MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

[9M62]

To help understand the issue at hand here, ask yourself whether or not it's now illegal to put a 30 round mag into a BB gun. It *used* to be illegal, but now that a bullet button has been redefined as specifically not being a fixed magazine, it's now legal to use a preban mag in a BB gun, right? Which means that what was the case last week isn't relevant now. The wording of the law changed and what it says now is all that matters.

I don't disagree with you, but I can see how a cop, prosecutor, judge and jury might.

Once it's registered as an assault weapon, I see no issue what so ever (until July).

[IVC]

The wording in 30680(a) is "Prior to January 1, 2017," so it's referencing the old, pre-2017 AW definition, not the new one that you are quoting.

There is only one definition of AW in the law, the 30515 as amended (as of now).

Any reference to "lawfully possessed at some time" indeed means "lawfully possessed at some time according to the laws at the time." That's about it. We already went through the assumption that we all lawfully possessed our rifles prior to 2017 based on the laws at the time.

The question is whether the reference "that assault weapon" uses the OLD or the NEW definition. Before you answer, remember that FGG, who is in your camp and an established attorney, already answered that it is THE NEW definition. (That's just how the law in general works when it comes to definitions.)

[Drew14s]

I'm pretty much a gun/rifle noob and this entire thread confuses me. lol. Going to have to wait for the layman's explanation.

thank you to everyone who has been trying to figure out these new/proposed regs.

[IVC]

30690(a) links legality before 1/1/2017 to legality after that date. A particular firearm would have to have been legal for you to possess before 1/1/2017 for it to be legal for you to possess after 1/1/2017.

(I think you mean 30680(b) - that's the one that talks about it.)

Again, the question is not whether "it would have been legal," but whether it was "legally possessed." There is a big difference. If you want to claim that removal of BB in 2017 changes whether it was "legally possessed prior to 2017" say so and explain how it changes the legality of the configuration prior to 2017 for which I gurantee was legal at the time.

[M1AFrankie32]

Not really. First, we know what the regulations are. Second, read again what authority DOJ has. Third, any regulation must be in compliance with the law - it cannot invent crimes that don't exist.

I disagree. We do not know what the regulations are. If we knew, there would be no need for PC 30900(b)(5), which states, "The department shall adopt regulations for the purpose of implementing this subdivision."

[djhall]

Good point.

The case of the Sacramento Deputy is just typical of a witch hunt. It looks like he really was trying to follow everything to the letter of the law and they still charged him with possessing an AW (not even the shotgun, but the PS90 with a fixed mag) even though it flat out did not meet the letter of the law. Worse than that, they let it go all the way to a jury even though it should have been completely clear that the pinned mag PS90 was not an assault weapon.

Yeah, and the regulations they just issued are incredibly specific (for the DOJ) on this point:

(hh) "Semiautomatic" means a firearm functionally able to fire a single cartridge eject the empty case and reload the chamber each time the trigger is pulled and released. Further, certain necessary mechanical parts that will allow a firearm to function in a semiautomatic nature must be present for a weapon to be deemed semiautomatic. A weapon clearly
designed to be semiautomatic but lacking a firing pin, bolt carrier, gas tube, or some other crucial part of the firearm is not semiautomatic for purposes of Penal Code section 30515, 30600 and 34605(a) and 3Q900.
(1) A mechanically whole semiautomatic firearm merely lacking ammunition and a proper magazine is a semiautomatic firearm.
(2) A mechanically whole semiautomatic firearm disabled by a gun lock or other firearm safety device is a semiautomatic firearm (All necessary parts are present once the gun lock or firearm safety device is removed and weapon can be loaded with a magazine and proper ammunition.)
(3) With regards to an AR-15 style firearm if a complete upper receiver and a complete lower receiver are completely detached from one another, but still in the possession or under the custody or control of the same person the firearm is not a semiautomatic firearm.
(4) A stripped AR-15 lower receiver when sold at a California gun store is not
a semiautomatic firearm. (The action type among other things is undetermined)

I have no idea how you square this with the prosecution of the Deputy in that case. Further, it seems like you can now sell featured ARs simply by completely detaching the upper and lower receivers. For that matter, according to their own definition, you or your family ought to be able to deregister the weapon simply by sending them a picture of the completely separated lower receiver!

[djhall]

I disagree. We do not know what the regulations are. If we knew, there would be no need for PC 30900(b)(5), which states, "The department shall adopt regulations for the purpose of implementing this subdivision."

Have you not gotten the word that the DOJ has released said regulations?

https://cdn.firearmspolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/bullet-button-proposed-regulations.pdf

[djhall]

30690(a) links legality before 1/1/2017 to legality after that date. A particular firearm would have to have been legal for you to possess before 1/1/2017 for it to be legal for you to possess after 1/1/2017.

