MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

[meno377]

Either you are joking, or you do not understand the new laws, or how a revolver works.

I don't think that was the message he was trying to point out.

[Clif]

I never said that, so don't put words into my mouth.

Your right. But there are a suprising amount of people who are on this forum.

[Clif]

Interpretation is an opinion, but stating that DOJ doesn't have authority to create law is a fact. To the extent they created a law, as needs to be determined by a court, it's unenforceable.

But they DO have the authority to create law. It was granted power by 30900(b) to write regs (laws pertaining to registration). They were granted power to write regs on the intent of SB 880 in regards to registration of those AWs. It is an OPINION to state they overreached UNTIL a court has heard the matter.

[edwardm]

That is your opinion, as well as mine, but do you think the DOJ just likes wasting paper? Do you believe the wrote those regs and have absolutely no intention of doing anything about it? You might ask "what can they do?" Look at pages 20-35, and there are many avenues of prosecution.

I think CalDOJ suffers institutional incompetence, and that certain groups within suffer from institutional overreach.

That is of YOUR OPINION. Your opinion is not what will keep people out of prison. It is of MY OPINION that the Judicial System will see 5477 as an interpretation of the intent of SB 880, thus upheld. My opinion will keep law abinging citizens out of prison fighting for the 2A rights. You want people to disregard 5477 and blatently go against the regs, possibly commit felonies, which then gets all 2A rights stripped away, plus prison time.

I understand your point, but tell me, what "felonies" would a person commit by removing the BB and substituting a USGI release? Or to make the point finer, removing the BB and installing a Raddlock?

The only two that come to me right now are manufacturing as assault weapon and possessing an assault weapon.

The first charge presumes initial non-existence of an assault weapon. The second presumes possession of something without an exception.

For the first charge, assuming your BB'd firearm is registered, where is the operative statutory language that causes it to lose registered status when you swap the parts, revert to a non-existent entity, and then spring into existence again as a newly 'manufactured' unregistered assault weapon? I can't find it, and I don't see it in the enabling language of 30900.

On the second charge, I don't see the authority in statute to suggest the sequence goes from "possession of RAW" -> "possession of something unclassified" -> "possession of AW". Going through the steps to remove the BB and install a USGI release, I don't see anything statutory that says the rifle has morphed to alter the nature of the possession.

These are exactly the discussions we need to be having, unfortunately. There will have to be walk-back by CalDOJ (not in my lifetime), or litigation to get a solid answer. This, too, is my opinion, but one informed by some amount of study and experience. On 1/10, it may be Chuck Michel's opinion, as well (I doubt it though, as he's going to err on the side of caution).

Here's a HYPOTHETICAL scenario:

1/10/17, pretend Chuck Michel says it is his informed legal opinion, and only his informed legal opinion, that the CalDOJ prohibition on BB removal is without merit and cannot be enforced, and the BB can come off after you register.

How many will then register and remove the BB? I bet a whole hell of a lot - based on one man's opinion.

Again, I DO NOT think he will say that on the 10th for a number of professional and strategic reasons, I'm just asking "what if".

[tk1971]

MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

Featureless looks better and better everyday.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clif]

I understand your point, but tell me, what "felonies" would a person commit by removing the BB and substituting a USGI release? Or to make the point finer, removing the BB and installing a Raddlock?

The only two that come to me right now are manufacturing as assault weapon and possessing an assault weapon.

You think you're cleaver you can think of only two, can come up with answers that fit what you want the outcome to be, how convenient. Trust me, The DOJ does NOT share your sentiment.

Here is what I believe will be the charge on the booking slip C line:

30515 PC / Possession of an Unauthorized Registered Assault Weapon / Felony

To be exempt from 30515, you have to be registered. To have an authorized registered assault weapon, it falls under 30900. 30900 defers to 5477, which states you cannot remove BB. Hince, a not authorized registered assault weapon.

If I give someone my RAW, they are in possession of a Registered Assault Weapon, but it is not authorized, and prosecutable, it violates PC. If I change the mag release from a BB, it violates PC 30900 per 5477, and is unauthorized and prosecutable.

[walmart_ar15]

But they DO have the authority to create law. It was granted power by 30900(b) to write regs (laws pertaining to registration). They were granted power to write regs on the intent of SB 880 in regards to registration of those AWs. It is an OPINION to state they overreached UNTIL a court has heard the matter.

Laws are the products of written statutes, passed by either the U.S. Congress or state legislatures. The legislatures create bills that, when passed by a vote, become statutory law.

Regulations, on the other hand, are standards and rules adopted by administrative agencies that govern how laws will be enforced.

The confusion is: Like laws, regulations are codified and published so that parties are on notice regarding what is and isn't legal.

