MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

[IVC]

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."

The definition of AW, PC 30515 says (among other things):

Since both devices operate without disassembly of the magazine (per NEW wording), they are the same.

QED.

[meno377]

Read 5471(m) again. 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 on 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.

It is a detachable magazine because it doesn't require you to open the action to eject.

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.

(b) (1) Any person who, from January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2016, inclusive, lawfully possessed an assault weapon that does not have a fixed magazine, as defined in Section 30515, including those weapons with an ammunition feeding device that can be readily removed from the firearm with the use of a tool, shall register the firearm before January 1, 2018, but not before the effective date of the regulations adopted pursuant to paragraph (5), with the department pursuant to those procedures that the department may establish by regulation pursuant to paragraph (5).

BB rifles manufactured between 2007 - 2017 fall into this category.

[IVC]

..., but Rule 5477 then makes it illegal ...

Can we at least agree that rules don't make anything illegal so we drop this incorrect language from the debate?

[Shell]

Can we at least agree that rules don't make anything illegal so we drop this incorrect language from the debate?

Heck no. If you notice aside from you, FGG, and ifilef, pretty much everyone agrees that Rule 5477 is the only thing that makes it illegal to remove the BB from your AW. Since, that rule is the only thing that could result in the DOJ charging you for voiding your AW registration - leaving you in possession of an illegal, non-registered AW.

If the Legislature wanted to make a new class of AW, they could have, with as little as a single sentence. I already posted that several pages ago.

And it looks like gun rights attorneys will be attacking Rule 5477 as illegal. So, no.

This debate was hashed out about 17 pages ago. I would encourage you to review.

[IVC]

Violating a DOJ AW rule can result in immediate termination of your permit, sans any notice.

You REALLY have to stop with this nonsense. There is no such thing as "termination of permit." There isn't even any "permit" and there is no way to either issue or terminate it.

It's confusing as it is without throwing in random claims.

[Shell]

You REALLY have to stop with this nonsense. There is no such thing as "termination of permit." There isn't even any "permit" and there is no way to either issue or terminate it.

It's confusing as it is without throwing in random claims.

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. I read all 20 pages before stepping into this thread, and numerous people agree with me. Go back, read the discussion around page 30.

I'm not backing down from it, and will not as this discussion continues.

If you want to risk losing your AW registration, by violating Rule 5477 and removing the BB, go right ahead. When the DOJ charges you with having an illegal, de-registered AW, I'll be sure to monitor your felony trial.

[lrdchivalry]

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.

They can only terminate the registration if it's codified in the PC, such as, a violation of this statute will result in the termination of subject's AW registration if release mechanism is removed from the rifle, then the subject can be arrested and charged with possession.

They have to have the legal authority to cancel someone's AW registration, where do they get that? The PC. If a regulation carries a penalty its because there is a corresponding PC that authorizes it. They cannot issue a punishment, i.e. cancelled registration, then prosecute for an unregistered AW when there is no punishment/penalty in the PC to allow it.

[IVC]

Hmm.. Crap. As I compile this list I'm starting to see your point, although from a slightly different angle.

Don't forget that the 30680 provides a mechanism for exemption from 30605 by itself, so no need to look into 30675 unless it helps in some way.

[Shell]

They can only terminate the registration if it's codified in the PC, such as, a violation of this statute will result in the termination of subject's AW registration if release mechanism is removed from the rifle, then the subject can be arrested and charged with possession.

They have to have the legal authority to cancel someone's AW registration, where do they get that? The PC. If a regulation carries a penalty its because there is a corresponding PC that authorizes it. They cannot issue a punishment, i.e. cancelled registration, then prosecute for an unregistered AW when there is no punishment/penalty in the PC to allow it.

Where does the PC say that violating a DOJ Rule doesn't constitute revocation of the AW permit? Because, people have been charged for doing just that, such as DOJ rules involving gas cylinders on certain rifles and shotguns.

DOJ sees their legal authority different from you and I. Rule 5477 is illegal, and ridiculous. Doesn't mean DOJ won't prosecute you for possession of an illegal AW as a result.

[thurman]

Wow reading this thread makes me think I made the right decision to sell most of my rifles. I registered quite a few back in 1999 so I'm good there. I guess the 3 with BB's I have will either be put into featureless configuration or I'll ship them to my other home in Texas. Ca. Has lost its dam mind in my opinion

[ifilef]

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.

I will check out the video but sorry- there may exist some doubt whether one can affix such a tool to the magazine well or the magazine already in the rifle.

You can't possess an AW, registered or not, with a detachable magazine this time around.

You may need to keep that tool off the rifle. IDK.

[Blade Gunner]

[QUOTE=djhall;19431549]

I wish we could file a 2A challenge to that statement. The legitimate reasons for protecting the private ownership of firearms is "hunting, target practice, sports, and recreation?"

The second amendment wasn't written to protect hunting.

[gdt82]

It is a detachable magazine because it doesn't require you to open the action to eject.





BB rifles manufactured between 2007 - 2016 fall into this category.

Actually that's not true either. You just described the definition of "not fixed" in the penal code (and DOJ regulations). A "fixed" magazine requires the action to be disassembled to remove. So a bullet button is not-fixed (according to law) but it also "not-detachable" (per DOJ regulations).

[Shell]

Wow reading this thread makes me think I made the right decision to sell most of my rifles. I registered quite a few back in 1999 so I'm good there. I guess the 3 with BB's I have will either be put into featureless configuration or I'll ship them to my other home in Texas. Ca. Has lost its dam mind in my opinion

There is a simple safe option, leave the BB on, register it as an AW, and grab some popcorn as the legal challenges to Rule 5477 play out.

If we lose, then convert to featureless and de-register. If we win, remove the BB and enjoy.

Personally, I fear mag locks on featureless (sans the option to register as an AW, since they have no evil features). So I'm happily registering one of my AR-15s, and making one featureless.

[Shell]

I will check out the video but sorry- I have my doubts if one can affix such a tool to the magazine.

The DOJ final rule on AW bullet buttons clearly says you can have a tool on the magazine... now that it is an AW. It just cannot seal to the BB or use a magnet.

Go read the DOJ AW final rule definitions on a valid BB tool.

A boom arm, extending from the magazine, leaving an eject tool centimeters away from the BB, satisfies the DOJ's final rule. It is a loophole, but a good one.