MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

[TOM_ONE]

They would deny registration for a gun with the BBv2.0 because it meets the definition of fixed magazine and is not registerable.

I'm sorry I meant 1.0

[hossb7]

According to the link in the first post these regulations are proposed. Have they been approved/accepted/etc? Or are they still proposed.

[dieselpower]

How about the "smog example" you like so much? To register your car, it cannot have excess emissions. That's "the deal." Say your car passes a smog check and you register it, and then at some point during the period of your registration, it reaches a state of disrepair or decline to the point of excess emissions. Is your registration suddenly invalid? Or are you allowed to drive it until the next smog check is due?

The law is referring to a thing, you are attempting to refer to a result of non-compliance.

The Law says you need a Cat, and pass a smog test. The regs state the removal of the Cat is prohibited. Even if you pass smog without one.
You pass smog and then remove the Cat.

You are claiming that since you still pass smog, your registration is valid when in fact the regulation stated otherwise.

AH yes, the good old car-gun analogy.

yup.

There is a system for revocation regarding cars. For AW there is not.

yes there is. 30900 (b) (1) says your registration is dependent on the regulation. The regulation says you cant remove the BB. The law says you have to comply with 30900 to be exempt from charges.

I haven't looked but my guess is that any one of those penalties are specifically spelled out in the law...If a police is forcing you to do something, you can bet it's in the law. DUI laws, same thing, penalties were increased significantly, and all have the force of law behind them.

This isn't the case here.

they are the same.
your car registration is valid if you comply with the regulations which govern your registration. violate those regulations and your registration is invalid.

[srfdbc7]

The tree of liberty is dying in california....

Unless your an illegal immigrant from another country then the California politicians open their arms for you, come take all this free **** while we bleed the working middle class dry.

[wireless]

Yeah they could say that, but the problem is that the law makers didn't write it but neither did the DOJ There is no such thing as revoking an AW registration. There wasn't such a thing in the past, and there isn't such a thing now.

Emojis were meant to imply sarcasm, but I think we are both on the same page other than that.

[Fox Mulder]

Well, unless it emits visible smoke or you bring it to a flash mob, apparently.

(Just kidding . . .)

What if it goes vroom vroom when I pull the trigger???

Anyway I'm about done with this thread for the night. I'm off to a NYE party.


Happy new year.

[lrdchivalry]

Please read it before spreading more misinformation!!!



Note how it says the release mechanism. That means if you have BBv1.0, you cannot change it to ANYTHING else, even if it's a different type of device which does the same thing!

You need it to have a BB to register it. You CANNOT change it after that. Not to anything else except the same exact release mechanism you had before. Even if it also requires a tool to release the magazine, it can't be changed.

Am I spreading misinformation or calling out an underground regulation?

5477 states Post-registration Modification of Registered Assault Weapons, Prohibition.

The PC only gives the DOJ the authority to set up guidelines for registration of firearms that qualify to be registered under 30900(b)(1) not to create additional law, which is what 5477 attempts to do by virtue of an underground regulation.

[dieselpower]

Am I spreading misinformation or calling out an underground regulation?

5477 states Post-registration Modification of Registered Assault Weapons, Prohibition.

The PC only gives the DOJ the authority to set up guidelines for registration of firearms that qualify to be registered under 30900(b)(1) not to create additional law, which is what 5477 attempts to do by virtue of an underground regulation.

correct, that is why what they did is wrong, but what they did was still what they did.

we are explaining that they actually did it, not that they were correct in doing it.

5477 is not underground regulation because it was submitted, if they sent a letter spelling out 5477 to LEA and left 5477 out of the regulations, that would be an under ground reg.

[God Bless America]

Am I spreading misinformation or calling out an underground regulation?
.

Fer Chrissakes if it's on the OAL site then it's not UNDERGROUND.

[lrdchivalry]

5477 is not underground regulation because it was submitted, if they sent a letter spelling out 5477 to LEA and left 5477 out of the regulations, that would be an under ground reg.

