MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

[djhall]

Are you saying there are no "categories" of AW?

Did any other "closing of a loophole" isolate a configuration, ban it, allow registration within a specified period time, after which time possession was prohibited if not timely registered?

I think people are saying that there have been categories of when and why certain firearms had to be registered as AWs, but these categories have never restricted those weapons to/from any specific AW characteristics. Of course, nothing exactly like this has been done before either.

Category 1 and Category 2 AWs were defined by manufacturer make and model. You can't change those characteristics of a firearm, so it wasn't possible for Category 3 AWs to add Category 1 or 2 characteristics. Changing specific Category 3 sub-definitions would be closer, but I think we can get even closer than that. What if we consider going the other direction?

Say someone owns a registered Colt AR15 which is a Category 1 assault weapon. Could that person today install a semiautomatic tube fed upper and legally possess a semiautomatic shotgun with a telescoping stock and a pistol grip? That would qualify as an assault weapon under Category 3 definitions and therefore require the firearm to be a registered assault weapon. The firearm is a registered assault weapon due to the registration as such during the Category 1 window, so theoretically this should be legal.

Or has this kind of thing already been attempted, litigated, and determined to be improperly registered and we just don't know it?

[Smedkcuf]

Not true. Can you paste the wording you are referring to?

Right here:

does not have a fixed magazine but has any one of the following:
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
(B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) A forward pistol grip.

[nicky c]

Bullet button is neither detachable nor fixed, the only thing that is certain is that it is "not fixed". And that's all that matters anyway according to 30515.

Yes the new regs state that it's not fixed; yet the only definitions available to us are fixed or non-fixed per both the legislature and the DOJ CCR's. No two ways about it at this point in time.

[nicky c]

Posted this earlier, but I just can't stop thinking how dumb this is:

Bullet Button = Detachable magazine
Standard mag release = Detachable magazine
No mag release = Detachable magazine


I want to see the DOJ keep a straight face when the judge asks for an explanation.

I'm going to revise this then, then we can stop being obtuse about it.

Bullet Button = non-fixed magazine
Standard mag release = non-fixed magazine
No mag release = non-fixed magazine

Better??

[meno377]

Right here:

And what does that mean? Non fixed magazine. It's not a new classification. It's not between a detachable vs non detachable. Detachable and non fixed are the same. Non detachable and fixed are the same.

[Smedkcuf]

And what does that mean? Non fixed magazine. It's not a new classification. It's not between a detachable vs non detachable. Detachable and non fixed are the same.

Detachable means not fixed, but not fixed doesn't necessarily mean detachable. So they are not the same but as I already mentioned, it's irrelevant since the law only refers to fixed and not fixed. Not fixed means anything that isn't defined as fixed. It's really that simple. And here is the definition for that:

p) "Fixed magazine" means an ammunition feeding device contained in, or permanently attached to, a firearm in such a manner that the device cannot be removed without disassembly of the firearm action.

[Hudson]

50 plus pages of trying to make sense of unbelievably convoluted liberal mental insanity.

Gun laws in Cali are so convoluted now I swear they are a look into the absolutely bizarre minds of leftist progressive democrats.
And should be shown as a shining example of what happens when people who are afraid of their own shadows and have nothing better to do are allowed the power to write laws with zero accountability to who those laws affect..

Its time to petition for a redress of grievances to the feds and have them tell Cali DOJ that the fed laws concerning firearms are the law of the land for all 50 states and any politicians trying to enforce any other laws concerning them will be arrested on sight, end of discussion.

[meno377]

Detachable means not fixed, but not fixed doesn't necessarily mean detachable. So they are not the same but as I already mentioned, it's irrelevant since the law only refers to fixed and not fixed. Not fixed means anything that isn't defined as fixed. It's really that simple.

With all due respect I can't trust your judgement considering what went down regarding featureless a few weeks ago. What you just said here doesn't make sense.

[Cokebottle]

Not true. Can you paste the wording you are referring to?

The new wording of the statute has been changed from "able to accept a detachable magazine" to "does not have a fixed magazine"

And in light of their new definitions, this provides yet another avenue for legal challenge.
By defining an AW as a (featured) SACF rifle that "does not have a fixed magazine" they have, through their new definitions, ALSO defined (featured) SACF rifles with a permanent magazine as AWs.

