MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

[bob.dakeelstripe]

Guaranteed.

However, too many here trust their government, and maintain this naive idea about "de-registration" and the government being so willing to help them with that when the CA government's entire goal is to mandate registration on whatever they can get away with, and data on whomever they can keep.

I don't give a care about DE reg ... strip it down and turn in the lower .... Efff em ...

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[God Bless America]

*snif* *snif*


Anybody else smell an underground regulation?

No. That's not what "underground elevation" is.

[Quickdraw559]

Could this be a move on CA's part in trying to regulate parts? Could they push for a national commie style SN law? All parts must be serialized and ownership must be tracked?

The way this new law is written is highly suspect. I feel that there is something hidden in the details that we are not seeing. There's something off about it, I just don't know what it is....
Something deeper than just registration, bullet buttons, and featureless rifles....

[The Gleam]

Chess, not checkers.

Everyone that says that and joins the fray, doesn't know dick about chess, and loses.

They would be better off sticking to checkers and being a champion.

The "right people" on this forum (well, who USED to be here anyway) who repeatedly botch things up, ignore FGG's free advice, and continue again into new pursuits like retarded bulls in a china-shop - are exactly those that should probably back away from BOTH games.

[John Browning]

You can't "manufacture" an AW out of an AW. A registered AW is legal to own. The DOJ cannot just "unregister" your guns without your specific consent. This isn't rocket science guys. Starting tomorrow there is no legal difference between and BB and a standard mag release. That's the law. Of course the DoJ doesn't like this situation and they believe hey have a mandate to spread FUD to "fix" what they see as the legislature's mistake. Oops! Unfortunately for them, they simply don't have the authority to do what they're proposing. But seriously, is anyone here surprised? If they told you that you had to paint your rifle blaze orange in order to register it, would you be taking that seriously too?

I agree with you completely, but like all tyrannical organizations, someone is going to have to tell the DOJ that they can't just make up whatever they want.

[kelvin232]

We're talking about the LAW, as passed, not the (probably underground) regulations from the DOJ.

Exactly. The law was only about redefining a bullet button as NOT being a fixed magazine complaint part.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

*snif* *snif*


Anybody else smell an underground regulation?

No. There is no underground regulation, but that's not saying that the regulations cannot be challenged. Might be helpful for you to research how implementing regulations such as these can be challenged and what are the legal standards for evaluating the challenged regulations and interpreting statutes.

[Nor*Cal]

You can't "manufacture" an AW out of an AW. A registered AW is legal to own. The DOJ cannot just "unregister" your guns without your specific consent. This isn't rocket science guys. Starting tomorrow there is no legal difference between and BB and a standard mag release. That's the law. Of course the DoJ doesn't like this situation and they believe hey have a mandate to spread FUD to "fix" what they see as the legislature's mistake. Oops! Unfortunately for them, they simply don't have the authority to do what they're proposing. But seriously, is anyone here surprised? If they told you that you had to paint your rifle blaze orange in order to register it, would you be taking that seriously too?

I'm sure the concern is how law enforcement and DA's view these regulations. Not the fact that the DOJ is attempting to force some underground regulations.

The fact that most of us could not afford to defend ourselves in a court of law is why we have no choice but to take this chit seriously.

[The Gleam]

You can't "manufacture" an AW out of an AW. A registered AW is legal to own. The DOJ cannot just "unregister" your guns without your specific consent. This isn't rocket science guys. Starting tomorrow there is no legal difference between and BB and a standard mag release. That's the law. Of course the DoJ doesn't like this situation and they believe hey have a mandate to spread FUD to "fix" what they see as the legislature's mistake. Oops! Unfortunately for them, they simply don't have the authority to do what they're proposing. But seriously, is anyone here surprised? If they told you that you had to paint your rifle blaze orange in order to register it, would you be taking that seriously too?

I agree with you completely, but like all tyrannical organizations, someone is going to have to tell the DOJ that they can't just make up whatever they want.

And THAT folks.... in a single sentence, summarizes the tone, plot, theme, and final conclusion of this thread.

[IVC]

The prohibited possession is intertwined with lack of registration via PC 30605 and PC 30680 as implemented by DoJ; prohibited possession is the logical and necessary extension of registration being limited to BB rifles lawfully possessed prior to 1/1/2017. By registering one of those you are not simultaneously registering a standard mag release AW not lawfully possessed prior to 1/1/2017, i.e., because DoJ "will not register a firearm that was required to be registered under prior assault weapon registration laws in effect before January 1 2017." Yes, you can try to challenge the regulation and say it is not a reasonable interpretation of the statute, using the "it's an AW now so what does it matter what kind of mag release it has" argument but I don't think that's such a great argument for reasons already stated.

I am missing the fine detail here, so let's simplify.

If I have the paperwork in hand and it's valid (i.e., not based on any misrepresentation, I registered a pre-2017 legal configuration WITH BB), then I also have my REGISTERED rifle in hand (now with removed BB), what would I be prosecuted for? If the answer is "possession of unregistered AW," how is my paperwork invalidated?

[Fox Mulder]

No. That's not what "underground elevation" is.

They can't just make crap up. They've tried before.

http://www.ammoland.com/2012/08/doj-assault-weapon-policy-ruled-an-underground-regulation/#axzz4USAHRxr1

[Fox Mulder]

No. There is no underground regulation, but that's not saying that the regulations cannot be challenged. Might be helpful for you to research how implementing regulations such as these can be challenged and what are the legal standards for evaluating the challenged regulations and interpreting statutes.

My mistake, I thought that these regulations were not open to challenge, as they were marked "print and file".

How would one challenge these regulations?

[John Browning]

I am missing the fine detail here, so let's simplify.

If I have the paperwork in hand and it's valid (i.e., not based on any misrepresentation, I registered a pre-2017 legal configuration WITH BB), then I also have my REGISTERED rifle in hand (now with removed BB), what would I be prosecuted for? If the answer is "possession of unregistered AW," how is my paperwork invalidated?

They'd say that it isn't the same that they allowed you to register (how kind of them to allow it) and pull out your photos. They'd arrest you and you'd have to let a court decide.

I would vote 100 times out of 100 in support of the defendant on any weapons related charges. This is BS. Someone is going to have to be the one who calls it and takes the DOJ to the mat.

[NAPOTS]

am i missing something here or is there a clear way to not register and/or have any kind of mag release you want by simply removing the upper from the lower?

[John Browning]

They go to great length to list out characteristics that will prevent the subject from being granted registration by the DOJ. If they won't register a rifle because it lacks components to make it a functional AW, doesn't that mean it isn't an AW?

Could you be in compliance with the law if you didn't have a BCG in the rifle while in CA?

This is very confusing. If they won't register it because of X,Y or Z, doesn't that then say that X, Y and Z are methods of creating a condition of compliance in CA?