MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

[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).

There is one more "tricky" issue. Even if 30680(b) is sticky, there is another explicit exemption based *only* on 30680(c):

Penal code 30675(c): "(c) 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." (30945 establishes transportation and locking requirements, but otherwise doesn't deal with definitions of AWs.)

The letter and intent of the law is that a *registration* is sufficient to exempt one from AW laws. In other words, legislation defined that the process is to register (where limitations apply), then use registration as the primary mechanism to determine exempt status so details don't have to be sorted out every time.

With this alone I can get registration any way DOJ wants and get to the point where I have registration papers in hand. I don't touch BB or anything else to keep DOJ happy (like SSE during 10 day wait period).

Now that I have a "registered AW," to claim I have no exemption under 30675(c) after removing BB would be to claim that I have a *different* AW INDEPENDENTLY from anything in 30680 - it would be to claim that ANY AW (including the SB 23) is illegally modified if one tinkers with the magazine release.

[danez71]

There is one more "tricky" issue. Even if 30680(b) is sticky, there is another explicit exemption based *only* on 30680(c):

Penal code 30675(c): "(c) 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." (30945 establishes transportation and locking requirements, but otherwise doesn't deal with definitions of AWs.)

The letter and intent of the law is that a *registration* is sufficient to exempt one from AW laws. In other words, legislation defined that the process is to register (where limitations apply), then use registration as the primary mechanism to determine exempt status so details don't have to be sorted out every time.

With this alone I can get registration any way DOJ wants and get to the point where I have registration papers in hand. I don't touch BB or anything else to keep DOJ happy (like SSE during 10 day wait period).

Now that I have a "registered AW," to claim I have no exemption under 30675(c) after removing BB would be to claim that I have a *different* AW INDEPENDENTLY from anything in 30680 - it would be to claim that ANY AW (including the SB 23) is illegally modified if one tinkers with the magazine release.

IVC,

with due respect.... WTH are you trying to accomplish?

Fabio has stated his opinion several times in several ways.


Why are you trying to change his mind.... What will it accomplish to change his mind?

[curtisfong]

IVC,
Why are you trying to change his mind.... What will it accomplish to change his mind?

It would be nice if FGG spent a tenth as much time critiquing the legislature and the DoJ's efforts as he does eviscerating people here.

[danez71]

To the unbelievers. if you want to see how ca.gov has gotten away with this stuff in the past and understand the weaselness they have successfully used,



Review



- When AG Lungren allowed registration of AW and was sued by Handgun Control Inc for not following the 'rules' of the law for the period of registration. The new AG, Lockyer, ended up loosing in court. The net result is that approx. 2000 rifles were REGISTERED and the Courts VOIDED those registrations. Those rifles were confiscated/turned in.


- SKS buy back fiasco because the DOJ changed their mind on the interpreting the definition.

https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/infobuls/200004.pdf

Again,
You're fooling yourself if you think the AG and DOJ don't work together in helping each other overstep.

[penguinman]

This is now reminding of a few thing such as

- When AG Lungren allowed registration of AW and was sued by Handgun Control Inc for not following the 'rules' of the law for the period of registration. The new AG, Lockyer, ended up loosing in court. The net result is that approx. 2000 rifles REGISTERED and the Courts voided those registrations. Those rifles were confiscated/turned in.

https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/infobuls/200004.pdf

I'm wondering if they are all working together to make this an encore in some fashion?

IOW - End up telling the owners of the newly converted featureless AR's etc rifles that they cant do that because of Kasler v. Lockyer case. Then revoking all of their registrations base on the Handgun Control Inc vs Lungren/Lockyer case).




Even if an encore isn't the goal....

You're fooling yourself if you think the AG and DOJ don't work together in helping each other overstep.

The difference here is the law is based on those features, not specific branding or "series" requirements. Besides, the "series" law got overturned already anyway. I'm hoping to be moved out of this state before 2018 but I still intend to fight this crap however I can.

[curtisfong]

To the unbelievers. if you want to see how ca.gov has gotten away with this stuff in the past and understand the weaselness they have successfully used,
....
Again,
You're fooling yourself if you think the AG and DOJ don't work together in helping each other overstep.

