MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

[Strykeback]

This definitely screws with the 80 percent pistol guys. Someone else had a thread showing the status AMD picture he sent doj on their website acknowledging approval. But he had it blocked as a bullet buttoned single shot. So does that mean these guys cant reconfigure their single shot pistols for approval and switch to semi auto afterwards?

So confusing. All the non "gun guys" at my work that I mentioned this too that own ARs were like "whhhaaat?"

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[The Gleam]

*snif* *snif*


Anybody else smell an underground regulation?

Of course.

[noah1979]

Did anybody else notice the change to measuring OAL?!?!? It says to be measured with the stock in its shortest configuration, and I have always been told but several different FFL's that it's with the stock extended. Am I wrong????

[ifilef]

Support your argument? You mean the same argument you had that everyone needed to register any rifle from 2001 to 2016 that ever had a bullet button it, regardless of if it is featureless or not? When actual lawyers say, "there is no PC to back some of these regs up", will you believe it then? I guess not, because Michel and Associates said that featureless configurations were OK, but you continued to resist any idea otherwise.

And I guess that you or others ran around like a chicken switching to featureless by today in the mistaken notion that converting to featureless next year would not be lawful to avoid registration.

All of this is now water under the bridge so let it rest. We have other things to be concerned about.

Stop bringing up the topic. It is no longer debatable. I consider it a 'gift' from DOJ to permit conversions to featureless next year as excusing the duty to register as AW, and as I said, I don't look gift horses in the mouth.

[bob.dakeelstripe]

They have always wanted in the shortest form

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[The Gleam]

Subjects whom bought umpty umpteen lowers on Dec 15th, 2016 will and should be subject to a higher level of scrutiny

A receipt is a document

If the subject bought all the components and built the lowers and properly photographed them fully assembled by today. It should not be a problem

The CADOJ is not going to allow unlimited AR registration without proper photos and or documentation

You must not be experienced with their prior registration schemes; they left it open to require such documentation and photos then too, and I know of NOBODY that was ever required to respond in kind to have their AW registration submission approved.

Simple as that, and I'm quite sure that will apply here.

They WANT REGISTRATION - not to deny it.

They are not going to make that as difficult as everyone is thinking they might, either due to Anti-2nd Amendment legislators screaming bloody-murder over their pet-registration schemes being denied by DOJ red-tape, or the simple futility of the logistics involved in trying to get millions of guns since 2005 welcomed for registration to be too much of a hurdle and deemed prohibitive.

Not to mention, my latest NRA-ILA/CRPA feeds merely state that the respective organizations are in review of it all and will present a determination shortly, and likely a push-back on much of it too.

[John Browning]

Mosins have them.

They have a SN on the barrel, which isn't a firearm. They typically only have one on the actual receiver.

[The Gleam]

Did anybody else notice the change to measuring OAL?!?!? It says to be measured with the stock in its shortest configuration, and I have always been told but several different FFL's that it's with the stock extended. Am I wrong????

Yes. It's always been this way. Measured from collapsed/folded; this is the reason you see many guns with 9-inch muzzle brakes and 12" fake-cans.

[Fox Mulder]

And I guess that you or others ran around like a chicken switching to featureless by today in the mistaken notion that converting to featureless next year would not be lawful to avoid registration.

All of this is now water under the bridge so let it rest. We have other things to be concerned about.

Stop bringing up the topic. It is no longer debatable. I consider it a 'gift' from DOJ to permit conversions to featureless next year as excusing the duty to register as AW, and as I said, I don't look gift horses in the mouth.

Translation. Stop pointing out I was wrong. I don't like that.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

The bolded part is the contentious one.

They can limit what can be registered. The law itself does that. The "possession" part is simply not there. The possession in the law applies to "assault weapons" as defined in the AW statutes, i.e., detachable magazine AND features.

An AW registration of a rifle allows that rifle to be an AW. So, as long as the paperwork applies to the rifle it's legal. They would have to claim that the registration *doesn't apply* to the rifle in order to prosecute under AW statutes.

Am I wrong here?

The prohibited possession is intertwined with lack of registration via PC 30605 and PC 30680 as implemented by DoJ; prohibited possession is the logical and necessary extension of registration being limited to BB rifles lawfully possessed prior to 1/1/2017. By registering one of those you are not simultaneously registering a standard mag release AW not lawfully possessed prior to 1/1/2017, i.e., because DoJ "will not register a firearm that was required to be registered under prior assault weapon registration laws in effect before January 1 2017." Yes, you can try to challenge the regulation and say it is not a reasonable interpretation of the statute, using the "it's an AW now so what does it matter what kind of mag release it has" argument but I don't think that's such a great argument for reasons already stated.

[God Bless America]

To the new law, there is no difference between a BB and a standard mag release

Not true

[nicky c]

Did anybody else notice the change to measuring OAL?!?!? It says to be measured with the stock in its shortest configuration, and I have always been told but several different FFL's that it's with the stock extended. Am I wrong????

You are wrong.

[The Gleam]

I've tried for two years to de-register an AW and Harris deliberately dragged it out so I couldn't. Don't think for a minute they will ever delist a RAW and if they do it will take forever. Plan accordingly.

Guaranteed.

However, too many here trust their government, and maintain this naive idea about "de-registration" and the government being so willing to help them with that when the CA government's entire goal is to mandate registration on whatever they can get away with, and data on whomever they can keep.

[Fox Mulder]

Not true

We're talking about the LAW, as passed, not the (probably underground) regulations from the DOJ.

[Bolt_Action]

You can't "manufacture" an AW out of an AW. A registered AW is legal to own. The DOJ cannot just "unregister" your guns without your specific consent. This isn't rocket science guys. Starting tomorrow there is no legal difference between and BB and a standard mag release. That's the law. Of course the DoJ doesn't like this situation and they believe hey have a mandate to spread FUD to "fix" what they see as the legislature's mistake. Oops! Unfortunately for them, they simply don't have the authority to do what they're proposing. But seriously, is anyone here surprised? If they told you that you had to paint your rifle blaze orange in order to register it, would you be taking that seriously too?