MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

[cyborg]

Do you really think the brain-dead commie libtard jury and judge will give a rat's patookus about your facts and logic? Facts and logic to libtards makes them even more insane, so, bye bye off to prison you go. Sorry.

[Malthusian]

Is this where it pairs uppers and lowers, permanently?


Adding a different upper, barrel, etc., would be an unauthorized change to your AW, no? Simply removing the upper make it "not a firearm." Would putting the upper back on be considered manufacturing a firearm?

You should be able to change the upper after registration. There is nothing in the CCR that stipulates that the upper cannot be changed

The intent is that all of the intended AR's to be registered must be complete and functional by today

YMMV

[Whiskey_Tango]

All SACF rifle owners are in the same boat should the confiscation day ever come. If anything, registered Rifles might even survive longer- and they can be deregistered and made featureless should it become more attractive in the future.

You can debate the merits of featureless but you're dead wrong with this statement. Long guns DROS'd pre '14 and homebuilds are in no way shape or form "in the same boat." They're not even in the same ocean.

[meno377]

You can debate the merits of featureless but you're dead wrong with this statement. Long guns DROS'd pre '14 and homebuilds are in no way shape or form "in the same boat." They're not even in the same ocean.

THIS.

[Dvrjon]

These proposed regulations are just that prosposed regulations right? They can be rejected right?

Not by the Office of Administrative Law (OAL). The statute exempted the regulatory process from The Administrative Procedures Act. That means no hearings, no wait times for public comment, no legal/compliance review by the OAL. But only OAL can file and print the regs.

The submission to OAL is specifically, and only, "File and Print", with a requested publication date of "ASAP". This info is contained on the submission sheet in front of the regulations: http://213ajq29v6vk19b76q3534cx.wpen...016/06/doj.pdf

[HK Dave]

This is not like the magazine regulations. These "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" regulations are final. They were clearly marked as "file & print" with an affective date of 1/1/17. Only through the court will any of this get changed or updated.

Ah, very well then.

It is pretty confusing in the language then since portions contradict.

So what exactly constitutes an Assault Weapon and a fixed magazine? Seems if you have one, you violate the other.

[edwardm]

Of course the regs as of now say you can't change the release mechanism. So don't. Just install your BB wrench after you get the registration letter. BB is still intact and present.

[Malthusian]

This has probably been replied to, but this is as far as i've made it in this thread so far.

Since you have to send photographs with your registration, chances are they won't approve your RAW with a standard magazine release. Then charge you with tampering because you showed them a different magazine release than what you actually had.

(c) Clear digital photos of firearms listed on the application One photo shall depict the bullet button style magazine release installed on the firearm......

Sending in a photo of a standard mag release would simply be providing evidence of a felony


IANAL

[tomk556]

Just so everyone is clear, regulations can't create brand new punishments for breaking the law. If they say the bullet button has to remain on, there is nothing to threaten us with if it's taken off. Possession of a registered AW without a bullet button isn't mentioned in the law anywhere...

That was my first thought too. I don't know anything about criminal law as it would pertain to a rule made by an administrative body, nor do I know enough about the CA Administrative Procedures Act, etc., to know if the proposed language would exceed the scope of the DOJ's authority, but there is quite a strong argument to be made here, and if promulgated, this is ripe for a good ole, boring admin law lawsuit

[TOM_ONE]

Sending in a photo of a standard mag release would simply be providing evidence of a felony


IANAL

Yes of course, but people are saying "why not just put the standard mag release on" then the law technically states you cannot change the mag release after registration.

But they won't approve your reg if you have a standard mag release on, and what you just said.

I think people were thinking you could get around having a BB if you changed it prior to registration, but they don't realize you HAVE to send in photographs.

[munkeeboi]

As stated before, they can say the removal of the BB is a violation of your registration, revoke your registration due to non compliance with the previously agreed upon terms (they will also have a picture showing that it had a BB when registered) and then charge you for possession of a now non registered illegal AW.

[God Bless America]

Do you know where the running joke "two weeks" comes from? If not I suggest you find out. It is VERY educational.

Yes, thanks, I do. Have been on this site since before the OLL drama.

This place has yet to outsmart Excremento.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

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.

I think we're on the same page up to this point. The quote you selected was my response to IVC's hypothetical example of removing BB then trying to register the AW without BB. I think doing that would in effect be asking for a re-opening of registration for a previously banned AR configuration, and DoJ can limit registration to BB configured firearms. If you're not agreeing with that, please feel free to clarify your position here.

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?

What I am seeing DoJ doing is implementing PC 30900(b)(3)'s mandate that the registration "shall contain a description of the firearm that identifies it uniquely" and with the "pic of the bullet button" requirement they are forcing the registrant to commit him or herself to the specific configuration in which the firearm did not have a fixed magazine prior to 12/31/16. PC 30900(b)(1). In other words, the firearm that is registered is the uniquely identified one in the configuration that was described and depicted in the registration. If you have not registered an AW configured without a BB (DoJ won't let you under the new regs), and you have an AW configured without a BB, you have an unregistered AW. It is no longer the firearm that does not have a fixed magazine that you lawfully possessed prior to 12/31/16. There is no separate penalty for changing the release mechanism, and DoJ isn't creating a new offense here; instead that regulation implements/clarifies/explains/interprets the "forced commitment" registration scheme, and the Penal Code hook would be the existing possession of an unregistered AW offense. Sure, you can argue that you did register the firearm with that serial number and it's an AW now so what does it matter any more in what way the firearm does not have a fixed magazine. But again, DoJ has been given authority to make regulations and what it has done is when all is said and done is coherent IMO. Also, if you start with "Furthermore, the legislation specifically did not open registration for what was previously banned" but you are arguing that you think you are entitled to have registered AW in a configuration that was banned previously and for which the registration period has long since closed, you're going to encounter some resistance ("some" is probably an understatement). Again, IMO. There is at the very least an open question of interpretation that may not be resolved unless and until someone gets arrested.

[Regular guy]

You can debate the merits of featureless but you're dead wrong with this statement. Long guns DROS'd pre '14 and homebuilds are in no way shape or form "in the same boat." They're not even in the same ocean.

Well sure, I am of the opinion that it makes sense to register post '14 more so than rifles acquired before this time. But my line of thinking is that if they decide to confiscate all SACF rifles we would all be in the same boat as far as what we would have to do to avoid being criminals. Those who do not register their pre '14 rifles or have rifles the government is not aware of could certainly hide them for longer before being caught and thrown in prison for possessing illegal firearms should that become the case. Also, do not underestimate the ability of the state to require other registrations or information collection efforts to help build their database of SACF rifles. I could very well be wrong. I plan on registering anything purchased post '14.

[radicalray]

What a mess going to hug my pre 2000 RAWs now