Miller v. Bonta 9th Ckt "assault weapons": Held for Duncan result 1-26-24

[CandG]

If the receiver says “cal: multi” and you registered as “interchangeable barrels” it would probably be a pretty hard sell for them to argue that interchanging barrels invalidates your registration. (I know, I know, rap vs ride... cue comedy sketch of ignorant LEO, “This isn’t eight thousand eight hundred eighty-eight caliber. You’re looking at hard time for this.”)

Also, those who followed my instructions in the AW Registration guide, will have also noted on their registration:

For rifles: "May use any length barrel 16 inches or longer,"
For pistols, "May use any length barrel under 16 inches."
For shotguns, "May use any length barrel 18 inches or longer."
If a specific caliber was listed in the caliber section, "Barrels are interchangeable with other calibers".

If DOJ accepted the registration with those notes, it would be a very hard sell for DOJ to say you can't actually do those things.

Also DOJ said in their own words on their own FAQ, that the only modification that can't be done is swapping out the BB or making the weapon violate other laws like SBR, etc.

[bwiese]

Also, those who followed my instructions in the AW Registration guide, will have also noted on their registration:

For rifles: "May use any length barrel 16 inches or longer,"
For pistols, "May use any length barrel under 16 inches."
For shotguns, "May use any length barrel 18 inches or longer."
If a specific caliber was listed in the caliber section, "Barrels are interchangeable with other calibers".

If DOJ accepted the registration with those notes, it would be a very hard sell for DOJ to say you can't actually do those things.

Also DOJ said in their own words on their own FAQ, that the only modification that can't be done is swapping out the BB or making the weapon violate other laws like SBR, etc.

AW registration merely allows you to possess an AW. It does not 'make' a gun an AW. The acutal AFS AW registration status just associates serial#/make/model with AW registry#.

[bwiese]

While technically correct, I wonder if the juice would be worth the squeeze. .

I have multiple SB23 (2000) RAWs.

I move uppers (20"/18"16") all the time. OAL lenghts vary with stock types.

I did register them as multicaliber to poss allow 9mm or 7.62x39 but no interest in those now.

I am perfectly OK with putting other calibers on. I'd love to be arrested for that.

[CandG]

I am perfectly OK with putting other calibers on. I'd love to be arrested for that.

Indeed.

There is NO regulation or penal code in existence that prohibits this activity. Anyone who says otherwise probably "heard it in a gun store." Funny how laws overheard in gun stores are often more restrictive than the actual laws

I would love to see what an arresting officer cites as the law being violated, since such a law does not exist.

[bwiese]

What benefit was there to register your gun as an assault weapon?

Legal retention in that form/configuration.

[steadyrock]

[CandG]

1) Does this apply only to lowers owned prior to the original registration date, or is this a “reset” of the Registration deadline for all?

Yes it only applies to firearms acquired before 1/1/2017, which were eligible to be registered by the registration date, by eligible people. It is not a "reset", the 2016 ban against acquiring new AWs remains (pending results of the case which this thread pertains to)

2) if someone tried to register last time and the website didn’t work so they gave up, but didn’t retain any documentation, can they re-register now?

Yes. There is no requirement for proof that you tried to register last time, but you'll be required to check a box "under penalty of perjury" that you tried and failed due to website difficulties last time. No idea how that's even remotely enforceable, but that's a whole other can of worms I won't go into right now. Obviously one way it's enforceable is if someone tries to register something they didn't even own back then, which judging by how many times this question has been asked and answered, it seems likely that number isn't going to be 0.

[steadyrock]

[aBrowningfan]

I have multiple SB23 (2000) RAWs.

I move uppers (20"/18"16") all the time. OAL lenghts vary with stock types.

I did register them as multicaliber to poss allow 9mm or 7.62x39 but no interest in those now.

I am perfectly OK with putting other calibers on. I'd love to be arrested for that.

