MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

[jrr]

Here's the thing with regulations and regulatory agencies in CA (and elsewhere of course); they have the authority to draft regulations in order to effect the legislatures intent or clarify statutory ambiguities. Normally any reg has to go through a public comment process.

In this specific case the doj was given authority to bypass the administrative procedure act and enact regulations without public input under the "emergency" provisions of the APA. However, you've got to read the statute that grants this authority to see what was granted. They only granted authority to implement the new electronic registration scheme. Anything beyond that is outside the "emergency" authority, and subject to APA procedures.

Redefining how oal is measured? No way is that related to registration. Defining mag capacity on shotguns? Nope. Adding a COMPLETELY SEPERATE provision that pertains to modifications POST registration? Exactly how is that within the authority to implement the electronic registration scheme? I don't believe it is. That makes it an underground regulation, subject to challenge. Its possible the doj might have authority to go ahead and enact this post registration behavior limitations, but not without public comment.

On a separate note.... These regs are soooo badly drafted. Read the whole thing....it calls out bullet button equipped rifles as being eligible for registration, but also cals out any rifle with a detachable magazine in general (which they have to, because a bullet button is only one of MANY mag lock solutions raddlock, prince 50, and any non ar solutions come to mind) so as written the regs may allow for any rifle with a detachable magazine and features to be registered. Hoo boy... Gonna be an interesting time for 2a litigation.

[Devon]

when the regs are final

When can we get down to the important business of designing to accommodate the laws? Quite obvious that this whole thing boils down to DOJ and hobbyists screwing with each other... the criminals will just walk their stuff in from out of State. So when is it our turn to develope the 2017 "Not an AW"? :-)

I realize this is an engineer's point of view... I'm sure the lawyers are as eager to start their sport as well.

When the regs are finalized and cannot be amended then we can go full force with our work arounds and innovations to skirt the laws. However, this will just create new laws in response next year. Like I said. They are going to be pulling their hair our when they still see all the shelves filled with ARs at the gun stores, just with some funny fin grip. It think that once they ban all semi autos, they may rest with that for a few years. We will be having to buy $2000 bolt action uppers from England to comply, and of course those are small companies that can never meet the demand of CA shooters.

[ifilef]

That remains to be seen. Unlike BATF, DOJ does not offer binding opinions on what's legal.

As Raddlock notes

They could forward Raddlock pictures to law enforcement so they can prosecute people for felony assault weapon possession.

They could refuse to register those receivers because they assume the guns had detachable magazines before the ban and therefore aren't covered by 30900(b). Any DA should be able to get a search warrant to corroborate those photos.

I'm waiting for a successful Raddlock registration before I try.

It's my opinion that if you forward any photos to DOJ that even resemble a standard mag release that you may have commenced 'digging your own grave' for a manufacturing prosecution, e.g., 30600. Photos submitted would likely constitute probable cause for a search warrant to corroborate. DOJ would then refer to the District Attorney in the applicable county.

Middle term is 6 years state prison.

[lrdchivalry]

Here's the thing with regulations and regulatory agencies in CA (and elsewhere of course); they have the authority to draft regulations in order to effect the legislatures intent or clarify statutory ambiguities. Normally any reg has to go through a public comment process.

In this specific case the doj was given authority to bypass the administrative procedure act and enact regulations without public input under the "emergency" provisions of the APA. However, you've got to read the statute that grants this authority to see what was granted. They only granted authority to implement the new electronic registration scheme. Anything beyond that is outside the "emergency" authority, and subject to APA procedures.

Redefining how oal is measured? No way is that related to registration. Defining mag capacity on shotguns? Nope. Adding a COMPLETELY SEPERATE provision that pertains to modifications POST registration? Exactly how is that within the authority to implement the electronic registration scheme? I don't believe it is. That makes it an underground regulation, subject to challenge. Its possible the doj might have authority to go ahead and enact this post registration behavior limitations, but not without public comment.

On a separate note.... These regs are soooo badly drafted. Read the whole thing....it calls out bullet button equipped rifles as being eligible for registration, but also cals out any rifle with a detachable magazine in general (which they have to, because a bullet button is only one of MANY mag lock solutions raddlock, prince 50, and any non ar solutions come to mind) so as written the regs may allow for any rifle with a detachable magazine and features to be registered. Hoo boy... Gonna be an interesting time for 2a litigation.

