MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

[CreamyFettucini]

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.

Yeah the Supreme Court is a sure thing considering the multitude of California's unconstitutional firearms laws they have heard recently

More likely to get provisions of the administrative rules thrown out by a lower court for the DOJs lack of authority granted in the penal code

[Cokebottle]

5471(m): ""Detachable magazine" means any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm without disassembly of the firearm action or use of a tool....
..."

Another poorly phrased piece of legislation from the linguists in Sacramento.

Depending on the mapping of that sentence, the meaning can completely change...

""Detachable magazine" means any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm (without disassembly of the firearm action or use of a tool)....
..."

Bullet button is not a detachable magazine
""Detachable magazine" means any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm without (disassembly of the firearm action) or (use of a tool)....
..."

Bullet button is a detachable magazine

I agree that the the first reading is most correct, but that brings us back to, if the BB is not a detachable magazine, and it is not a fixed magazine, then the DOJ has created a 4th class of magazine.

[Shadowdrop]

We all WANT ifilef to be wrong, but we all know he's right.

[Cokebottle]

Not really. OAL 26' to 30' is AW in 2016. In order to register my rifle, it has to have OAL 30' at the moment of registration. As soon as it's newly registered, I can replace my 16' barrel with 12' , keeping OAL over 26'. Nothing in the law and the regulations prevents me from doing that. So, I end up with 2017 AW which is not the original 2016 compliant configuration.

That would be an NFA violation, and violation of California's SBR statutes, both of which not only require minimum OAL to be 26" but also require the barrel to be 16"

A 14.5" AR upper with a non-permanent flash hider, even though it is over 30", would still be an NFA violation in Free America without a tax stamp.

[Shell]

We all WANT ifilef to be wrong, but we all know he's right.

You're free to start a poll, but I've spent a good dozen pages outlining a legal case that no, no he isn't. Please only speak for yourself, thanks.

[lrdchivalry]

We all WANT ifilef to be wrong, but we all know he's right.

LOL.. Just like he was "right" about featureless rifles that have ever had a bb attached had to registered.

No he 's not.

[Shell]

Yeah the Supreme Court is a sure thing considering the multitude of California's unconstitutional firearms laws they have heard recently

More likely to get provisions of the administrative rules thrown out by a lower court for the DOJs lack of authority granted in the penal code

Problem is DOJ will just appeal through state courts until they get a favorable venue, including state supreme court. Problem with the federal route is that it will just land at the 9th, where they will rule administrative authority is boundless against those nasty, evil firearms.

It's SCOTUS or nothing. And based on Heller, I'm willing to take those odds, especially with a young Scalia replacement appointed by Trump. There are two solid legal questions here - the authority of Administrative Action in limiting 2A, and the power of the state to prohibit evil features. Both are ripe for review, and Rule 5477 is an excellent test case for the former.

[Q]

I'm not sure why the bb has to stay on. What is the difference?
Also why a photo it's not like someone made up a name for the gun.

For now I think I would rather just sell them or keep it compliant as non AW status.. Originally I wanted to have some I could get into 3 gun sports later on. It looks like a fun hobby.

Watched these videos on youtube and thinking.. hmm.

[Shell]

I'm not sure why the bb has to stay on. What is the difference?
Also why a photo it's not like someone made up a name for the gun.

For now I think I would rather just sell them or keep it compliant as non AW status.. Originally I wanted to have some I could get into 3 gun sports later on. It looks like a fun hobby.

The BB has to stay on because the DOJ made a rule saying so. Hopefully it will be challenged.

The photo regulation is to ensure the rifle has a BB on it currently, and that it isn't an out of state AW being brought in.

If you sell your BB MSR now, you may find later that you wish you hadn't... particularly if the state requires featureless rifles to add mag locks, and doesn't let them register as AW's later. Buy a second featureless rifle, and register the BB rifle you have. Best of both worlds.

[ifilef]

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).

BB and mag releases are not features. What's behind the laws is magazine configurations that are legal or must be registered as AW.

[2Aallday]

That would be an NFA violation, and violation of California's SBR statutes, both of which not only require minimum OAL to be 26" but also require the barrel to be 16"

A 14.5" AR upper with a non-permanent flash hider, even though it is over 30", would still be an NFA violation in Free America without a tax stamp.

Does CA ban SBRs specifically, or is that federal only?

In other words, could we apply for an SBR stamp on a CA RAW after the fact?

Edit: the missing step here is of course swapping an SBR upper on to the CA RAW after receiving the stamp.

[Crazed_SS]

LOL.. Just like he was "right" about featureless rifles that have ever had a bb attached had to registered.

No he 's not.

Exactly. He was wrong about featureless being into an option because he was reading into something that wasnt there. I suspect the same thing is going on again. No sense in arguing with him or anyone further though because it's gonna be what it's gonna be.

Follow the regs for now and HOPE the "right people" have some better arguments than our opponents down the road..

[2Aallday]

BB and mag releases are not features. What's behind the laws is magazine configurations that are legal or must be registered as AW.

Wow, you really are as bad at listening as everybody says.

What I said is that it may finally be necessary to roll all the way back to whether and how a ban by features is a permissible limit on the constitutional right.

[Swiss]

Has anyone bothered to inform our most excellent Legislature that by requiring 2017 AW's to keep the bullet button the DOJ is removing the only incentive people have from going featureless?

Featureless, it should be explained to our esteemed lawmakers, means no registration, no travel restrictions, no transfer restrictions, standard mag releases (FAST RELOADS), and possibly untouchable from a 2A standpoint.

I think if that were to percolate in their heads for a few days they might realize that this is exactly the opposite of what they were trying to achieve.

[ifilef]

Another poorly phrased piece of legislation from the linguists in Sacramento.

Depending on the mapping of that sentence, the meaning can completely change...

""Detachable magazine" means any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm (without disassembly of the firearm action or use of a tool)....
..."

Bullet button is not a detachable magazine
""Detachable magazine" means any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm without (disassembly of the firearm action) or (use of a tool)....
..."

Bullet button is a detachable magazine

I agree that the the first reading is most correct, but that brings us back to, if the BB is not a detachable magazine, and it is not a fixed magazine, then the DOJ has created a 4th class of magazine.

Reading comprehension error. If it were a detachable magazine we would not be able to register it as an AW because definitionally it would be the same as a magazine release, which is unlawful. Unlawful it is for at least 15 years.

That reg states that a BB is NOT a detachable magazine.

And we already know that it's NOT a fixed magazine, otherwise we would not have to register it,

BB is a category unto itself. It is a non-detachable, non-fixed magazine mechanism legal to possess prior to 1/1/12017 that when attached to a SACF featured weapon is now deemed an AW that shall be registered by 12/31/2017, unless made featureless.

Cokebottle- I thought that you were in agreement with me with BB as a non-detachable magazine:

Featureless build does not fall under AW regulations, so it doesn't matter what kind of mag release you have provided that it is not a non-detachable magazine capable of feeding more than 10 rounds.

Once again... the bullet button in and of itself did not become a new "feature", it simply no longer satisfies the fixed magazine requirement.

They have now created a total of FOUR classifications of magazine:

Detachable - Standard release, bullet button with a MagMagnet, magazine catch removed
Non-Detachable - Magazine may be detached through the use of a tool without disassembly of the action i.e. Bullet Button
Fixed - Partial disassembly of the action is required to remove the magazine
Permanent - Cast, welded, or otherwise permanently attached

None of the above, with a 10 round magazine, are sufficient to trigger AW status for a rifle that has no SB23 features.