MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

SB 880 very effectively maintains the status quo for SB 23 non-compliant AWs. If the AW would have been non-compliant prior to January 1, 2017 (because it has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine), the AW is non-compliant now and may not be lawfully possessed per PC 300605 and 30680(b) and (c). Current configuration matters the same way it mattered post SB 23 and pre January 1, 2017.

[ifilef]

The authority is it's not illegal.

Do you know how the law works? It's a blacklist of things you cant do , not a whitelist of things you can do.


If a thing isn't illegal, it's legal.

Stop spreading around false information about the laws.

[Nor*Cal]

Does the below DOJ regulation apply to a RAW? Meaning, if we register an assault weapon, can we bypass the RAW transportation rules by splitting an AR style riffle or pistol?

Or, once it's a RAW, always a RAW unless de-registered?

(3) With regards to an AR-15 style firearm if a complete upper receiver and a complete lower receiver are completely detached from one another, but still in the possession or under the custody or control of the same person the firearm is not a semiautomatic firearm.

[ifilef]

The authority is it's not illegal.

Do you know how the law works? It's a blacklist of things you cant do , not a whitelist of things you can do.


If a thing isn't illegal, it's legal.

I think I have an idea of how it works. And it's a list of many things one can do as well, they are known as exceptions and exemptions, and things expressly stated to be lawful or acceptable in the statute or regulation..5470, 5472, PC 16740, just about every statute re Dangerous Weapons in our area lists the many exceptions and exemptions thereto.

And cut out the banal platitudes.

The law is not black and white. Much of it is subject to interpretation due to ambiguity and people's lack of reading comprehension! And it's all based upon stare decisis if there's case law in addition to statutes and the common law.

A fact situation may dictate a different result under the same statute with just one slight nuance. That's why the law libraries are so full with case law.

[Sousuke]

I think I have an idea of how it works. And it's a list of many things one can do as well, they are known as exceptions and exemptions.

And cut out the platitudes.

The law is not black and white. Much of it is subject to interpretation due to ambiguity and people's reading comprehension, for instance, among many other things.

The more vague it is the more successfully it can be challenged.

[jcwatchdog]

Please cite authority for the portion in bold.

Why would I need to cite something to tell me that it's legal to do? There is nothing in the PC that says I can't modify anything, just in the doj regulations which don't have PC to back them up.

[jcwatchdog]

So it's a distinction with a difference?

If they are different, then they are not the same.

And the reason they cannot be changed is the law - DOJ has said so.

You are interpreting the PC, they can too.

They are the same functionally. Both are removable magazines and both count as such or BB rifles could still be sold since BB would still be considered permanently fixed/not removable.

[jcwatchdog]

SB 880 very effectively maintains the status quo for SB 23 non-compliant AWs. If the AW would have been non-compliant prior to January 1, 2017 (because it has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine), the AW is non-compliant now and may not be lawfully possessed per PC 300605 and 30680(b) and (c). Current configuration matters the same way it mattered post SB 23 and pre January 1, 2017.

But the current configuration has to do with registration only. Once registered, that's the end of the PC, and the start of the doj regulations that don't have any PC to back them up. Once registered, it no longer is just an unregistered AW that is eligible to be registered. It is now an AW as defined in the PC.

[jcwatchdog]

Does the below DOJ regulation apply to a RAW? Meaning, if we register an assault weapon, can we bypass the RAW transportation rules by splitting an AR style riffle or pistol?

Or, once it's a RAW, always a RAW unless de-registered?

(3) With regards to an AR-15 style firearm if a complete upper receiver and a complete lower receiver are completely detached from one another, but still in the possession or under the custody or control of the same person the firearm is not a semiautomatic firearm.

This brings up a good point. These regulations were meant for registration only, not defining AWs or changing transportation requirements. That's already in the PC and will not change. If you split a registered AW in two and just toss it into the trunk without a locked container, you are still breaking the law according to the PC. Who cares what the doj regulations say. They were supposed to be for registration only, and instead they thought they'd get cute and throw in some modification and additions to the PC.

