MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

[Shell]

That's a big stretch, considering all of those reference on registration ELIGIBILTY to register. After the rifle is registered, none of those apply anymore.

Except that the DOJ feels that they do, as outlined in rule 5477. That's how fighting the regulation becomes paramount.

It's also why you really, really shouldn't remove the BB after registration, until the regulation has its day in court (assuming it ever does). In the DOJ's eyes, it's a felony for possession of an illegal AW, based on rules they alone wrote.

We're in a situation where the DOJ is attempting to create new law, feeling the state legislature didn't go far enough with SB 880. That's wrong, and the federal courts should rule it unconstitutional.

[Sousuke]

But it's 30680(a) that directly addresses the removal of the BB after registration!

Here's the route to a felony (or $500 fine if you're lucky):

1) Register your assault weapon.
2) Remove bullet button.
3) Note that it is now not eligible for registration in this configuration according to 30900(b)(1). Who Cares, its registered now.
4) Which means you no longer satisfy 30680(a).No, Its registered
5) Which means you no longer satisfy 30680. No, Its registered
6) Which means you no longer have an exemption from 30605. No, its registered
7) Which means you are now in possession of an illegal assault weapon. No you are in possession of a RAW

See bold.

[StuckInTheP.R.O.Ca]

Sorry. It just doesn't work like that. Once you've lost credibility so heavily, you can't just wish it back. Every legal assertion or proclamation you make from now on should come with a warning.

^This.

[Geronimo91352]

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.

This is exactly what I plan to do. Makes sense.

[Fox Mulder]

That's a big stretch, considering all of those reference on ELIGIBILTY to register. After the rifle is registered, none of those apply anymore.

Exactly. They seem to be arguing that those reference the eligibility to remain registered, but I don't see that in the PC.

[Shell]

Exactly. They seem to be arguing that those reference the eligibility to remain registered, but I don't see that in the PC.

It isn't in the PC. That won't matter when Kamela Harris's successor charges you with felony possession of an illegal registration-voided AW for violating DOJ Rule 5477 - and removing the BB.

Don't do it. We need to challenge the regulation in federal court.

[jarhead714]

Except that the DOJ feels that they do, as outlined in rule 5477. That's how fighting the regulation becomes paramount.

It's also why you really, really shouldn't remove the BB after registration, until the regulation has its day in court (assuming it ever does). In the DOJ's eyes, it's a felony for possession of an illegal AW, based on rules they alone wrote.

We're in a situation where the DOJ is attempting to create new law, feeling the state legislature didn't go far enough with SB 880. That's wrong, and the federal courts should rule it unconstitutional.

I feel you are absolutely 100% correct in this analysis.

[ifilef]

lrdchivalry-

The authority cited for 5477 is PC 30900, not 30515; the latter is only referenced.

Wonder why? Figure it out.

[jcwatchdog]

This is exactly what I plan to do. Makes sense.

It's good to register some no matter what, just to piss them off. DOJ never wanted to open up registration, and as you can see, are doing everything to cause us trouble and try to discourage registration. They reached with their regulations, and they already know it. They know there will be challenges that will have to be defended, and making regulations for PC that doesn't exist, I wouldn't want to be them going to court and trying to explain it.

I'm going to register 3 for sure, 1 maybe (or will attach armaglock), and the other 12 are featureless.

[lrdchivalry]

But it's 30680(a) that directly addresses the removal of the BB after registration!

Here's the route to a felony (or $500 fine if you're lucky):

1) Register your assault weapon.
2) Remove bullet button.
3) Note that it is now not eligible for registration in this configuration according to 30900(b)(1).
4) Which means you no longer satisfy 30680(a).
5) Which means you no longer satisfy 30680.
6) Which means you no longer have an exemption from 30605.
7) Which means you are now in possession of an illegal assault weapon.

I would disagree.
30680 is a pre-registration PC which exempts from prosecution for possession, any bb rifle owner during the specified registration period which is 1/1/17-1/1/18.

30605 is negated by 30680 for bb rifle owners for the duration of the registration period and only governs possession of unregistered AW's . After the registration period closes, 30680 is negated and 30605 would come back into play.

30900(b)(1) designates which weapons qualify for registration, it doesn't control post registered rifles.

Once you register, 30680, 30605 and 30900 no longer apply due to the fact that the rifle is now a registered AW, therefore no need for the possession exemption, cannot be prosecuted for possession since the rifle is registered and 30900 no longer applies due to the rifle already being registered.