I was referring to 2016 BB-equipped AWs. As part of the registration process, photos of the AW had to be submitted with the application. There would be a visually identifiable difference between the pictures of the submitted upper receiver with a 16.1" barrel and the 'new' upper receiver with a 14.7" barrel and welded flash suppressor. The multi-caliber registration is an exemption, but is it worth the effort and expense?

[ar15barrels]

While technically correct, I wonder if the juice would be worth the squeeze. I was thinking of purchasing an upper receiver with a 14.7" barrel with welded flash suppressor (to maintain the 16.1" minimum barrel length). However, the new upper receiver/barrel configuration would be different from the configuration that was shown in the pictures that were included with my registration submission. With all of the delay I experienced before I received the registration, I just don't think swapping receivers is going to be worth the potential risk, even if I would ultimately win if litigation was needed.

There is no reason that you can't change out a whole upper receiver assembly on a registered AW AR type rifle.
What "squeeze" do you expect to occur?
There is no requirement to keep the same barrel length or caliber or any other parts on the rifle that were there when it was photographed.
The regulations only state that you must keep the magazine release system.
Everything else is fair game to be changed out whenever you want, as often as you want, with no permission or notification required.
The purpose of the pictures was for the state to ensire that your gun was in a legal configuration at the time it was registered.
After registration, what constitutes a "legal configuration" changes as the gun can now be shorter than it could before it was registered as well as use mags over 10 rounds as well as have any of the restricted features etc...

[ar15barrels]

This might have been asked already but I’m. It going to read 1500 posts to find out:

1) Does this apply only to lowers owned prior to the original registration date, or is this a “reset” of the Registration deadline for all?

2) if someone tried to register last time and the website didn’t work so they gave up, but didn’t retain any documentation, can they re-register now?

The lower would most certainly have to have been in your possession before the end of 2016 in order for you to have unsuccessfully attempted to register it before the end of June 2018.
I would definitely NOT recommend trying to AW register a firearm which does NOT meet the legal qualifications of the 2018 registry opening.

30900.
(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 July 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]

I was referring to 2016 BB-equipped AWs.
As part of the registration process, photos of the AW had to be submitted with the application.
There would be a visually identifiable difference between the pictures of the submitted upper receiver with a 16.1" barrel and the 'new' upper receiver with a 14.7" barrel and welded flash suppressor.
The multi-caliber registration is an exemption, but is it worth the effort and expense?

WHAT EFFORT AND EXPENSE?
Do you mean the cost of the new parts?

There is no law requiring the gun to stay like the photos.
The purpose of the photos was to determine if the gun was in a legal configuration at the time of registration.

A few people actually sent in pictures of illegally configure guns and got visits from the DOJ and usually the guns confiscated.

Seeing as you did not, that simply proves that your guns were legal.
You can change anything you want except for the magazine release and that's only because of regulations.
There's no LAW stopping you from changing ANTHING other than the registered reciever.

[Discogodfather]

What benefit was there to register your gun as an assault weapon?

Just features wise the biggest thing was not to have to permanently fix a muzzle device to meet minimum 31" length requirements. Being able to have a 26" length rifle at it's minimum length was also nice for AK's and such being able to have folding stocks again. Flash hiders, of course.

From a political perspective myself and some others liked the idea of creating a class of weapons (part of the entire RAW database) that would be immune from (or maybe at the least slightly more protected) legal action to constantly reclassify what is and is not a legal rifle. Other than the bullet button, the 2016 RAW's are no different from the other periods. Featureless rifles can at any time be reclassified as more prop 63 clones pop up and they continue to move the goalposts.

As far as we knew in 2016-2017 timeframe, there had only been maybe 2 mentions of doing actual legislation over the last 20+ years that would attack the RAW registry directly, and they were passing comments limited to political rhetoric.

Many people that purchased rifles 2010 and up felt as if they were already in a registry, so what was the point of keeping any information about ownership secret? People would AFS themselves and find that pre 2010 purchases also sometimes appeared.

We also thought if people did this en mass that it would help prove common use arguments, but that was always an armchair legal theory and not really valid in a legal sense. But to get millions of registrations might have made some headlines at least.