[Franz Maurer]

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.

on page 9 of the 05/18/16 document it states that opposed to all this (among a few typical organizations) was " One Individual "

yup

One Individual

[Smedkcuf]

With all due respect I can't trust your judgement considering what went down regarding featureless a few weeks ago. What you just said here doesn't make sense.

What part doesn't make sense?

[meno377]

Detachable means not fixed, but not fixed doesn't necessarily mean detachable. So they are not the same but as I already mentioned, it's irrelevant since the law only refers to fixed and not fixed. Not fixed means anything that isn't defined as fixed. It's really that simple. And here is the definition for that:

In bold.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

What I am registering belongs to PRECISELY the narrow group of AWs that the legislature wanted to isolate for ban.

The narrow group of AWs that SB 880 isolates is AWs with bullet buttons, and it limits registration to that narrow group. It does not re-open registration for SB 23 AWs; it does however preserve their status as previously prohibited/banned. SB 880 respects and codifies the category-defying character of AWs with bullet buttons as "not fixed, not detachable"; they did not and do not have the "capacity to accept a detachable magazine" that SB 23 AWs do.

It's the other side that must show why they believe BB makes any difference on my AW when the legislators just explicitly told them it was a loophole and that the BB is as bad as any other mechanism for swapping magazines.

It's your side that must have a coherent explanation why you should end up with a registered AW in a previously prohibited configuration, when the registration window for that AW closed in 2001, and was not re-opened now. "Legislature says BB is just as bad so I can change mag releases" is an argument that SB 880 deliberately limits registration to AWs with BBs on the one hand, and on the other hand says "our limiting registration to AWs with BBs is a meaningless exercise, go ahead and and change mags after you register because our 'singular concept' of assault weapon allows you to do that!" You could not have a worse argument for statutory interpretation.

[ifilef]

Keep in mind that hundreds of thousands of people bought AR-15s because we took the legislature at its word, and the plain text of the bill (aside from a few dissenters). We didn't expect that DOJ would craft new law with Rule 5477 out of thin air, illegally.

So yes, there is 100x more focus on BBs... but for good reason. Plus, a lot of people just don't like/want/need folding stocks, or care about length - but do care about a constant... the time it takes to eject a magazine. Which one is going to matter more in a home defense scenario?

Why do you continuously state that 5477 was created out of thin air or has no support in the Penal Code?

DOJ cites 30900 as the relevant authority for the regulation.

30900(b)(1) states in relevant part:
"(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,

Lawfully possessed.

A SACF featured with magazine release would not have been lawfully possessed (felony) during the above-referenced period so it is not eligible for registration as an AW, and it certainly can not be possessed after one registered their BB weapon in 2017, which had been lawfully possessed prior thereto.

One can't change the original lawful configuration to an unlawful one not registrable in the first place. That would be absurd. One would also be committing a felony by so doing.

You want confirmation? There's your confirmation!

And it's but one justification for creation of the registration section 5477 prohibiting a change to the original BB'd configuration post-registration.

The concept is not all that difficult to comprehend.

People seem to confuse registration as an 'open door' to do whatever one wants. All that registration permits you to do is be able to possess a BB weapon prior to its designation as an AW into the future with impunity in its original BB configuration.

You don't get a prize for doing so, you don't get a reward. The only prize or reward you receive (if you want to call it that) is that you can continue to possess and shoot in the original non-fixed magazine BB configuration and not get prosecuted for it.

After all, sales, purchases, etc. of BB'd SACF featured rifles are now BANNED.

[Shadowdrop]

Two things:

The wording "able to accept a detachable magazine" is new and it moves the goalposts. A BB 2.0 rifle would technically fall into this category, no? It used to be all about how the mag detached, not a rifle's ability to accept a mag.

Two: The new measuring method makes for an interesting scenario. A featureless rifle that only reaches 30" with a muzzle device is now an AW. It fulfills the 3 requirements of registration, no? even though the legislation said nothing of length, these should be eligible for registration. Seems like an underground regulation, at least more than anything else we've discussed.