locations at which you can possess the RAW.
The CCW does not provide an exemption from any of these location constraints on the possession of the RAW..
What he said, there is no CCW exemption to the specific location requirements for RAWs.

Because of the specific destination requirements for RAWs, RAWs can not be listed on a CA LTC permit.

If you have a handgun that is listed on your CA LTC permit and it then becomes a RAW, the issuing agency will remove it from your permit.
__________________


"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” - Dalai Lama (Seattle Times, 05-15-2001).
Reply With Quote
  #254  
Old 01-08-2017, 3:36 PM
Plead the Second Plead the Second is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: San Jose
Posts: 107
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by worthingtontw View Post
Thank you all for contributing. I'm just starting to read up on the laws submitted to the DOJ and am a little unclear on destination requirements though it should be straight forward. I've searched for this but maybe I am phrasing my search poorly.

30945 states that a RAW maybe possessed "on property owned by another with the owner’s express permission". To be clear as it is a destination, is there any issue with leaving the RAW on location locked up appropriately. (eg. going to father-in-law's ranch for the week and leaving it behind locked up in a Pelican case while heading into town for groceries)

Additionally, If I recall correctly when you stay in a hotel, your room becomes your domicile. If you were to take a shooting course on the other side of the state which necessitated staying in a hotel for a few days, would that be considered your residence per 30945 and qualify as a destination? I'm guessing this is a no-go.

Thank you in advance for any light that can be shed on the matter.
"
Unless a permit allowing additional uses is first obtained under Section 31000, a person who has registered an assault weapon or registered a .50 BMG rifle under this article may possess it only under any of the following conditions:
(a) At that person's residence, place of business, or other property owned by that person, or on property owned by another with the owner's express permission. . . "

The language referring to
'property owned by another with the owner's express permission' would likely be interpreted to apply to both the hotel room near the training range and your father-in-law's ranch, but we need to see final regs and interpretations to see what distortions of the English language the DOJ can come up with.
__________________
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." (Thomas Jefferson)
Reply With Quote
  #255  
Old 01-08-2017, 4:49 PM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 6,731
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plead the Second View Post
The language referring to
'property owned by another with the owner's express permission' would likely be interpreted to apply to both the hotel room near the training range and your father-in-law's ranch, but we need to see final regs and interpretations to see what distortions of the English language the DOJ can come up with.
The final regs are already out, as they have been transmitted to OAL to "File and Print". OAL will review for administrative correctness (legal citations, etc.). But cannot change or challenge the substance. Here's the OAL Checklist for their review: http://www.oal.ca.gov/files/2016/08/...yChecklist.pdf

Here are the regs:
https://d3uwh8jpzww49g.cloudfront.ne...egulations.pdf

There never has been, and continues to not be, a regulatory condition explaining the plain text of possession of RAWs.
Reply With Quote
  #256  
Old 01-09-2017, 4:14 PM
Christopher761 Christopher761 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 835
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
The final regs are already out, as they have been transmitted to OAL to "File and Print". OAL will review for administrative correctness (legal citations, etc.). But cannot change or challenge the substance. Here's the OAL Checklist for their review: http://www.oal.ca.gov/files/2016/08/...yChecklist.pdf

Here are the regs:
https://d3uwh8jpzww49g.cloudfront.ne...egulations.pdf

There never has been, and continues to not be, a regulatory condition explaining the plain text of possession of RAWs.
I am not so sure that those are in fact "final."

The file name is "proposed," and the DOJ/BOF says that the regs aren't final yet.
Reply With Quote
  #257  
Old 01-09-2017, 6:04 PM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 6,731
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopher761 View Post
I am not so sure that those are in fact "final."

The file name is "proposed," and the DOJ/BOF says that the regs aren't final yet.
Regulations are always "proposed" until final.

They aren't "final" until filed by OAL with the Secretary of State. (Similarly, Legislation signed by the Governor is not final until filed by the SoS).

Usually, OAL conducts a review of the reg and whether it meets the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act and OAL regulations. In this case, the legislation exempted the regulations from the APA. OAL is undertaking an administrative review of the regs, but cannot apply any APA constraints to them. The posted checklist gives you an idea of how non-substantive this review is.

"File and Print" is the instruction.
Reply With Quote
  #258  
Old 01-11-2017, 8:51 AM
shaocaholica shaocaholica is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 860
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Sorry if this has been brought up already but what if you just put a regular magazine release on your BBv1 gun prior to taking photos and submitting photos with a regular magazine release hence locking in your configuration as a regular magazine release gun. The DoJ has pretty much said all of 2017 is amnesty for unregistered assault weapons so...it would technically be legal to do so right?
Reply With Quote
  #259  
Old 01-11-2017, 9:10 AM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 6,731
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shaocaholica View Post
Sorry if this has been brought up already but what if you just put a regular magazine release on your BBv1 gun prior to taking photos and submitting photos with a regular magazine release hence locking in your configuration as a regular magazine release gun. The DoJ has pretty much said all of 2017 is amnesty for unregistered assault weapons so...it would technically be legal to do so right?
Quote:
30680. Section 30605 does not apply to the possession of an assault weapon by a person who has possessed the assault weapon prior to January 1, 2017, if all of the following are applicable:
(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.
Lots of give-and-take on both sides of this. My take on it would be:

Changing the bullet button to a standard release in 2017 makes your gun different from what you possessed prior to 1/1/2017, so you can't register it.

