MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

[dieselpower]

This is their description of a bullet button on the new regs. If they approve the prince bullet button on registration, it appears it might be good. As the bullet button alone does not exclude it from registration. Quite the oppisite. It says it does not qualify as a fixed magazine. If that's the case....No harm in submitting it with that type of button.

`Bullet-button" means a product requiring a tool to remove an ammunition feedin device
or magazine by depressing a recessed button or lever shielded by a magazine lock. A
bullet-button equipped fully functional semiautomatic firearm does not meet the fixed
magazine definition under Penal Code section 30515(b~.

Edit: good enough. It was just something we were kicking around.

This is where they handed us the golden goose, people just dont realize it yet. This is a very (vary ) good thing.

I am waiting to explain after legal analysis is out.

[HardwoodRods]

Personally I enjoy the whole picture thing. The regs say a photo, nothing about clarity or distance......

[ojisan]

Why are people talking about DROS and receipts? I see nothing about that in the paperwork.

Page 10, item B at the top of the page:

http://213ajq29v6vk19b76q3534cx.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/doj.pdf

How many people kept their receipts from as long as 15 years ago, not knowing that they would be needed some day?

[Fox Mulder]

Here's a question for you... you owned a bullet button equipped rifle prior to the ban. After 1/1/17 you swap out the bullet button it came with with a different, but still 2016 legal mag locking device like the radlock.

What have you done?

[BeFrank]

There are nuances due to all the different potential configurations. Register and then add a AR57 upper would make a BB lower but the actual mag release is part of the upper. Register with a Can Cannon upper?
the main issue that I see is the DOJ and the state of CA do not use logic to enact the laws or regulations but still have the ability to prosecute me and force me to defend myself at great expense. The state makes laws grandfathering some items and then makes more laws making those same things illegal. The state politicians lie about what the intentions of the laws are and are not held accountable. Until California starts using reason there can be no logical derived response. We have most of a year to see how this will be enforced but it's hard to form a rational response to an irrational act.

[ifilef]

Exactly. They would tap you, on at least one count, for "manufacturing". Except how do you "manufacture" that which is *already* manufactured, and exempt due to adherence to the registration requirement?

"It's more assault-y!" is not a coherent legal theory. But this state's judicial system is anything but coherent. However, I stand in the same place as you.

They'll argue that the unilateral act of switching to a configuration with standard release for featured weapons was and is unlawful after 2000, and that by doing so you have in essence voided your own registration, which was based upon a foundation of legal ownership prior to 1/1/2017, leaving you without the protections under 30680.

Then they'll charge you with manufacturing and/or possession of an unregistered AW.

Ooohhh, big time court case! I wouldn't want to be the defendant unless you are willing to risk martyrdom, unpopular at that with the general populace. I'm certainly not willing to risk all that for a cause that is basically dead, e,g, bringing BACK the standard mag release to RAWs.

One acts at one's peril so govern yourself accordingly.

[dieselpower]

Here's a question for you... you owned a bullet button equipped rifle prior to the ban. After 1/1/17 you swap out the bullet button it came with with a different, but still 2016 legal mag locking device like the radlock.

What have you done?

The problem then arsed when they ask for a receipt of purchase of the magazine release. This is for people who built their firearm from a stripped lower.

I know what you are suggesting here and its a valid plan for compliance.

I am thinking about doing it myself. Need to go out TODAY and buy one.

the other problem is now that we are talking about it, will they accept a photo of a rifle with a radlock as in compliance.

[PartyBarge]

Seems like i need grip wrap and muzzle brake.

Yep.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

The chassis is the car. The lower is the firearm. Piles and piles of paperwork support this. DOJ can't just redefine what a giraffe is on a whim.

DoJ isn't doing anything new here, it is the statute that defines "assault weapon" and then says the possessor of the assault weapon "shall register the firearm" i.e. the assault weapon which is a collection of parts/features/receivers that amounts to an assault weapon as defined. The further restriction here is that registration is now authorized only for the uniquely identified "firearm" that is described in the registration and lawfully possessed prior to 1/1/17. This is how it is under the statute alone, it says all this before you even look at the regulations.

[HardwoodRods]

The problem then arsed when they ask for a receipt of purchase of the magazine release. This is for people who built their firearm from a stripped lower.

I know what you are suggesting here and its a valid plan for compliance.

I am thinking about doing it myself. Need to go out TODAY and buy one.

the other problem is now that we are talking about it, will they accept a photo of a rifle with a radlock as in compliance.

Want a receipt? I'll send you one I have a receipt book around here somewhere........

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

Personally I enjoy the whole picture thing. The regs say a photo, nothing about clarity or distance......

"Clear digital photos of firearms listed on the application" :foreheadslap:

[RED (Y)]

I mean,why bother guys... Fix the stock,put the grip wrap on,install muzzle brake/comp and take your BB off.No trouble with all this registration BS and the best part is that you have your normal mag release.

[Fox Mulder]

The problem then arsed when they ask for a receipt of purchase of the magazine release. This is for people who built their firearm from a stripped lower.

I know what you are suggesting here and its a valid plan for compliance.

I am thinking about doing it myself. Need to go out TODAY and buy one.

the other problem is now that we are talking about it, will they accept a photo of a rifle with a radlock as in compliance.

Well, I personally DO have receipts to prove that my rifles were built in approved configuration prior to 2017, including receipts for bullet button type mag releases. What if, prior to 2017 registration, I decide to switch to a raddlock? It will at no point have been a weapon out of 2016 compliance.

Im just spitballing here, I don't know if there's anything to it. I don't think they can get you for anything at all though, if you go from a bullet button to a raddlock in 2017. Hell, I've been trying to buy a raddlock for the last month, but they've been sold out.

Edit: The Raddlock is absolutely a compliant device, and if they arbitrarily don't accept it that's gonna be a whole different can of worms.

[dynastyss]

Page 10, item B at the top of the page:

http://213ajq29v6vk19b76q3534cx.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/doj.pdf

How many people kept their receipts from as long as 15 years ago, not knowing that they would be needed some day?

Thanks, I first interpreted description as a self-written one.

I have 1 of 3 DROS papers, and I know the first one I bought it from has since closed down. That said, they were all post 2014, so does anyone know how I could acquire that info?

[John Browning]

If you PPT'd, how can you say who you got it from? The DROS doesn't include any of the buyers info?

I find that just another one of many troubling aspects of this whole thing.