MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

[God Bless America]

I agree with you completely! I want to see the DOJ squirm when they try and explain how they can have 2 separate definitions for an AW. This will definitely end up in the courts.

They already have several definitions, have for years. No squirming necessary.

[IVC]

Sending in a photo of a standard mag release would simply be providing evidence of a felony

What felony would that be? (Remember, there is an EXPLICIT exemption for the whole year of 2017.)

[cyborg]

What felony would that be? (Remember, there is an EXPLICIT exemption for the whole year of 2017.)

That you possessed a non-BB'd AR during 2016.

[AlexDD]

. There is at the very least an open question of interpretation that may not be resolved unless and until someone gets arrested.

Pessimistic thinking: it will be a felon arrested and we will get even more bad case law like in Nguyen case.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Chapped Hide]

DOJ is ROTFLTFAO over the response to the new regs. Sometimes we can be our own worst enemy

[IVC]

What I am seeing DoJ doing is implementing PC 30900(b)(3)'s mandate that the registration "shall contain a description of the firearm that identifies it uniquely" and with the "pic of the bullet button" requirement they are forcing the registrant to commit him or herself to the specific configuration in which the firearm did not have a fixed magazine prior to 12/31/16. PC 30900(b)(1). In other words, the firearm that is registered is the uniquely identified one in the configuration that was described and depicted in the registration. If you have not registered an AW configured without a BB (DoJ won't let you under the new regs), and you have an AW configured without a BB, you have an unregistered AW.

Ok, I believe you are the first one to bring this up and something that's been on my mind for a while (including how it works with the "2017 AW grace period," but that's a separate story). I was waiting for the discussion to move to the "redefinition of a firearm" as that's the only viable path for the DOJ.

So, two questions about this:

(1) What if I take off BB, then submit to the DOJ (they cannot really tell if it's BB or standard release because of the same shape and the hole in the middle) AND I get approved. Now my configuration is the same as the one I was arrested with.

(2) The whole "picture + parts + S/N" is a pretty significant *redefinition* of what a firearm is. It's inconsistent with everything at the federal level and it's inconsistent with any definition of a firearm in the current CA law. What are the prospects of challenging (after being arrested and prosecuted) that the definition of the firearm is what is in the law, not what is in the regulations?

[GM4spd]

What a mess going to hug my pre 2000 RAWs now

LOL

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

What felony would that be? (Remember, there is an EXPLICIT exemption for the whole year of 2017.)

If the "explicit exemption" is PC 30680, that applies to firearms that were lawfully possessed prior to 1/1/17, and an unregistered AR with standard mag release would not have been lawfully possessed prior to 1/1/17. "The person lawfully possessed that assault weapon prior to January 1, 2017."

[God Bless America]

+1... They release this the day after I engrave mine. Why a gov issued serial? Stupid.

To prevent:

Duplication
KaMaLa Likks BALLZ 666
Non-Latin characters
Etc.

Many reasons.

[cyborg]

Here's a thought....if large numbers of owners register, then there will then be irrefutable proof that law-abiding citizens do not commit crimes with their registered weapons, because none of the registered weapons will be involved in crimes. It will be concrete proof of how infringing upon law-abiding citizens' constitutional rights to "prevent crimes" is an utter waste of time and inherently wrong and stupid.

[IVC]

That you possessed a non-BB'd AR during 2016.

We are talking about 2017, though.

[cyborg]

We are talking about 2017, though.

and you're talking about removing a BB before its registered = felony.

[God Bless America]

...What are the prospects of challenging (after being arrested and prosecuted) that the definition of the firearm is what is in the law, not what is in the regulations?

Real, but poor. The idea is that the legislature sets the framework, the agencies with expertise fill in the details. Like the regulatory definition of pistol grip and detachable mag.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

(1) What if I take off BB, then submit to the DOJ (they cannot really tell if it's BB or standard release because of the same shape and the hole in the middle) AND I get approved. Now my configuration is the same as the one I was arrested with.

In order to claim that the registration configuration is the same as the one you were arrested with, you'd have to admit you violated the requirement to provide a pic of the bullet button and tricked DoJ into approving the registration. I don't think that would go so well.

(2) The whole "picture + parts + S/N" is a pretty significant *redefinition* of what a firearm is.

How so?

[IVC]

If the "explicit exemption" is PC 30680, that applies to firearms that were lawfully possessed prior to 1/1/17, and an unregistered AR with standard mag release would not have been lawfully possessed prior to 1/1/17. "The person lawfully possessed that assault weapon prior to January 1, 2017."

Which brings us back to the "redefinition of a firearm."

In this case it would require for the state to "invent" a definition where changing parts while remaining legal is somehow a *different* firearm. If I possessed a BB rifle in 2016 and, e.g., changed the sights or pistol grip, nobody would try to make an argument that it's somehow a different firearm now. How would they make such an assessment based on the *current* law (i.e., before the new DOJ regulation that is attempting to redefine "a firearm")?