MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

[Shell]

Apparently it can be used out of the context of registration. People on this thread are taking all kinds of things out of the context of registration and claiming you will be a felon and arrested or have your registration revoked. Even though most things are just referencing registration only.

If your registration is deemed invalid by a DOJ rule, you automatically become a felon by continuing to posses an illegal, DE-registered AW. Your only recourse when removing that BB, under the DOJ rule (again, not SB 880 itself), is to hand the rifle over to the police for immediate disposal... since you have violated the rules (5477) regarding its registration.

This is basic logic, not out of context at all. And that's why it should scare the carp out of anyone contemplating removing the BB after registering their MSR as an AW.

[redhead]

I registered two AR15 Rifles with the DOJ back in 2000. Both have standard magazine release buttons. In 2017 I will register two more AR15 Rifles with bullet buttons installed. Not sure how they can get away with this? If you're required to register a BB Rifle as an assault weapon, it seems only logical that you should be able to remove the BB. Something isnt right!! It's like they invented a totally new class of assault weapon. The BB Assault Weapon?

Sent from my SM-G530T using Tapatalk

Like logic has anything to do with it.

[Bolt_Action]

If your registration is deemed invalid by a DOJ rule, you automatically become a felon by continuing to posses an illegal, DE-registered AW.

This is basic logic, not out of context at all. And that's why it should scare the carp out of anyone contemplating removing the BB after registering their MSR as an AW.

Which is exactly why the DOJ cannot just revoke your registration. They don't have that authority. If they told you they would revoke your registration if you ever took your rifle to the range, would you follow that rule too? Jeez.

[Fox Mulder]

Hold on a second. We all agree Rule 5477 denies you the ability to remove the BB. But they screwed up and didn't explicitly say what would happen if you do.

Caution is necessary, as the DOJ can easily argue that you are no longer in possession of a properly-registered AW - and thus, committing a felony.

This is a false premise to end discussion of a clear and present danger, should you remove the bullet button. One we all need to be concerned about.

No. we do not all agree. The DOJ would like for rule 5477 to deny you the ability to remove the BB.

The DOJ has exceeded its authority in writing Rule 5477, and it is instantly invalidated. (Not really, but it will be invalidated).

[Fox Mulder]

the point is that your "the law is self-defeating" interpretation sucks lol.

Your "self validating regulation" interpretation sucks lol.

[Shell]

Which is exactly why the DOJ cannot just revoke your registration. They don't have that authority. If they told you they would revoke your registration if you ever took your rifle to the range, would you follow that rule too? Jeez.

Good luck finding that out at trial. The DOJ will probably beg to differ.

I am not saying it is certain you would lose registration. I am saying it is a clear and present danger, and that loss of registration could result in you being charged with a felony for possessing an illegal, DE-registered AW.

It's not worth the risk, not with today's DOJ.

[riderr]

No. we do not all agree. The DOJ would like for rule 5477 to deny you the ability to remove the BB.

The DOJ has exceeded its authority in writing Rule 5477, and it is instantly invalidated. (Not really, but it will be invalidated).

I tend to believe, CADOJ will retract the sentence in question. However, the legislature will be more than happy to fill in the gap asap, then apply it retroactively on 2017 AW firearms.

[Shell]

No. we do not all agree. The DOJ would like for rule 5477 to deny you the ability to remove the BB.

The DOJ has exceeded its authority in writing Rule 5477, and it is instantly invalidated. (Not really, but it will be invalidated).

I think we do agree about the policy. It's just I think the DOJ will be able to pull it off.

I think the DOJ knows the odds favor this rule sticking because of the low odds a gun rights attorney takes it to a favorable court (SCOTUS), and knowing that the state supreme court and 9th Circus favor them.

I think this battle should be fought. I think the odds of winning, unless SCOTUS takes the case as a 2A argument, are low.

[BAJ475]

But it's 30680(a) that directly addresses the removal of the BB after registration!

Here's the route to a felony (or $500 fine if you're lucky):

1) Register your assault weapon.
2) Remove bullet button.
3) Note that it is now not eligible for registration in this configuration according to 30900(b)(1).
4) Which means you no longer satisfy 30680(a).
5) Which means you no longer satisfy 30680.
6) Which means you no longer have an exemption from 30605.
7) Which means you are now in possession of an illegal assault weapon.

