MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

[dieselpower]

On a different note, I have a somewhat unique thought....

Isn't the magazine spring and follower of ANY firearm technically part of the "action"?

"firearm action" is defined as the mechanism that loads, locks, fires, and extracts the cartridges. The spring and follower most certainly is a required part of the action that loads a cartridge into the chamber.

My point is, when you remove a magazine (by any method), aren't you by default "disassembling the firearm's action"?

there is a firearm (rifle) from WW1 that does meet that criteria and the magazine is in between a fixed and a detachable one. Its magazine spring is loose and when you pull the magazine out it will dump all the ammo left in it. But soldiers carried full magazines and instead of loading the one in the firearm, swapped the fixed magazine out. It did not need a tool. Its like an SKS type magazine that didnt hinge in the front.

The regs define action as:

"Action" means the working mechanism of a semiautomatic firearm, which is the combination of the receiver or frame and breech bolt together with the other parts of the mechanism by which a firearm is loaded, fired, and unloaded.

While the magazine spring and follow facilitate the loading, they do not aid in the firing.

[CandG]

redacted

[tsette]

All in reading that DOJ is attempting to make law in registration regs. They have no authority to do this. I can't wait for sessions to write a cease letter and tell doj to stop stepping on the constitution.

[tsette]

The more you write on this blog and point out DOJ issues the more they will retune there argument and fix the record. Stop chatting about this and delete these posts!

[CandG]

The more you write on this blog and point out DOJ issues the more they will retune there argument and fix the record. Stop chatting about this and delete these posts!

fair enough, deleted my posts. If I'm right though, which I'm not certain that I am (but I think I make a pretty good argument), this could be a pretty big deal.

[jasonem]

Seriously what a waste of time you guys spend analyzing these idiotic laws. Just don't comply, keep you gun the way it was when you bought it from the shop. Sometimes I wonder if the DOJ is posing as members on here. These laws are so ambiguous and almost impossible to interpret and that's by design. If you think LEOs are dumb enough to hang around gun ranges checking for bullet buttons and registrations, and trying to see if you've gone featureless or not....You are wrong.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

[dieselpower]

Agreed, but where in the law does it specify that the "firing" portion of the action is the portion that must be disassembled?

the regs define the terms
(b)"Action" means the working mechanism of a semiautomatic firearm, which is the combination of the receiver or frame and breech bolt together with the other parts of the mechanism by which a firearm is loaded, fired, and unloaded.

(n) Disassembly of the firearm action" means the fire control assembly is detached from the action in such a way that the action has been interrupted and will not function.

For example; disassembling the action on a two part receiver like that on an AR-15 style firearm would require the rear take dawn pin to be removed the upper receiver lifted up wards and away from the lower receiver using the front divot din as the fulcrum before the magazine can be removed.

The more you write on this blog and point out DOJ issues the more they will retune there argument and fix the record. Stop chatting about this and delete these posts!

[dieselpower]

Seriously what a waste of time you guys spend analyzing these idiotic laws. Just don't comply, keep you gun the way it was when you bought it from the shop. Sometimes I wonder if the DOJ is posing as members on here. These laws are so ambiguous and almost impossible to interpret and that's by design. If you think LEOs are dumb enough to hang around gun ranges checking for bullet buttons and registrations, and trying to see if you've gone featureless or not....You are wrong.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

do you realize a person is already facing years in prison and a felony record based on these new regulations.

yes Police do in fact care about crime...who would have thought it possible

[curtisfong]

If you think LEOs are dumb enough to hang around gun ranges checking for bullet buttons and registrations, and trying to see if you've gone featureless or not....You are wrong.

Catastrophically (and provably) terrible advice.

[jasonem]

do you realize a person is already facing years in prison and a felony record based on these new regulations.

yes Police do in fact care about crime...who would have thought it possible

Link? I'd be interested to read that article. They care so much that we got millions of illegals here frolicking around and hanging out at home depot easily found.

[iBkickinit]

Anyone find legal definition of "detachable magazine"? Does it not exist? My search capabilities came up with nothing.

https://cdn.firearmspolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/bullet-button-proposed-regulations.pdf

Page 3 of 15, 5471(m).