I don't think anybody disagrees with either of those statements.

[goog]

Glad to see this thread has devolved into another toxic, circular argument.

Question. If someone registers and then converts to featureless (using a grip fin and pinned stock) and the doj approved deregistration using photos, is that considered them approving grip fin and pinned stocks as legal?

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

IVC,

with due respect.... WTH are you trying to accomplish?

Fabio has stated his opinion several times in several ways.


Why are you trying to change his mind.... What will it accomplish to change his mind?

What you quoted from IVC is more chickensh*t, it pretends I haven't already directly addressed that issue.

[IVC]

How many times do I have to say it?

Once. That's good enough for me.

Anyway, we are done. The first few times you misstated my positions I let slide and just restated my position, but you've done it so many times it's obvious you are being deliberately obtuse and dishonest, it's a chickensh*t tactic.

You claimed on numerous occasions both that it wasn't lawfully possessed and that it was a different AW. When cornered with one, you moved to the other and vice versa.

Here are YOUR quotes (emphasis mine):

I've explained this before. The AW with standard mag release is not the AW with BB that you lawfully possessed prior to January 1, 2017, and it is not the AW with BB that you registered.

And yes I am claiming that if you remove the bullet button and install a standard mag release you now have an assault weapon that you did not lawfully possess prior to Jan 1 2017.

In fact if you waited until 2017 to install the standard mag release you did not possess that assault weapon at all prior to Jan 1 2017.

So let's play nice and you explain to the rest of us where you see the problem with 30680(b). Is it that I didn't lawfully possess it before 2017? Is it that it's a different AW? Both? What is your current story so we can figure out WHERE your interpretation is coming from.

[curtisfong]

What you quoted from IVC is more chickensh*t, it pretends I haven't already directly addressed that issue.

What approach should a legal challenge take?

[danez71]

It would be nice if FGG spent a tenth as much time critiquing the legislature and the DoJ's efforts as he does eviscerating people here.

No argument from me on that but when he gets asked the same question by the same handful of people 40-eleven times.... its gets old.



To you point though, I don't see him spend much time stating the most possible and probable ways to ways to challenge and overturn them and the bulk of his post seem to be defending or stating how iron clad the laws are.

[curtisfong]

To you point though, I don't see him spend much spending any time stating the most possible and probable ways to ways to challenge and overturn them and the bulk of his all of his posts seem to be defending or stating affirm with absolute certainty how iron clad the laws are.

Fixed it for you.

[ifilef]

I'd love to test this all in court someday, but you'd pretty much have to be arrested and tried for one or more felonies in the process. In this state, that probably also means convicted and serving time in the state pen while on appeal.

I don't think so. They can probably find standing and argue on the merits why a writ of prohibition or injunction should be issued preventing enforcement, however it is an esoteric area.

[curtisfong]

I don't think so. They can probably find standing and argue on the merits why a writ of prohibition or injunction should be issues preventing enforcement, however it is an esoteric area.

The problem is, the only sure fire way of getting standing is by getting convicted.

In CA (and all of the 9th, and just about all anti-gun circuits), standing has long been an issue for mounting any successful legal challenge based on the 2A.

There is a reason laws very rarely get struck down, in particular, 2A related laws, and in particular, CA.

Challenging standing is by far the easiest way for CA to deflect challenge. Low hanging fruit.

[IVC]

IVC,

with due respect.... WTH are you trying to accomplish?

Fabio has stated his opinion several times in several ways.

Why are you trying to change his mind.... What will it accomplish to change his mind?

I am certainly not trying to change his mind. I understand his opinion and it's a distinct possibility that a court would go along the same lines. That's just a reality of CA anti-2A courts.

The question we are trying to resolve is whether his interpretation is a stretch. If so, how much of a stretch. What are the lines of defense against an AW charge. Etc.

If you think it's futile to think about these things, you might also suggest FGG contact several attorneys who work for our side and who are preparing a lawsuit as we speak. A clear cut argument the way FGG is presenting it would imply we are all wasting time. Do you think it's that "clear cut?"