MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

[Malthusian]

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

There is an exemption for "bullet button" rifles

Standard mag release is a felony, unless featureless

A decent lawyer will run a minimum of 10K

[IVC]

How so?

In the current law it's the lower that is the firearm. The rest are bells and whistles.

Sure there are statutes about illegal configurations, but that's exactly the point - the new statute about illegal configurations is nothing like what the DOJ would like it to be.

[cyborg]

We're all chasing our tails at this point. I suggest we just sit back, have a beer, and wait for Michael & Associates to post their legal analysis of this DOJ clusterfumble.

[imarangemaster]

The biggest problem DOJ faces is the statute itself. It is either a removable magazine or it isn't. Thew statute only prescribes punishment for someone who does not register, if it does not have a fixed magazine. If you register it as an assault weapon, what can they charge you with if you swap the bullet button. DOJ regs ARE NOT CRIMES!

[danez71]

<snip>


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. It is no longer the firearm that does not have a fixed magazine that you lawfully possessed prior to 12/31/16. There is no separate penalty for changing the release mechanism, and DoJ isn't creating a new offense here; instead that regulation implements/clarifies/explains/interprets the "forced commitment" registration scheme, and the Penal Code hook would be the existing possession of an unregistered AW offense. Sure, you can argue that you did register the firearm with that serial number and it's an AW now so what does it matter any more in what way the firearm does not have a fixed magazine. But again, DoJ has been given authority to make regulations and what it has done is when all is said and done is coherent IMO. Also, if you start with "Furthermore, the legislation specifically did not open registration for what was previously banned" but you are arguing that you think you are entitled to have registered AW in a configuration that was banned previously and for which the registration period has long since closed, you're going to encounter some resistance ("some" is probably an understatement). Again, IMO. There is at the very least an open question of interpretation that may not be resolved unless and until someone gets arrested.

This is basically what I said (and others too) on the last page.


Its not difficult to understand unless you read it trying to get the answer you want instead of reading it for what it is.


They saw the door cracked open for removing the BB after registering it and just SLAAAMMMMMED it shut.


To think otherwise is a bit delusional.

[imarangemaster]

There is an exemption for "bullet button" rifles

Standard mag release is a felony, unless featureless

A decent lawyer will run a minimum of 10K

INCORRECT! The penal code never mentions bullet buttons. After tomorrow, there is no distinction in the the Penal Code between a standard mag release and a bullet button. It only mentions removable without disassembling the action. In order to be charged with a crime, YOU HAVE TO VIOLATE THE PENAL CODE. It would be a public relations nightmare to try to prosecute someone who follows the law and registered, because DOJ thinks it is a little more evil, without a penal code to support the charges....

[Malthusian]

The biggest problem DOJ faces is the statute itself. It is either a removable magazine or it isn't. Thew statute only prescribes punishment for someone who does not register, if it does not have a fixed magazine. If you register it as an assault weapon, what can they charge you with if you swap the bullet button. DOJ regs ARE NOT CRIMES!

They don't need to charge you with anything

Revoke the registration, confiscate the firearm

Hire a lawyer..... good luck

[God Bless America]

Yeah, I just assembled and manufactured an AW that was already registered as an AW. Are you really this dense?

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.

Pretend, dense, etc. Now you are name-calling. That's what happens when one runs out of arguments.

And, if you read the proposed regs, they do cite the Penal Code section for authority.

[cyborg]

They don't need to charge you with anything

Revoke the registration, confiscate the firearm

Hire a lawyer..... good luck

This ^

[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."

I guess we can agree here. I emphasized exactly the same word "that" in the same sentence in another thread and for the same purpose - establishing the continuity of a firearm. I wasn't sure whether it would be interpreted this way, though.

So, the court would look at it as a complete phrase and would easily separate, e.g., changing sights vs. removing BB. The former would still be "that AW," while the latter would be "a different AW" simply because the court can choose to see it that way.

[nagzul]

I'm wondering if registering, and getting an approval, of an assault weapon with a prince bullet button would fly.
The button that has the screw in it so you can unscrew it to allow full functioning of the mag release. I only read about the magnet being left on the release in the new regs.

If they approve the configuration with that release, I'm wondering if you could back out the screw and be good. I saw no wording that the bullet button had to be functional from stopping release of the magazine.

Why do I ask? Because my friend has them on his rifles and intends to register. We are discussing what would keep him from using it if it was approved with photos ECT.

[God Bless America]

That would be a forbidden modification.

[IVC]

This is basically what I said (and others too) on the last page.

No it's not.

The nuances of HOW the DOJ is going to try to make it work are not remotely present in all the "you're screwed and it's all illegal because you're going against their wishes" posts on the previous several pages.

FGG has a point and it's all hinging upon something that virtually nobody else pointed out or commented on.

[KeyserSoze_]

Is there anything showing that the DOJ can revoke or de-register an AW on their own, without the registered owner going through the voluntary process?

[imarangemaster]

They don't need to charge you with anything

Revoke the registration, confiscate the firearm

Hire a lawyer..... good luck

Sorry, my guns went too my daughter's in Medford....