MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

[WeStayClean]

PC 30605.


If you want to claim that it's legal, then you need to find an exemption that says 30605 doesn't apply to that particular assault weapon.

What exemption under Chapter 2 (Assault Weapons and .50 BMG Rifles [30500 - 31115]) do you think it would qualify for? I haven't been able to find an exemption based solely on registration -- if one exists, it would be a good find.

my argument is that the penal code 30605 would not apply since you owned that AW legally prior to the ban and you registered your AW. Its my opinion that you cannot violate that PC because of the lawful ownership. The DOJ said you cannot remove the BB, but per penal code 15 (the requirement of a punishment in order for a crime to be committed), its not a crime. If they want to make it a crime, its my opinion that they would need to pass a law forbidding the act of removing the BB and listing a punishment.

That way a police officer would be able to list the appropiate charge of the removal of the BB vs stating in their report that you were in possession of a registered assault weapon but you're illegally in possession of an assault weapon (confusing).

This seems unenforceable to me.

[umd]

What if you were to modify it to make it look exactly like a bullet button? There's no law against that is there?

I'm not sure what you are trying to get at or what the point would be, but if you modified the raddlock to look like anything else you would need to cut off the tabs, and then it would no longer function as a magazine lock.

Although for what it's worth I have a Lancer L15 with a specially shaped version of the Raddlock that doesn't have the tabs; the overhanging lip is not as obvious in a picture, especially once installed and in the "compliant" position.



If DOJ doesn't accept registration of Raddlocks then I'm kind of ****ed on that one, or I'll have to go featureless.

[ifilef]

my argument is that the penal code 30605 would not apply since you owned that AW legally prior to the ban and you registered your AW. Its my opinion that you cannot violate that PC because of the lawful ownership. The DOJ said you cannot remove the BB, but per penal code 15 (the requirement of a punishment in order for a crime to be committed), its not a crime. If they want to make it a crime, its my opinion that they would need to pass a law forbidding the act of removing the BB and listing a punishment.

That way a police officer would be able to list the appropiate charge of the removal of the BB vs stating in their report that you were in possession of a registered assault weapon but you're illegally in possession of an assault weapon (confusing).

This seems unenforceable to me.

Committing a felony does not give one a free pass.

If it was not eligible to be registered this time around (standard mag release) you can not possess it in that configuration pre or post-registration. The foregoing example would be a felony, either 30600, 30605, or both.

[IVC]

What exemption under Chapter 2 (Assault Weapons and .50 BMG Rifles [30500 - 31115]) do you think it would qualify for? I haven't been able to find an exemption based solely on registration -- if one exists, it would be a good find.

30675(c).

[WeStayClean]

Committing a felony does not give one a free pass.

If it was not eligible to be registered this time around (standard mag release) you can not possess it in that configuration pre or post-registration.

This is my point exactly. Its a felony to remove the BB mechanism off you're legally registered AW? What penal code section forbids this act? What will happen if I do?

Not looking for an answer, just thinking out loud at this point.

[naught]

my argument is that the penal code 30605 would not apply since you owned that AW legally prior to the ban and you registered your AW. Its my opinion that you cannot violate that PC because of the lawful ownership. The DOJ said you cannot remove the BB, but per penal code 15 (the requirement of a punishment in order for a crime to be committed), its not a crime. If they want to make it a crime, its my opinion that they would need to pass a law forbidding the act of removing the BB and listing a punishment.
.

OK, I'll bite. Where can I find the "30605 would not apply since you owned that AW legally prior to the ban and you registered your AW" exception in the penal code?

[ifilef]

This is my point exactly. Its a felony to remove the BB mechanism off you're legally registered AW? What penal code section forbids this act? What will happen if I do?

Not looking for an answer, just thinking out loud at this point.

So, why inquire about it?

I interpret this way: It is not a felony to remove it. However, it you remove also the catch assembly etc. it may be, but I am confused about that paragraph, the second one, in 5471(m).

It is a felony to remove the BB and replace it with a std. mag release.

I already noted the PC sections likely alleged violated.

[danez71]

my argument is that the penal code 30605 would not apply since you owned that AW legally prior to the ban and you registered your AW. Its my opinion that you cannot violate that PC because of the lawful ownership. The DOJ said you cannot remove the BB, but per penal code 15 (the requirement of a punishment in order for a crime to be committed), its not a crime. If they want to make it a crime, its my opinion that they would need to pass a law forbidding the act of removing the BB and listing a punishment.

That way a police officer would be able to list the appropiate charge of the removal of the BB vs stating in their report that you were in possession of a registered assault weapon but you're illegally in possession of an assault weapon (confusing).

This seems unenforceable to me.

Well good for you.

However, you have been provided all of the PCs which indicate you're wrong and the opinion of 2 different lawyers which indicate you're wrong along with the details explaining why.

[WeStayClean]

Well good for you.

However, you have been provided all of the PCs which indicate you're wrong and the opinion of 2 different lawyers which indicate you're wrong along with the details explaining why.

Two lawyers (DA/CP & Defense Attorney) fight legal battles everyday in courts across the US. One of them is wrong. Thats a lot of lawyers that are wrong.

[ifilef]

Oh, get me out of here.

We are not advocates arguing in court. Leave it to them.

Just abide by the regulation 5477 banning the change to a mag release, wait, and see what happens.

That's the best 'order' one can give at this time.

Don't go out and get arrested for a stupid standard magazine release that has been a felony for over 15 years in SACF featured weapons. See summary of SB23: https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/genchar2. You're not likely Rambo, and if you were, you would likely be able to possess the magazine release in your duty weapon, your duty weapon only, if I'm not mistaken.

[danez71]

This is my point exactly. Its a felony to remove the BB mechanism off you're legally registered AW? What penal code section forbids this act? What will happen if I do?

Not looking for an answer, just thinking out loud at this point.

Not looking for an answer? ???? Then why do you keep asking he same basic questions?

You've been given the answers about 3 times now.

It seems spoon feeding you any further is just a waste bandwidth.

[danez71]

Two lawyers (DA/CP & Defense Attorney) fight legal battles everyday in courts across the US. One of them is wrong. Thats a lot of lawyers that are wrong.

It also a lot of lawyers that are right.

Do you have some point in that or just babbling away?


You haven't provided anything to support your opinion that makes any sense.

Your obviously confused as you stated you weren't aware that DOJ created laws. They didnt. They made the Regs of which the PC, thru the legislature, gave them the power to do.

[ifilef]

Oh, this is absolutely ridiculous.

What code section will you be charged with?
What code section will you be charged with?What code section will you be charged with?What code section will you be charged with?What code section will you be charged with?What code section will you be charged with?What code section will you be charged with?What code section will you be charged with?What code section will you be charged with?

Out of here.

[naught]

30675(c).

Yes, that seems to be quite a "loophole," and I would be happy if it allowed people to ditch their bullet buttons.

However, it looks like such an impossibly good thing to have around that I wonder if I'm not missing some deeper understanding of the meaning of "registered owner." In other words, "it seems too good to be true."

[naught]

Speaking of real lawyers, this might be of interest to a few folks around here:

New Assault Weapon Regulations Webinar

; and
Lots of other things.