Transporting/Using Freedom Week Mags

[200Apples]

Which is why, as this thread so aptly illustrates, going featureless is the way to go.

No reg, no bb. Just swap mags like a man and keep shootin'.




Rick, it cannot be overstated: Your participation here on CGN is worth it's weight in gold. And, it is a comfort. Thanks again for taking the time to post knowledgeable and relevant info, always.

[RickD427]

Which is why, as this thread so aptly illustrates, going featureless is the way to go.

No reg, no bb. Just swap mags like a man and keep shootin'.




Rick, it cannot be overstated: Your participation here on CGN is worth it's weight in gold. And, it is a comfort. Thanks again for taking the time to post knowledgeable and relevant info, always.

Thank you for the kind the comments. I try to help and to keep my occasional "screw-ups" to a minimum.

[Gundiver]

Yes I mean a bullet button registered AW with a 30 round magazine.

[RickD427]

Yes I mean a bullet button registered AW with a 30 round magazine.

That combination can get you into a lot of trouble. Please see my comments in Post #15.

[ohsmily]

Please keep in mind that the Assault Weapon Regs (although not the Penal Code) treat a "Bullet Button Registered Assault Weapon" differently than a "Registered Assault Weapon."

For that reason, they're not the same.

You can run a large-capacity magazine in a "Registered Assault Weapon" with no problem.

However, given the way the regs are worded, if you run a large-capacity magazine in a "Bullet Button Registered Assault Weapon", then you have created an unregistered "Assault Weapon" that is different from the "Bullet Button Registered Assault Weapon." Please see 11CCR5491(a) for the particulars.

Also please note that we have not previously discussed "Bullet Button Registered Assault Weapons" anywhere in this thread. That's an important distinction because the rules are quite different.

Wait, why can't you run a high capacity magazine in a bullet button registered a salt weapon?

And side note unrelated to the above, the DOJ had no authority to promulgate the language in 11 CCR 5491. The statute is controlling (30515). All of my AWs (BB and from 1999) are on the same reg list with no delineation or asterisk to differentiate them and I believe it shows the same way when a check is run by LE on their terminal). I have neither seen nor heard of a case yet where someone was prosecuted for possession of an unregistered assault weapon who had registered it and subsequently removed their bullet button. This is not legal advice for people to remove bullet buttons from their registered assault weapons. It's just an FYI

[RickD427]

Wait, why can't you run a high capacity magazine in a bullet button registered a salt weapon?

And side note unrelated to the above, the DOJ had no authority to promulgate the language in 11 CCR 5491. The statute is controlling (30515). All of my AWs (BB and from 1999) are on the same reg list with no delineation or asterisk to differentiate them and I believe it shows the same way when a check is run by LE on their terminal). I have neither seen nor heard of a case yet where someone was prosecuted for possession of an unregistered assault weapon who had registered it and subsequently removed their bullet button. This is not legal advice for people to remove bullet buttons from their registered assault weapons. It's just an FYI

I think that you've just answered your own question.

For the record, I agree with your conclusion that "Bullet Button Registered Assault Weapon" provisions contained in 11CCR5491 lack a proper statutory foundation. But our collective views on the point do not invalidate the regulation.

The (untested) theory is that by modifying a "Bullet Button Registered Assault Weapon" one creates a new, and unregistered, Assault Weapon. That action violates Penal Code section 30600. You can narrowly read 11CCR5491 to only address the removal of the "Bullet Button" in which case it would not prohibit the use of large-capacity magazines in a BBRAW. But it's unwise to read regulations narrowly, particularly when doing so creates felony criminal liability. Read broadly, and applying the "creation of a new weapon" theory described in the regulation, one creates a new Assault Weapon when replacing the 10 round fixed magazine with a large-capacity fixed magazine.

In my posts, I tend to be very cautious, and tend to read statutes and regulations with a view to keeping good folks outta trouble. California's laws are not a model of clarity, and as Judge Benitez has aptly pointed out, seem to be a trap for well intended folks.