[God Bless America]

I think that might have something to do with that you are in a "state park". Driving down a public road, you would have to do something against a PC to be arrested or ticketed.

F&G valid statewide. Regulations are part of the law.

F&G has search authority without a warrant.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

The PC only gives the DOJ the authority to set up guidelines for registration of firearms that qualify to be registered under 30900(b)(1) not to create additional law, which is what 5477 attempts to do by virtue of an underground regulation.

"DoJ has authority to limit registration to BB firearms and refuse to register standard mag release rifles, so I'll go ahead register my BB rifle and once it's registered, I'll just switch over to a standard mag release, because although the DoJ has authority to regulate registration on the front end, the statute doesn't say anything about what happens after that so DoJ has no authority to tell me not to switch the mag release after the aw is registered! Gotcha!!!" It's a sh*t argument because you end up with a registered AW with no BB, i.e., that which DoJ apparently does have the authority to refuse to register in the first place. Maybe you can find a really dopey judge who finds that logic appealing, who knows lol. Going back to my earlier posts in this thread: the legislation bans and allows a time-limited registration period for BB firearms, it does not allow registration of AWs in previously prohibited configuration (with standard mag release), for which the registration ship sailed many years ago. "I'll just switch to a standard mag release after it's registered" requires you to argue that the legislation actually does allow you to register standard mag release AWs -- that is your unavoidable end result, and it's a loser argument.

[Sousuke]

The law is referring to a thing, you are attempting to refer to a result of non-compliance.

The Law says you need a Cat, and pass a smog test. The regs state the removal of the Cat is prohibited. Even if you pass smog without one.
You pass smog and then remove the Cat.

You are claiming that since you still pass smog, your registration is valid when in fact the regulation stated otherwise.


yup.


yes there is. 30900 (b) (1) says your registration is dependent on the regulation. The regulation says you cant remove the BB. The law says you have to comply with 30900 to be exempt from charges.



they are the same.
your car registration is valid if you comply with the regulations which govern your registration. violate those regulations and your registration is invalid.

If I change parts on my car it doesn't invalidate my registration. The same goes for 30900.

[broadside]

Can't you look at it like this:
1 - lawfully possess 2016 BB rifle by Jan 1
2 - wait until Jan 1 for it to be defined as an AW (not a new class of AW since the definition was amended, not created separate, so no "class IV" exists as some of you claim)
3 - since it's now an AW with or without BB and there is a year to register the AW where possession of unregistered AW is legal, swap out to standard mag release
4 - register with standard mag release, but you have to keep the standard release unless dereg'd.

That seems to follow the letter of the regs and the PC. You didn't swap to standard release before the definition changed and you swapped before registration

[ifilef]

No, removal is illegal prior to register because it creates an AW not defined in 30900 (b)(1).

You cant remove it after registration because the regulation to register prohibits removal (5477).

Now if you read the law 30900 (b) (1), you should be able to take off the BB, because read the part in RED

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).

the word "including" here means there is / are more then just the included ones.

Your BB is lawfully possessed under the including clause,
On 1/1/2017 your BB Rifle becomes a non-fixed magazine rifle, so the removal of the BB just places it into the other camp of firearm legal to posses from 2001-2016 if registered.

but that is not what the regs say.

You should have highlighted 'lawfully possessed' only. It had to be possessed lawfully prior to 1/1/2017, and a SACF featured with mag release is not; therefore, not registrable, nor is it permitted as a modification not only because it's been unlawful to possess for the past 15 years or more, but the statute does not contemplate nor authorize modifications for things that are felonious.

To permit conversion to mag release is not contemplated by the statutory framework nor the prior history of registrations. Those who did lawfully possess Cat I or II so possessed with mag releases unlike here where no such lawful possession existed during the applicable period recited in 30900(b)(1) or 30680.

These arguments exist even without considering the new regulation that expressly prohibits such modification.