MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

[IVC]

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?

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?

Personally, I believe that to be true. However, I *explicitly* don't want to challenge the registration itself - I'll play by whatever rules DOJ decided, whether I think they are valid (consistent with the law) or not.

So, my "official" position would be that I don't know the answers to the above and, because of that, I *did* register my rifle the way DOJ wanted.

[gdt82]

Otherwise, apples n oranges. Different firearms, different laws, different registration windows, different 'privileges'.

Some here just can not or will not accept the train left the station long ago.

You are correct to say these are different firearms with different registration windows, but it is incorrect to say they are subject to different laws. They could have been, but the legislature chose to amend penal code 30515, not write an additional code. They could have just added a new penal code but they didn't. Amended penal code 30515 is now changed in such a way that AWs defined by features are identified by having a "non-fixed" magazine release. We all know bullet buttons are not the same as regular mag releases. But the new law has made them the same for identification purposes.

Some here are indeed naive. But most know exactly what is going on. We are having these thought experiments because there is legal precedent for the exact words in laws to have meaning. Why was all reference to muzzle brake regulation thrown out from the Safe Act in New York? Because the legislature spelled it muzzle "break", which doesn't exist. Everybody knew what it meant, but the judge said that words have meaning and because a muzzle "break" doesn't exist it can't be enforced. Sh-- happens.

[target_shot]

I'm sorry if I missed it...

Legal to convert a rifle, once registered as an AW, to a folding stock?

Is OAL measured from shortest firing config. (CA) or not (federal)?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[djhall]

Is Violence Policy Center the state legislature? Counsel for the public safety committee?

Since you are here, I am curious about the mechanism of prosecution for violating 5477 of the regs.

30675(c) says "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."

That seems to give a fairly across the board exception to 30605 for the registered owner of any assault weapon as long as they were possessing that firearm in accordance with Section 30945. The logical mechanism for prosecuting a violation of 5477 seems to be to claim your registration is invalid because you violated the terms and therefore you are not a registered owner under 30675(c) and therefore eligible to be prosecuted for violation of 30605.

Does that sound right? If so, do you know anything about processes or precedent for invalidating registrations after the fact?

[nicky c]

Is Violence Policy Center the state legislature? Counsel for the public safety committee?

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/sen/sb_0851-0900/sb_880_cfa_20160613_093432_asm_comm.html

Page 8

I read it somewhere else but haven't found it yet.

[God Bless America]

I don't claim they are anything. If the DOJ wants to charge someone, *they* will have to *prove* that the two are "different."

Can you prove the two are different? Use the same rigor you used when you claimed I couldn't say they were the same.

Not sure what you mean by rigor, but I will bet I cannot prove it to your satisfaction.

[curtisfong]

Is Violence Policy Center the state legislature? Counsel for the public safety committee?

The VPC definitely dictates ATF policy

https://www.reddit.com/r/Firearms/comments/5kxqtx/maybe_we_can_still_get_an_ffl_without_being_in/

The ATF loves the VPC.

They'd probably give you the same treatment if you sent them your record of staunch, unflinching advocacy for the DoJ, the 9th circuit (when they disagree with the NRA), and the CA Legislature.

[IVC]

Is OAL measured from shortest firing config. (CA) or not (federal)?

Both. In this case CA is more restrictive, so that's the one you are concerned with. Folding stock is an SBR issue, not AW issue.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

That doesn't change the fact that the legislature quoted them which means we can infer their intent. And that is that they view the standard mag release and bullet button the same.

If legislative counsel analyzed what SB 880 actually does, in a bill analysis in the legislative history, we can infer legislative intent from that, wouldn't you agree?

[IVC]

Not sure what you mean by rigor, but I will bet I cannot prove it to your satisfaction.

That's the problem for the DOJ that we are trying to figure out.

[Smedkcuf]

Both. In this case CA is more restrictive, so that's the one you are concerned with. Folding stock is an SBR issue, not AW issue.

A rifle with a folding stock isn't automatically an SBR, it is only if the overall length is under 26". The Scar 17S length to the end of the barrel with the stock folded is 26.25" if I'm correct, which would be allowed now.

[Discogodfather]

I'm sorry if I missed it...

Legal to convert a rifle, once registered as an AW, to a folding stock?

Is OAL measured from shortest firing config. (CA) or not (federal)?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, and its a big thing. As long as its at least 26 inches folded and makes that length without counting a non permanent muzzle device then yes. With a permanent muzzle device you can count it in the length.

Another thing for you teenage litigators: have you thought about the implications of the new OAL requirements and how that effects:

(1) Featureless rifles
(2) Previous rifles that where registered as RAW

Seems like DOJ has just made tens and thousands if not hundreds of thousands of new felons.

Case and point: I bought a featureless rifle last year and it only measures 29" sans the muzzle device which is screwed on. I AM CURRENTLY A FELON

Case and point: I registered my rigle as RAW in 2000 and it only measures 25.5" without the non permanent muzzle device, I AM CURRENTLY A FELON.

Can we collectively wake up here?

[target_shot]

A rifle with a folding stock isn't automatically an SBR, it is only if the overall length is under 26". The Scar 17S length to the end of the barrel with the stock folded is 26.25" if I'm correct, which would be allowed now.

This makes more sense....

So folding (so long as OAL is >26") is legal?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Diabolus]

Wow, what an absolute mess this has all become.

Think any gang bangers or terrorists are losing sleep over this?

[Smedkcuf]

If legislative counsel analyzed what SB 880 actually does, in a bill analysis in the legislative history, we can infer legislative intent from that, wouldn't you agree?

Except they did say the same thing in the analysis...

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB880

Read page 6 from 05/18/16- Senate Floor Analyses, and page 5 from 06/13/16- Assembly Public Safety.