MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

[ifilef]

Show me the wording in the regs that specifically says that it's between a fixed and detachable magazine. Otherwise it's good that you Unsubscribed as you spout this nonsense.

What is the matter with you people? READ the definition of detachable magazine contained in 5471(m). I'm sorry but I can't copy n paste it.

BB is NOT a detachable magazine, if it were, we could not presently register it as an AW because it would basically be a standard magazine release which has been unlawfully possessed prior to 1/1/2017. If it requires a tool to remove it then it can not be a detachable magazine. Read it again and again until understood.

BB is a magazine category unto itself that can be registered as an AW. It is neither a fixed magazine (for which registration is not required) nor detachable magazine (unlawful-felony) which is verboten to be registered.

[Shell]

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.

There was no new "window" - SB 880 declared all BB-toting guns to be AWs under the old law. SB 880 explicitly says there is not a new AW registry window. It merely offers a waiver period for existing BB-toting guns to register, as a means of ensuring SB 880 does not face a 2A challenge at SCOTUS.

All AWs were banned in 89. SB 880 adds BB guns to the AW list, under the same original window. You just won't be prosecuted for not adding your gun until Jan 1 2018.

Hence DOJ does not have the power to create a new class of AW. Hence DOJ has no power to implement rule 5477 and deny people the ability to remove the bullet button.

SB 880 could have been crafted to do all of this. But it would have faced the greater risk of a 2A threat at SCOTUS, because it would have allowed a new challenge to the evil feature prohibition - the bill was narrowly tailored to avoid that risk.

[meno377]

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.

And the date of the dros from 2014 forward for such rifles will support that.

[John Browning]

There was no new "window" - SB 880 declared all BB-toting guns to be AWs under the old law. SB 880 explicitly says there is not a new AW registry window. It merely offers a waiver period for existing BB-toting guns to register, as a means of ensuring SB 880 does not face a 2A challenge at SCOTUS.

All AWs were banned in 89. SB 880 adds BB guns to the AW list, under the same original window. You just won't be prosecuted for not adding your gun until Jan 1 2018.

Hence DOJ does not have the power to create a new class of AW. Hence DOJ has no power to implement rule 5477 and deny people the ability to remove the bullet button.

SB 880 could have been crafted to do all of this. But it would have faced the greater risk of a 2A threat at SCOTUS, because it would have allowed a new challenge to the evil feature prohibition - the bill was narrowly tailored to avoid that risk.

I think this is what the law says (and what the regulations specifically went beyond), but it will take a court to come along and say who's right or who's wrong.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

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.

Last post from me in this thread. The old law has continuing relevance under the new law in the way I have explained numerous times. This is built into the new law, if you are arguing the current law you can't avoid it.

[IVC]

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.

If you don't want to go into details that's fine.

The problem in your statement is that the window opened for registration of assault weapons, full stop. There is no such thing as "BB assault weapon" in the law as it would require an additional tier of AWs. The legislators didn't do it, they created a window to register AWs.

The DOJ wants to claim the "two tier" system for AWs, but their way doesn't fit with the current legislation. We went step by step through the law to determine whether DOJ's two tier system is compatible with the law. To make it work, the DOJ has to claim that rifles with and without BB are *different* as defined in the NEW law, since that's the only way to claim an AW wasn't legally possessed prior to 2017. However, the law explicitly claims that the rifles are the same. You stopped at this step and reverted to the "big picture."

We agree that it's the big picture the DOJ would LIKE it to be, and I clearly see why they would want it that way, but I also don't have any methodical rebuttal of why removing a BB post-registration would be considered illegal, except to go back to what DOJ WANTS the law to say and assume that it IS what the law says.

[2Aallday]

Last post from me in this thread. The old law has continuing relevance under the new law in the way I have explained numerous times. This is built into the new law, if you are arguing the current law you can't avoid it.

Thanks for your analysis. I know others appreciate your time as well.

[meno377]

What is the matter with you people? READ the definition of detachable magazine contained in 5471(m). I'm sorry but I can't copy n paste it.

BB is NOT a detachable magazine, if it were, we could not presently register it as an AW because it would basically be a standard magazine release which has been unlawfully possessed prior to 1/1/2017. If it requires a tool to remove it then it can not be a detachable magazine. Read it again and again until understood.

BB is a magazine category unto itself that can be registered as an AW. It is neither a fixed magazine (for which registration is not required) nor detachable magazine (unlawful-felony) which is verboten to be registered.

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. A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool. An ammunition feeding device include any belted or linked ammunition, but does not include clips, en bloc clips, or stripper clips that load cartridges into the magazine.

