MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

[ifilef]

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
In fact if you waited until 2017 to install the standard mag release you did not possess that assault weapon at all prior to Jan 1 2017.

Good - I've been trying to get this from you for a while. Your claim is, therefore, that if you remove BB you are creating a different rifle/AW.

You'd be subject to a manufacturing prosecution.

[Fox Mulder]

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
In fact if you waited until 2017 to install the standard mag release you did not possess that assault weapon at all prior to Jan 1 2017.




You'd subject yourself to a manufacturing prosecution.

Manufacturing a non-B.B. AW, out of a B.B. RAW, for which there is no PC?

[Shell]

The Penal Code section 30900(b)(1) and 30515 created a new class of AW, and that was backed up by the regulations. It should not have come as a surprise these weapons were specifically targeted.

Um, no, the plain text does not.

(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).

It does not say that weapons with BB shall be treated any different than any other Assault Weapon. No new class, merely an expansion of the AW definition (including BB rifles). The Legislature had an opportunity to do what you assert, but likely fearing a veto (since Brown vetoed similar legislation in the past), chose not to.

DOJ is legislating out of thin air, in an arbitrary and capacious manner, violating the 2A, which opens it up for SCOTUS and federal courts to review (alongside SB 880 itself).

[dieselpower]

History is repeating itself again.

I told people to stop referring the BB firearms as fixed magazine firearms. Make the DoJ prove that first before adopting that stance.

I told people to stop referring to 10 round magazines as 10/30 magazines. Or even 10/XX. A 10rd magazine is a 10rd magazine period. A good friend of mine tried to explain that here and it was shot down and how look at the mess we have with magazines.

Now we are trying to get you people to unite against the DoJ and identify their over reaching regulation by pointing out they have not only created a new class of AW but that it prohibits what should be legal actions under the law.

Its like you guys want the DoJ to win?

5477 is the proof they over stepped their authority.
The Title of the Regulations proves they are over stepping their authority.

If you dont agree that 5477 makes the firearm illegal by changing a BB-AW into an AW, then you have helped this regulation stay active.

[ti83ray]

What if.... my BBv1 is damaged and I can't find replacement part. What is the next "like kind" replacement, standard release or BBv2?

[Shell]

What if.... my BBv1 is damaged and I can't find replacement part. What is the next "like kind" replacement, standard release or BBv2?

Another BBv1. Doesn't have to be the same make/model, as long as it serves the same purpose. There are way too many BBv1's to claim standard release is a "like kind" replacement for the next century or so.

[ScottsBad]

So the DOJ affirmed "featureless". Without reading 34+ pages of posts it looks like we have a choice to make:

Put up with a bullet button -OR- put up with a poor grip.

Looks like featureless might be the way to go, if you look at all the negatives of owning a RAW.

[dieselpower]

Um, no, the plain text does not.



It does not say that weapons with BB shall be treated any different than any other Assault Weapon. No new class, merely an expansion of the AW definition (including BB rifles). The Legislature had an opportunity to do what you assert, but likely fearing a veto (since Brown vetoed similar legislation in the past), chose not to.

DOJ is legislating out of thin air, in an arbitrary and capacious manner, violating the 2A, which opens it up for SCOTUS and federal courts to review (alongside SB 880 itself).

agreed and we all need to get on the same page, we need to unite, the regulation 5477 is not proper and needs to be removed because 5477 creates a condition where you have a new class of AW, called the BB-AW.

[Shell]

Looks like featureless might be the way to go, if you look at all the negatives of owning a RAW.

Except that featureless free-release rifles could be banned someday. Registering at least one BB MSR gives you the freedom to BB eject, when featureless rifles could be required to affix a total mag lock someday.

The more ARMagLock and BB Reloaded become popular, the more the state may make it mandatory - on all detachable magazine rifles.

There's no guarantee a (future) ban of featureless mag-ejects would permit you to register them as AWs down the road. You may just be required to install a mag lock, and not get a chance to put it in the AW category with free-eject maintained.

I encourage people to register at least one featured BB AR-15 and keep it that way. Buy a second one for featureless... like I am.

[Tortugatron]

There is no such thing as being in between 2 days: not even a second.

[Shell]

agreed and we all need to get on the same page, we need to unite, the regulation 5477 is not proper and needs to be removed because 5477 creates a condition where you have a new class of AW, called the BB-AW.

Yep. We need CGF or FPC-affiliated attorneys to take this to federal court, and hopefully convince the DOJ that a revised rule... is far better than SCOTUS taking a crack at SB 880 on the whole.

Sue for the rule in federal court, alongside SB 880's 2A infringements, and then see if DOJ will settle for dropping 5477. If not, petition the new Trump SCOTUS for review.

Worst case, SCOTUS declines to take the case, and we wait for a circuit split when some other state (like NY) adopts SB 880-like laws. Then SCOTUS has to rule down the road.

[IVC]

There's nothing in 30680(a) that says it doesn't apply after registration. Can you describe what you think 30680(a) means?

You are correct - my mistake. (Too many sub-threads going on.) I was thinking about 30680(c) which provides exemption until 2018 to allow for registration. That's the one that is irrelevant after registration.

With that said, 30680(a) is not particularly relevant for this discussion since it only references 30900(b). There is nothing controversial about either of these sections. The problem is 30680(b).

[penguinman]

Except that featureless free-release rifles could be banned someday. Registering at least one BB MSR gives you the freedom to BB eject, when featureless rifles could be required to affix a total mag lock someday.

The more ARMagLock and BB Reloaded become popular, the more the state may make it mandatory - on all detachable magazine rifles.

There's no guarantee a (future) ban of featureless mag-ejects would permit you to register them as AWs down the road. You may just be required to install a mag lock, and not get a chance to put it in the AW category with free-eject maintained.

I encourage people to register at least one featured BB AR-15 and keep it that way. Buy a second one for featureless... like I am.

You forget not all "featureless" rifles are AR-15s that even have the option of installing one of those. Take a Tavor for instance. What they'd have to do is reopen the registry and effectively ban ALL semiauto mag fed rifles. No more M1A. No more M1 carbine. No more semiauto hunting rifles. At that point I can guarantee you the courts would stomp on it. And if they don't, we're already screwed. Hope you like 30-30.

[Shell]

You forget not all "featureless" rifles are AR-15s that even have the option of installing one of those. Take a Tavor for instance. What they'd have to do is reopen the registry and effectively ban ALL semiauto mag fed rifles. No more M1A. No more M1 carbine. No more semiauto hunting rifles. At that point I can guarantee you the courts would stomp on it. And if they don't, we're already screwed. Hope you like 30-30.

First, even if a rifle can't have a mag lock, the AW registry at that point could be narrowly opened to featureless rifles for which a mag lock cannot be installed.

Hence why it's a good idea to register a featured BB MSR while you can, in case you can't later when featureless free-release mags get banned. And I think that's going to happen, sadly.

Second, I hope you're right that the courts would stomp on it. Our track record there, isn't so great. SCOTUS is the only court that is even partially on our side - we're boxed in between the 9th Circus and the state Supreme Court.

[IVC]

agreed and we all need to get on the same page, we need to unite, the regulation 5477 is not proper and needs to be removed because 5477 creates a condition where you have a new class of AW, called the BB-AW.

Ok, so are indeed on the same page. For a moment I thought you were claiming something else... Oh well.

Yes, it needs to go. In the meantime, we register the ones we intend to register and make featureless the ones we don't intend to register. With registration in hand we can wait for the outcome of litigation, or we can decide whether to take BB off or not based on our personal beliefs and risk profiles.