MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

[dieselpower]

Can you explain / expand on this?

Yes a gang member caught in a car with a firearm holding more than 1 live round is guilty of possessing a high capacity magazine.

Definitions in law vary due to the situation and this is why I am telling ifilef he needs to re-think his positions. He assumes things are "illegal" and "prohibitted" when he is simply reading a definition or example inside of a definition.

A Semiautomatic center-fire rifle with hippopotamus magazine and a pistol grip is an AW. I have no freaking clue what a "hippopotamus magazine" is, but I know its not a Fixed magazine which is why it creates an AW.

There are three definitions he is assuming lead to a guilty verdict because he is reading "illegal" and "prohibited" in the law when in fact there is no law saying a hippopotamus magazine is illegal or prohibited.

5471.
Registration of Assault Weapons Pursuant to Penal -Code Section 30900(b)(1);Explanation of Terms Related to Assault Weapon Designation
-snip-
(f) Bullet-button" means a product requiring a tool to remove an ammunition feeding device or magazine by depressing a recessed button or lever shielded by a magazine lock. A bullet-button equipped fully functional semiautomatic firearm does not meet the fixed magazine definition under Penal Code section 30515(b). <- Nowhere does this say a BB equipped firearm doesnt have a detachable magazine, only that it doesnt meet the fixed magazine criteria. It also doesnt say they are illegal on firearms.
-snip-
(m) ""Detachable magazine" means any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm without disassembly of the firearm action or use of a tool A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool. Ammunition feeding device includes any belted or linked ammunition, but does not include clips, en bloc clips, or stripper clips that load cartridges into the magazine <- Nowhere does it say these are illegal or prohibited on firearms.

An AR-15 style firearm that has a bullet-button style magazine release with a magnet left on the bullet-button constitutes a detachable magazine. An AR-15 style firearm lacking a magazine catch assembly (magazine catch magazine catch siring and magazine release button constitutes a detachable magazine. An AK-47 style
firearm lacking a magazine catch assembly {magazine catch rivet and pin} constitutes a detachable magazine <- This is / are examples of detachable magazines and the law. This doesnt mean a BB is not a detachable magazine on its own and this is nothing more than an example.

[Clif]

If that premise is true, then presumably the DOJ can only write a reg that says the BB must stay on if the legislature wrote a law that says the BB must stay on.

No. They can only write regs regarding REGISTRATION of AWs with BBs (30900pc). So what they did was tied the BB into registration qualification and status of the registration (5477). Was this an overreach? Was this within their bounds? Many, many on this site have overreached themselves and said "yes" and plan on ignoring rule 5477. When clearly the only athority to deem so is the judicial system. One needs to be careful of not imposing on how they want the laws and regs to read before acting and removing or altering anything after registration.

I personally not only think 5477 is on overreach, I believe 30515, 30600, 30605, 30610 etc are all overreaches. But we can only abide with what the legislature and judical system gives us to work with. And i would hate to see my fellow 2A comrades locked away because of foolishness and pride.

[dieselpower]

No. They can only write regs regarding REGISTRATION of AWs with BBs (30900pc). So what they did was tied the BB into registration qualification and status of the registration (5477). Was this an overreach? Was this within their bounds? Many, many on this site have overreached themselves and said "yes" and plan on ignoring rule 5477. When clearly the only athority to deem so is the judicial system. One needs to be careful of not imposing on how they want the laws and regs to read before acting and removing or altering anything after registration.

I personally not only think 5477 is on overreach, I believe 30515, 30600, 30605, 30610 etc are all overreaches. But we can only abide with what the legislature and judical system gives us to work with. And i would hate to see my fellow 2A comrades locked away because of foolishness and pride.

Please explain your position on 5477 and how the voters agreed the law needed to be changed that stopped a RAW owner from making a RAW RAWer.

How does the law as passed by the CA Voters say a non-Fixed magazine cant be another form of Non-fixed magazine?

[nicky c]

Please explain your position on 5477 and how the voters agreed the law needed to be changed that stopped a RAW owner from making a RAW RAWer.

How does the law as passed by the CA Voters say a non-Fixed magazine cant be another form of Non-fixed magazine?