If you try to register it, sending in pictures of your gun with a standard mag release, you are representing that you possessed that assault weapon prior to 1/1/2017.

This will create difficulties for you because if you installed the standard BB between 2000 and 2017, you created an unregistered assault weapon...which is seriously ungood.
Reply With Quote
  #260  
Old 01-11-2017, 1:57 PM
shaocaholica shaocaholica is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 860
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Yeah. Pretty vague. The key word being 'that' assault weapon. Actually, it's not technically an assault weapon until 1/1/2017 so a technical reading could mean that it needs to be an unregistered AW prior to 1/1/2017.
Reply With Quote
  #261  
Old 01-11-2017, 7:20 PM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 6,731
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shaocaholica View Post
Yeah. Pretty vague. The key word being 'that' assault weapon. Actually, it's not technically an assault weapon until 1/1/2017 so a technical reading could mean that it needs to be an unregistered AW prior to 1/1/2017.
No, it's not vague. It's plain English.
Reply With Quote
  #262  
Old 01-11-2017, 8:43 PM
shaocaholica shaocaholica is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 860
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
No, it's not vague. It's plain English.
Quote:
(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.
A BB gun was not an assault weapon prior to 1/1/2017. So how are you supposed to read that? Give them the benefit of the doubt on their sloppy plain english?
Reply With Quote
  #263  
Old 01-11-2017, 9:21 PM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 6,731
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shaocaholica View Post
A BB gun was not an assault weapon prior to 1/1/2017. So how are you supposed to read that? Give them the benefit of the doubt on their sloppy plain english?
Would you prefer it be called, "the previously non-Assault Weapon assault weapon"?

The statute is written in the current day. That means the pre-1/1/17 non-AW BB gun is now an assault weapon and is referred to as an assault weapon.

But, you got this. Do what you want to do, and swap out the BB for a standard mag release, photograph it and send it to DOJ.
Reply With Quote
  #264  
Old 01-11-2017, 9:27 PM
shaocaholica shaocaholica is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 860
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
The statute is written in the current day. That means the pre-1/1/17 non-AW BB gun is now an assault weapon and is referred to as an assault weapon.
Err, actually it was written all last year. AFAIK, none of the text was written or submitted after 1/1/2017.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
But, you got this. Do what you want to do, and swap out the BB for a standard mag release, photograph it and send it to DOJ.
Just throwing it out there. Glad I could help
Reply With Quote
  #265  
Old 01-12-2017, 12:06 AM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 6,731
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shaocaholica View Post
Err, actually it was written all last year. AFAIK, none of the text was written or submitted after 1/1/2017.
Of course it was written last year. However, not one word of it had any standing until the effective date of the legislation. That was 1/1/17.
Reply With Quote
  #266  
Old 01-17-2017, 3:51 PM
wetsuitxninja wetsuitxninja is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 35
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Can you use a gangster grip on a registered assault weapon?
Reply With Quote
  #267  
Old 01-17-2017, 5:56 PM
strokesdmb's Avatar
strokesdmb strokesdmb is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Fresno
Posts: 1,039
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Can we convert a BBAW into a featureless rifle?
Reply With Quote
  #268  
Old 01-17-2017, 6:06 PM
NissanPreRunner NissanPreRunner is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: SoCal
Posts: 434
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by strokesdmb View Post
Can we convert a BBAW into a featureless rifle?
Yes
Reply With Quote
  #269  
Old 01-17-2017, 6:14 PM
strokesdmb's Avatar
strokesdmb strokesdmb is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Fresno
Posts: 1,039
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NissanPreRunner View Post
Yes
Does the featureless rifle need a BB as well or a standard release be ok?
Reply With Quote
  #270  
Old 01-17-2017, 6:32 PM
9M62 9M62 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,500
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by strokesdmb View Post
Does the featureless rifle need a BB as well or a standard release be ok?
Featureless does not require a bullet button.

However, once registered as an assault weapon - going by the Department of Justice's not-yet-published regulations, you cannot change the magazine release after registration.

So, if the regs stay in place - I would say you cannot change the magazine release even if you went featureless after it is registered as an assault weapon.

