MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

[chills]

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.

I agree with you BUT featureless will be gone in the 2017 legislative session too - no registration period for featureless. CADOJ will just redefine them out of existence.

Ok so it goes to court.....the 9th?.....

[lrdchivalry]

I know this is slightly off topic, but with others on this thread talking about how they will try and ban featureless rifles in the near future, I thought I would post this article from Breitbart.

http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/12/20/source-ban-semi-automatics-coming-ca-legislature/

[skyscraper]

On the bright side, Instead of 80% build parties now we can have DOJ compliance photoshoot parties. Just make sure to bring your own camera !

[chills]

I know this is slightly off topic, but with others on this thread talking about how they will try and ban featureless rifles in the near future, I thought I would post this article from Breitbart.

http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/12/20/source-ban-semi-automatics-coming-ca-legislature/

Our only hope is an attempt on an outright ban that'll bring our plight to the national stage. CA is a democratic stronghold - what happens here will happen to the rest of the country when Chelsea Clinton is elected to POTUS

[Dantedamean]

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.



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.

So another area that seems to be up in the air is whether or not it's legal to take the BB off between now and registration/end of year. Do you have any opinion on that?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[redhead]

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?

So, what happens to people who don't have their receipts? Can't register them? Become a felon because you didn't keep receipts?

[edwardm]

They'll try to 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.

That analysis makes no sense.

Upon registration being complete, the rifle is an assault weapon, period. Nothing in the current laws provides any rational basis (a term used intentionally by me) to distinguish among 'evil' features. Possession of an AW is legal IFF it is registered, and a registration period technically opens in < 24 hours.

Therefore you go from "it's an assault weapon" to "it's an assault weapon of Class X vs. Class Y." Find for me the language in the most recent ban which grants authority to not only open a registration period, but to also limit the feature set of the rifle. I am unable to find this.

The notion of "uniquely" identifying the subject rifle is interesting, but inapplicable. To adhere to the idea of a "unique" identification means that upon registration, absolutely zero modifications could be made to the rifle. No change to the buttstock, no change to the pistol grip, no changes to the muzzle device (not even removal and replacement with a thread protector).

Because "unique" in the sense that FGG is viewing it is just that, "unique", whether a change to feature set makes it more "assault-y" or less "assault-y" is irrelevant under his analysis. Any change to the rifle then renders it no longer unique as to the description initially provided to CalDOJ post 1/1/17, which then places the owner in possession of a 'newly' manufactured assault weapon (2 distinct charges).

How one can 'newly' manufacture an assault weapon after it has already been deemed one, and duly registered as one, defies even the most acrobatic forms of legal interpretation. That's not to say a corrupt California judge won't make those leaps and send someone to prison, but at that point, the best option would be to go full insurgent, realize Justice and Law are both dead, and accept your fate.

[dieselpower]

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.

yes it does. when looking for my purchaser copies i came across my seller copies and I have the names of everyone who bought a firearm from me, so they have my information as well.

[ifilef]

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.

Indeed.

[dieselpower]

So, what happens to people who don't have their receipts? Can't register them? Become a felon because you didn't keep receipts?

thats where I am right now too. I cant find my DROS paperwork for one of my firearms.

[John Browning]

thats where I am right now too. I cant find my DROS paperwork for one of my firearms.

I dont' have any DROS paperwork. What the hell is the point of registering stuff WITH THE DOJ if they don't keep the info? That's their problem.

I don't think I'll register anything, anyway. I don't see the point. Featureless for the mag release and avoiding the RAW hassle.

[edwardm]

I know this is slightly off topic, but with others on this thread talking about how they will try and ban featureless rifles in the near future, I thought I would post this article from Breitbart.

http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/12/20/source-ban-semi-automatics-coming-ca-legislature/

You're right. Bend over and take the f***ing.

[Malthusian]

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

Page 10

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

Page 14

(c) If the Department deems an application incomplete and notifies the applicant via email of the incomplete determination, the applicant shall provide the requested information or documentation within 30 days.

Today is the last day to configure a registrable AR

Please don't give bad advice to members who are trying to comply with the regulations

Bad photos will trigger a follow up request for more information, or a rejected application

[dieselpower]

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.

the can of worms is already spilling out and choking us all.

if they ask for pictures of your firearm and it shows a radlock when it was purchased with a BB, then the question of legality of the radlock installed after 2017 comes into play.

sure ion 2016, with a BB it was legally owned, but your installation of a radlock post 2016, in 2017 can be viewed as voiding your legal ownership in 2016.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

So another area that seems to be up in the air is whether or not it's legal to take the BB off between now and registration/end of year. Do you have any opinion on that?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

So in 2017 you would have an unregistered assault weapon that was not lawfully possessed prior to 1/1/17 and which cannot be registered. Then plug that into the AW statute as amended.