SB880 wasn't passed by voters

[Clif]

Please explain your position on 5477 and how the voters agreed the law needed to be changed that stopped a RAW owner from making a RAW RAWer.

How does the law as passed by the CA Voters say a non-Fixed magazine cant be another form of Non-fixed magazine?

1) voters agreed the law needed to be changed? What law are you talking about?

2) RAW RAWer? (Registered Assault Weaponer) is that a person who is a weaponeer with assault weapons?

3) the law passed by CA voters (Prop 63) has to do with high cap mags and background checks for ammo.. What are you talking about non-fixed mags in Prop 63?

[IVC]

I never said "registration revocation". I said under 30900 PC, a post 2000 AR minus a BB is an "Unauthorized Registered Assault Weapon". It would be "unauthorized" because it violates reg 5477, which is necessary for registration per 30900 pc.

"Unauthorized Registered Assault Weapon" would be exempt from PC 30605 due to being "Registered Assault Weapon" even if DOJ wanted to introduce such nomenclature and add qualifiers "authorized" and "unauthorized."

Note that once "registered," there is nothing that says it has to be or remain "authorized" per some DOJ directive. Penal code only recognizes that it is registered.

[ifilef]

Does anyone believe that the DOJ or a court of law does not have the power to revoke/revoke ab initio an AW registration as a result of felonious activity related to the exercise of the privilege of possessing an AW?

That's like saying that DMV can not revoke your driver's license or registration or the FAA can not summarily revoke a pilot's certificate because caught drunk in the cockpit.

How about domestic violence and harassment statutes? Bye-bye to all your firearms, at least temporarily, have to turn in to LE or sell within 24 hours, etc. How about the new laws re Ex Parte Gun Violence Restraining Orders?

I believe that most agencies do have the regulatory power to exercise summary or emergency suspension and or revocation for committing acts directly in contravention of the rules entitling one to hold such license, permit or registration. If I am not mistaken, merely getting arrested for DUI results in a license suspension from all driving except to and from work?

Due process usually only requires a hearing down the road. And in our situation of removing the BB one is likely committing a felony.

Removing the bullet button and changing it to a standard magazine release may indeed result in such regulatory or court action. And the result could be that one might be estopped from claiming any exemptions for having registered as an AW.

[Clif]

"Unauthorized Registered Assault Weapon" would be exempt from PC 30605 due to being "Registered Assault Weapon" even if DOJ wanted to introduce such nomenclature and add qualifiers "authorized" and "unauthorized."

Note that once "registered," there is nothing that says it has to be or remain "authorized" per some DOJ directive. Penal code only recognizes that it is registered.

No, when dealing with RAW, the only way you are NOT prosecuted for 30600 or 30605 is through exemptions (30675). If you do anything to violate 30675, you would no longer be exempt from 30605PC, because it is 30675 (b) (1) which grants the exemption. It says you are exempt ONLY IF:

30675 (b) (1) A person acting in accordance with Article 5 (commencing with Section 30900).

If you are not acting in accordance with article 5 section 30900, you are no longer exempt. 30900 is what authorizes 5477 as part of the requirement for registration and to *keep* registered status (expect court challenge but likely upheld).

If you violate 5477 you violate 30900. You violate 30900 you violate 30675, which means you are no longer exempt. If you are no longer exempt from 30605, you are in possession of a registered assault rifle, only it is not authorized in accordance with 30900 via 5477, hince, a felony possession.

[walmart_ar15]

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



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

Ouch, low blow..

Have too much self pride to be a Liberal. Like to think of my self as a Progressive thinker but other probably look at me as a gun nut, and I won't work for gov, do much better in private sector.

[IVC]

No, when dealing with RAW, the only way you are NOT prosecuted for 30600 or 30605 is through exemptions (30675). If you do anything to violate 30675, you would no longer be exempt from 30605PC, because it is 30675 (b) (1) which grants the exemption. It says you are exempt ONLY IF:

Slow down.

30675(b) is one of the exemptions. There is narrower exemption under 30675(c) that only requires AW to be "registered." There is exemption in 30680 which is independent (in addition to) 30675. There are additional "competition exemptions."