You can, however, go featureless, de-register it as an AW and then change the magazine release.
__________________
Warning: Nothing on the Internet is true, including this post.
Reply With Quote
  #271  
Old 01-21-2017, 8:02 PM
NatetheGr8 NatetheGr8 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: SF
Posts: 380
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Couldn't we covert our BB rifles in featureless builds? Then register them; after DOJ approval build the rifle in a featured configuration.
Reply With Quote
  #272  
Old 01-21-2017, 8:14 PM
shaocaholica shaocaholica is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 860
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NatetheGr8 View Post
Couldn't we covert our BB rifles in featureless builds? Then register them; after DOJ approval build the rifle in a featured configuration.
Why convert to temporary featureless? The DOJ has already stated that any BBv1 guns from 2016 will have amnesty until registration for all of 2017.
Reply With Quote
  #273  
Old 01-21-2017, 8:40 PM
Cokebottle's Avatar
Cokebottle Cokebottle is offline
Señor Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: IE, CA
Posts: 32,499
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NatetheGr8 View Post
Couldn't we covert our BB rifles in featureless builds? Then register them; after DOJ approval build the rifle in a featured configuration.
You can not register a featureless build.
__________________
- Rich

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
A just government will not be overthrown by force or violence because the people have no incentive to overthrow a just government. If a small minority of people attempt such an insurrection to grab power and enslave the people, the RKBA of the whole is our insurance against their success.
Reply With Quote
  #274  
Old 01-22-2017, 7:04 AM
NatetheGr8 NatetheGr8 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: SF
Posts: 380
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cokebottle View Post
You can not register a featureless build.
This guy was able to voluntarily register his builds; some of which were featureless.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1293289
Reply With Quote
  #275  
Old 01-22-2017, 8:05 AM
radicalray radicalray is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: San Joaquin
Posts: 443
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

That's 80% build
Reply With Quote
  #276  
Old 01-22-2017, 8:18 AM
AGGRO's Avatar
AGGRO AGGRO is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,992
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 9M62 View Post
Featureless does not require a bullet button.

However, once registered as an assault weapon - going by the Department of Justice's not-yet-published regulations, you cannot change the magazine release after registration.

So, if the regs stay in place - I would say you cannot change the magazine release even if you went featureless after it is registered as an assault weapon.

You can, however, go featureless, de-register it as an AW and then change the magazine release.
There is nothing to force DOJ to remove a weapon from the list.
Reply With Quote
  #277  
Old 01-22-2017, 9:40 AM
Cokebottle's Avatar
Cokebottle Cokebottle is offline
Señor Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: IE, CA
Posts: 32,499
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NatetheGr8 View Post
This guy was able to voluntarily register his builds; some of which were featureless.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1293289
That's not assault weapons registration.
DOJ has not provided a way for us to do that yet.
__________________
- Rich

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
A just government will not be overthrown by force or violence because the people have no incentive to overthrow a just government. If a small minority of people attempt such an insurrection to grab power and enslave the people, the RKBA of the whole is our insurance against their success.
Reply With Quote
  #278  
Old 01-22-2017, 10:53 AM
lordmorgul lordmorgul is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 798
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NatetheGr8 View Post
This guy was able to voluntarily register his builds; some of which were featureless.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1293289


No he was not, he only received approval of the serialization he applied to them. Those are not registered assault weapons yet, and he even says so in the thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #279  
Old 01-22-2017, 11:15 AM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 38,598
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Folks, this thread is NOT about 'how to register' or 'what may be registered'.

This thread is about 'what you are allowed to do, or must do, or must not do' with whatever you have that is registered, either already or later in 2017.

ETA - those laws exist; they did not change for 2017.
__________________
No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems - of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.
- Thomas Sowell
I've been saying that for years ...

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.


Gregg Easterbrook’s “Law of Doomsaying”: Predict catastrophe no later than ten years hence but no sooner than five years away — soon enough to terrify people but distant enough that they will not remember that you were wrong.


Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.



Last edited by Librarian; 01-22-2017 at 5:33 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #280  
Old 01-22-2017, 4:52 PM
Tankhatch Tankhatch is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 175
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Some of you have gone anal, on the upcoming guessing of the RAW "can / cannot do's".
Just look over the past published RAW ownership requirements, from the past registrations and follow them.
__________________
Do I blame a gun, for the murder of my friend.
NO I blame the human who aimed and pulled the trigger.
Do I blame a pickup truck, for the murder of another of my friends.
NO I blame the human who aimed and stepped on the gas.
Do I blame a weight, from a weight lifting set, for the yet another murder of a friend
NO I blame the human, who used a weight from a weight lifting set, to beat her head in with

NRA Life Member since 1978
CRPA Life Member since 1978

Last edited by Tankhatch; 01-22-2017 at 6:22 PM.. Reason: Added "RAW ownership" to my sentence
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 5:29 AM.




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.