MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

[gdt82]

Not sure already discussed (not going to scan 63 pages) was not there a statue after Harrott v. County of Kings (2001) that DOJ is no longer in the business of defining what is considered an AW?

This time around the regulation "patched" what is considered "fixed" but it did not spec out a new cataglory of AW. So there is still only 3. DOJ cannot add a new one. Thus, the so called BBAW does not exist, it's just AW.

So if there is no BBAW then there cannot be a BBRAW. So after register, there is only RAW. There is no restriction on how one detach a mag from a RAW. What am I missing here?

Harrott applied to AW weapons banned as part of the AR or AK "series" weapons. The state tried to ban copycat weapons (just like Massachusetts did recently) by saying that any gun that was basically an AR or AK design could be considered part of the "series" of weapons that were banned under existing CA assault weapons law. The Harrott decision said that this would lead to chaos in which citizens and law enforcement alike would have no idea what actually constituted an AW, and that in order to be considered part of the AR or AK "series", the specific model had to be named by the Attorney General. Subsequent to this decision, the CA legislature passed a law that prevented the Attorney General from doing this, so that only the legislature can decide what weapons are to be banned.

This only concerns the AR or AK series weapons that are banned by name. Assault weapons that are banned by feature don't need to be named specifically, but are instead defined by their features. The DOJ has been given the authority to provide regulations to allow registration of existing weapons that meet the criteria, and part of those regulations involve definitions. It's true that there is no such thing as a "bullet button assault weapon", but the DOJ nonetheless is allowed to set the rules for registration, and they are saying that BBs must be on and stay on. All AWs will be treated the same, but remember that AWs are illegal in CA unless they are registered, and the DOJ gets to set the rules for registration. The only recourse here is to get a court ruling that says that they overstepped their regulatory authority. But it will have nothing to do with the Harrott decision.

[IVC]

Do such systems actually exist? Sorry, I am not familiar.

Your explanation does indeed seem plausible.

It would be easy to make one. It doesn't exist as it's completely useless except as a workaround. The reason DOJ included it in regulations is to (try to) prevent such a workaround.

[malfunction]

The Harrott decision said that this would lead to chaos in which citizens and law enforcement alike would have no idea what actually constituted an AW

Imagine that

[bigstick61]

That would be a good case for the right court. 2nd amendment specifically mentions "security of a free state", but not hunting and sports.

Didn't Heller strip the martial context of the RKBA from the 2nd Amendment (wrongfully, if so, like other parts of that ruling)?

[walmart_ar15]

Harrott applied to AW weapons banned as part of the AR or AK "series" weapons. The state tried to ban copycat weapons (just like Massachusetts did recently) by saying that any gun that was basically an AR or AK design could be considered part of the "series" of weapons that were banned under existing CA assault weapons law. The Harrott decision said that this would lead to chaos in which citizens and law enforcement alike would have no idea what actually constituted an AW, and that in order to be considered part of the AR or AK "series", the specific model had to be named by the Attorney General. Subsequent to this decision, the CA legislature passed a law that prevented the Attorney General from doing this, so that only the legislature can decide what weapons are to be banned.

This only concerns the AR or AK series weapons that are banned by name. Assault weapons that are banned by feature don't need to be named specifically, but are instead defined by their features. The DOJ has been given the authority to provide regulations to allow registration of existing weapons that meet the criteria, and part of those regulations involve definitions. It's true that there is no such thing as a "bullet button assault weapon", but the DOJ nonetheless is allowed to set the rules for registration, and they are saying that BBs must be on and stay on. All AWs will be treated the same, but remember that AWs are illegal in CA unless they are registered, and the DOJ gets to set the rules for registration. The only recourse here is to get a court ruling that says that they overstepped their regulatory authority. But it will have nothing to do with the Harrott decision.

Yes. DOJ sets the requirement/criteria for registering (don't agree with current criteria, maybe a 5th violation) Question is AFTER it's registered. DOJ says no modification is allowed, not sure they have the authority post the statue resulted from Harrott.

[Clif]

No but seriously... the way I see it, it would be a violation of a regulation which wouldn't carry any penalty in this case because there is no PC text associated with it to back it up. So honestly, from my IANAL perspective, I don't see how violating this would be any worse than just hurting someone's feelings.

