MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

[dieselpower]

I get that but a bulletbutton is defined as not fixed.

The penal code only refers to fixed, so therefore a bullet button with a mag magnet is the same as a bullet button without in context of the law.

All I can say is that the regs were very slopply written.

oh yeah they were written by 100,000,000 chimps sitting in front of typewriters and then a 4th grader read the ones they thought made some sense and submitted them.

The whole intent of the law was to make a BB SACF with features an AW
The whole intent of the regulation was to make BB SACF with features a new class of AW.

so when you read the regs, read them with the intent to create a new class of AW.

[Mayor McRifle]

Out of here.

BYE

He's just taking a bathroom break. He'll be back.

[IVC]

It is clear to me in this example that one could not decide once get a permit for their existing propane generator then change it back to a gasoline because the permit is for a propane generator.

This example does not seem different than Featured vs BB AW permits.

The problem is that the law doesn't specify "permit for propane generator," only "permit for an evil generator." Further, the law just specified that "propane generator" is as evil as the "gasoline generator."

Better to stick to BB and AW as generators generate more confusion than electricity.

[jcwatchdog]

I give up. Have a good day.

Go out to the range today and get arrested if you shoot SACF featured with a magazine release. Go out to the range after you register and get arrested for manufacturing an AW.

Out of here.

You still have to reconcile how you can get arrested for manufacturing an AW if it's already registered as an AW. You can ignore this issue and just imply a lot of things that the DOJ will do, but there's nothing in law to back it up.

[Fox Mulder]

I don't disagree that you can saw off the barrel, change the sights, change other features. None of those affect the determination of whether the AW was lawfully possessed prior to 1/1/17. Changing a BB to a standard mag release does.

Sooooooo changing the configuration (bullet button) post 1/1/17 somehow affects if it was lawfully configured and possessed prior to 1/1/17?

Please explain. I am unclear on time travel, and how you are applying it to this situation.

[edwardm]

I've explained this multiple times and multiple ways in this thread.

True. But not in any sensible, coherent, or meaningful way. "Tortured interpretation", perhaps. But that's it.

[tonyxcom]

Just a bit of perspective for the passers by in this thread.

It is DAY 1.
There is currently a dispute about whether the BB's can come off before and after registration.
It is DAY 1.
There hasn't been an official analysis or opinion released by the actual 'Calgun's lawyers'

I would expect a lot to change between now and Dec 31st 2018.
Keep your BB on and sit tight.

[goog]

How is ifilef still allowed to post here?

[meno377]

I give up. Have a good day.

Go out to the range today and get arrested if you shoot SACF featured with a magazine release. Go out to the range after you register and get arrested for manufacturing an AW.

Some of you are so nasty here that I don't care to spend any more of my time in this thread warning you of the pitfalls.

Doesn't matter, NONE of you will shoot featured with magazine release this year whether you have registered or not. Mark my words. Big 'talkers'.

Out of here.

I'm curious. What are you trying to accomplish that you end up resorting to "giving up"? If you are simply stating opinions, it doesn't matter whether others agree or disagree with your opinion. In past threads you would constantly state your conviction on your opinions, which is fine, but now because many disagree with you, you now claim that some are nasty to you. With all due respect ifilef, you are not anyone's nanny. There's no problem expressing your opinion, but be prepared for others to disagree and explain why.

[IVC]

The whole intent of the regulation was to make BB SACF with features a new class of AW.

Not at all. The intent was to "close the BB loophole" - they clearly see it as a loophole and we know this from the original DOJ informal statement: "BBs will be gone in two weeks."

The only reason we have all this commotion is that there is the unintended consequence of creating millions of new RAWs, which on reflection the legislators really, really don't like.

[tonyxcom]

How is ifilef still allowed to post here?

We keep replying to his posts.

[IVC]

Some of you are so nasty here that I don't care to spend any more of my time in this thread warning you of the pitfalls.

We are very well aware of the pitfalls - that's what the discussion is about.

We are trying to determine whether those are real pitfalls, or empty barking by the DOJ after the fact, when the legislators passed the wrong law.

[Sousuke]

oh yeah they were written by 100,000,000 chimps sitting in front of typewriters and then a 4th grader read the ones they thought made some sense and submitted them.

The whole intent of the law was to make a BB SACF with features an AW
The whole intent of the regulation was to make BB SACF with features a new class of AW.

so when you read the regs, read them with the intent to create a new class of AW.

Oh I completely agree that is the intent. Personally I think they were aware that they couldn't create a new class so they are attempting to get as close as possible to discourage registration without crossing that line.

The end goal of these regs are, since they can't really stop people from changing the mechanism post registration, that they are running a bluff to get everyone to run featureless. They don't want a bunch of new assault weapons with a regular mag release. They weren't given the cards by the legislature to do this, so they are doing the best they can by using a bluff.

We'll see how it plays out, but hopefully the bluff gets fully exposed.

[malfunction]

This maybe a silly question, but what is the timeline for the next 60 days?

To me it sounds like regulations are just a PROPOSAL, people are mentioning 15 days, plus NRA legal team didn't yet respond.

When can we read actual regulations? There will also be numerous attempts to appeal them.

In other words, when can we stop speculating and start discussing the actual regulations?

CA has some very clever politicians that "sneak" in verbiage, but they too should have a deadline, otherwise CA regulations will be like constitution of a 3rd world country, written in pencil.

Proposal:

https://cdn.firearmspolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/bullet-button-proposed-regulations.pdf

A final version of actual regulations should appear on ca.gov, correct?

These are the actual regulations. Not proposed, but actual. Effective today, and will be published asap.

[voit]

I give up. Have a good day.

Go out to the range today and get arrested if you shoot SACF featured with a magazine release. Go out to the range after you register and get arrested for manufacturing an AW.

Some of you are so nasty here that I don't care to spend any more of my time in this thread warning you of the pitfalls.

Doesn't matter, NONE of you will shoot featured with magazine release this year whether you have registered or not. Mark my words. Big 'talkers', no action. You will wait on your butts until you are assured that it's okay, and it never will be absent a court order that will never occur in this state. The AG will cut your specious arguments above your knees. Try running thereafter.

Out of here.

PLEASE LORD, ANSWER MY PRAYERS!