MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

[Fox Mulder]

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!

An old pastor I once knew liked to say if you throw a rock into a pack of dogs the one that yelps in the one that got hit.


I've been around here since before Neil McCauley was putting ice in urinals, so there's that.

[ifilef]

Argument for striking 11 CFR 5477 concerning 'manufacturing':

Looking on our side, I think the key to striking 5477 re the issue of manufacturing an AW will be whether 30675(b)(1) exemption will apply.

According to the CA criminal jury instruction 2560, PC 30675 is recognized as an affirmative defense. One might have to go through a jury trial, but you'd be able to raise it if it applies to you and they could not convict if prosecution can not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you had not registered it as an assault weapon.

Now the statute was in existence prior to these new laws and regulations, so it does not reference 30900(b)(1). It does reference 30900 et seq.

PC 30675(b)(1): (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).

What does acting in accord with 30900 et. seq. actually mean and how would it be interpreted? Would one have to act in accord with that statute after registering?

Is registering as an AW enough if you have done so prior to changing out to the magazine release?

I don't really know. And DOJ cites 30900 in support of the 5477 regulation.

I now think the chances of 5477 being stricken are greater than not being stricken because that regulation states that one can not change the release mechanism after registration but the exemption might indeed apply.

However, to permit such a conversion seems contra to the history and legislative intent of the AWCA and contrary to 30900 in that only lawfully possessed SACF featured with BB may be registered and possessed. After all, that is what the statute does, it permits continued possession of the firearm in that release configuration and magazine releases have been banned in these weapons since 2000.

Should be interesting to see how the courts rule on this issue. I think that it will be a very tough call.

In the meantime, unless one is willing to risk arrest and prosecution, better to follow the regulation and keep the BB on the firearm.

Later: Having said the foregoing, prosecution may only have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant did not have a permit to manufacture an AW. This is getting really confusing because 30675(b)(1) does make reference to 30900.

If switching out to a standard mag release would constitute manufacturing, and a permit to do so would be required, it would be problematic for us and the regulation might stand. Perhaps all the informed pundits on here who insisted for years that placing a standard magazine release on the previously lawful BB'd weapon constitutes manufacturing were not right. I really don't know but assumed they were right due to the source(s) and it seemed to make sense, albeit a creative interpretation.

Look at the last bold paragraph of the instruction 2560 (below) and read it carefully.

2016 CalCrim 2560, last paragraph:

[The defendant did not unlawfully (possess/manufacture/cause to be
manufactured/distribute/transport/import/keep for sale/offer or expose
for sale/give/lend) (an assault weapon/a .50 BMG rifle) if (he/she) (had
registered the weapon/had a valid permit to (possess/manufacture/sell)Emphasis added].
New January 2006; Revised August 2006, February 2012

Some of the statutes listed above may apply to exemptions for those who have a permit to manufacture. I have not read them. Have fun.

[nedro]

Yes, technically it is... that's one of the reasons we have VIN numbers: they legally define the identity of the car. People do this all the time, BTW. Mostly to get a car that's smog exempt regardless of how many newly manufactured parts it has.

That would be against the law.
Smog devices for a particular engine of it's year must be used.
An example would be putting a 5.0 in a Mustang that previously had a 302.
The 5.0 would legally have to have all the Smog needed for that years production.
People regularly get away with it. But that doesn't make it legal.

[nedro]

The mods screwed the pooch on this merged thread.
They turned it into almost 70 pages of complete crappie.
Should have left it alone so people could actually navigate through this mess.
Biggest cluster I've ever seen.
Please don't be so reckless in the future.
Thanks.

[dieselpower]

Argument for striking 11 CFR 5477 concerning 'manufacturing':

Looking on our side, I think the key to striking 5477 re the issue of manufacturing an AW will be whether 30675(b)(1) exemption will apply.

According to the CA criminal jury instruction 2560, PC 30675 is recognized as an affirmative defense. One might have to go through a jury trial, but you'd be able to raise it if it applies to you and they could not convict if prosecution can not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you had not registered it as an assault weapon.

Now the statute was in existence prior to these new laws and regulations, so it does not reference 30900(b)(1). It does reference 30900 et seq.

PC 30675(b)(1): (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).

What does acting in accord with 30900 et. seq. actually mean and how would it be interpreted? Would one have to act in accord with that statute after registering?

