MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

[wireless]

Felony. Most likely possession of an unregistered assault weapons.

For the record, I don't think their reg would withstand a court case in criminal court due to prior case law. That said, I don't - and you don't - want to be the one who finds out.

As a person who saw no downside to registering, now that the DOJ has made it clear their intent -- my recommendation is DO NOT REGISTER ANYTHING.

NOTHING.

Go one of the many legal alternatives and DO NOT REGISTER.

Possession of an assault weapon is a "wobbler", which means the DA can decide to charge you with a misdemeanor or a judge can retroactively go back and change it from a felony to a misdemeanor once you complete your sentence (most likely probation). Wobblers lowered via 17(b) from felony to misdemeanor reinstates all rights, including right to purchase/own firearms. Peace officers do not have any discretion and will arrest as a felony offense, if they decide to not look the other way.

Manufacturing an assault weapon is a "straight felony", meaning you're screwed for life, or until the courts/legislature fix the felony = automatic ban for life no matter what problem.

So this all comes down to where you live, who pulls you over, how the CA DOJ decides to move forward, etc. Did you keep your mouth shut and tell the police officer you built the gun when you got pulled over? Are you in LA or Orange County where they could careless about getting you on possession vs. manufacturing because you aren't a gang banger? Did you get pulled over by CHP or one of the local sheriffs who doesn't believe in CA's unconstitutional gun laws?


I could see this entire debacle going either way. Not that long ago the ATF reclassified pistols as short barrel rifles if you were to use a firearm accessory in the "incorrect" way, despite the fact that there is no actual PC making misuse of a pistol a rifle, thus an illegal SBR.

Time will tell, but I'm over the BS until we know more. I'm going to reevaluate when the time comes, which means am I going featureless or am I going to lose some guns in a tragic boating accident. If I *must* keep my BB rifle in BB configuration then I will not be registering one way or another.

[speeedracerr]

Anyone know if just disassembling upper and lower is good to go for the sake of storage and will constructive possession be an issue if one owns both AR and AR Pistol? Just wondering if this is an issue, otherwise it could be an option until those who decide to move them out of state later or wait until SCOTUS?

[wireless]

Anyone know if just disassembling upper and lower is good to go for the sake of storage and will constructive possession be an issue if one owns both AR and AR Pistol? Just wondering if this is an issue, otherwise it could be an option until those who decide to move them out of state later or wait until SCOTUS?

Only thing is a criminal case court ruling, there is no PC stating constructive possession of an AW as a criminal offense.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=683199

I suspect keeping your upper and lower separate would not be enough. Personally I would remove the FCG as well or even remove the gas tube. If you have a bunch of parts and could build an "assault weapon" but aren't doing anything, I wouldn't be too worried. However I would not have a safe full of complete rifle uppers and lowers that require 3 seconds to manufacture an assault weapon.

[danez71]

All I'm saying is that they can't do what they just did.

Voted #1 contrationary statement in the thread.

[target_shot]

Has the NRA-ILA released anything? Plans for an injunction?

If we register tomorrow and get a retroactive injunction on these regulations, will we be able to remove BBs?

[wireless]

Has the NRA-ILA released anything? Plans for an injunction?

If we register tomorrow and get a retroactive injunction on these regulations, will we be able to remove BBs?

[target_shot]

Wonderful....

[nagzul]

Anyone know if just disassembling upper and lower is good to go for the sake of storage and will constructive possession be an issue if one owns both AR and AR Pistol? Just wondering if this is an issue, otherwise it could be an option until those who decide to move them out of state later or wait until SCOTUS?

It appears keeping them unattached does not constitute constructive possession.

(3) With regards to an AR-15 style firearm if a complete upper receiver and a complete
lower receiver are completely detached from one another, but still in the possession or
.under the custody or control of the same person the firearm is not a semiautomatic
firearm.

[fifteen]

Is there a consensus on here regarding which new mag release button is best? Is it the "reloaded" or the ARmaglock that is better? I'm reading conflicting things on here.

[unusedusername]

If we register tomorrow and get a retroactive injunction on these regulations, will we be able to remove BBs?

Tomorrow is both a Sunday and New Year's day. The courts won't be open.

[lrdchivalry]

The plain English reading of registration says you can't do what you want to do.

IMO the PC doesn't allow for the DOJ to add a reg prohibiting the removal of the BB after registration.

30900(b) (1) Any person who, from January 1, 2001, to December
31, 2016, inclusive, lawfully possessed an assault weapon that
does not have a fixed magazine, as defined in Section 30515,
including those weapons with an ammunition feeding device that
can be readily removed from the firearm with the use of a tool,
shall register the firearm before January 1, 2018, but not before
the effective date of the regulations adopted pursuant to paragraph
(5), with the department pursuant to those procedures that the
department may establish by regulation pursuant to paragraph (5).

(5) The department shall adopt regulations for the purpose of
implementing this subdivision. These regulations are exempt from
the Administrative Procedure Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with
Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government
Code).

(b)(1) sets out what weapons can be registered under the new law

(5) only grants the DOJ the authority to develop regulations to implement the registration process of (b)(1), not what happens after they are registered.

[2Aallday]

IMO the PC doesn't allow for the DOJ to add a reg prohibiting the removal of the BB after registration.

30900(b) (1) Any person who, from January 1, 2001, to December
31, 2016, inclusive, lawfully possessed an assault weapon that
does not have a fixed magazine, as defined in Section 30515,
including those weapons with an ammunition feeding device that
can be readily removed from the firearm with the use of a tool,
shall register the firearm before January 1, 2018, but not before
the effective date of the regulations adopted pursuant to paragraph
(5), with the department pursuant to those procedures that the
department may establish by regulation pursuant to paragraph (5).

(5) The department shall adopt regulations for the purpose of
implementing this subdivision. These regulations are exempt from
the Administrative Procedure Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with
Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government
Code).

(b)(1) sets out what weapons can be registered under the new law

(5) only grants the DOJ the authority to develop regulations to implement the registration process of (b)(1), not what happens after they are registered.

FYI, I'm not exactly arguing. As I have said, I expect this will be challenged. I hope you're right. But, our...present condition would seem to be one of "oh yes they just did."

[MarinRange42]

Kes and Lawyers. Here's our chance. The DOJ even thought it prudent to inform OAL even though they did not have to and the Senate instructed otherwise. This was not passed as an emergency measure, so with a little hope and the right judge, a simple temporary restraining order to give time to prepare for the trial should be the trick move here against these Regs that have strayed beyond the written law and also and more importantly are confusing to the public at large. See previous post here... http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...9#post19154689

But I think we previously lost the ability to use the 14th amendment.

[xMAC1x]

The end game. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/...ntroduced.html

This makes a lot of sense.

[Cokebottle]

Where ever this RAW "CLASS" system came from is wrong.

There is only one "CLASS" of RAW. The firearm is either a RAW or it isn't. Don't confuse the "class" with the triggering event to register the AW. Each category listed above was the triggering event to let that group of firearms into the RAW "CLASS".

Not exactly.

Class 1 and 2 are banned by name/type and can never be transferred within California.
Class 3 are banned by feature, and if the features are removed, it removes the gun from AW status, may be de-registered, and sold.

So all 3 are AW, legally would have to be RAW, but the 3rd class is reversible.