MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

When cornered with one, you moved to the other and vice versa.

More chickensh*t. To repeat myself, again, we're done.

[danez71]

Fixed it for you.

LOL... not much of an argument from me on that either. In fact, my 1st draft was pretty similar to your 'fix'.

What approach should a legal challenge take?

That's what should be asked of Fabio.

[IVC]

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.

Have you noticed that he hasn't ONCE answered the details of why 30680(b) would be violated if one removed BB post-registration?

This is not a question that is being asked, this is asking for proof of an assertion. Saying "you didn't posses" or "it wasn't legal" is an assertion. It's an opinion. Now we have to figure out how to support this based on penal code.

[IVC]

More chickensh*t. To repeat myself, again, we're done.

I posted your quotes. They contain very specific assertions.

Can we at least agree that those were your posts and that the opinions expressed in them are yours?

[IVC]

What approach should a legal challenge take?

That's what should be asked of Fabio.

According to FGG it cannot be done. That's the whole point of his unyielding position on (lack of) shakiness of any of his arguments.

We'll see the actual lawsuits as they come out. They will raise some of the issues. A good attorney would be well aware in advance of what those issues will be. A great attorney would have answered those issues in advance. According to FGG, there are no issues to be raised.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

Have you noticed that he hasn't ONCE answered the details of why 30680(b) would be violated if one removed BB post-registration?

Still more chickensh*t.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

According to FGG it cannot be done. That's the whole point of his unyielding position on (lack of) shakiness of any of his arguments.

We'll see the actual lawsuits as they come out. They will raise some of the issues. A good attorney would be well aware in advance of what those issues will be. A great attorney would have answered those issues in advance. According to FGG, there are no issues to be raised.

Do you have a mental disorder? Everything you claim about my position(s) is chickensh*t.

[danez71]

Once. That's good enough for me.



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):







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.

Again... WTH does it matter "WHERE his interpretation is coming from"?!?!?!?


Fabio is basically saying it aint gunna fly. He has stated his reasons over and over and oooover.


Differences in his answers is not really relevant because........Fabio is NOT the prosecutor, judge, and jury all wrapped into one damn sexy internet avatar.


The registration aint gunna save your butt after the BB has been removed if this is allowed to stand. The Regs need to go now, before someone goes to jail


Its not like if you change his mind you, or anyone else ,wins their rights back. In fact, you wont even win a participation trophy.


The fact is.....CA has yanked the registration before because there was a element of the registration that made it voidable. Call it what ever you want... that was/is net result.

It wasn't in the PC... a judge ruled it just as they likely will if you remove the BB.

Their exact reasoning irrelevant. They did it and it wasn't in the PC.

They will do it again regardless of the PC.


Fabio further attempts to explain his guess as to what exact words a future judge will use is pointless.






I'd like to hear from Fabio what he thinks is the right way to challenge it. How can the Regs be tossed?

[tiki]

So when is the time to discuss what they did miss or opened the door? I think some have figured it out or at least getting close.

Yes, there are holes in the current scheme. Don't discuss them yet. It's too early. Let this crap get published first.

[IVC]

The registration aint gunna save your butt after the BB has been removed if this is allowed to stand. The Regs need to go now, before someone goes to jail

The fact is.....CA has yanked the registration before because there was a element of the registration that made it voidable. Call it what ever you want... that was/is net result.

You wrote down two hypotheses a hypothesis as "facts" - that's the problem with this thread. Those are not facts.

Anyhow, I'll take a short break from this thread to tend to some other aspects of my chickensh*t life.

EDIT: Misread the second paragraph. Also back from my chikensh*t break.

[goog]

You all should seriously consider closing this thread and avoiding all discussion until the regs are officially published. This is literally the best thing we all can do.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

I'd like to hear from Fabio what he thinks is the right way to challenge it. How can the Regs be tossed?

Before this discussion devolved into a bizarro meta-argument about what I did or did not say, did I not validate the counter argument, and say that my opinions were just that? I may not think the counter argument is winnable, and I've tried to highlight why it is such a bad argument, but it is an argument, I'm not the decision maker, and anything is possible.

[Crazed_SS]

Have you noticed that he hasn't ONCE answered the details of why 30680(b) would be violated if one removed BB post-registration?

This is not a question that is being asked, this is asking for proof of an assertion. Saying "you didn't posses" or "it wasn't legal" is an assertion. It's an opinion. Now we have to figure out how to support this based on penal code.

Here's how i understand FCG's argument in a nutshell..
Please correct if Im wrong.

- Once the BB is removed, it is no longer "...that assault weapon..." which is referred to in 30680. This is because "...that assault weapon.." was only registerable with a BB installed per 30900 (b).

- Since it's no longer "...that assault weapon...", you lose the protections of 30680 which then opens you up to a violation of 30605.

- I wouldnt argue that changing the BB does mean that it's no longer "..that assault weapon.."

[danez71]

Have you noticed that he hasn't ONCE answered the details of why 30680(b) would be violated if one removed BB post-registration?

<snip>

I have not noticed that.

What I have noticed is:

- Fabio has given his opinion.
- He's given his thoughts, several times, why his opinion is what it is.
- And that you don't think his opinion is valid based on your opinion.



<unsnip>

This is not a question that is being asked, this is asking for proof of an assertion. Saying "you didn't posses" or "it wasn't legal" is an assertion. It's an opinion. Now we have to figure out how to support this based on penal code.

He has given the info in support his assertion (opinion) just as much as you have given your support of your assertion(opinion).

He has cited PC numerous times; bigly amount of times.


The only difference is that Fabio can accept that you are of a different opinion than he does..... and you can't accept that he has a different opinion than you.

You're trying to squeeze blood from a turnip at this point.

Actually, there is another difference. You keep asking the same questions under a guise in effort to try to trip him up somehow which doesn't serve any purpose because the law or Regs aren't going to change by discrediting his opinion.



What may change the law/regs is by finding a way to overturn/toss them.

Let see what Fabio has to say about getting rid of them.

[danez71]

Before this discussion devolved into a bizarro meta-argument about what I did or did not say, did I not validate the counter argument, and say that my opinions were just that? I may not think the counter argument is winnable, and I've tried to highlight why it is such a bad argument, but it is an argument, I'm not the decision maker, and anything is possible.

Actually... I think you did. But I don't remember exactly what it was.

Please restate or PM if you fear throwing another Viagra into the circle jerk.