MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

[mt4design]

not really... they can just franklin mag it

This was going to be one of my possible solutions, with my own serial # engraved.

However, every 80% lower must now carry a DOJ assigned serial #.

Most pistol ARs in this state are built on 80% lowers.

WTF?

And every 80% MUST have a DOJ assigned serial # now? Even if featureless and already engraved?

The FUD around this is choking the law abiding citizen to DEATH.

[phase1]

Wow, it's like playing chess our move. Time to rethink, I'm leaning toward selling all my novelty stuff out of state & featureless anything else. But the chess player in me says they'll go after featureless next, CHECKMATE!!!!

[God Bless America]

You still haven't answered the main issue:

There is no such thing as "Manufacturing a pre-2000 AW".

Show me something that says there is specifically such a law and a penalty for breaking it.

I'm sure you won't "repeat yourself" because you'll just ignore this and pretend you were right. At least be creative when you make stuff up.

Oh and just so you know, if there was such a law and penalty, you can guarantee that the DOJ would have referenced it in the regulations about removing the bullet button. As it is, all they say is "you shall not remove the bullet button", but there is no consequence if you do.

I am not going to repeat myself, only to have you reply with "you're wong" or "I still don't see it."

What I will do, is to invite you to put up or shut up. Since you are so sure of your position, pull off that BB and let them know and keep us informed.

Put up, or shut up.

Otherwise, you are talking crap.

You see what you believe, but do not believe what you see. Do you actually think they would knowingly pass baseless, invalid regulations? Or better yet, they didn't know, but you did? They are hundreds of professional lawyers, who do this all the time. But they are no match for you!

[Quickdraw559]

"Y'all ain't gettin' your mag release"

I don't know what part of "Bullet button assault weapon" was so hard for some of you to understand. This will be drug through court by it's ears and there will be laws on the books ASAP.

[IVC]

The problem I see is that SACF featured with standard mag release were UNLAWFUL prior to 1/1/2017. Thus, under 30900(b)(1), they are not eligible to be registered as AW.

The featured with BB weapon was lawfully possessed prior to 1/1/2017. Thus, it satisfies the requisites of amd. PC30900(b)(1) and is eligible for registration as an AW.

So, there you have it, one justification DOJ might argue for the prohibition of switching out the BB for a magazine release after AW registration.

[IVC]

"Y'all ain't gettin' your mag release"

I don't know what part of "Bullet button assault weapon" was so hard for some of you to understand. This will be dug through court by it's ears and there will be laws on the books ASAP.

The part that is NOT in the law is a bit vague to most of us...

[_Midian]

Well, they see us as the enemy, no doubt.
They want to surrender the state over to total totalitarianism.

When The Citizens Become The Enemy Of The State, The State Becomes The Enemy.

[IVC]

Do you actually think they would knowingly pass baseless, invalid regulations? Or better yet, they didn't know, but you did? They are hundreds of professional lawyers, who do this all the time. But they are no match for you!

Knowingly? No.

If you recall, those "hundreds of professional layers" actually GAVE us bullet buttons by bungling law and regulation the first time around.

Do you know where the running joke "two weeks" comes from? If not I suggest you find out. It is VERY educational.

[Quickdraw559]

The part that is NOT in the law is a bit vague to most of us...

I know it is to most of you. It's pretty obvious to others. It is left intentionally vague. They WANT this to go to court.

Everyone on calguns does this every year. "DON'T SPECULATE UNTIL THE REGS COME OUT. THEY CAN'T STOP US AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA."

Then the regs come out and it's exactly as we all thought; we're railroaded. Does anyone honestly believe that they will screw this whole thing up? They've done a marvelous job of destroying this state and it's citizen's rights. I tend to give them the benefit of doubt when it comes to crafting **** laws. They ****ed up with the bullet button, which is why I assume they hit the nail on the head with this one.

