MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

[Sousuke]

The trick they are trying to play is not that the removal of BB will create a felony, but that the removal of BB will change your rifle into "something else" so your AW paperwork doesn't apply to that "something else." In short, you are in possession of an "unregistered AW" because your paperwork is for another rifle.

FGG is implying that they can do this by defining what combination of features/bells/whistles is considered "the same rifle." The *legislators* can do this for sure - that's how they create laws. The question is whether DOJ can do it without the extra legislation.

Personally I think its an empty requirement and the DOJ know it. They included it for the sole purpose of discouraging registration.

If you believe in diversification, then one rifle should be registered while the requirement is legally exposed as empty.

Post registration you have a choice with levels of Risk High to Low.

1. Call their bluff and throw on a normal release.
2. Use the radlock and unscrew it
3. Use a magmagnet

(The reason I think the mag magnet is the lowest risk is because its off the rifle 99% of the time)

[franklinarmory]

I know ATF prefers the importer or remanufacturer to use the original serial number, but I do not believe it is a requirement.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

FGG is implying that they can do this by defining what combination of features/bells/whistles is considered "the same rifle." The *legislators* can do this for sure - that's how they create laws. The question is whether DOJ can do it without the extra legislation.

Let me clarify my position a little bit: this is all about statutory interpretation and IMO the statute can reasonably be interpreted to allow registration only of AWs with BBs, and to disallow registration and prohibit possession of AWs that should have been registered under pre-2017 law.

[Malthusian]

Correct, but that is a specific situation where the original markings do not use our alphabet and so they do not comply with US marking requirements.
ATF could make an exemption for CA guns, but I don't think they will be inclined to do so.
Hopefully ATF is looking at this new double-marked CA requirement and will slap it down.

There is already a precedent

The firearms have 2 serial numbers, nevertheless

Not sure it is worth the effort to argue

However, individuals with a really nice home builds with a custom finish compliant with existing regulations , might want to pursue the issue

[tankton]

And in about 7-10 years it will be in Trump's SCOTUS.

10 years folks.

Wow, is that the new ?

[jcwatchdog]

It's a felony because would be a non-registrable firearm prior to 1/1/2017. Unlawful to have SACF featured with a mag release since 2000.

A lot of people will get into trouble if they follow your take on this matter, and, notwithstandngi the illegality, it's just not worth it to face the consequences, or look over one's shoulder constantly. That's not an enjoyable day at the range, that is for sure.

Being thrown into jail isn't much fun to most of us, and having to raise the bond, forfeit 10%, hire an attorney, etc. What for? Then there's state prison probability for manufacturing. I don't even want to go there via discussion or comments.

Ridiculous.

If one is smart, or not stupid, they will not even consider shooting with a standard mag release at all, registered or not next year, unless firearm is featureless.

Whether or not something was registerable only pertains to registration, not if something is a felony or not. This NEXT year, 2017, a bullet button no longer creates a fixed magazine regardless of what the DOJ regs say about registering. You could be charged with a felony if they didn't give a period of 1 year to register, but per the PC, the bullet button is no longer a valid way of creating a fixed magazine.

Not being able to register a gun within 2017 with the bogus DOJ regs is not a felony. At worst, the will send you back your registration as invalid.

[Malthusian]

Where is the statement on receipts being required? Reading through what was posted it says they want people to fill out a form stating when where they bought stuff; that is not the same thing as asking for receipt copies.

Page 14

(c) If the Department deems an application incomplete and notifies the applicant via email of the incomplete determination, the applicant shall provide the requested information or documentation within 30 days.

The approval of your application is up to the CADOJ

[Nor*Cal]

It has features beyond a normal bullet button. Hence they will rule it is not a "like" device. But if you want to be the test case, go right ahead.

Tired of people making stuff up. Please provide the specific law that about "features beyond a normal bullet button"? And please legally define a "normal" bullet button.

I've used Raddlock's on all my AR's and they all require a tool to release the mag.

I wish people would stop making chit up. It's confusing enough to follow these ridiculous CA laws.

[Nor*Cal]

Page 14



The approval of your application is up to the CADOJ

How in the world do you get that receipts are required based on that?

Again, more people making stuff up.

[jcwatchdog]

DOJ will just argue that it's a standard mag release disguised as a BB. and the fact either is an option at any time while the device remains on the firearm is not acceptable as a BB.

Raddy would argue that it was lawful to possess prior to 1/1/2017, so that it's lawful configuration in 2017.

That's fine, and you can make up more things to what the DOJ will say, and you can make up "revoking registrations" and "felony unregistered AW that is a registered AW". You can make up as many things or more than the DOJ makes up, but when there is no PC to back it up, then there just isn't much of anything.

[TOMBSTONE]

So does this mean AW Registration won't open until after 2/13/2017?

I'm confused on what's taking so long for the DOJ to get it together. They've had 6 months already (signed July 1st) to get out some form of guidance on registration.

The reason for the 6-month delay was purposely done to further delay the legal process of filing appeals, typical lawyer BS . Being a military, doctor, police officer, businessman or perhaps even a academic would surely be regarded by many voters as more respectable professions than being a lawyer. Lawyers and Politicians are made from the same cloth...

[s30]

Wow, is that the new ?

Chess, not checkers.

[ifilef]

That's fine, and you can make up more things to what the DOJ will say, and you can make up "revoking registrations" and "felony unregistered AW that is a registered AW". You can make up as many things or more than the DOJ makes up, but when there is no PC to back it up, then there just isn't much of anything.

Well, I think that I made it clear that it's unlawful to possess a SACF featured rifle with a mag release today, it does not qualify for registration, it's also a felony today, and it's been a felony since ~2000.

Your argument that because you registered with BB and thereafter substituted a mag release will not fly...forget about it, unless you want to go to state prison. There's enough support in PC 30900(b)(1) and new PC 30680 to support my arguments and you walk a very dangerous path toward a manufacturing charge that is not protected or shielded by 30680. I already stated that your unlawful act of switching out will automatically revoke your registration privilege and they will void it at the time of that act or from the get-go. Without court support, you are in a place that is very dark indeed, and not at all worth the risk. The benefit you hope for certainly does not outweigh the risk.

Move on to other things re the registration regulations and don't be a 'sucker'. Choose your battles wisely.

[nicky c]

Where is the statement on receipts being required? Reading through what was posted it says they want people to fill out a form stating when where they bought stuff; that is not the same thing as asking for receipt copies.

I also want to know how this will play into whether the applications are approved. There are plenty that don't have the records or don't remember when/where they got the stuff. We aren't required to keep sales receipts when we purchase a weapon... dealers are not required to give us a copy of the DROS form (to my knowledge). Those who have purchased items via PPT probably don't have info on those they purchased from, etc. The list goes on ad nauseam.

What about platforms other than an AR15 with BB's? The DOJ can't possibly be familiar with all of the compliance devices/methods out there. The Tavor as an example has gone through several evolution's of BB's depending when and where you got and the rifle variant regular Tavor vs x95, etc. Do they have to be inspected by a DOJ agent to verify compliance?

[kelvin232]

If you can't charge someone with a specific crime, you can't convict. There aren't 2 versions of AW in the code.

Please tell me what SPECIFIC law someone has broken if they are found with a standard mag release on their post-2016 registered AW?