MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

[Shell]

Some people have suggested registering with a bb and then de-registering and making it featureless if the courts won't let you take off the bb.

My question: If you register with a bb on and then de-register after making it featureless, would you be able to re-register it if they make a new law which requires registration for featureless?

I thought once you de-registered your AW, you couldn't register it as an AW again. Any thoughts?

Not necessarily. The AW registration is for evil features. Featureless rifles don't have evil features.

It depends on how Newsom wants to do it.

[meno377]

Some people have suggested registering with a bb and then de-registering and making it featureless if the courts won't let you take off the bb.

My question: If you register with a bb on and then de-register after making it featureless, would you be able to re-register it if they make a new law which requires registration for featureless?

I thought once you de-registered your AW, you couldn't register it as an AW again. Any thoughts?

You can't from what I understand.

[God Bless America]

The legislative intent is that they are the same, and they said so themselves:



The words "without a difference" means they are the same.

A "distinction without a difference" is a legal term of art, which does not mean two things are the same. Close, but distinct from each other still. Can't use half of a maxim. Also, they didn't say it was "the same."

Interesting, but that's not in the PC, which is said by some to "say they are the same." It's in the legislative history. Still interesting though.

[IVC]

The difference can be found between those possessed 2001-2016, and those possessed prior. If there was no difference, then there was no reason to specify 2001-2016.

When penal code says "AW" it means "per current definition of AW" (which is also in the penal code). There is no distinction in the part of penal code that defines AW.

What you are referencing does NOT define AW.

[nicky c]

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.

By final rule, you're referring to the second paragraph of CCR 5471 (m)?

I can't figure out why they felt a need to declare that an AR15 lacking a magazine catch assembly still constitutes a detachable magazine.

[IVC]

My question: If you register with a bb on and then de-register after making it featureless, would you be able to re-register it if they make a new law which requires registration for featureless?

Past 2017 - No. Registration window closes on 12/31/17 and that's it.

[Cokebottle]

Guess what else was not lawful to possess prior to January 1st?

A grenade launcher or flare launcher.

Still illegal as a Destructive Device.
Why it was ever added to the AWB is a mystery, as it is redundant.

A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.

Yet I don't see you running around telling us we cannot do the above after registering as assault weapons.

Actually there is a fair amount of speculation that you will be able to remove the fake cans from registered Bullpup builds.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

Correctly interpreted, SB 880 allows you to register an AW with a standard mag release so long as the AW was configured with a BB prior to January 1, 2017, right?

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.

Correctly interpreted, the registration window opened by SB 880 was not limited to registration of an "additional tier of AW's" i.e. "BB assault weapon", right?

[IVC]

I can't figure out why they felt a need to declare that an AR15 lacking a magazine catch assembly still constitutes a detachable magazine.

Without magazine catch you can make a rifle where you slide the magazine in and out without pressing any buttons, so you could have a BB rifle where you could change magazines without operating the release.

Once your new AW status stops prohibiting detachable magazine, the DOJ is in panic that you'll be able to change your magazines. This wasn't an issue before since bypassing BB would create a detachable magazine which would create an AW. Now that you have an AW, bypassing BB doesn't create any problems, so they are trying to cram it into regulation...

[Cokebottle]

Are you relying on the words 'magnet left on the BB' in 5471(m) as constituting a detached magazine, and taking it literally?

IDK, you may be correct. I base some of my reasoning on past understandings re the magnet devices, and not to keep attached to the firearm in any manner.

But the regulation 5471(m) I would agree does state and one could infer that so long as it is not left on the BB itself, one might be okay.

Why could a magnet NOT be used if it is not attached to the BB? Why the need for your 'eject tool'?

That's something to ponder. Maybe your method is faster.

The whole thing about the tool being attached to the rifle (other than the Mag Magnet, everyone was pretty confident about that) was a matter of playing it safe.

The logic was that if something was attached to the gun (perhaps by a lanyard) that it became a part of the rifle and ceased to be a "tool".
There has never been any case law on this issue.

Some were even going so far so as to say that a GPick worn on the middle finger, or a glove with a stud built into the fingertip was an illegal extension of your body such as a prosthetic.

[Smedkcuf]

By final rule, you're referring to the second paragraph of CCR 5471 (m)?

I can't figure out why they felt a need to declare that an AR15 lacking a magazine catch assembly still constitutes a detachable magazine.

Right, it can't be "detachable" if it isn't attachable in the first place.

[djhall]

The difference can be found between those possessed 2001-2016, and those possessed prior. If there was no difference, then there was no reason to specify 2001-2016.

Not specifying 2001-2016 would have reopened registration for people who possess banned by name assault weapons and chose not to register them previously. Those weapons were never legally possessed between 2001-2016. Simply saying "possessed prior to 1/1/17" would someone to claim they legally owned a Colt AR15 in 1998 and therefore are eligible to register it this year even though they didn't register during the registration windows for those weapons. Offering them a second registration chance serves no compelling government interest since they "voluntarily" chose not to register and therefore "voluntarily" chose to make their gun illegal.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

The legislative intent is that they are the same, and they said so themselves:



The words "without a difference" means they are the same.

Who actually said "distinction without a difference"?

[Smedkcuf]

The whole thing about the tool being attached to the rifle (other than the Mag Magnet, everyone was pretty confident about that) was a matter of playing it safe.

The logic was that if something was attached to the gun (perhaps by a lanyard) that it became a part of the rifle and ceased to be a "tool".
There has never been any case law on this issue.

Some were even going so far so as to say that a GPick worn on the middle finger, or a glove with a stud built into the fingertip was an illegal extension of your body such as a prosthetic.

This makes me think about another scenaio regarding pistol grips. Since they are defined as:

(z) "Pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon" means a grip that allows for a pistol stye grasp in which the web of the trigger hand (between the thumb and index finger can be placed beneath or below the top of the exposed portion of the trigger while firing. This definition includes pistol gips on bullpup firearm designs.

What would this mean for someone who does not have any thumbs? Would they be able to have a pistol grip on the rifle and it not be considered an AW feature?

[ifilef]

Correctly interpreted, SB 880 allows you to register an AW with a standard mag release so long as the AW was configured with a BB prior to January 1, 2017, right?
...

I am through with this issue. If they don't get it by now they will never get it, FGG.

If they're smart they'll just wait and see if there's a court case, and await the outcome, which is relatively easy to predict, and continue to live with the BB into eternity or convert to featureless before end of the year.