BB AW!?! Why register?

[CandG]

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...

Agreed. I plan to print a paper copy of the relevant PC sections and highlight the important parts, and keep it in my range bag. Doubt I'll ever need to use it, but if an officer ever started asking too many questions then I might be glad I have it

[Blade Gunner]

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.

So all we're waiting for is someone to be that "dude" in#5

[CandG]

So all we're waiting for is someone to be that "dude" in#5

Might be waiting a very, very long time for that. Just like you don't want to be the test case for the defensive side, it's equally likely that not a lot of DA's are going to want to be the test case for the prosecution side. It doesn't look good for them to waste the court's time and money prosecuting you for something that ends up not even being a crime.

So honestly, my plan is that if after a year, despite everyone doing XYZ, nobody has been prosecuted for it, then I'm just going to do it, case law or no case law. At a certain point, when your odds of getting arrested are less than winning the CA lotto, you just gotta stop living in fear.

Aside from a prohibited persons case or two, nobody ever got arrested for BB rifles. No case law. Eventually, the lack of case law in and of itself becomes all the evidence we need that it's not a crime.

[Press Check]

So honestly, my plan is that if after a year, despite everyone doing XYZ, nobody has been prosecuted for it, then I'm just going to do it, case law or no case law. At a certain point, when your odds of getting arrested are less than winning the CA lotto, you just gotta stop living in fear.

To date, that's always how it goes.

Years and years ago, since the DOJ would never opine about the gradual adoption of Bullet-Buttons, according to the nay-sayers, fear-mongers, and sheep, I was going prison for creating an AW, no different than when I purchased one of the first Colt OLL's to come into CA, or when I created an SBR whilst shouldering an AR pistol.

Sometimes, Calguns is its own worst enemy. The "test case" term is the worst form of fear-mongering that circulates around here, and I absolutely despise it.