MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

What if it is a Radlock that is backed out? It's the same device. It's just adjusted differently.

Several posts by me about Raddlock earlier in the thread. But same series of questions: in its current configuration is it an AW? ---> is there an "except as provided in this chapter" provision? ---> are you within the terms of the "except as provided..." provision?

[BAJ475]

OK, I think I see the point of disagreement. You're saying, "I had the firearm prior to January 1, 2017, and at that time it satisfied the registration eligibility requirements, so, boom, I pass the 30680(a) test."

What I'm saying is that the firearm that needs to pass the 30680(a) test ("that assault weapon") is the one that is currently in your possession (or was in your possession until the police took it away from you ).

So, under my theory, the prosecutor will look at your rifle, in the configuration it was in when you last possessed it, and ask, "prior to January 1, 2017, would the suspect have been eligible to register that assault weapon pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 30900?"

I understand your argument. The problem that would be faced by the prosecutor is that, having registered it with a BB prior to its seizure by the police, I have evidence (DOJ registration) that it was lawfully possessed prior January 1, 2017. Remember that the prosecutor's burden is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I do not have to prove that it was in a registerable condition prior to January 1, 2017 he or she must prove that it was not, which would be an extremely difficult, if not impossible, task given my proof of registration.

Instead, the issue would be whether I violated Section 5477 of Title 11 of the California Code of Regulations and whether such regulation was authorized by the statutes. I am not going to get into the penalties of such a violation because that is not relevant to the validity of Section 5477 or this discussion, at least in my opinion.

What you and others also need to understand is that I do not need to raise such a defense in a criminal prosecution, where I would risk criminal sanctions. I can directly attack the regulation in a petition for a writ of prohibition. (I expect that several will be filed in the next few days) You should also understand that the discussion between FGG and myself is about the probability of success of such a petition, not what the relevant issues and arguments would be. On those, I think we agree.

[meno377]

Section 30515(a)(8)(B) states:

For purposes of this section, “fixed magazine” means an ammunition feeding device contained in, or permanently attached to, a firearm in such a manner that the device cannot be removed without disassembly of the firearm action.

Both rifles fit equally well into this definition and the legislature even says that the reason for this section in the first place is to clarify that the two detachable magazines are the same since the OLD definition claimed they were different and the PRIMARY change with the new definition is to make them THE SAME.

How much more explicit can the legislators be that the two detachable magazines are THE SAME and that their INTENT was to make them the same?

That's how I see it also. The original bullet button is simply nulled at this point forward.

[John Browning]

Several posts by me about Raddlock earlier in the thread. But same series of questions: in its current configuration is it an AW? ---> is there an "except as provided in this chapter" provision? ---> are you within the terms of the "except as provided..." provision?

There's no way to have a definitive answer to that question without either a test case (like that which gave us the first batch of OLL) or DOJ throwing up their hands and giving up (like they did when the BB firearms became so widespread there wasn't anything they could do).

You guys are arguing in circles and nobody will be proven correct until further developments occur to add clarity.

[Sousuke]

John browning wants us to go to bed I think

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

Both do not have a fixed magazine but that is nothing new. One has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine under prior law and is therefore a previously prohibited configuration that could not be lawfully possessed prior to January 1, 2017, and may not be registered and may not be lawfully possessed now. The other did not have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine under prior law and is therefore a not previously prohibited configuration and may be registered and may be lawfully possessed now.

[meno377]

Both do not have a fixed magazine but that is nothing new. One has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine under prior law and is therefore a previously prohibited configuration that could not be lawfully possessed prior to January 1, 2017, and may not be registered and may not be lawfully possessed now. The other did not have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine under prior law and is therefore a not previously prohibited configuration and may be registered and may be lawfully possessed now.

Exactly right. But there is no new classification related to the bullet button. The new law simply makes the original bullet button or any maglock that DIDN'T require opening the action to eject the magazine nullified.

[Mountain Max]

I'm not surprised the regs ended up the way they did. I was starting to get annoyed with how excited some people were getting about registering and removing BB.

These laws are not meant to make your lives easier. Our state govt has deep contempt for gun owners.

[kaitrek]

55 pages worth of posts in like 3 days, WTF... LOL

[djhall]

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.

From the text of the law passed by the legislature, sure. The definition of an assault weapon with a standard magazine release and the definition of an assault weapon with a bullet button release is now EXACTLY THE SAME.

As far as the law that the legislature passed is concerned, the only distinction that matters is fixed magazine vs non-fixed-magazine. There is no mention in the law itself of two unequal tiers of non-fixed-magazines separated into two unequal tiers of registration. If the legislature had intended to do that, they could easily have added "30151(c) For the purposes of this section, "tool release magazine" means...." and then mandated the registration of tool release assault weapons and mandated the DOJ open a tool release assault weapon registry.

I believe the legislature, in their "BB loophole ignorance", truly intended to legislate that bullet buttons and standard magazine releases are, in their opinion, equivalently assaulty. The DOJ, knowing full well they aren't, misused their registration authority to attempt to "fix" the problem they created when they convinced the legislators into believing that BB rifles were equal to assault rifles.

[rbetts]

Yep... this entire debate will be moot by 2021.
We will be either 100% registered or among the majority of "accidental felons" who never registered.

Or free men with rights protected by our state and the constitution. . . .depending on our GPS coordinates. . . . .

[IVC]

One has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine under prior law and ....

But you are reverting to the OLD law after we just established that the AW definition is only based on the NEW law. That's why I asked you several yes/no questions on this issue.

Can we reach the same conclusion using only the NEW law? If I am in front of a judge, my attorney will be arguing the CURRENT law, not how the law evolved. The legislators put into law exactly what they wanted and they could've easily put in what you suggest. They didn't.

[Q]

I'm not surprised the regs ended up the way they did. I was starting to get annoyed with how excited some people were getting about registering and removing BB.

These laws are not meant to make your lives easier. Our state govt has deep contempt for gun owners.

Yep.. Someone out there is very pleased.. I imagine something like this..

[John Browning]

John browning wants us to go to bed I think

I think we've reached this point in the show until some new facts or information are discovered.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

I'll circle back to my original observation in this thread then leave it to the courts to sort it out. In CA assault weapons are identified/defined. Each time that happens there is a registration window. Once the window closes, possession of an unregistered assault weapon is prohibited. A registration window has now opened for registration of bullet button assault weapons. The window has not re-opened for assault weapons that have the capacity the accept a detachable magazine under prior law. The window has closed, the ship has sailed, the train has already left the station to register those. Any interpretation of the current AW law whose end result is a registered AW with standard mag release is an argument that the registration window for those AWs has been reopened. As such it is doomed to fail, IMO.