MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

[9M62]

Or maybe they terminate your AW registration, which requires you to change its configuration or remove it from the state - and to never be registered again.

Either way, no prosecution?

My gut is that the real world application of this law will be if a cop ever comes in contact with your firearm for some reason, they'll run the serial number and if it comes back registered to you you'll be sent on your way, if not, it'll be looked at closer.

That said, I've been shooting for 25+ years and have never once had a cop inspect any of my firearms, nor have I ever given them a reason to, nor would they find anything illegal if they did.

[Shell]

That makes no sense at all. You would then also have to say you can't completely disassemble and strip the lower receiver, you have to leave the bullet button on. Because a stripped lower has the same legal status as a featureless rifle.

Unless you register it as an AW, then that stripped lower remains an AW until you terminate its registration. Also implemented by the DOJ's lovely rulemaking, though I think they have more ground to stand on there.

[Shell]

Or maybe they terminate your AW registration, which requires you to change its configuration or remove it from the state - and to never be registered again.

Either way, no prosecution?

No. If your registration is voided/revoked/terminated, the gun must immediately be handed over to police for confiscation - or be out of state when the modification that results in a loss of registration occurs.

So, you could theoretically remove the BB at a police station, the moment you hand it over to police for confiscation. I'm sure the DOJ won't charge you for doing that.

If DOJ enforces Rule 5477 to their fullest extent that they view possible, the moment the BB is removed, you are in possession of an illegal AW in the state. A felony.

Again, it's not worth the risk. DOJ will probably enforce Rule 5477 to the fullest extent of their power, you are risking a felony if you assume they will do anything less.

[Cokebottle]

Unless you register it as an AW, then that stripped lower remains an AW until you terminate its registration. Also implemented by the DOJ's lovely rulemaking, though I think they have more ground to stand on there.

Registration does not make a non-SACF or non-AW into an AW, it simply provides an exemption from prosecution to the registered owner for possession, transportation, and lending provided specific requirements are met.

If the weapon is not in an AW configuration, it is not an AW. Registration does not magically make it an AW.

Yes, the serial number is "tainted" which would prevent the transfer to another person prior to de-registration, but upon disassembly, it would not be subject to AW transportation or possession laws.

[God Bless America]

That's what FGG claimed, but then decided to leave when he couldn't show how/where/why "they are not the same."

Find ONE section of penal code where the two rifles would be treated differently. Just ONE. Hint: you can't because the definition itself says they are the same.

The Penal Code does not "say they are the same."

YOU show US where the Penal Code says 'bullet buttons and mag catches are the same."

[Shell]

Registration does not make a non-SACF or non-AW into an AW, it simply provides an exemption from prosecution to the registered owner for possession, transportation, and lending provided specific requirements are met.

If the weapon is not in an AW configuration, it is not an AW. Registration does not magically make it an AW.

Yes, the serial number is "tainted" which would prevent the transfer to another person prior to de-registration, but upon disassembly, it would not be subject to AW transportation or possession laws.

All BB MSRs became AWs on January 1. Yes, it is an AW, even if you don't register it.

The DOJ did publish in these rules that if you decide not to register, you have until December 31 to make it featureless - and you don't have to register (and then de-register). Some had feared that would be required, but that isn't under the final rule.

But I read the rules as saying a lower with a BB that is a registered AW, remains a registered AW... even when separated. I don't like it, but that's how I read the final rule. We need DOJ clarity on that. I will add, there is another thread going onto that subject extensively.

[fuddle]

Some questions come to mind. I don't see where these regulations are law. They are not in the penal code. Are they proposed? Are they in effect? If they are in effect or go into effect, can you be cited/ arrested for violating something that is not a law? I do not know how regulations are used or enforced.

Furthermore, the newly worded 30515 is posted. It's really simple. So, there is no apparent reason we can't use a BB and 30rd mag, or install a regular button or do whatever else we want with our currently defined AWs. They are either AW by 30515 or they are not.

Here's something even more curious. Regulation 5471(m) says if you use a magnet in a BB it will be considered a "detachable magazine." However a BB without a magazine is also considered a detachable magazine. So are they trying to say that installing a magnet makes it "more detachable?"

What's cool is that between the proposed emergency regulations regarding large cap mags (which was dropped) and these regulations, we are getting free "opinion letters" from DOJ. That's pretty hard to do without an expensive lawyer. I will publish a complete write up on all these things, but for example, they have given us their opinion on what constitutes a flash hider, what's an acceptable method of reducing magazines to 10 rounds, and much more.

Whether these regs stick or not, we now have a written record of how they would like to apply the law. It will help us understand what they are looking and can then use these interpretation to ensure we stay on the right side of the law and out of their crosshairs.

As for the DOj reading this thread, I hope they do. Maybe they'll reorganize, retool, and come back with stuff that is more defined, more enforceable, more practical, and certainly clearer.