As of this point in time the law that designates a bb rifle an AW is 30515(a), which doesn't prohibit modification.

[lrdchivalry]

The authority cited for 5477 is PC 30900, not 30515, the latter is only referenced.

Wonder why.

It's the DOJ's attempt to create an illegal law and hoping it wouldn't get noticed.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

Once 30515 is updated, there is absolutely no legal distinction between the two. Since the new 30680 necessarily references new 30515, where do you draw distinction from?

There is absolutely a legal distinction between the two. One is a previously prohibited SB 23 assault weapon with the capacity to accept a detachable magazine, for which the registration window closed 15 years ago. The other is a previously not prohibited bullet button AW for which there is now a one year window in which to register.

The starting point is, what is this? As in, what is this now and not what this may have been before. If it's an AW with standard mag release, it's an AW as defined by PC 30515. Because it's an AW as defined by PC 30515, your possession violates PC 30605, unless you can fit yourself within an "except as provided in this chapter" provision of the AW law, such as PC 30680. You can't fit yourself within PC 30680(b) either because you did not possess "that assault weapon" prior to January 1, 2017, or if you did, your possession of "that assault weapon" could not have been lawful, i.e., because it was a previously prohibited AW.

"Assault weapon" is a state law defined configuration, a collection of parts. "Assault weapon" does not depend in any way on the federal law definition of "firearm." You may have the same "firearm" i.e. serial numbered lower receiver as defined by federal law but you don't have the same "assault weapon" i.e. collection of parts that you lawfully possessed prior to January 1, 2017. If you registered a different collection of parts (AW with BB), that registration does not automatically extend to the current collection of parts you now possess (AW with standard mag release), the registration window for that AW was closed in 2001 and was not re-opened now. Your current collection of parts is unregistered and is not registrable. You are not within all of the "except as provided in this chapter" provisions of PC 30680.

We are doing statutory interpretation. I'm not even looking at the new regulations, but if we did, they are consistent with the interpretation I am articulating here. Yes, I recognize there is/are competing interpretations. The necessary end result of any variant of the competing interpretation, however, is registration of a weapon that was previously prohibited and for which the registration window was closed long ago. I think that is the fatal flaw of the competing interpretation, whatever form it may take, again IMO.

[Plead the Second]

If they are, I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts they are sweating, not eating popcorn. Certainly not laughing.

A successful legal challenge of the regulations not being in line with the code would not only open door to millions of proper RAWs, but would also create another "DOH! moment" along the lines of the original BB.

I doubt they are sweating as this will not likely happen, and if it does, the Dem-controlled legislature will fix it quickly with an "emergency" clarification to make absolutely sure people cannot legally own the rifles they seek to eliminate.

Kamala has her new senatorial goals on her mind, e.g., what outfit to wear during swearing in, followed by plans to work on her 2020 presidential campaign which will include many anti-gun policy promises to leftie public school indoctrinated youth, immigrants, hipsters, soccer moms who live in safe neighborhoods and do not care to own any gun, and the ever-increasing number of people who do not care one bit about the Constitution, much less the 2A.

Newsom is likely gleeful, because one way or the other, either thousands of oblivious gun owners who do not follow any of these shenanigans will easily be turned into criminals, or eager-to-please and obedient LEO will be so confused by the new regs that they will think "When in doubt, just arrest the guy" who has any potentially suspect rifle in his car or house, leading to huge legal bills for people to try and beat the charges.

[jcwatchdog]

It isn't in the PC. That won't matter when Kamela Harris's successor charges you with felony possession of an illegal registration-voided AW for violating DOJ Rule 5477 - and removing the BB.

Don't do it. We need to challenge the regulation in federal court.

The whole point to SB 880 was to define BB equipped rifles as rifles that now have detachable magazines and are AW, as well as giving the exemptions and allowing registration.

With this, the DOJ was allowed to write regulation based on this law. Now they make up new law about the bullet button staying on, which the law says specifically it doesn't have a purpose in creating a fixed magazine anymore.

What I want to know from the DOJ is, what exactly is the bullet button doing by remaining on after registration? And not just a canned answer like "well, it's an AW class 4 with a previously fixed magazine". What is the bullet button now in 2017? The answer is, a fancy magazine release. It's not a fixed mag anymore. So what's the difference if it's there or if it's changed out?

[Sousuke]

The starting point is, what is this? As in, what is this now and not what this may have been before. If it's an AW with standard mag release, it's an AW as defined by PC 30515.

PC 30515 says both a firearm with a standard mag release AND a bullet button firearm are both assault weapons.