[dieselpower]

Link? I'd be interested to read that article. They care so much that we got millions of illegals here frolicking around and hanging out at home depot easily found.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=19452642

police do care

criminal street gang associate = a person who hangs around with gang members but may or may not be in the gang.

A son who's father is a gang member can be a criminal street gang associate.
A Father of a known gang members can be a criminal street gang associate.

I convicted a man of being a criminal street gang associate because his school friends, the people he dated, the people he worked with and hung around with that work were shown to be members of a criminal street gang. We also found him guilty of receiving stolen property.

The ADA then used this conviction to turn the kids life around and get him to make better choices and get away from those idiots.

[tsette]

Just remember any and all information can be used against you. Photos, observations, receipts etc.... I believe that cal DOJ has written the new "aw registration" based off of talk on forums such as these. Sometimes we give these people way to many ideas. I do believe that these rules are going beyond the scope of what the legislature wanted DOJ to do. Sometimes we need DOJ to break the camels back in order for us to get good case law to overturn these rules and laws. It also helps Congress use the commerce clause to make all states comply with minimal laws so citizens can move freely without becoming felons for crossing state lines with a standard semi-automatic rifle that is legal in almost every state but a select few. California and other states are making it too easy by going overboard with these laws. Looking forward to the court cases and new federal laws.

[dieselpower]

Just remember any and all information can be used against you. Photos, observations, receipts etc.... I believe that cal DOJ has written the new "aw registration" based off of talk on forums such as these. Sometimes we give these people way to many ideas. I do believe that these rules are going beyond the scope of what the legislature wanted DOJ to do. Sometimes we need DOJ to break the camels back in order for us to get good case law to overturn these rules and laws. It also helps Congress use the commerce clause to make all states comply with minimal laws so citizens can move freely without becoming felons for crossing state lines with a standard semi-automatic rifle that is legal in almost every state but a select few. California and other states are making it too easy by going overboard with these laws. Looking forward to the court cases and new federal laws.

agreed, but open and frank discussion by the people shouldnt have to be secret. When you are forced to live in secret, you are allowing the conversation to be viewed as taboo, which leads to the public believing the act is taboo.

if everybody hides their guns, all guns need to be hidden and most poeople will start be believe they are bad.

people didn't lose the right to carry a gun because they could not be trusted with the carry of a gun. they lost that right because people first stopped needing to carry a gun and then it became normal to not see a gun, then it only became normal to see a criminal with a gun at that point only criminal had guns which is what we are fighting now.

when most people see a person with a gun, what do you think they do? Why is that?

never fear or limit open speech just as we should not fear or limit any openly expressed freedom

I will now walk out to my patio and start shooting at my target...LOL

[CandG]

agreed, but open and frank discussion by the people shouldnt have to be secret. When you are forced to live in secret, you are allowing the conversation to be viewed as taboo, which leads to the public believing the act is taboo.

if everybody hides their guns, all guns need to be hidden and most poeople will start be believe they are bad.

people didn't lose the right to carry a gun because they could not be trusted with the carry of a gun. they lost that right because people first stopped needing to carry a gun and then it became normal to not see a gun, then it only became normal to see a criminal with a gun at that point only criminal had guns which is what we are fighting now.

when most people see a person with a gun, what do you think they do? Why is that?

never fear or limit open speech just as we should not fear or limit any openly expressed freedom

I will now walk out to my patio and start shooting at my target...LOL

Ya but he had a reasonable point.... let's say nobody EVER asked if they could remove their BB after registration - that the topic never even came up, no mention of that anywhere on CG. Would the DOJ still have made a point to try and prohibit their removal after registration? Who knows, but I'll wager they never even would've thought about it.

And at the end of the day, what did we all gain from talking about it openly for the last 6 months? Not really anything, other than some fun debates.

The DOJ reg's aren't final yet, according to their website. When they are finalized, that's probably a better time to discuss any pros and cons of things they may or may not have accidentally left out.