[God Bless America]

This was posted a few pages back and everyone is to busy squabbling over the damned bullet button to post a comment about what this guy posted...

Incoming President Trump issues the proper EO and AG Sessions goes after CA. Could it be this simple???

What "proper EO"?

What would the federal AG go after CA for?

[lrdchivalry]

DOJ won't see it that way though. They will (almost certainly) argue a violation of Rule 5477 immediately terminates your AW registration... thus leaving you in possession of an illegal AW.

And you might get a state judge at your felony pretrial hearing to declare Rule 5477 is illegal... but the DOJ will then appeal that determination all the way up to the state supreme court.

You don't want to open yourself up to that prosecution, so we need to challenge Rule 5477 (ideally, first in federal court as a 2A violation) before removing our BBs from our newly-minted AWs.

Based on what law? Even 5477 doesn't carry a penalty for violating its provision. We will definitely have to wait and see what happens.

I agree, it definitely needs to be challenged and from CDMichel's post in another thread it sounds like those challenges are already in the process.

[Shell]

For what?

He thinks Trump could issue an EO or Jeff Sessions could issue a directive to sue CA for SB 880 as a 2A violation. A pipe dream, isn't going to happen. But it might happen down the road if the state tries to mandate mag locks on featureless rifles... which is next.

[IVC]

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.

We agree on this. Not sure whether that addresses the previous disagreement, though.

[Shell]

Based on what law? Even 5477 doesn't carry a penalty for violating its provision. We will definitely have to wait and see what happens.

I agree, it definitely needs to be challenged and from CDMichel's post in another thread it sounds like those challenges are already in the process.

Violating a DOJ AW rule can result in immediate termination of your permit, sans any notice. Then you are violating the PC for being in possession of an illegal, registration-voided AW. That is how DOJ would prosecute you. Cops have been prosecuted in this manner, they know how to do it.

I hope you are right that Rule 5477 gets challenged. It needs to be, it is clearly illegal. But you don't want to be the potential felon on trial in a test case.

[IVC]

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

This is correct, it *adds* condition(s) for exemption. The exemption under 30680 doesn't depend on this, though, so satisfying it is sufficient to be immune from 30605. Do you agree?

[ifilef]

Some questions come to mind. I don't see where these regulations are law. They are not in the penal code. Are they proposed? Are they in effect? If they are in effect or go into effect, can you be cited/ arrested for violating something that is not a law? I do not know how regulations are used or enforced.

Furthermore, the newly worded 30515 is posted. It's really simple. So, there is no apparent reason we can't use a BB and 30rd mag, or install a regular button or do whatever else we want with our currently defined AWs. They are either AW by 30515 or they are not.

Here's something even more curious. Regulation 5471(m) says if you use a magnet in a BB it will be considered a "detachable magazine." However a BB without a magazine is also considered a detachable magazine. So are they trying to say that installing a magnet makes it "more detachable?"

What's cool is that between the proposed emergency regulations regarding large cap mags (which was dropped) and these regulations, we are getting free "opinion letters" from DOJ. That's pretty hard to do without an expensive lawyer. I will publish a complete write up on all these things, but for example, they have given us their opinion on what constitutes a flash hider, what's an acceptable method of reducing magazines to 10 rounds, and much more.

Whether these regs stick or not, we now have a written record of how they would like to apply the law. It will help us understand what they are looking and can then use these interpretation to ensure we stay on the right side of the law and out of their crosshairs.

As for the DOj reading this thread, I hope they do. Maybe they'll reorganize, retool, and come back with stuff that is more defined, more enforceable, more practical, and certainly clearer.

Bold underlined, above.

Read 5471(m) again quickly.

A magazine can not be readily removed when a BB is present on the firearm unless a tool is used to remove the magazine.

Thus, a BB is NOT a detachable magazine.

When you attach the magnet it is then considered a detachable magazine.

And it is not a fixed magazine. It is a BB Assault Weapon.

If it were characterized as a detachable magazine we would not be able to register it or keep it in its current configuration.

The best example of a detachable magazine would be a magazine release, which is a felony on SACF featured weapons, except those made RAWs back in 2000 or earlier. That was the last time one could lawfully possess a magazine release before firearm was characterized as an AW, and that is why the BB can NOT be removed this time around. Registration window for those weapons expired in 2000 or 2001.

See, also, 5472(b).

[Shell]

Read 5471(m) again. A BB is NOT a detachable magazine. When you attach the magnet it is then considered a detachable magazine.

Yeah, and that's where I thought the magnet was permitted, but Rule 5477 then makes it illegal to modify the BB permanently to detachable. Don't do it.

I am working on a tool that is affixed to the magazine via a boom arm, that creates a "tool" that doesn't touch the button, but allows you to easily eject (like a Slap Chop). That is now legal since it's an AW under this final rule.