MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

[IVC]

I think where I differ is that I read 30680 to be temporary and applicable to possession prior to registration. Once the weapon is registered the protection from 30605 is due to the registration and being the registered owner rather than ongoing coverage by 30680.

No, the exemptions comes from 30680 and registration is only one of the requirements, even though the other two requirements are primarily to establish the time frames and legality of what is being registered.

[Rgarbarino]

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

No he 's not.

But he STILL thinks he's right on that one!!!!

[Prolitheus]

30900(b) is referenced in 30680(a) as the necessary condition. It's not sufficient. 30675 is about other AW exemptions that are not connected either to what we are talking about, or to 30900.







It's the one under which we would operate so it's the only one relevant to this thread.

I disagree. 30675(b) has 30900 as a condition to exemptions for 30600, 30605, and 30610.

(a) Sections 30605 and 30610 shall not apply to any of the following persons:
(1) A person acting in accordance with Section 31000 or 31005.
(2) A person who has a permit to possess an assault weapon or a .50 BMG rifle issued pursuant to Section 31000 or 31005 when that person is acting in accordance with Section 31000 or 31005 or Article 5 (commencing with Section 30900).
(b) Sections 30600, 30605, and 30610 shall not apply to any of the following persons:
(1) A person acting in accordance with Article 5 (commencing with Section 30900).
(2) A person acting in accordance with Section 31000, 31005, 31050, or 31055.
(c) Sections 30605 and 30610 shall not apply to the registered owner of an assault weapon or a .50 BMG rifle possessing that firearm in accordance with Section 30945.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Patriot Man]

Yes, absolutely. It will just take time & money to fight it.

Time and money... millions of gun owners but how many contribute to those fighting for us? We spend thousands on our hobby but can't contribute $20 here and there... sorry to digress

[unclerandy]

bookmark

[M1AFrankie32]

If I have a BB rifle and I fail to register it by the deadline and I get stopped by the police and they find the rifle, their basis for arresting me for an unregistered AW under 30605 will come from 30515 not 30900(b)(1).

It's the same if I have a unregistered listed rifle under 30510 and get caught with it, they are going to charge me under 30605 because of 30510 not 30900(a)(1)

But before the LEO can arrest you, they must determine whether your rifle is lawfully registered. You said so yourself, "If I have a BB rifle AND I FAIL TO REGISTER IT..." (emphasis added)

PC 30900 (and DOJ regs) will govern whether your rifle is lawfully registered. As your hypothetical illustrates, one cannot put the cart (arrest) before the horse (registration).

[ifilef]

But he STILL thinks he's right on that one!!!!

Don't act like a hypocrite. With little doubt you could not have guessed that conversions to featureess IN 2017 would excuse a failure to register, but probably assumed THAT had to be accomplished before the end of 2016.

WRONG!

You are ignored.

Stop wasting everyone's time beating a dead horse. Water under the bridge...

[ricky s]

Don't you guys understand that they will say and promise anything to get your cooperation and then screw you anyway?
They make the rules and then they change the rules. They don't request your input, they don't need it. California's current politicians will create a police state simply by making up laws that will make law abiding citizens criminals.

[Rgarbarino]

[I]What about 30510? That defines an AW also.

You sure about that? 30510 looks like it "lists" AW's by name not "defines" what an AW is...

[Rgarbarino]

Don't act like a hypocrite. With little doubt you could not have guessed that conversions to featureelss IN 2017 would excuse a failure to register, but probably assumed THAT had to be accomplished before the end of 2016.

No, I pretty much KNEW featureless would excuse registration and said that several times debating with you before the regs came out!

[veeklog]

Time and money... millions of gun owners but how many contribute to those fighting for us? We spend thousands on our hobby but can't contribute $20 here and there... sorry to digress

I get it; but what if we donate to the NRA and still get the shaft? It is frustrating to many of us, especially to those that felt that after Heller and McDonald were won the AW Laws should have been litigated then because at the time the definition of common firearms were set by the Supreme Court. Instead we (I also include myself in this) kicked the can down the alley hoping that someday this law wasn't passed. Now this nightmare is upon us, and now we have to deal with it. We in the gun community tried to litigate CCW and waiting period laws because we thought they were winnable; instead it blew up in our faces. Now we have to step up and fight these draconian laws and I for one am willing to pony up because case law is on our side.