I don't know why anyone thinks they'll get to mag dump with no BB. The entire crux of this issue IS the BB, NOT registration. They want neutered weapons registered, not fully functional firearms.

Trump has spoken on several occasions of his belief in states rights. Something tells me this will be left to California, and these laws ain't goin' anywhere, just like the weed laws are here to stay.

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 Penal Code section 30515 including~those weapons with an ammunition feeding device that can be readily removed from the firearm with the use of a tool (commonly referred to as a bullet button weapon) must register the firearm before January 1, 2018.

30515.**
(a)*Notwithstanding Section 30510, “assault weapon” also means any of the following:
(1)*A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that does not have a fixed magazine but has any one of the following:

BB is not considered a fixed mag.

[imarangemaster]

With the machinations of DOJ trying to "rewrite" the law, it is a good thing we have a year to watch. If they do play games a require bullet buttons to stay, I'll go featureless, rather than register. After all, you only have to do a de-register letter and photos, IF you registered it. If you go featureless prior to registration, you are good to go.

I already have muzzle breaks, pinned stocks and Hammerhead, MMGs, and paddles to make all featureless.

[r6guy85]

These proposed regulations are just that prosposed regulations right? They can be rejected right?

[Dump1567]

So where does this leave AR/AK etc. pistols? Will they deny registration if you have a brace or cheek rest on these? Will registering one of these pistols with said device (pics required) legitimize their legality in CA?

The new Regs describe "Pistol" to include.

This definition includes AR-15 style pistols with pistol buffer tubes attached. Pistol buffer tubes typically have smooth metal with no guide on the bottom for rifle stocks to be attached, and they sometimes have a foam pad on the end of the tube farthest from the receiver.

Under Federal law, you can have a standard rifle receiver extension, as long as it can't readily accept a stock (exp; Thordsen cover). Is the DOJ saying it has to be a round tube?
What about buffer tubes & folding devices on pistols that don't require a buffer tube?

Interesting times.

[ARRGH!]

Wow, it's like playing chess our move. Time to rethink, I'm leaning toward selling all my novelty stuff out of state & featureless anything else. But the chess player in me says they'll go after featureless next, CHECKMATE!!!!

2016: Bullet-Button Assault Weapon Ban

2017(?): Featureless Assault Weapon Ban

The writings are on the wall. '"Fixed" or break action-type magazines might stay a bit longer.

[edwardm]

Probably going to make a new class of assault weapon, with BB. This will then not let us remove the BB because it will be a registered BB assault weapon. Just my thoughts

That's what they are trying to do, but it makes no sense to do so. The legislature has effectively added a "feature" to the list of "evil features", nothing more. They have not created a new "class" of firearm, which means CalDOJ lacks any mandate or authority to create that new "class".

It comes as no surprise that they would do this, but now there is a decision to be made. Bend over, register, and take a really deep screwing, or go featureless and entirely frustrate the designs of the legislature.

I would rather frustrate the legislative intent. But, I'm going a step further. I'm going to pick one BB-equipped rifle, photograph it with a BB at the time registration opens, install a standard release thereafter, photograph it again, and then register it.

Yes, test case. Not playing their game any more. Completely worth the risk to me to disobey this BS. How can I be charged with "manufacturing" as assault weapon when it already IS an assault weapon? I could see if I swapped in a 50 BMG upper, as that's a separate statute. But it either *is* an assault weapon, or it is NOT an assault weapon, concurrent with either prohibited features or no prohibited features. There are not multiple (in this case) "manufacturing" statutes. There is one which is pertinent.

That's a logical argument that even the most idiotic state court judge can't escape:

"You manufactured an assault weapon!"

"How? It already was an assault weapon once the statute passed, and I was granted a period of time to register it as such, which I did."

"But...you made it MORE ASSAULT-Y!"

[Malthusian]

Uppers are not serialized. How will they know "it's the same?" - Compare to hypothetical "registering Glocks."

Do your really think the CADOJ is going to give latitude?