MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

[seal20]

It's SHALL, as the DOJ will put a boot on your neck if you try them on it.

The DOJ is vulnerable in court when they're in the defense chair, but a giant when in the prosecutor chair.

You want to put the DOJ in the defendant chair (challenging the rule in court), not face them while sitting in it (as a defendant).

Typical CA mentality. We're doomed

[bruss01]

Correct, the parts still have to stay, thats it.

Someone needs to engineer a stock that stores an extra spare magazine in the stock. With basically a standard mag release holding it in place.

Is there anything in the code or regs prohibiting the standard mag release in the buttstock from trading places with the bullet button on the mag well? The bullet button remains installed on the gun, just in a different place.

That's more of an interesting mental exercise than a serious question.

The BOF has over-reached here and CA gun owners will not turn a blind eye.

Our best hope is that these actions will awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.

[bruss01]

Typical CA mentality. We're doomed

No, it's true. You want to challenge them on your terms, not theirs. You file a suit, you have a lot more control and less risk than if they arrest you at which point you are treated as a criminal, not a litigant... as a litigant you risk losing the case... as a defendant you risk losing your freedom and years of your life behind bars, and your firearms rights forever.

Tell me again why the lawsuit doesn't make more sense than breaking the law and hoping you get lucky when you eventually get busted, seeing how your public defender is so much better than the prosecutor the state will task with putting you behind bars. I'd like to hear that spelled out.

[ifilef]

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.

A regulatory agency can do whatever they want by invoking whatever 'emergency measures' available to them, e.g., you have recently become a prohibited person.

In the instance of switch to mag release, they would likely revoke ab initio and probably give you a right to a later hearing. But I am just speculating because I don't know much about their regulatory power to do so.

A court in a prosecution might legally make your felonious actions effective to void the registration ab initio.

[ifilef]

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

Right, because you had previously lawfully possessed them with mag releases before they were designated as AW.

No one can claim the same this time around.

[Shell]

Right, because you had previously lawfully possessed them with mag releases before they were designated as AW.

No one can claim the same this time around.

Still can't show where in the PC that the Legislature declared BB MSRs to be a limiting factor. The only place that exists in the DOJ Final Rule, extra-judicially. And the senate's own legislative analysis states clearly that BBs have no effective protection other than as a loophole.

Again, the Legislature had the (ample) opportunity to add an item that stated "AWs registered after Jan 1 2017 shall retain their fixed-magazine locks or status, while existing as registered AWs."

They chose not to put that language in the bill. Any additional language could have drawn the governor's veto pen. Also it would have been used to challenge SB 880's legality, as they would have had to admit mag locks do reduce reload time - thus making the "evil features" less of a risk to the public.

[JeepFiend]

A regulatory agency can do whatever they want by invoking whatever 'emergency measures' available to them, e.g., you have recently become a prohibited person.

That was my thought.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

I understand the confusion. But I am only referring to one that was lawfully possessed prior to January 1, 2017, and registered in 2017 while it still had a BB. We are in full agreement about AWs not lawfully possessed prior 1/1/17. I am also not questioning the need to have a BB at the time of registration. While arguments to the contrary may be made, the ease and low cost of compliance make this path a no brainer.

It doesn't really matter which AW you were referring to, for any AW you need to go through the same series of questions:

Is it an AW? ---> Is there an "except as provided in this chapter" provision? ---> Are you within the terms of the "except as provided in this chapter" provision?

For your AW "that was lawfully possessed prior to January 1, 2017, and registered in 2017 while it still had a BB" it's yes, yes, and yes, so Section 30505 (AW possession) does not apply to you.

If you have an AW with a standard mag release, it's yes, yes, and no, so Section 30505 does apply to you.

The legal consequences flow from the current configuration. If the current configuration is a standard mag release configuration that was previously prohibited and the AW was not registered during the registration window applicable to that that configuration, you've got problems.

In light of that, is there any real objection to a regulation that says "don't change the mag release"?

[b18rexracer]

To be honest if you register your ARs with BB then life really hasn't changed from 12/31/2016. As far as configuration goes we are at status quo. I will be bummed if I cannot take the BB off but the fact is things have not gotten worse compared to years past.

Except as a registered AW you cannot pass it down to your children, sell it in state, and there are transportation rules and restrictions.

[vandal]

MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

Is not 30680a by referring to 30900b just asserting that the firearm must have been legally possessed (and presumably been in a then-legal config) between 2001 and 12/31/ 2016? Thats only eligibility test I see there and it refers to the past not the present.

30680. Section 30605 does not apply to the possession of an assault weapon by a person who has possessed the assault weapon prior to January 1, 2017, if all of the following are applicable:
(a) Prior to January 1, 2017, the person would have been eligible to register that assault weapon pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 30900.

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 January 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).




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Shell]

Except as a registered AW you cannot pass it down to your children, sell it in state, and there are transportation rules and restrictions.