DOJ has no authority as an administrative agency to create "Law"

[Clif]

DOJ has no authority as an administrative agency to create "Law"

Ok, I agree with you. I ask you then: what "law" has the DOJ created?

It can be argued they created no "law", but instead they created a condition of registration, granted by authority of 30900 pc. And the status of the AW registration pivots on the change of the mag release mechanism, per 5477.

One can argue that is not "law" bit instead a conditionof registration.

Are you willing to take that chance and become case law? It is stupid to argue this point because no one is going to switch out mag release until courts say 5477 is unlawful.

But the more people try to make the case you can switch out mag release, the more of a chance an innocent person glacing thru these posts will see it and do it, and be convicted.

[wireless]

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.

50bmg and AW are separate laws.

[wireless]

My opinion will keep law abinging citizens out of prison fighting for the 2A rights. You want people to disregard 5477 and blatently go against the regs, possibly commit felonies, which then gets all 2A rights stripped away, plus prison time.

Possession of an unregistered assault weapon is a wobbler, which means the prosecutor can choose to change it to a misdemeanor (non-prohibiting offense), or you can get it reduced via 17(b) from a felony to a misdemeanor after completing probation. 17(b) restores all rights including right to purchase/own firearms. It's also highly unlikely someone charged with a wobbler offense would serve any prison time unless they have a previous record. But someone with a previous record would not be charged with a wobbler and would instead be charged with a straight felony since they would be charged with a crime people like us cannot commit.

[Drew Eckhardt]

I understand your point, but tell me, what "felonies" would a person commit by removing the BB and substituting a USGI release? Or to make the point finer, removing the BB and installing a Raddlock?

Assuming you shot the gun somewhere other than where it was stored, after changing the magazine release you'd be violating PC 30600 transport where the only exemption is PC 30675(b) and that requires you acting in accordance with PC 30900 and accompanying regulations like 11 CFR 5477.

30675. (b) Sections 30600, 30605, and 30610 shall not apply to any of the following persons:
(1) A person acting in accordance with Article 5 (commencing with Section 30900).

Other exemptions to 30600 only cover specific acts like reimport and lending (to an adult, in your presence, at designated locations) by the registered owner.

30675(c) exempts the registered owner from 30605 possession provided they comply with 30945 while doing so which covers possession while transporting, although 30600 is a separate law.

[walmart_ar15]

Ok, I agree with you. I ask you then: what "law" has the DOJ created?

It can be argued they created no "law", but instead they created a condition of registration, granted by authority of 30900 pc. And the status of the AW registration pivots on the change of the mag release mechanism, per 5477.

One can argue that is not "law" bit instead a conditionof registration.

Are you willing to take that chance and become case law? It is stupid to argue this point because no one is going to switch out mag release until courts say 5477 is unlawful.

But the more people try to make the case you can switch out mag release, the more of a chance an innocent person glacing thru these posts will see it and do it, and be convicted.

Not arguing either way, and I agree people should be cautious and wait till the new Regulation is settled before making their choice. It is a discussion forum for folks, so more thinking (opinions) from the group may/can help finding a way to workaround the issue.

It was how OLL and BB came about. People's discussion with both pro and con opinions, and eventually smart folks came up with a solution with initial risks (should have heard what the nay Sayers said back then) but later proved defensible.

It is actually kind of funny, the initial reason for BB is to show how ineffective the SB23 was and one desired outcome was to force another registration period to plug the workaround. Now we got it, and folks are acting exactly like back in 2000, "puff, puff, We will not comply!" "We'll show them with mass civil disobedience!" blah, blah.... pretty funny.

In a twisted logic, it is actually a win for us

[Clif]

"CalDOJ cannot write laws" - yes, per our gov't system only legislature branch can write laws. Our "laws" are Penal Codes, Vehicle Codes, Health and safety Code, etc. What the CalDOJ has created is not law. It is not Penal code. It is regs regarding registration

"CalDOJ has no authority" - they do, as given them by 30900 pc. Just as the President has no authority to declare war. Not since WWII have we been to "war". But instead congress takes the easy way and relegates that power in a bill to give it to the President to act as he sees fit. Here, CalDOJ has done the same thing, with 30900. CalDOJ cannot declare "war", but Cal Senate granted them the power to do so by SB880 through 30900 PC.

[IVC]

One can argue that is not "law" bit instead a conditionof registration.

Sure. So, one would register according to their conditions.

Can they revoke registration based on what is granted to them in 30900(b)(5)? Is there even a concept of "registration revocation" in PC?

[Clif]

Folks are acting exactly like back in 2000, "puff, puff, We will not comply!" "We'll show them with mass civil disobedience!" blah, blah.... pretty funny.

I fail to see how registration, or resistance to said registration, is "funny". This is a serious matter, and should be taken as such

In a twisted logic, it is actually a win for us

Yeah, if you are a Liberal, Progressive, or CalDOJ.