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 01-16-2017, 10:36 AM
HKRick's Avatar
HKRick HKRick is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Merced County/Monterey County
Posts: 589
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default CA BBAW CCR Catch 22?

There seems to be a catch 22 in the new BBAW regs. The problem I see pertains to people that assembled a stripped lower into a fully functional, featured, bullet button center fire rifle, then disassembled and possibly sold or used the parts on another build. Here is the text of the conflicting Reg:

Quote:
5469~ 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 Penal Code section 30515 including those weapons with an ammunition feeding device that can be readily removed from the firearm with the use of a tool (commonly referred to as a bullet button weapon) must register the firearm before January 1, 2018.
This basically mandates that if the firearm existed in a functional form between January 1,2001- December 31, 2016 and met the description of 30515 (even if it had a bullet button) it must be registered.


Yet,
Quote:
5472(e)~ The Department will not register a firearm as an assault weapon unless the firearm is fully assembled and fully functional.
So, if you go by the strict letter of the regs, if you built a stripped lower into a functional rifle as described in 30515 and then disassembled it, you must register it, but cannot per 5472(e). So in essence you would be forced to re-build it in 2017 which places you in jeopardy of violating laws for manufacturing an AW after 2017. While the general consensus seems to place the threshold for determining what is and is not an Assault Weapon on it's configuration on 12/31/2016-1/1/2017, the regs do not support that. They seem to identify the threshold from 1/1/2001-12/31/2016.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-16-2017, 11:16 AM
Adan1809 Adan1809 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: City of Angles, CA
Posts: 38
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Yea i see your dilema, i sound like pretty much an oxymoron.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-16-2017, 2:23 PM
jrr jrr is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 498
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

this was discussed ad nauseam in other threads. Yes, it could be read that way. But, doing so would mean that if you EVER possessed a bb equipped featured rifle then you have to register it, even if you no longer possess it. Since thats an absurd result, that is obviously not the correct interpretation. This is what happens when our laws are written by idiots and anti gun lobbyists.

The DOJ apparently doesnt think this is the correct interpretation either, as they allow various means to make an AW not an AW anymore and not be registered; i.e. separating the upper and lower, removing any features.

You have to decide what you are comfortable with, but I think everyone on this board with one notable exception will tell you that nobody will be looking to punish people for an unregistered AW in 2018 when the rifle is not in a current AW configuration.


Edit-- Ok, re-read the question/issue. I see what you are saying. If you had on 12/1 a BB, featured, semi auto centerfire rifle; then on 12/30 you stripped it to a bare receiver or removed any features, you have to register it per the above. But you cannot because they won't register a non featured AW. So you have to re-assemble it, but that is assembling an AW.

I guess its a catch 22. But, a. how would it EVER come to light that at some point the gun was disassembled? and b. since it was not an AW as of the end of 2016 it doe not actually need to be registered so long as it stays not an AW as far as features go, for the reasons discussed in the other threads. But I guess the regs do imply that once you've gone featureless after 1/1/17 you cannot go back.

Last edited by jrr; 01-16-2017 at 2:30 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-16-2017, 3:13 PM
63j300 63j300 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 314
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

I guess we will have dirty filthy AW that will never be cleaned because if we strip them down to clean them when we put them back together we have assembled a AW.
__________________
2 Timothy 3
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-16-2017, 3:18 PM
Wiz-of-Awd's Avatar
Wiz-of-Awd Wiz-of-Awd is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Where I'm at ;)
Posts: 3,049
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 63j300 View Post
I guess we will have dirty filthy AW that will never be cleaned because if we strip them down to clean them when we put them back together we have assembled a AW.
Uummm, no.

Assembling an AW in the context of the law makes the reasonable assumption that something was not yet an AW - until you assembled it for the first time as such.

Don't be dumb.

A.W.D.
__________________
Quote:
Your interpretation of my commentary may be lacking in understanding.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-16-2017, 3:46 PM
Cokebottle's Avatar
Cokebottle Cokebottle is offline
Guitar: The Deplorables
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Chino, CA
Posts: 26,169
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

This is the clause that Ifilf clung to in his claim that one could not make a rifle featureless to avoid registration. The lack of logic was pointed out that the wording of the statute does not exempt guns that have been sold either.
Likewise, that particular section of the statute has no penalty attached. It says you shall do something, but does not define what you are guilty of if you do not.
The only thing that you could be guilty of is possession of an unregistered AW, but if you are not in possession of an AW in 2017 or 2018, then you can not be convicted of such.
Being arrested for having possessed an AW in 2016 or earlier, when it was not at the time defined as an AW, would be ex-post-facto.


The language is poorly written, but it was written in such a way so as to preclude reopening the registry for AWs that should have been registered in the last two bans before 2001, and to prohibit the assembly of a new AW in 2017.

There are a number of issues with the way the CCRs are written that actually ensnare a number of featureless and even fixed-magazine rifles that were never intended to be covered by the ban.
The CCRs were clearly written with only the conventional AR pattern in mind.
__________________
-- Rich


Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
A just gov't will not be overthrown by force or violence because the people have no incentive to overthrow a just gov't. If a minority of people attempt such an insurrection to grab power and enslave the people, the RKBA is our insurance against their success.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-16-2017, 3:48 PM
voit's Avatar
voit voit is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 89
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HKRick View Post
There seems to be a catch 22 in the new BBAW regs. The problem I see pertains to people that assembled a stripped lower into a fully functional, featured, bullet button center fire rifle, then disassembled and possibly sold or used the parts on another build. Here is the text of the conflicting Reg:



This basically mandates that if the firearm existed in a functional form between January 1,2001- December 31, 2016 and met the description of 30515 (even if it had a bullet button) it must be registered.


Yet,


So, if you go by the strict letter of the regs, if you built a stripped lower into a functional rifle as described in 30515 and then disassembled it, you must register it, but cannot per 5472(e). So in essence you would be forced to re-build it in 2017 which places you in jeopardy of violating laws for manufacturing an AW after 2017. While the general consensus seems to place the threshold for determining what is and is not an Assault Weapon on it's configuration on 12/31/2016-1/1/2017, the regs do not support that. They seem to identify the threshold from 1/1/2001-12/31/2016.
Ridiculous! If the same lower is now in stripped form again, who is going to know the difference. If you feel so compelled to register, then do it! No one is stopping you. Letter of the law........phooooey!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-16-2017, 5:55 PM
63j300 63j300 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 314
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiz-of-Awd View Post
Uummm, no.

Assembling an AW in the context of the law makes the reasonable assumption that something was not yet an AW - until you assembled it for the first time as such.

Don't be dumb.

A.W.D.
Sarcasm
__________________
2 Timothy 3
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 5:16 PM.




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