Agreed!

[Virginian]

When the regs are finalized and cannot be amended then we can go full force with our work arounds and innovations to skirt the laws. However, this will just create new laws in response next year. Like I said. They are going to be pulling their hair our when they still see all the shelves filled with ARs at the gun stores, just with some funny fin grip. It think that once they ban all semi autos, they may rest with that for a few years. We will be having to buy $2000 bolt action uppers from England to comply, and of course those are small companies that can never meet the demand of CA shooters.

Of course there will necessarily be a 2018 "Not an AW"... If we don't keep the legislators busy they'll get down to .22 target rifles in no time at all. You can also have more faith in American manufacturing. ;-)

[ifilef]

So correct me if I'm wrong, but the bullet button was never DOJ approved. The Raddlock states that to prevent possible liability.

The regulation in effect since 2006 (or earlier) basically approved it. It is referenced in the AW Flowchart. We could hang our hats on that one and argue that because it required use of a tool it was not a detachable magazine, hence NOT an AW.

Google 11 CCR 5469.

[jcwatchdog]

"Unregistered assault rifle", after the officer confiscates your rifle, and the DOJ deregisters it since the config the rifle is in is no longer that in which the rifle was registered.

I'm having trouble understanding why this is such a difficult concept.

The problem is that when you get arrested, at that moment the rifle is registered and is an AW. If they want to revoke the registration after the fact, they still couldn't charge you with an unregistered AW.

Also, why revoke the registration at all? If your contention is that removing the bullet button after registration is a crime unto itself, they can leave the rifle registered and still arrest you. Revoking the registration to MAKE you in possession of an illegal AW is kind of silly is it? Considering everyone is so certain that it already is an illegal AW once you remove the button after registration.


The doj would not be able to revoke the registration and THEN charge you with Ann unregistered AW. Just like the DMV can't revoke your registration and license AFTER you were arrested for DUI and then claim "he was also driving with a revoked license and registration". That would happen AFTER the dui maybe, but the registration being revoked has nothing directly to do with the arrest or what you can be charged with.

[ifilef]

Here's the thing with regulations and regulatory agencies in CA (and elsewhere of course); they have the authority to draft regulations in order to effect the legislatures intent or clarify statutory ambiguities. Normally any reg has to go through a public comment process.

In this specific case the doj was given authority to bypass the administrative procedure act and enact regulations without public input under the "emergency" provisions of the APA. However, you've got to read the statute that grants this authority to see what was granted. They only granted authority to implement the new electronic registration scheme. Anything beyond that is outside the "emergency" authority, and subject to APA procedures.

Redefining how oal is measured? No way is that related to registration. Defining mag capacity on shotguns? Nope. Adding a COMPLETELY SEPERATE provision that pertains to modifications POST registration? Exactly how is that within the authority to implement the electronic registration scheme? I don't believe it is. That makes it an underground regulation, subject to challenge. Its possible the doj might have authority to go ahead and enact this post registration behavior limitations, but not without public comment.

On a separate note.... These regs are soooo badly drafted. Read the whole thing....it calls out bullet button equipped rifles as being eligible for registration, but also cals out any rifle with a detachable magazine in general (which they have to, because a bullet button is only one of MANY mag lock solutions raddlock, prince 50, and any non ar solutions come to mind) so as written the regs may allow for any rifle with a detachable magazine and features to be registered. Hoo boy... Gonna be an interesting time for 2a litigation.

In bold, above, is a good argument. That is the way that I interpreted 30900(b)(1-5) originally and so stated many months ago, or at least recognized it as a justiciable issue.

But since the statute contains the qualifiers as to weapons eligible for registration, the contra argument would be that DOJ is authorized to interpret broadly in order to implement the program so that persons will be informed of what shall be expected of them with those firearms.

I think it likely the courts here will give DOJ broad latitude in its regulatory scheme, but a cogent argument has been presented for them to do otherwise.

[goog]

Someone who is registering many rifles, try deregistering after converting to featureless using a grip fin and pinned telescoping stock. For the good of the community.