[ifilef]

SB 880 very effectively maintains the status quo for SB 23 non-compliant AWs. If the AW would have been non-compliant prior to January 1, 2017 (because it has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine), the AW is non-compliant now and may not be lawfully possessed per PC 300605 and 30680(b) and (c). Current configuration matters the same way it mattered post SB 23 and pre January 1, 2017.

Yes, you are basically referencing 30900, which is the primary authority cited by DOJ in support of regulation 5477. I agree with you completely.

It's important to read below each regulation the authority DOJ relied upon in adopting it. Take it from there, don't accept it as a necessarily accurate view but at least read the statute and try to understand if the regulation is supported by that PC section. It's a starting point, instead of people making completely irresponsible statements that there's no support for a given regulation in the Penal Code.

Argue 30900 as not applicable instead of stating DOJ 'pulled it out of thin air' in order to adopt 5477. That's no argument and leads one to believe the person is using rhetoric or hyperbole in order to distract from the legal issues. Weak, indeed.

[Sousuke]

Yes, you are basically referencing 30900, which is the primary authority cited by DOJ in support of regulation 5477. I agree with you completely.

It's important to read below each regulation the authority DOJ relied upon in adopting it. Take it from there, don't accept it as a necessarily accurate view but at least read the statute and try to understand if the regulation is supported by it It's a starting point instead of people making completely irresponsible statements that there's no support for a given regulation in the Penal Code.

Argue 30900 as not applicable instead of stating DOJ pulled it out of thin air in order to adopt 5477. That's no argument and leads one to believe the person is using hyperbole in order to distract from the legal issues.

Just an FYI
Some of us believe 30900 is still met if you change a part of the firearm in 2018 and that the firearm doesn't change in to a "different" assault weapon from its 2016 status as a result.

[curtisfong]

Just an FYI
Some of us believe 30900 is still met if you change a part of the firearm in 2018 and that the firearm doesn't change in to a "different" assault weapon from its 2016 status as a result.

Agreed the problem is what "different" means.

Historically, it has always meant the serialized part; all other parts can be changed in and out, and it is the SAME firearm, regardless of the legality of those parts (short barrel, auto sear, etc.)

This law, however, sets a brand new precedent for what "different" means.

There is nothing preventing the DoJ from doing whatever it wants in that regard.

[Crazed_SS]

I think I have an idea of how it works.

Agree to disagree on this point.

And it's a list of many things one can do as well, they are known as exceptions and exemptions, and things expressly stated to be lawful or acceptable in the statute or regulation..5470, 5472, PC 16740, just about every statute re Dangerous Weapons in our area lists the many exceptions and exemptions thereto.

And cut out the banal platitudes.

The law is not black and white. Much of it is subject to interpretation due to ambiguity and people's lack of reading comprehension! And it's all based upon stare decisis if there's case law in addition to statutes and the common law.

A fact situation may dictate a different result under the same statute with just one slight nuance. That's why the law libraries are so full with case law.

Yes... exceptions to restrictions codified in the law.

Since there is no law that says a RAW must stay in its registered configuration, you're not going to find an exemption to that non-existent law that states it's OK to change the stock or pistol grip or any other parts.

[IVC]

Post-registration AW with standard mag release:

1. Are you within the terms of the "except as provided in this chapter" provision? No. PC 30680(b), (c).

Let's start with PC 30680(c): "(c) The person registers the assault weapon by January 1, 2018, in accordance with subdivision (b) of Section 30900."

30900(b):

(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).

Did I lawfully posses AN assault weapon that does not have a fixed magazine? (I am assuming you are not making an issue of (b)(2)-(b)(5).)

[ifilef]

Just an FYI
Some of us believe 30900 is still met if you change a part of the firearm in 2018 and that the firearm doesn't change in to a "different" assault weapon from its 2016 status as a result.

I can see the argument for changing a so-called 'evil feature' (which concerns cosmetic changes) but into a weapon not lawfully possessed, a felony prior to 1/1/2017, and a felony now? That is disconcerting to say the least.

Thinking one can get away with it post-registration in 2017/2018 is not only illogical, it is absurd.