So you think you can swap out BB for standard release after registration because your rifle is already a AW, and that there are no "categories" of AW?

By that reason of thinking, you should be able to buy a .50 BMG upper for that AW of yours. See how well that goes over.

[dieselpower]

You need to seriously check your reading comprehension of 5471(m) and if you understood the rationale by designating a BB as NOT a detachable magazine, it might be helpful to you, because if it were a detachable magazine it could not be registered as an AW.

Better stated, a BB DOES NOT FIT within the definition of a detachable magazine as stated in 5471(m), nor in its predecessor regulation 5469.

SACF featured weapons with detachable magazines were last lawfully possessed prior to 2000 and the registration period for those expired in that year, or 2001, don't recall. Authority: SB23.

Felony to possess now or after you register your BB'd rifle. Authority: SB23, see: https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/genchar2. Reference: PC 30900, 30505, 30600, 30605, perhaps more.

Do you realize a 6 shot revolver with more than 1 bullet in it is a High Capacity magazine under the definitions set in law?

No you dont because all you know is what you are reading here that pertains to AWs.

You are reading things into the law that are not there.


You are looking at the wording from a perspective and mindset to conclude a preconceived notion. This is why you are inserting things like "illegal" and "prohibited" in laws that dont say that. Your mind is reading those as something they are not.

The definition of a pistol grip is not An illegal device on a sacf firearm.
The definition of a collapsing stock isnt a prohibited device on a sacf firearm.
The definition of a BB isnt an illegal magazine release on a SACF.

The law has to be read first and applied to a situation afterward.

[fmlyman]

Okay....This point may have been talked about already but my question is this.
: “The release mechanism for an ammunition feeding device on an assault weapon registered pursuant to Penal Code section 30900, subdivision (b)(1) shall not be changed after the assault weapon is registered."

Does this only apply to firearms that have had the factory release mechanism altered or changed to be "BB" compliant?

What about firearms that have factory "normal" release mechanism with "covers" or "shrouds " over them to make them "BB" compliant. Can the cover or shroud be removed since it's not part of the release mechanism?

[ti83ray]

It seems to me register is more troublesome than NOT register

[colossians323]

Seems to me, that DOJ is just making it easy for a legal challenge

[repo4sale]

I moved to Nevada, I'm buying ptr91s HK g3 m1a for shooting tracers & fun 😁🤗

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

[Wiz-of-Awd]

I moved to Nevada, I'm buying ptr91s HK g3 m1a for shooting tracers & fun 😁🤗

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

"Subtle brag post"



A.W.D.

[FatalKitty]

question:

say I want a non-BB registered AW

does the law require that my now featureless firearm have an evil feature to be registered as an AW? nothing says I can't register a neutered ar-15 as an AW.

could I register my featureless rifle as an AW - with NO BB
AND THEN change the muzzle device, stock and pistol grip to have a "full feature" assault rifle? The law specifically states that the rifle's magazine release CANNOT be changed, but says nothing of the muzzle device, pistol grip, or stock being changed after registration.

[bigboss91]

question:

say I want a non-BB registered AW

does the law require that my now featureless firearm have an evil feature to be registered as an AW? nothing says I can't register a neutered ar-15 as an AW.

could I register my featureless rifle as an AW - with NO BB
AND THEN change the muzzle device, stock and pistol grip to have a "full feature" assault rifle? The law specifically states that the rifle's magazine release CANNOT be changed, but says nothing of the muzzle device, pistol grip, or stock being changed after registration.

Article 3 5472(c)

"The department will not register a firearm as an Assault Weapon if the firearm is featureless."

[Crazed_SS]

question:

say I want a non-BB registered AW

does the law require that my now featureless firearm have an evil feature to be registered as an AW? nothing says I can't register a neutered ar-15 as an AW.

could I register my featureless rifle as an AW - with NO BB
AND THEN change the muzzle device, stock and pistol grip to have a "full feature" assault rifle? The law specifically states that the rifle's magazine release CANNOT be changed, but says nothing of the muzzle device, pistol grip, or stock being changed after registration.

The Department will not register a featureless rifle.