[ifilef]

I was just about to post this myself. DOJ isn't even ready to execute their own mandates. Figures.

And they were not required to, and I was surprised they released them before the end of last year.

The legislature 'covered' DOJ and us by stating that no one could register as AW until the regs were adopted.

[danez71]

how was it unregistered if it was registered? so again, what penal code section would the officer put on the booking sheet? which penal code section says its illegal to make an assault weapon more assaultier and gives the punishment?

No one has said it makes it an assultier weapon.

Its codes have been stated many many times.

The problem is that when you get arrested, at that moment the rifle is registered and is an AW. If they want to revoke the registration after the fact, they still couldn't charge you with an unregistered AW.

Also, why revoke the registration at all? If your contention is that removing the bullet button after registration is a crime unto itself, they can leave the rifle registered and still arrest you. Revoking the registration to MAKE you in possession of an illegal AW is kind of silly is it? Considering everyone is so certain that it already is an illegal AW once you remove the button after registration.


The doj would not be able to revoke the registration and THEN charge you with Ann unregistered AW. Just like the DMV can't revoke your registration and license AFTER you were arrested for DUI and then claim "he was also driving with a revoked license and registration". That would happen AFTER the dui maybe, but the registration being revoked has nothing directly to do with the arrest or what you can be charged with.

No no no.

They charge you for unregistered.

You defend yourself and the judge decides your registration isn't valid (and its been done before with the SKS debacle) when YOU violated the Regs which was before the charge was made against you.


The Regs are part of the PC as noted before by real lawyer(s).

[WeStayClean]

No one has said it makes it an assultier weapon.

Its codes have been stated many many times.









No no no.

They charge you for unregistered.

You defend yourself and the judge decides your registration isn't valid (and its been done before with the SKS debacle) when YOU violated the Regs which was before the charge was made against you.


The Regs are part of the PC as noted before by real lawyer(s).

Lmk when your real lawyers cite a time when a person has been arrested for a regulation. If regs are part of the penal code then they need to spell it out in the penal code so an officer who isn't a lawyer can read it and write it on the booking sheet. Otherwise, an officer might just run your AW and see it registered and be on their way.

[curtisfong]

It seems like they have committed a huge logical error in equating the BB with a detachable magazine but now claim that it needs to stay on. Where is the logic in that? I know that a legal argument is way beyond (or below) logic but how can they ever really get beyond the "distinction without a difference" argument they made.

You've committed a huge logical error in assuming the DoJ (let alone the legislature) care about logic.

[ifilef]

Everyone's speculation is just ridiculous... I remember months ago, saying that you would have to leave your bullet button attached after registration. And I was torched by everybody and their mother. Now everybody is starting to realize what I said months and months ago. Now 75% agree with BB required to stay on...

Why argue over a matter that we have no clue of?! Just wait till the registration is up and see how the system works and is implemented. This is the same BS thread that happened in May and June when we were presented with the bills. All of this speculation over something we don't have facts on.

We all know how DOJ works, you might as well plan for the worst!

Disagree with portion in bold. There are more than enough facts to determine the outcome. Regs are law and are amply supported by the Penal Code. Govern yourself accordingly.

And, yes, plan for the worst because that is the reality. Don't remove the BB and replace with a magazine release, which is a detachable magazine and also a felony, unless there's a court order in our favor. That court order is HIGHLY unlikely, unless regulations are stricken as exceeding the authority granted in 30900(b).

Felony arrest now for 30600 and/or 30605 if you are captured with a standard magazine release in your SACF featured rifle.

[Sousuke]

Disagree with portion in bold. There are more than enough facts to determine the outcome. Regs are law and are amply supported by the Penal Code. Govern yourself accordingly.

And, yes, plan for the worst because that is the reality. Don't remove the BB and replace with a magazine release, which is a detachable magazine and also a felony, unless court order in our favor. That court order is HIGHLY unlikely.

Felony arrest now for 30600 and/or 30605 if you are captured with a standard magazine release in your SACF featured rifle.

Can you point me to where it says a detachable magazine illegal in the PC or regs? I'm only finding it under "not fixed"