MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

[Gowking]

Not sure about that. Franklin Armory DFM Magazine requires the rear pin to be removed then Top load the magazine.

This one looks like a thumb push that opens the rear pin and ejects the mag.

Actually kinda works better that the BB.

FYI the post you are quoting was referring to the special bolt catch that isn't magazine operated.

[Strykeback]

They want original dros paperwork and delivery dates of registered lowers? Who the hell saves or remembers that ****?

And if you've already serialized your lowers with custom serials like ****thedoj are your lowers now paperweights?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[MajorSideburns]

Looks like the DOJ's time spent reading all the threads and posts here blabbing about getting around the signed laws paid off. A lot of it seems like it won't hold up in a court of law fortunately.

[tonyxcom]

And then those who refuse to register this year are again faced with the option of "do not comply" or being stuck forever with their BBv2.0 or featureless builds.

I think the landscape looks like this.

Current BB Ban
Featureless - keep mag release
Fixed Mag - Keep evil features
Register - keep bullet button

Future Featureless Ban
Fixed Mag - keep evil features
Register - keep mag release

Future Fixed Magazine Ban
Register - keep fixed magazine

[Twist18]

I have a couple of questions. First, I have a Colt Sporter that I registered back in 1999-2000, whatever it was, so it does not require a bullet button. How are they going to differentiate between rifles like mine, and the newer ones that do need a BB? What happens if I get stopped going to/from the range, or at the range with my rifle, and the LEO doesn't know my rifle is legal without a BB or thinks every "AW" needs to have a BB now? Also, I have a FAL that I haven't built yet, so what are my options there, besides "featureless"? Can I build it with a 10 round mag, disable the mag release, and make it a top loader using stripper clips, and not have to register it? What a cluster ****.

[MajorSideburns]

I have a couple of questions. First, I have a Colt Sporter that I registered back in 1999-2000, whatever it was, so it does not require a bullet button. How are they going to differentiate between rifles like mine, and the newer ones that do need a BB? What happens if I get stopped going to/from the range, or at the range with my rifle, and the LEO doesn't know my rifle is legal without a BB or thinks every "AW" needs to have a BB now? Also, I have a FAL that I haven't built yet, so what are my options there, besides "featureless"? Can I build it with a 10 round mag, disable the mag release, and make it a top loader using stripper clips, and not have to register it? What a cluster ****.

Because you will have the legal registration papers with your registered assault weapon with you like you are supposed to? And those papers will show you registered in 1999?

[all-cal]

Not that I have any particular like or dislike for DOJ, which is charged with implementing the laws from the legislature, but the above wasn't a very 'nice' thing to say. Oh well, venting is therapeutic, I guess.

Not a nice thing thing to say? What about the not so nice thing CA-DOJ is DOING to us?

[enegue]

Because you will have the legal registration papers with your registered assault weapon with you like you are supposed to? And those papers will show you registered in 1999?

You're not required to carry any papers

[Nor*Cal]

I have mine already engraved with my own. I don't intend on registering though. I'm going to put the BBv2 on.

So why say that "80% AR owners are ****ed"?

Whats the point? Just to scare people or to make you feel better that you are going to go the BBv2 route.

This stuff is complicated enough. Don't need bogus comments like yours.

[Nor*Cal]

And if you've already serialized your lowers with custom serials like ****thedoj are your lowers now paperweights?

No, you'll just end up with 2 serial numbers, yours and the DOJ's.

[BAJ475]

Yes, I think it's 100% unwinnable. What you'd effectively be asking the court to do is re-open registration for a previously banned AR configuration and that would be the framework for any interpretation the court would do. I think you'd need a much more compelling textual basis than the "well it's defined as an AW now so it doesn't matter if it has a BB or a standard mag release" argument, again IMO. DOJ is empowered to make regulations to implement the bullet button firearm ban and the " no registration of firearms meeting definition of AW under prior law", "must provide digital pics of bullet button release", and "can't change release device" regulations are all consistent with the legislative purpose of banning and allowing a time-limited registration period for bullet button firearms. Can you make an argument that you meet the requirement for registration that you lawfully possessed the firearm in a BB configuration through 12/31/16, and once defined as an AW the release mechanism BB vs. standard is irrelevant? Sure. But that would be your interpretation competing against DOJ's interpretation, which the statute authorizes it to make via regulation, and i think you would lose that one.

First, thank you for your thoughtful analysis. But I have some questions. First, would you really be asking the court to "re-open registration for a previously banned AR configuration"? Was it not the Legislature that re opened registration? Furthermore, the legislation specifically did not open registration for what was previously banned. The ability to register is based on lawful possession prior up to 1/1/17. While the Legislature clearly empowered the DOJ to adopt registration regulations, where is there anything in the legislation for multiple classes of AWs or any indication that the DOJ could enact regulations preventing all sorts of modifications to registered AW? The DOJ regulation goes well beyond registration and limits what one can and cannot do with their AWs after they are registered. Is this not something for the Legislature to decide, not the DOJ. Where do you see any authority in the legislation for the DOJ to enact such regulations?

[BAJ475]

I was trying to figure out where the other poster was seeing a February date? Lol

It was on a OAL webpage. But you answered my question. Thanks.

[BAJ475]

I was thinking about the last minute AR/AK buyers who ran out and bought an AR/AK and will forget to register thinking they did so when they bought it.

Yes. I also think this will probably be a big problem. In fact, it will probably be an even bigger problem for those who bought some time ago and have no idea how the law has changed.

[meno377]

So if I put the ARMagLock or the DFM on it would make it legal and I don't have to register, right?

I am betting on this. I bought 7 of the armaglocks.

[BAJ475]

It's a specific intent crime?

I do not know.