It sounds like they are opening up joint ownership on the AW registry this time. If your children live with you, declare them as joint owners when registering.

I suspect this is part of DOJ trying to limit the risk of a 2A lawsuit against inheriting AWs, but whatever. I now own an AW, and will try to sue to inherit my father's AWs, so that day is coming.

[ifilef]

Still can't show where in the PC that the Legislature declared BB MSRs to be a limiting factor. The only place that exists in the DOJ Final Rule, extra-judicially. And the senate's own legislative analysis states clearly that BBs have no effective protection other than as a loophole.

Again, the Legislature had the (ample) opportunity to add an item that stated "AWs registered after Jan 1 2017 shall retain their fixed-magazine locks or status, while existing as registered AWs."

They chose not to put that language in the bill. Any additional language could have drawn the governor's veto pen. Also it would have been used to challenge SB 880's legality, as they would have had to admit mag locks do reduce reload time - thus making the "evil features" less of a risk to the public.

They did not have to do anything close to what you have contended. We should be grateful they provided the regulation, otherwise, a whole bunch of us might land in state prison, aka the 'big house'.

First registration period - 30900 (a)(1)- Lawful to possess with standard mag release prior to designation as AW.

Second registration period - 30900 (a)(2)- Lawful to possess with standard mag release prior to designation as AW.

Third registration period- 30900 (b)(1)- Unlawful to possess with standard mag release in the proscribed period prior to designation as AW.

And since it could not and can not be registered with a standard mag release, and is unlawful to possess and indeed is a felony, one CAN NOT make the switchover to standard mag release.

But a BB was lawful to possess during the proscribed period, is eligible for registration, and must stay in that configuration to remain legal.

Is anyone really serious that one can register a BB'd previously lawfully possessed rifle as an AW and then change it out to a banned configuration with a magazine release (felony)? This isn't 1989. Come on, y'all missed that boat. The train already left the station more than 15 years ago. The time to have done that goes back to 1989-2000, inclusive, or thereabouts.

[Shell]

They did not have to anything close to what you have contended.

First registration period - 30900 (a)(1)- Lawful to possess with standard mag release prior to designation as AW.

Second registration period - 30900 (a)(2)- Lawful to possess with standard mag release prior to designation as AW.

Third registration period- 30900 (b)(1)- Unlawful to possess with standard mag release in the proscribed period prior to designation as AW.

And since it could and can not be registered with a standard mag release, and is unlawful to possess and indeed is a felony, one CAN NOT make the switchover to standard mag release.

But a BB was lawful to possess during the proscribed period, is eligible for registration, and must stay in that configuration to remain legal.

We're going to keep going around in circles on this. Everyone that is challenging the validity of Rule 5477 disagrees with you, for all the reasons stated in my last post. The Legislature said, clearly, that BB's were a loophole that is a distinction without a difference. They had an opportunity to create a new class of AW. They didn't.

I think we've run out of new ground to cover on this one. We just keep going around in a circle.

I hope FPC/CGN/etc attorneys pursue challenging Rule 5477 as a 2A infringement, in federal court, as a lawless administrative action... because you are clearly in the minority on this subject, and I've been keeping a running tally. You, and FGG, are the only ones that ardently see it that way.

[2Aallday]

It doesn't really matter which AW you were referring to, for any AW you need to go through the same series of questions:

Is it an AW? ---> Is there an "except as provided in this chapter" provision? ---> Are you within the terms of the "except as provided in this chapter" provision?

For your AW "that was lawfully possessed prior to January 1, 2017, and registered in 2017 while it still had a BB" it's yes, yes, and yes, so Section 30505 (AW possession) does not apply to you.

If you have an AW with a standard mag release, it's yes, yes, and no, so Section 30505 does apply to you.

The legal consequences flow from the current configuration. If the current configuration is a standard mag release configuration that was previously prohibited and the AW was not registered during the registration window applicable to that that configuration, you've got problems.

In light of that, is there any real objection to a regulation that says "don't change the mag release"?

As FGG has made quite clear at this point, our question must not be "did DOJ really do that." They did. There's no question. You'd have to be a real moron to go off tilting at that windmill.

The question rather must be why is DOJ not allowed to do that. To my simple mind, this might involve finally asking the question of whether "assault weapon" bans by features are a permissible limit of the constitutional right.

I can't think of another right we limit so severely for so little benefit (in the "can't drown in a desert" sense).

[Shell]

As FGG has made quite clear at this point, our question must not be "did DOJ really do that." They did. There's no question. You'd have to be a real moron to go off tilting at that windmill.

The question rather must be why is DOJ not allowed to do that. To my simple mind, this might involve finally asking the question of whether "assault weapon" bans by features are a permissible limit of the constitutional right.

I can't think of another right we limit so severely for so little benefit.

Exactly. Taken properly as part of an SB 880 + 5477 challenge, we could get (Trump) SCOTUS to determine that "evil feature" bans infringe on 2A rights.

Federal is the only way to go in fighting this one.