I disagree. Section 30900(b)(1) requires eligibility between January 1, 2001 and December 31, 2016. It says nothing about eligibility on or after 1/1/17. I fully understand FGG's arguments about removal of BBs in violation of the regulations, but they are based on his opinions about the intent of the Legislature. Until the courts decide, we will not know if his views will prevail. Quite frankly, I suspect that he would be happy to see the courts strike down the no removal regulations but to not be misleading he must call it as he sees it. I may see it a little differently, but that does not mean that I do not respect his opinions, our yours.

I think that it would be helpful if the participants in this thread not view it as a pissing contest.

[CreamyFettucini]

If your registration is deemed invalid by a DOJ rule, you automatically become a felon by continuing to posses an illegal, DE-registered AW. Your only recourse when removing that BB, under the DOJ rule (again, not SB 880 itself), is to hand the rifle over to the police for immediate disposal... since you have violated the rules (5477) regarding its registration.

This is basic logic, not out of context at all. And that's why it should scare the carp out of anyone contemplating removing the BB after registering their MSR as an AW.

Except nowhere in the regs or penal code is invalidation of a RAW even mentioned.

[ifilef]

Agreed.

The laws, regs, etc say what they say.

Let's not create more than what's there. That's how we get people to this day claiming ammo and guns must be transported in seperated locked containers..




OR the cop isnt an expert in calguns-esque analysis of gun laws. He probably flips out after finding an "Assault Weapon", but then he runs the serial and it comes back legally registered to the guy he has detained. He begrudgingly gives the rifle back and that's that.

This is why I'm suprised the DOJ is pulling this crap. It actually makes things a bit more complicated with respect to training, enforcement, etc. I genuinely thought they'd cut their losses and keep the status quo we have today where it's either a legally registered AW or it isnt.

Their training should be relatively easy.

Arrest anyone who possesses or shoots featured with magazine release during 2017 (except prior RAW people), leave everyone else alone until 2018 (excepting the usual suspects, e.g., prohibited persons, select fire, SBR without proof, etc.).

Arrest anyone who possesses or shoots featured with BB in 2018 if the firearm is not a RAW.

[vandal]

But I'm not trying to cancel the AW registration voluntarily, just illustrate the point that by FGG's logic going featureless on a registered AW without voluntarily canceling the AW reg would create a situation where 30680a no longer exempts you from AW possession charge even though its registered. That seems nutty.

The DOJ rule addresses this. Once a BB AW is registered, you can make it featureless. But, it is still a registered AW until the voluntary cancellation is approved by the DOJ.

In the DOJ's eyes, you can go featureless after registration - but you are still bound to AW rules on that rifle until they release you of its AW status.

Hence, it would not be an exemption to the possession charge.

They realized people might just pop off and on the features (say, at the range), and resort back to a free mag release, as a registered AW. They do read Calguns, folks.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Shell]

Except nowhere in the regs or penal code is invalidation of a RAW even mentioned.

It doesn't have to be, again, in the eyes of the DOJ. If you violate the rule, the validity of your registration is the only relief the DOJ has to compel you to comply.

The DOJ is the one that will charge you. It's their eyes that matter in drafting felony charges, not my personal opinion - which is that Rule 5477 is illegal and unconstitutional.

[BAJ475]

Actually per #3 it would no longer be eligible per DOJ Rule 5477. That's why the rule should be challenged in federal court. Rule 5477 creates a new AW class, not 30900(b). DOJ did so without authority from the legislature.

Legislative intent is clear from the bill analysis - BBs are a loophole and functionally meaningless.

The flow is correct, in the eyes of the DOJ, you are creating an illegal AW if you remove the BB. But they are doing so in an arbitrary and capricious manner, without authorization from state law - thus infringing on my federal 2A rights.

Pile that on with SB 880 being an overreach of state power to regulate firearms, and let SCOTUS decide.

This is not a federal issue. Unless and until the federal courts rule that AW bans violate the 2A, there is no federal issue. Of course, we can hope that the Trump administration and the R controlled Congress will move to void differing state laws that interfere with interstate commerce of firearms because of differing and conflicting state laws.

[Boristheblade]

I leave for 3 hours and there is over 250 more post. WTF!! I can't keep up!!