[champu]

A rifle with a bullet button does not have a fixed magazine because you don’t have to disassemble the action to change the magazine. That was the entire point of the most recent AWB.

How can putting a 30 round magazine in a registered assault weapon that has a bullet button be construed as having a fixed magazine of more than 10 rounds if it doesn’t have a fixed magazine?

[RickD427]

Champu,

That's a very good point, and it emphasizes the change in definition of "Fixed Magazine" and the additional registration window provided for BBRAW's under PC 30900(c)(1). My word choice of "Fixed Magazine" may not have been the best, because that definition changed midstream.

But the underlying point remains unchanged. Under a strict and narrow reading of the regs, one can run a large-capacity magazine in a registered BBRAW.

But if you broadly read the regs, and apply the legal theory of "newly constructed weapon" articulated in the regs, there is a basis to conclude criminal liability for so doing.

[champu]

Their argument is that the eligibility to register the weapon depended on the release mechanism and that’s why they claim you can’t change it without making it something other than what you registered. The eligibility to register the weapon did not depend on what magazine you used with it (or, in fact, if there was any magazine present at all.)

Your line or reasoning leads to the absurd result that a firearm registered with photos showing no magazine present wouldn’t be allowed to use any magazines.

A bullet button creates (and always created) a firearm that cannot accept a detachable magazine, but that does not have a fixed magazine. They created this bizarre legal construct of a magazine that is neither fixed nor detachable and they have to live with that just as much as we do.

[ohsmily]

I think that you've just answered your own question.

For the record, I agree with your conclusion that "Bullet Button Registered Assault Weapon" provisions contained in 11CCR5491 lack a proper statutory foundation. But our collective views on the point do not invalidate the regulation.

The (untested) theory is that by modifying a "Bullet Button Registered Assault Weapon" one creates a new, and unregistered, Assault Weapon. That action violates Penal Code section 30600. You can narrowly read 11CCR5491 to only address the removal of the "Bullet Button" in which case it would not prohibit the use of large-capacity magazines in a BBRAW. But it's unwise to read regulations narrowly, particularly when doing so creates felony criminal liability. Read broadly, and applying the "creation of a new weapon" theory described in the regulation, one creates a new Assault Weapon when replacing the 10 round fixed magazine with a large-capacity fixed magazine.

In my posts, I tend to be very cautious, and tend to read statutes and regulations with a view to keeping good folks outta trouble. California's laws are not a model of clarity, and as Judge Benitez has aptly pointed out, seem to be a trap for well intended folks.

I've been at the range all day, thus the delay (still here; PR class) A BB reg'ed AW w/ BB in place does not have a fixed magazine under current law. High caps in BB reg'ed AW are good to go. Period.

[ar15barrels]

But who is going to fix the magazine on a weapon that is already a Registered Assault Weapon? That don't make no sense.

Makes about as much sense as the state saying that you can't remove the bullet button from a registered assault weapon.

[that one guy]

What’s the exact penal code that says Normal cap mags were legal in CA. I’d like to have a print out to put in my range bag and have laying around the house.

[champu]

What’s the exact penal code that says Normal cap mags were legal in CA. I’d like to have a print out to put in my range bag and have laying around the house.

There’s no penal code section that says they’re legal. If you feel printing something out and having it handy would be helpful your best bet would probably be this (maybe highlight rows 7-9 on page 3):

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Duncan-v.-Becerra_Declaration-of-Douglas-Wormald-re-Notice-of-Judgment-and-Stay_102.pdf

[ohsmily]

Penal code and statutes in general don't tell you what is allowed. That isn't how it works. What Vehcile Code section tells you it is OK to go 63mph on the freeway? Duh. It tells you what speed over 65 is illegal. The issue for mags is clouded by thr fact that a statute which was enacted is enjoined from enforcement by a court case which has already been referenced and linked to.

[200Apples]

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...d-Stay_102.pdf

Thanks for posting that, champu.

Specifically:

(Virginia Duncan et al. v. Xavier Becerra, 9th Circmt Court of Appeals Case No. 19-55376).