BB AW!?! Why register?

[rockstar]

They have to have a PC to arrest for.
There is no PC requiring any type of AW to have any type of magazine release.

Thanks for the reply. I welcome any LEO to make a comment.

[CandG]

Haha! That's what I'm trying to avoid.

Aside from educating every police officer in the state, as you suggested, there can be no guarantee of anything. There are plenty of people who have been arrested "because the K9 alerted", only to be freed later when unsurprisingly nothing was found after thorough search. All you can do is mitigate the risk as much as possible, which in this case essentially means being very careful about using a standard magazine release until it's well-known and well-established that it doesn't pose an arrest risk. BB's took some time to get to that point, but eventually they got to that point. So too will this.

They have to have a PC to arrest for.
There is no PC requiring any type of AW to have any type of magazine release.

I agree with this. But they could very well just list "PC 30515(a)" as the PC for arrest, though, and let the courts decide whether or not there was actually a violation. Ultimately, this will probably be very uncommon or not happen at all, but there's some risk in the beginning before everyone knows what the hell is going on with this law. IMO.

[Drew Eckhardt]

They have to have a PC to arrest for.
There is no PC requiring any type of AW to have any type of magazine release.

The only PC exempting regular people from PC 30600 transport (a separate offense from PC 30605 possession including while transporting) is PC 30675(b)

DOJ's stretch is that PC 30675(b) requires acting in accordance with PC 30900 registration including the regulations they're authorized to write, like 11 CCR 5477 prohibiting magazine release changes.

PC 30675

(b) Sections 30600, 30605, and 30610 shall not apply to any of the following persons:
(1) A person acting in accordance with Article 5 (commencing with Section 30900).

(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).

Violate 11 CCR 5477(a), you're not complying with regulations pursuant to PC 30900, aren't exempt from PC 30600, and can be sentenced to eight years in prison like a rapist when you violate it.

Obviously, California penal code doesn't distinguish between pre and post 2017 featured California assault weapons and this is BS which shouldn't stand up in court.

[CandG]

^ Drew, I think the reason people think 5477 can't apply, is because of this part:

(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).

The key word being "implementing", not "enforcing".

Implementing, to me, means "putting a system for registering and deregistering AWs into effect." 5477 does nothing to help them implement registration, rather it helps them enforce the AW statutes (which are not in that subdivision).

DOJ, in my opinion, might as well have added a regulation for what color hat we have to wear on fridays into 5477, while they were at it, because that has as much to do with putting the registration system into effect as mandating what we're allowed to do after we register.

[9M62]

Let's pretend for a minute that the old regulations which the DOJ pulled, were passed and valid as of now. This is how I see potential enforcement going, if a cop cared at all.

1) DOJ publishes regulations as "law" regarding the inability to change the magazine release (I.E., no removing BB).

2) DOJ sends a memo to law enforcement explaining, as they have done in the past, what is and what isn't an "assault weapon." In this memo, they include language in reference to their regulations that say something to the effect that "once a BB, always a BB, or some other fixed magazine device." This of course, along with all the reminders for AW rules.

3) Law enforcement agencies take that as enforcement directive and as valid, at face value. Hence, the "probable cause" if they come across a 2017 AW without a bullet button.

4) If a cop happens to care about that law, or if you happen to involved in some kind of activity that makes a cop care, or you just have an anti-gun cop, they will likely enforce the possession of AW law as per the DOJ's new regulations.

5) Dude who finds himself on the wrong side of #4, spends a ton of money and goes to court. Court likely agrees with Mr. Eckhardt above in that the law itself does not have any distinction between magazine release types other than fixed, or not fixed.

6) Case law is set, everyone takes their bullet buttons off.

That's how I see it playing out, if #4 and #5 actually happened.

[CandG]

That's how I see it playing out, if #4 and #5 actually happened.

Or, perhaps more likely, #4 and #5 never happen, and we're all left in perpetual fear that we might be the first test case

[rockstar]

Just saw this:

https://www.facebook.com/LanTacUSA/videos/vb.199234370232156/750910785064509/?type=2&theater

[spoof145]

Well the thumb hold on the Backfin (pictured above) gets you at least 80% of the way to a pistol grip, as far as comfort and control. And grips like this:



While you may consider them ugly, are quite comfortable.

I agree with you on top loading. Definitely not for me. But different strokes for different folks.

I saw a post on this a while ago, where might someone get a grip like that?

[CandG]

I saw a post on this a while ago, where might someone get a grip like that?

I forget who makes it (someone will chime in), but it's still in the prototype stage at the moment.

Edit: here it is http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=1297950

[MudCamper]

I saw a post on this a while ago, where might someone get a grip like that?

All the featureless grips.

That one specifically.

[Drew Eckhardt]

^ Drew, I think the reason people think 5477 can't apply, is because of this part:

(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).

The key word being "implementing", not "enforcing".

I agree, and if re-submitted 11 CCR 5477 shouldn't survive a court challenge (noting that when The 9th Circuit Court rules against them, they get a do over with an 11 judge en banc panel).

It's a stretch where they'll claim they're implementing registration of bullet buttoned assault weapons that were legal to possess before 1-1-2017 as specified in PC 30900(b)(1), without adding more assault weapons with detachable magazines to the registry.

(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).

[ar15barrels]

they could very well just list "PC 30515(a)" as the PC for arrest, though, and let the courts decide whether or not there was actually a violation.

Do you know what the summary of PC30515 is that comes up on the in-car terminal when they lookup the PC to use it on the report?

[ar15barrels]

Let's pretend for a minute that the old regulations which the DOJ pulled, were passed and valid as of now. This is how I see potential enforcement going, if a cop cared at all.

1) DOJ publishes regulations as "law" regarding the inability to change the magazine release (I.E., no removing BB).

Many people do not understand that there are distinct differences between laws and regulations or even how the full rulemaking process works AFTER a bill becomes a law.

Only the LEGISLATURE can make laws.

The DOJ can not publish LAWS.
DOJ can only make rules and publish regulations.
The regulations need to follow the laws so that law enforcement officers can enforce the laws upon the public.

Regulations are not enforced by LAW ENFORCEMENT officers.

3) Law enforcement agencies take that as enforcement directive and as valid, at face value. Hence, the "probable cause" if they come across a 2017 AW without a bullet button.

Does CFARS even report or differentiate when a specific AW was registered when LE runs a gun through his terminal?
If not, how is he to know when the specific AW was registered to be able to apply different laws (which don't actually exist) to it?

[CandG]

Do you know what the summary of PC30515 is that comes up on the in-car terminal when they lookup the PC to use it on the report?

Nope, no idea. If someone does know, and can post it here, it would probably help alleviate (and hopefully not exacerbate) some of the concern people are having about "cops that aren't educated about the law"

[ar15barrels]

Nope, no idea

That's what we need to find out.

It's usually around 5-10 words.
Basically "dumbed down" for quick/easy use by the guys on the street.
Every agency likely does it differently too.

MUCH will be lost/gained in the dumbing down process.
Whether you gain/lose depends on which side of the fence you are standing...