Does a “Fin” make an AR Featureless?

[Librarian]

Shorter answer - you may ultimately beat the charge, but you probably would not avoid the ride in the black and white taxi.

[9Cal_OC]

Get that monstrosity out of here

[jimbo74]

is it just me, or is it hard to believe that people are this stupid?

or are they just being trolls?

[jimbo74]

is it just me, or is it hard to believe that people are this stupid?

or are they just being trolls?

[RickD427]

is it just me, or is it hard to believe that people are this stupid?

or are they just being trolls?

Jimbo,

We're at the end of the semester. We always see a big uptick in these posts at the end of the semester.

Possibly there are some "Extra Credit" projects going on.

[tacticalcity]

So if I have a fixed magazine with 10 rnds I can have a grenade launcher?

He knows a guy...lol.

There were some old school guns that came with a flip lever that was considered a grenade launcher. Can't remember which ones. Never seen an actual current USGI launcher on the civilian market. But I am sure somebody tried to market one at some point.

There was a soda can upper at one point. That was cool in a quirky gotta have it just to say I have it way. Accurately aiming them was a bear.

[ar15barrels]

Where would you get grenades for it?

Do you realize that this is a grenade launcher?



It launches these grenades:

[xrMike]

Please keep in mind IANAL. My replies below are only my opinions as a retired LEO. Osmiley may be a lawyer, but he is not your lawyer. Lawyers and LEOs often have differing perspectives on the same issue and its good to consider both points of view. The ultimate end result is what happens at the end of the court process. The lawyers control that process from the courtroom door to the end. The LEO's control what happens before you reach the courtroom door. It's important to keep that in mind. Although Osmiley and I have jousted with each other in other threads, the jousting normally involved the lack of pristineness in the application of the law, coupled with his pristine analysis of the law. Osmiley is a smart man, and a good lawyer. I actually very much appreciate his pristine analysis of legal points. Much of the fault that I find in the conduct of our legal system is where the law is inexact, or where advocates on one side of a legal issue present the law as being inexact (and noting that the L.A. District Attorney just got fanged by the Superior Court for doing just that).



I say "YES." If the weapon was never registered as an "Assault Weapon", then you avoid all of the legal nastiness involved in Question Two.



I say "MAYBE" (I know that you requested a "YES" or "NO", but Dr. Stratton has suggested that I'm not so good at following directions, and have a slight tendency to rebel against authority figures).

Please check out this thread where we recently covered the pretty much the same question: https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/....php?t=1797988

From a "Pristine Legal Point of View", the answer is "YES" (but see the qualification below) The key reason for this is that there are only three definitions of an "Assault Weapon": 1) "Evil by Name" per Penal Code section 30510(a),(b), and (c); 2) "Evil Cuz the Court Said So" per Penal Code section 30510(d); and "Evil by Feature" per Penal Code section 30515. Please note that there ain't no Penal Code section defining a weapon as an "Assault Weapon" simply because the weapon is registered as such with the California DOJ. Once you make the weapon featureless, it is no longer defined as an "Assault Weapon" under PC 30515. The qualification is that this analysis only applies to "Evil by Feature" Assault Weapons. But if the weapon were an "Evil by Name, or "Evil Cuz the Court Said So" Assault Weapon, there would have been no reason to fit it with a Bullet Button since registration would have been required prior to the Bullet Button being introduced.

From a "Practical Point of View", there is a lot of caution called for. The reason being that the weapon does carry some form of official labeling as an "Assault Weapon", even if that labeling is not legally correct. Keep in mind that the legal standard for an LEO to make an arrest is to have "Probable Cause" that the offense has been committed. Certain knowledge that the offense has been committed is not necessary. Additionally, court have ruled that LEOs are not required to have a perfect and inerrant knowledge of all statutes they may be charged with enforcing. Before we entered the computer age, I once measured the bookcase containing the paper copies of California state laws that deputies were expected to enforce. That statutes took up 14 feet of shelf space. I doubt that anyone could memorize that much stuff and get it 100% correct. The reason for caution is that if an LEO should encounter your weapon in the field, and run the serial number, they would learn that it is an "Assault Weapon" that was registered with a "Bullet Button." DOJ has published their view (untested in court) that the removal of a Bullet Button from such weapons produces a different weapon from the one registered. Put that together and there is "Probable Cause" to believe that there is a violation of Penal Code section 30605 and that means a felony trip to jail. The charge (IMHO) would be easily defeated by showing that the weapon was not configured as an "Assault Weapon" at the time of the arrest, but you don't the opportunity to make that showing until the Preliminary Hearing.

Mr. RickD47, I really appreciate your analysis and opinions. I'm going to study them some more, and also check out that other thread you linked to. I am not comfortable removing my BBs yet and don't want to be the test case either, but if I were to ever become a test case, I'd probably call ohsmiley first. Thank you sir.