Is registering as an AW enough if you have done so prior to changing out to the magazine release?

I don't really know. And DOJ cites 30900 in support of the 5477 regulation.

I now think the chances of 5477 being stricken are greater than not being stricken because that regulation states that one can not change the release mechanism after registration but the exemption might indeed apply.

However, to permit such a conversion seems contra to the history and legislative intent of the AWCA and contrary to 30900 in that only lawfully possessed SACF featured with BB may be registered and possessed. After all, that is what the statute does, it permits continued possession of the firearm in that release configuration and magazine releases have been banned in these weapons since 2000.

Should be interesting to see how the courts rule on this issue. I think that it will be a very tough call.

In the meantime, unless one is willing to risk arrest and prosecution, better to follow the regulation and keep the BB on the firearm.

Later: Having said the foregoing, prosecution may only have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant did not have a permit to manufacture an AW. This is getting really confusing because 30675(b)(1) does make reference to 30900.

Look at the last bold paragraph of the instruction 2560 (below) and read it carefully.

If switching out to a standard mag release would constitute manufacturing, and a permit to do so would be required, it would be problematic for us and the regulation might stand. Perhaps all the informed pundits on here who insisted for years that placing a standard magazine release on the previously lawful BB'd weapon constitutes manufacturing were not right. I really don't know but assumed they were right due to the source(s) and it seemed to make sense, albeit a creative interpretation.

2016 CalCrim 2560, last paragraph:

[The defendant did not unlawfully (possess/manufacture/cause to be
manufactured/distribute/transport/import/keep for sale/offer or expose
for sale/give/lend) (an assault weapon/a .50 BMG rifle) if (he/she) (had
registered the weapon/had a valid permit to (possess/manufacture/sell)Emphasis added].
New January 2006; Revised August 2006, February 2012

Some of the statutes listed above may apply to exemptions for those who have a permit to manufacture. I have not read them. Have fun.

blah blah blah, it's easier to just say, wow, Dieselpower, I see what you are saying, you could be right and maybe I was wrong.

but whatever, you are welcome.

[Bolt_Action]

That would be against the law.
Smog devices for a particular engine of it's year must be used.
An example would be putting a 5.0 in a Mustang that previously had a 302.
The 5.0 would legally have to have all the Smog needed for that years production.
People regularly get away with it. But that doesn't make it legal.

What you're saying is generally true for cars that have had EPA-mandated emissions controls of some sort, made sometime in the last 40 years or so. But exempt cars are exempt, period. The exemption and emissions controls are only defined for the vehicle (VIN #). There's nothing illegal about dropping an LS6 with straight pipes into a C2 corvette. Even "SB-100" newly manufactured cars can run a new design engine without catalytic converters. I've seen smog referees and the CHP specifically sign off on vehicles with new LS pattern motors with no cats after looking at the build sheet and receipts in detail. Exempt is exempt, but if people want to talk themselves into more restrictions on their guns by making parallels to restrictions that don't exist with "pre-ban" cars, go for it. It wouldn't be the internet if it weren't full of misinformation.

It's funny, this whole debate reminds of me all the naysayers we had running around when the original OLL/BB rifles came on the market 10 years ago or so. They said people were going to jail, they said it would never work. They were wrong.

[ifilef]

blah blah blah, it's easier to just say, wow, Dieselpower, I see what you are saying, you could be right and maybe I was wrong.

but whatever, you are welcome.

You can think whatever you want but there are many issues involved here and the sad truth is that I find many of your posts incoherent, unintelligible and disorganized. Half the time I can not get through them or lose interest.

In any event you did not even address the issue of manufacturing an AW that I raised in my long post above, whether it constitutes the same by placing the mag release on the weapon, etc., whether one would require a permit to manufacture if it is manufacturing, etc.

I'm sure that I might agree with you on some matters and even say that you may have been correct, I just don't know which due to the nature and quality as to how your posts are presented. JMO.

[DrjonesUSA]

This is hilarious all these people who were / are clamoring to register so they could remove the BB, and now DOJ screws that up.

Even ran into a guy at the range who said he was going to register so he could remove his BB.




.

[dieselpower]

This is hilarious all these people who were / are clamoring to register so they could remove the BB, and now DOJ screws that up.

