MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

[God Bless America]

If they make a BB rifle it's own "class" of AW, then aren't they basically saying that BB rifles are not as "dangerous"as AW's of the past. "Rifles with BB's are bad, but not so bad that we are going to let you remove them"

Yes, but is that not true? BBs suck more than no BB, but less than having to open the action.

No BB > BB > BB reloaded.

[skyscraper]

If they try to create a new class of assault weapons I'm probably not even going to bother with registration.

Same here. I'd rather wait out the litigation and then move out of state than register a gun with a BB.

[Sousuke]

If for some reason they create a new class by saying you can't remove after registration, that shouldn't stop you from using a mag magnet.

[tonyxcom]

I think the period for speculation ends now. It's time to wait.

[God Bless America]

Same here. I'd rather wait out the litigation and then move out of state than register a gun with a BB.

Would you register a gun without a BB if you could?

[Dantedamean]

If they try to create a new class of assault weapons I'm probably not even going to bother with registration.

This is my feeling too. I'll just go featureless until I can get out of California.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Discogodfather]

Thanks to FPC for actually getting on top of this to spread the word, so far they are the only organization that seems to know anything in the "gun" community. Reliable information on the DOJ regs has almost solely come from them.

That said, all I can see in any of this is a simple set of words: Bullet Button Assault Weapon. That's it. The conjecture already starting is the usual wild guess as to what that means. It could mean a new class of AW (which we know would be super problematic from a litigation and LEO perspective, as well as admitting a BB does something).

It could also be just a set of descriptive adjectives to address and identify the issue of AW's legally purchased and possessed between 2001-2016.

No need to go ape! We still do not know anything, but we now know when we will know.

Interesting theory crafting since wild conjecture is the currency of the boards: did the DOJ have this in mind all along? They waited until the last minute of 2016. They purposefully created a situation where there was ambiguity on the BB issue, then gave the gun community NO TIME to react. For instance, if I knew today that BB would be still required, I would probably have liked to sell a few rifles before the deadline. Now we are trapped, incapable of selling, using, or otherwise doing anything other than going featureless. Strange times!

[tonyxcom]

That said, all I can see in any of this is a simple set of words: Bullet Button Assault Weapon. That's it.

That clearly means that dieselpower and ifilef are right.

[God Bless America]

...Bullet Button Assault Weapon.... It could mean a new class of AW (which we know would be super problematic from a litigation and LEO perspective, as well as admitting a BB does something).

We do not "know that it would be super problematic." And who is not admitting that the BB "does something"? The legislature stated that it did during the legislative process.

It could also be just a set of descriptive adjectives to address and identify the issue of AW's legally purchased and possessed between 2001-2016.

That's a lot of new sections being added for some descriptive adjectives.

...did the DOJ have this in mind all along? They waited until the last minute of 2016. They purposefully created a situation where there was ambiguity on the BB issue, then gave the gun community NO TIME to react. For instance, if I knew today that BB would be still required, I would probably have liked to sell a few rifles before the deadline. Now we are trapped, incapable of selling, using, or otherwise doing anything other than going featureless. Strange times!

They could have waited until next year.

[one9kilo]

Upload pictures to help DOJ process application? Uhhh no!

[wireless]

This is my feeling too. I'll just go featureless until I can get out of California.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

At some point I have to draw the red line. For my own personal beliefs and dignity I can't keep bending over backwards to get ****ed in the *** by California. I've played their game too long. I'll do as much as I can to stay legal and if I can't so be it. I guess time will tell.

[jcwatchdog]

Anything is possible, but the wording of the title means little other than to identify the rifles owned that the regulations are targeting. If the title was "assault weapons" only, as the law stated in the title, there are people out there that would think "oh, my gun isn't an assault weapon because it has a bullet button on it!"

[Shadowdrop]

Looks like shenanigans. I thought SB 880 was exempt from OAL oversight. I guess they need to change some things outside the purview of SB 880 to really achieve their goals?

[Brown Rock]

If they try to create a new class of assault weapons I'm probably not even going to bother with registration.

Same here. The one bright side to registration was removal of the BB.

[Maltese Falcon]

The one bright side to registration was removal of the BB.

Gonna get some mag magnets then...

.