MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

[Clif]

What you just said is in the new regulations. I posted earlier both versions and you said to find it in the penal code which doesn't exist at this moment.

REGULATIONS yes, PENAL CODE no

[dieselpower]

This helps, but where is the definition from? Section?

click the link and read the regs. http://213ajq29v6vk19b76q3534cx.wpen...016/06/doj.pdf

[meno377]

REGULATIONS yes, PENAL CODE no

Didn't I just say that???

What you just said is in the new regulations. I posted earlier both versions and you said to find it in the penal code which doesn't exist at this moment.

[dieselpower]

REGULATIONS yes, PENAL CODE no

try here https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...ine+definition

also use this to search

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...hResults.xhtml <- select "text search" select (pen code) fill in your words to search for.

[ifilef]

That's right. But the new law includes the use of a tool if you don't have to disassemble.

When are those guys going to correctly interpret the new 5471(m) and realize that if the magazine device does NOT fit into only one of the definitions of a detachable magazine, either one or the other, NOT both, then it is NOT a detachable magazine.

You can't register SACF featured weapons with detachable magazine devices this time around. They were NOT lawfully possessed prior to 1/1/2017 and are a felony to possess on such weapons since the year 2001.

[Clif]

The Regs use the word OR, not AND. But nonetheless, the reasoning is "either". As in: if the magazine requres either "dissassembly of the action" or "require a tool", the magazine is not a detachable magazine. Because if it is not "either" then what good is "require a tool to remove" needed in the text? Once the action is dissassembled, there is no "tool" needed, you inly need to depress the mag release. So according to Ilief, the new BB2.0 is a "No Go." Because it does not require both disassembly and a tool, only disassembly.

[meno377]

When are those guys going to correctly interpret the new 5471(m) and realize that if the magazine device does NOT fit into only one of the definitions of a detachable magazine, either one or the other, then it is NOT a detachable magazine.

You can't register SACF featured weapons with detachable magazine devices this time around. They were NOT lawfully possessed prior to 1/1/2017 and are a felony to possess on such weapons.

Original bullet button styles are given a grace period till 1/1/2018 for registration. The new law now says that the original bullet button no longer defines a fixed magazine. In other words, the original bullet button exemption has now expired 1/1/2017 But nowhere does it say there is a new category.

[dieselpower]

When are those guys going to correctly interpret the new 5471(m) and realize that if the magazine device does NOT fit into only one of the definitions of a detachable magazine, either one or the other, then it is NOT a detachable magazine.

You can't register SACF featured weapons with detachable magazine devices this time around. They were NOT lawfully possessed prior to 1/1/2017 and are a felony to possess on such weapons.

just stop man. 10 years ago I had your idea and was backed up by the fact Fixed Magazine was not defined in the code. Those days are done.

If your firearm meets the test, it can be registered.
1- Legally owned AW
2- Legal to own AW
3- Registered by 2018

a sacf without a FIXED magazine and has a feature it is an AW.

just stop with the nonsense BS talk.

[ifilef]

just stop man. 10 years ago I had your idea and was backed up by the fact Fixed Magazine was not defined in the code. Those days are done.

If your firearm meets the test, it can be registered.
1- Legally owned AW
2- Legal to own AW
3- Registered by 2018

a sacf without a FIXED magazine and has a feature it is an AW.

just stop with the nonsense BS talk.

Please stop embarrassing yourself here with the definition of detached magazine. I am willing to end discussion on this issue.

I see you are trying to change the subject above and that is fine.

[Virginian]

just stop man. 10 years ago I had your idea and was backed up by the fact Fixed Magazine was not defined in the code. Those days are done.

If your firearm meets the test, it can be registered.
1- Legally owned AW
2- Legal to own AW
3- Registered by 2018

a sacf without a FIXED magazine and has a feature it is an AW.

just stop with the nonsense BS talk.

How can it be a legally owned AW before it was determined to be an AW?

[dieselpower]

The Regs use the word OR, not AND. But nonetheless, the reasoning is "either". As in: if the magazine requres either "dissassembly of the action" or "require a tool", the magazine is not a detachable magazine. Because if it is not "either" then what good is "require a tool to remove" needed in the text? Once the action is dissassembled, there is no "tool" needed, you inly need to depress the mag release. So according to Ilief, the new BB2.0 is a "No Go." Because it does not require both disassembly and a tool, only disassembly.

the regs use the word or, yes, but the statement is poorly written, try this ;

a detachable magazine is one that can be removed readily with the use of a tool or without disassembly of the action.

they go on to give what a tool is and then examples of a detachable magazine + a tool being used. ie... a mag magnet button.

just remember a BB is NOT a type of magazine or a feeding device, a tool use is not a function of a fixed magazine. so using a tool is stated to show that. Just because you are using a tool, doesnt mean you have any type magazine.

[Clif]

Please stop embarrassing yourself here with the definition of detached magazine. I am willing to end discussion on this issue.

I see you are trying to change the subject above and that is fine.

So is the Bullet Button Reloaded a detachable magazine in your opinion?

It does not require both disassembly and use of a tool...

[dieselpower]

How can it be a legally owned AW before it was determined to be an AW?

The law changed on the owner. A one time not AW turned into an AW overnight. By the law they must give you a chance to register the newly defined AW.

so if it was a legal rifle in 2016, when it turned into an AW in 2017, you can register it as per the regulations on how to register.

if you turn it into a rifle that was not legal to own, you have no proof it was ever legal to own, so you lose your ability to register it.

[Clif]

the regs use the word or, yes, but the statement is poorly written, try this ;

a detachable magazine is one that can be removed readily with the use of a tool or without disassembly of the action.

they go on to give what a tool is and then examples of a detachable magazine + a tool being used. ie... a mag magnet button.

just remember a BB is NOT a type of magazine or a feeding device, a tool use is not a function of a fixed magazine. so using a tool is stated to show that. Just because you are using a tool, doesnt mean you DONT have a fixed magazine.

Yes, I 1000% agree with that. Was I not clear on my reasoning that it was either dissasembly or tool, not both? And last sentense is double neg, confusing. Should be "Just because you are using a tool, means you have a fixed magazine"

[dieselpower]

Please stop embarrassing yourself here with the definition of detached magazine. I am willing to end discussion on this issue.

I see you are trying to change the subject above and that is fine.

I realize the actual regs and law hurt your position, and people clearly see you are wrong when they in fact read the actual regs and law, so yeah you can leave at any time.