Even ran into a guy at the range who said he was going to register so he could remove his BB.




.

we all said we were going to remove our BBs after registration which is why the DoJ crafted 5477 out of thin air.

Their own definitions contradict 5477

definition of a BB is a release that requires the use of a tool.
definition of a detachable magazine is a release that requires the use of a tool.

5477 says you cant change the release mechanism. what does "change" mean?

[dieselpower]

You can think whatever you want but there are many issues involved here and the sad truth is that I find many of your posts incoherent, unintelligible and disorganized. Half the time I can not get through them or lose interest.

In any event you did not even address the issue of manufacturing an AW that I raised in my long post above, whether it constitutes the same by placing the mag release on the weapon, etc., whether one would require a permit to manufacture if it is manufacturing, etc.

I'm sure that I might agree with you on some matters and even say that you may have been correct, I just don't know which due to the nature and quality as to how your posts are presented. JMO.

this is because you live in an Ivory tower echo chamber with mirrored walls. when you dont hear your own echo or see something other than yourself your mind shuts off.

please just read and stop looking for your own words.

1- The definition of a BB is a release which requires a tool.

2- The definition of a detachable magazine is a magazine which also requires the use of a tool.

3- A fixed magazine is one that requires disassembly of the action.

my ________ magazine is a magazine that can be removed without the disassembly of the action and needs a tool.

please answer this. what do I have?

A- A BB magazine release.
B- A detachable magazine.
C- Not a fixed magazine.
D- all of the above.

[ifilef]

we all said we were going to remove our BBs after registration which is why the DoJ crafted 5477 out of thin air.

Their own definitions contradict 5477

definition of a BB is a release that requires the use of a tool.
definition of a detachable magazine is a release that requires the use of a tool.

5477 says you cant change the release mechanism. what does "change" mean?

I don't think so at all. Please give citation to portion in bold, above.

In addition to the regulation 5471(m), just use your common sense and knowledge.

A detachable magazine (magazine release) does NOT require use of a tool to drop the magazine, while a non-detachable magazine DOES (bullet-button- does not fit definition of detachable magazine).

We haven't been able to register as AW weapons those with detachable magazines since 2000/2001.

[dieselpower]

I don't think so at all.

In addition to the regulation 5471(m), just use your common sense and knowledge.

A detachable magazine (magazine release) does NOT require use of a tool to drop the magazine, while a non-detachable magazine DOES (bullet-button- does not fit definition of detachable magazine).

We haven't been able to register as AW weapons those with detachable magazines since 2000/2001.

and again, you are listening to yourself without checking your facts.

read (f) and (m) slowly my friend. there is your citation.

(f) a BB is a release that requires tool

(m) a DM is a magazine that is readily removable ;
1- without disassembly
or
2- use of a tool.

added by ifilef

Please give citation to portion in bold, above

[DavidRSA]

Is there anyone who has Raddlocks in stock?

[meno377]

I don't think so at all. Please give citation to portion in bold, above.

In addition to the regulation 5471(m), just use your common sense and knowledge.

A detachable magazine (magazine release) does NOT require use of a tool to drop the magazine, while a non-detachable magazine DOES (bullet-button- does not fit definition of detachable magazine).

We haven't been able to register as AW weapons those with detachable magazines since 2000/2001.

Read both versions of these below. If you take out the part "without disassembly of the firearm action" and added the word "with" it constitutes a detachable magazine. Add the phrase back in simply differentiates it from a fixed magazine under the NEW definition of the law. Also note quotations with "Detachable magazine".

Doesn't that allow them to include "non fixed", "unfixed" for the purpose of intent?

"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

"Detachable magazine" means any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm without disassembly of the firearm action or with use of a tool

[dieselpower]

I have an SACF AR15 with a pistol grip. The magazine is released by holding a tomato against it. No disassembly required, just a tomato.

what do I have?

answers
1- You have a BB release. the tomato is the tool.
2- You have a detachable magazine. it doesnt require disassembly to remove.

Ok, so I make it in a way that I now have to disassemble the action to get the tomato into position to detach the magazine. Now what do I have.

1- A fixed magazine. because once you disassemble the action by fingers or tools you have created a fixed magazine.

tools used to detach a magazine dont count if there is no disassembly.

read (f) and (m) slowly.