Then, even if you look at 30675(b)(1) alone, it requires compliance with 30900, but there is nothing in 30900 about "conditional registration" or "revocable registration." 30900(b)(5) grants DOJ authority to implement *registration* (no modifiers) and getting a piece of paper that says "registered" is required for compliance with all statutes that mention "registration" in 30900 (or elsewhere).

[dieselpower]

1) voters agreed the law needed to be changed? What law are you talking about?

2) RAW RAWer? (Registered Assault Weaponer) is that a person who is a weaponeer with assault weapons?

3) the law passed by CA voters (Prop 63) has to do with high cap mags and background checks for ammo.. What are you talking about non-fixed mags in Prop 63?

agreed, i confused 63 and the aw laws, but the spirit of what i am saying is correct. the doj was not given authorization to restrict an aws configuration by 880 or that other one for which i have forgotten its number.

[Fox Mulder]

We know that CADOJ employees read CalGuns.

We can assume that CADOJ employees have become members of CalGuns.

Logically they would not have had much to post about, arguably, since they're likely anti-gun, and not in step with the typical CalGunner.


I am forced to wonder at the identities of members, who have been members for numerous years, have low post counts, and are arguing that the CADOJ is correct.

Just sayin.

[Clif]

EVERYBODY IS RIGHT! YOU CAN REMOVE BB ANY TIME, USE 100 ROUND DRUMS, FILE DOWN YOUR SEAR FOR FULL AUTO, THERE IS NOTHING THE DOJ CAN DO TO STOP YOU!

CalDOJ has absolutely no intention of ever enforcing rule 5477.

If everybody wants to live in rainbow and fairy land, there is no reason to comply with the laws anyway. Like the saying goes, these laws are for the law abiding people only anyway.

[Clif]

We know that CADOJ employees read CalGuns.

We can assume that CADOJ employees have become members of CalGuns.

Logically they would not have had much to post about, arguably, since they're likely anti-gun, and not in step with the typical CalGunner.


I am forced to wonder at the identities of members, who have been members for numerous years, have low post counts, and are arguing that the CADOJ is correct.

Just sayin.

What an A$* Hat.

Just because I have a logical decenting view, trying to save the hides of fellow 2A enthusiasts from spending time in prison from people trying to spread miss information on how you can change your RAW afrer regs, is just plain wrong. I read CalGuns forums for legal updates and commented on one other occasion! I have been a member for nearly 8 years! As opposed to your 6 month membership?!? Jeez. Fox Mulder, you're despicable.

Just Sayin.

I am pro gun. But do I work for Govt? Yes. As a local Sheriff Deputy that is against all these gun regs, and looking now to move to Idaho because of you loonies here in CA. Going where there is like minded, God fearing, gun loving, conservative Americans live! You'all can keep your BB RAW, I'm going to Idaho!

I have NEVER arrested a "good guy" with a gun. But looks from this thread, the "good guys with guns" are now "stupid guys with guns". I don't want to have to arrest any good guys, so waiting on my retirement to finalize and I am outahere!

I am done dealing with stupid people who think they can outsmart the DOJ or think they know better than the "intent of the law" to a Judge. I wouldn't be supprised half of you all supported SB880 thinking you could register under SB23. DumbA$*es

Good riddance!

[ZombieLivesMatter]

What an ***** Hat.

Just because I have a logical decenting view, trying to save the hides of fellow 2A enthusiasts from spending time in prison from people trying to spread miss information on how you can change your RAW afrer regs, is just plain wrong. I read CalGuns forums for legal updates and commented on one other occasion! I have been a member for nearly 8 years! I am pro gun. But do I work for Govt? Yes. As a local Sheriff Deputy that is against all these gun regs, and looking now to move to Idaho because of you loonies here in CA. Going where there is like minded, God fearing, gun loving, conservative Americans live! You'all can keep your BB RAW, I'm going to Idaho!

I have NEVER arrested a "good guy" with a gun. But looks from this thread, the "good guys with guns" are now "stupid guys with guns". I don't want to have to arrest any good guys, so waiting on my retirement to finalize and I am outahere!

I am done dealing with stupid people who think they can outsmart the DOJ or think they know better than the "intent of the law" to a Judge. I wouldn't be supprised half of you all supported SB880 thinking you could register under SB23. DumbA$*es

Good riddance!

Bye.