[naught]

The act of registering would be specifically covered by 30675, but the legal exemption for possession prior to registration would only be implied unless the DOJ issued regulations before 1/1/17 which also specifically stated that possession through 12/31/17 was compliant with the registration regulations.

30675 appears to be about permits, which are not the same as registration.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

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.

Interesting post, can't help myself from posting again lol. It actually wasn't illegal to put a 30 round mag in an a BB gun under prior law. Under prior law, the BB gun did not have a fixed magazine, and did not have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine either...have a look at this old thread:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=586660&highlight=SB+249&page=3

Nothing has changed, except that it is now in black and white that BB guns do not have a fixed magazine. BB guns never had the capacity to accept a detachable magazine, and the new law does not change that. The new law formalizes the CGF interpretation of prior law: BB guns are not fixed and do not have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine. This is the essence of the BB loophole, BB defied categorization as fixed or detachable.

And IVC, you are being deliberately obtuse in your (mis)representation of my position lol. PC 30900(b)(1) and PC 30680 limit registration to those assault weapons that do not have a fixed magazine under the revised definition and that were lawfully possessed prior to January 1, 2017. By process of elimination, registration is open only for assault weapons with "compliance devices" such as bullet buttons that actually were lawful to possess under the old law prior to January 1, 2017. Assault weapons with standard mag releases are necessarily excluded from registration now as they were not lawful to possess prior to January 1st. This is precisely how the rifles are "treated differently": one may be registered (BB), one may not be registered (standard mag release). SB 880 revises the definition of assault weapon (standard mag rifles remain assault weapons, BB rifles become assault weapons, both have always been "not fixed") and then limits registration to assault weapons that were not previously prohibited under pre January 1, 2017 AW law. The old law has continuing relevance under the new law in determining what may and may not be registered. SB 880's redefining assault weapon and limiting registration to previously not prohibited AWs are entirely consistent with one another.

It boils down to what does "lawfully possessed" mean. Does it mean "so long as I possessed an AW in a lawful configuration prior to January 1, 2017, it doesn't matter how it's configured now I can still register it"? Or, does it mean, "I can only register an AW in a configuration that was previously not prohibited"?

[M1AFrankie32]

Um, 30680(c) provides registration as the necessary condition for exemption from 30605 and 30605 makes possession of AWs illegal in CA. Fulfil the other two conditions in 30680 and 30605 does NOT apply to you so you can legally posses an AW as defined by the law.

That's what "registration of AW" means - you satisfy some conditions and you are exempt from the ban on possession of AW.

That's not all that 30680(c) states. In particular, it states, "The person registers the assault weapon by January 1, 2018, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUBDIVISION (b) OF SECTION 30900." (emphasis added)

Subdivision (b) of Section 30900 DOES NOT apply to all AWs. It only applies to AWs lawfully possessed from 1/1/2001 to 12/31/2016.

Edit: Please see the very first sentence of Subdivision (b) if you don't believe me.

[gdt82]

From a practical perspective, if your registered AW with standard mag release comes under scrutiny from a cop legitimately trying to determine whether it is a crime for you to have or not, are they not going to simply run the S/N and see if it's a registered AW? If I have a SB23 registered AW and a 2017-registered AW, is he/she going to make a decision based on when the registration was recorded, and then try to figure out whether one of them should maybe have a bullet button on it based on a non-penal-code CADOJ "shall not"?

For some reason I suspect it will be a Registered = GTG, Not Registered = No Go decision for that cop.

Please check out this thread.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=1287273

Specifically post #31 from Michel and Associates. They say the DOJ will be publishing an "Assault Weapons Identification Guide" with photos. This will be an ID cheat sheet for cops to identify legal and illegal configurations. No doubt it will say that if registration paperwork comes up as legitimate, there still must be a bullet button device on the gun or it is illegal.