An AR-15 style firearm that has a bullet-button style magazine release with a magnet left on the bullet button constitutes a detachable magazine. An AR-15 style firearm lacking a magazine catch assembly (magazine catch, magazine catch spring and magazine release button) constitutes a detachable magazine. An AK-47 style firearm lacking a magazine catch assembly (magazine catch, spring and rivet/pin) constitutes a detachable magazine.

Bullet button is NOT a new category. While their wording is poor, it simply states that a tool capable of ejecting the magazine without opening the action no longer is defined as a fixed magazine. They simply say that an AR that has a bullet button is included. That doesn't create a new classification.

[ifilef]

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.

Right, and that is why a BB is NOT a detachable magazine by definition in 5471(m), otherwise there would be no authority to register as AW.

[gdt82]

The more I read the regulations and the penal code the more vague and difficult to interpret it becomes.

We all know the intent of the legislature, but laws can only be enforced according to how they are written, not what the DOJ wishes. The DOJ regulations define several terms, and clearly indicate that they consider bullet buttons to be non-fixed (clear from the new law), yet non-detachable (which is now meaningless). The term "detachable" was used in reference to rifles under the old version of Penal Code 30515, but has now been removed and is replaced with "fixed" versus "non-fixed". So when the DOJ says that bullet buttons are "non-detachable", how is that not an irrelevant detail? Would have been relevant under the old version of 30515, but there is nothing about "detachable" mags concerning rifles in the new penal codes. Therefore irrelevant.

Another question concerns the difference between AR rifles and AR pistols. In the penal code, it is the magazine type that first determines whether a rifle needs to be analyzed for evil features to determine if its an AW. The magazine itself is not a feature. It is what makes features relevant. But with AR pistols it is different. There are a number of evil features that apply to AR pistols. "The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip" is one of those features (in addition to threaded barrel, barrel shroud, etc). So for an AR pistol, once registered, how is replacing the mag release even an issue? Having a "detachable magazine" located outside the pistol grip would be just one of a list of many evil features that apply to an AR pistol, that become moot with registration.

[joefrank64k]

I hope FGG gets himself a good drink after this epic circle-jerk thread, HAHA!!

FGG...if we ever meet, the first drink's on me!

[IVC]

Last post from me in this thread. The old law has continuing relevance under the new law in the way I have explained numerous times. This is built into the new law, if you are arguing the current law you can't avoid it.

There is a very simple interpretation.

The new law closes what legislators see as a loophole to their original AWB. The way to close the loophole is to do what's been done before - grandfather existing through registration, ban any new ones, close the registration window and let it all slowly disappear.

It's the same method that has been used nationally to make fully-automatic firearms a type of unicorn that is both uncommon and unattainable by majority. It's the only method for removing a class of firearms from the society that has been proven to work.

Why wouldn't DOJ just play along and do what the legislators wanted is beyond me. Almost as if someone has a personal beef with an extremely small number of gun owners finding a small silver lining in an outright attack on them.

How's that for interpretation?

[seanbo]

Elected officials are far too powerful. Ink on paper backup by votes out weigh any rights we may have. If only we had a way to leverage our power and strength. A tool to aid us in the fight that will come. A tool so powerful that they would think twice about ever messing with our liberties. Oh well, I guess we don't have any power.

[IVC]

Right, and that is why a BB is NOT a detachable magazine by definition in 5471(m), otherwise there would be no authority to register as AW.

Stick to the penal code. It must be in the penal code before a regulation can clarify it. The whole idea is that the regulation cannot create a two tier AW system that doesn't exist in the penal code.

[ifilef]

Bullet button is NOT a new category. While their wording is poor, it simply states that a tool capable of ejecting the magazine without opening the action no longer is defined as a fixed magazine. They simply say that an AR that has a bullet is included. That doesn't create a new classification.

The way I interpret those two parts is that a BB is NOT a detachable magazine (e.g., unlawful to register) because it does require a tool. How can one read the definition in 5471(m) and come to any other conclusion.

But when one places the magnet on it they then indeed consider it to be a detachable magazine which is unlawful before registration, and probably after registration as well.

Detachable magazines are not lawful as far as current registration laws dictate. You can't register a detachable magazine now. Their registration window was long ago when they indeed were possessed lawfully and before they were deemed AW. The train left the station for those more than 15 years ago.

Indeed, BB is a new category and AFAIK, the legislature can do whatever it deems necessary to ban a certain configuration, as with the magazine releases and now the BB, based upon the argument of public safety, health and welfare, whatever.

If a BB were now considered a fixed magazine it would not have to be registered as an AW.