Obviously the opposite occurred, and very few people registered, which is what we theorized would happen and more specifically what they wanted to happen. DOJ made criminally bad attempts to educate people on how to register that got progressively worse from period to period. In 1989, they did PSA type commercials and had pamphlets at gun shops. For 99/00/01, it was basically impossible to get the silly card to send in to actually register. in 2016, it was a myriad of web problems, crazy photo requirements, dozens of questions that made little sense, etc. If you could even get into the system and fill out the information, much of it disappeared or took forever to process. People were scared of self incrimination, even accidentally. Sometimes agents would send emails asking equally bizarre questions, further adding to the weeks and months that the case processing time. It was a nightmare.

I forget the numbers now, but very few weapons were registered and I think we are limited to about 150-200k RAW's in CA total from all periods.

[sfvshooter]

Just features wise the biggest thing was not to have to permanently fix a muzzle device to meet minimum 31" length requirements. Being able to have a 26" length rifle at it's minimum length was also nice for AK's and such being able to have folding stocks again. Flash hiders, of course.

From a political perspective myself and some others liked the idea of creating a class of weapons (part of the entire RAW database) that would be immune from (or maybe at the least slightly more protected) legal action to constantly reclassify what is and is not a legal rifle. Other than the bullet button, the 2016 RAW's are no different from the other periods. Featureless rifles can at any time be reclassified as more prop 63 clones pop up and they continue to move the goalposts.

As far as we knew in 2016-2017 timeframe, there had only been maybe 2 mentions of doing actual legislation over the last 20+ years that would attack the RAW registry directly, and they were passing comments limited to political rhetoric.

Many people that purchased rifles 2010 and up felt as if they were already in a registry, so what was the point of keeping any information about ownership secret? People would AFS themselves and find that pre 2010 purchases also sometimes appeared.

We also thought if people did this en mass that it would help prove common use arguments, but that was always an armchair legal theory and not really valid in a legal sense. But to get millions of registrations might have made some headlines at least.

Obviously the opposite occurred, and very few people registered, which is what we theorized would happen and more specifically what they wanted to happen. DOJ made criminally bad attempts to educate people on how to register that got progressively worse from period to period. In 1989, they did PSA type commercials and had pamphlets at gun shops. For 99/00/01, it was basically impossible to get the silly card to send in to actually register. in 2016, it was a myriad of web problems, crazy photo requirements, dozens of questions that made little sense, etc. If you could even get into the system and fill out the information, much of it disappeared or took forever to process. People were scared of self incrimination, even accidentally. Sometimes agents would send emails asking equally bizarre questions, further adding to the weeks and months that the case processing time. It was a nightmare.

I forget the numbers now, but very few weapons were registered and I think we are limited to about 150-200k RAW's in CA total from all periods.

Not sure if you're speaking from personal experience or what you heard from a friend, but that wasn't my experience at all.

I submitted my info. A short while later, I was asked to submit additional photos. I did so and all my rifles were registered. Couldn't have been any simpler.

I've also applied for COE & FFL 03 online and was able to get those as well.

Maybe when I get older, I'll need some help or won't be able to navigate the sites, but so far so good (knock on wood).

[ar15barrels]

Many people that purchased rifles 2010 and up felt as if they were already in a registry, so what was the point of keeping any information about ownership secret? People would AFS themselves and find that pre 2010 purchases also sometimes appeared.

For 99/00/01, it was basically impossible to get the silly card to send in to actually register. in 2016, it was a myriad of web problems, crazy photo requirements, dozens of questions that made little sense, etc. If you could even get into the system and fill out the information, much of it disappeared or took forever to process. People were scared of self incrimination, even accidentally. Sometimes agents would send emails asking equally bizarre questions, further adding to the weeks and months that the case processing time. It was a nightmare.

I walked into my local police department back in 2000 to get a fingerprint card.
It was not impossible at all.

The people that had the most trouble registering in 2018 were the ones that waited until the last 12 hours.
Procrastinators overloaded the DOJ system.