I think you may have mistyped your penal code section. According to http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/ there is no section 30690.

[FelixEstrella]

It sounds like you've nailed the "as intended" part. Leaving this state and taking your guns with you is exactly what they intended.

Indeed! That was clear with the first AWB. This is just loophole closing. ;-)

Maybe we should give up the "wishful thinking that someone will save us" and start doing everything in our power to save ourselves right here in our own state.

Sure. A SCOTUS challenge. I'm in full support.

[Axxlrod]

I'm pretty much a gun/rifle noob and this entire thread confuses me. lol. Going to have to wait for the layman's explanation.

thank you to everyone who has been trying to figure out these new/proposed regs.

Me too.

Reading this entire thread makes me feel like I'm trying to figure out what the definition of the word "is" is.

Hopefully, all this will become clearer sooner than later so we can figure out what field we are playing on.

[djhall]

Reading this entire thread makes me feel like I'm trying to figure out what the definition of the word "is" is.

I'm not sure how to answer that... what do you mean by "is" when you say, "what the definition of the word "is" is"?

[lrdchivalry]

But the legislature has created a new category, which HAS been codified. PC 30900(b)(1) is a new category, as this statute only applies to lawful possession from 1/1/2001-12/31/2016, or tool/bullet button AWs.

The Category 3 AW (detachable mag AWs) is outlined in PC 30900(a)(2), which states "any person who lawfully possessed an assault weapon prior to the date it was defined as an assault weapon pursuant to former Section 12276.1...shall register the firearm byJanuary 1, 2001, with the department pursuant to those procedures which the department may establish."

At this point, we're just waiting for the regulations. CalDOJ has authority to make regulations for this new category pursuant to PC 30900(b)(5).

That is not correct.

Category 1 and 2 assault weapons are created/codified in 30510, category 3 which now includes BB rifles is created/codified in 30515. 30900 only governs the process of registration not the creation of a category of assault weapon.

Using your logic there would be at least seven categories of AW.
30510 creates cat 1 and 2 that's 2 categories of AW
30900(a)(1) and (2) that's two more categories, were up to 4 now
30515 creates cat 3, that now makes 5
30900(a)(2) also covers cat 3, that now makes 6
30900(b)(1) under your argument creates a new category of AW, which would make 7

All 30900 does is give rifle owners a means of registering and legally keeping their rifles, it does not create a new class of AW.

[9M62]

Yeah, and the regulations they just issued are incredibly specific (for the DOJ) on this point:


I have no idea how you square this with the prosecution of the Deputy in that case. Further, it seems like you can now sell featured ARs simply by completely detaching the upper and lower receivers. For that matter, according to their own definition, you or your family ought to be able to deregister the weapon simply by sending them a picture of the completely separated lower receiver!

It must have been a plea deal sort of thing. Like the Feds were going to go the "selling without a license" route on him unless he "agrees to one charge of..." ya know?

[M1AFrankie32]

Have you not gotten the word that the DOJ has released said regulations?

https://cdn.firearmspolicy.org/wp-co...egulations.pdf

Thank you. The regulations support my point.

Please read Section 5472(b), which states, "The Department will not register a firearm that was required to be registered under prior assault weapon registration laws in effect before January 1, 2017..."

Please read Section 5477(a), which states, "The release mechanism for an ammunition feeding device on an assault weapon registered pursuant to Penal Code section 30900, subdivision (b)(1) SHALL NOT BE CHANGED AFTER THE ASSAULT WEAPON IS REGISTERED." (emphasis added)

Please read Section 5477(c), which states, "The prohibition in subdivision (a) does not extend to a firearm that is undergoing the deregistration process pursuant to section 5478."

Please read Section 5478(a), which states, "Deregistration requests will also be accepted for assault weapons, defined and registered pursuant to Penal Code section 30515, that have been modified or reconfigured TO NO LONGER MEET THE ASSAULT WEAPON DEFINITION." (emphasis added)

Edit: This should be the last post on this issue, at least until there's an actual case challenging the regs/statute.

[naught]

There is only one definition of AW in the law, the 30515 as amended (as of now).

Any reference to "lawfully possessed at some time" indeed means "lawfully possessed at some time according to the laws at the time." That's about it. We already went through the assumption that we all lawfully possessed our rifles prior to 2017 based on the laws at the time.

The question is whether the reference "that assault weapon" uses the OLD or the NEW definition. Before you answer, remember that FGG, who is in your camp and an established attorney, already answered that it is THE NEW definition. (That's just how the law in general works when it comes to definitions.)

You are correct about the new definition for assault weapon. What I should have said is that there are rifles currently classified as assault weapons that were legal to possess prior to 1/1/2017, and these will be the only assault weapons that will be legal after 1/1/2017 (assuming registration by 2018).