MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

[BAJ475]

I think we're on the same page up to this point. The quote you selected was my response to IVC's hypothetical example of removing BB then trying to register the AW without BB. I think doing that would in effect be asking for a re-opening of registration for a previously banned AR configuration, and DoJ can limit registration to BB configured firearms. If you're not agreeing with that, please feel free to clarify your position here.

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.

I do not have a problem with the requirement of a picture showing that you have a bullet button at the time of registration (ie 2016 lawful AR) and that the firearm is a 2017 registerable AW. My concern is with the part of the regulations that states that after I register my ARs as AWs I cannot remove the BB and go to a regular magazine release. Given that all of my AR15s were built with 100% complete stripped lowers, the serial number that was part of the DROS combined with their barrel lengths and calibers should be sufficient to uniquely identify them as 2016 lawful BB ARs. So my question is do you see a suit to void the regulation prohibiting removal of the BB and replacement with a normal AR magazine and 100% unwinable. If so, I would be glad to hear you explanation.

[Sousuke]

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?

True. Though you could never put them back together in the state.

[Malthusian]

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.

Now that is something I totally agreed with

[spoof145]

DOJ doesn't write penal code, and penal code is very clear as to what constitutes an assault weapon. They would have to add penal code to do the type of backdoor legislation they are trying.

[NAPOTS]

is there anything preventing you from putting a different upper with a different length barrel on your RAW? Also, what if you only have a pistol grip and a BB. Can you put a different upper with a flash hider on it later?

[Sousuke]

DOJ doesn't write penal code, and penal code is very clear as to what constitutes an assault weapon. They would have to add penal code to do the type of backdoor legislation they are trying.

Thats why I honestly think this is a bluff to keep the number of registered AWs as low as possible for 2017.

[Malthusian]

is there anything preventing you from putting a different upper with a different length barrel on your RAW? Also, what if you only have a pistol grip and a BB. Can you put a different upper with a flash hider on it later?

I don't see why not

However a virgin lower cannot be registered, it must be a complete operable center fire rifle

If the lower is registered as "BB" assault rifle, the upper can be changed

YMMV

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

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?

Just a head's up that I feel like I am repeating myself and am losing interest in explaining the same thing in dozens of different ways but: you need to bring yourself within the terms of PC 30680 to avoid PC 30605, which prohibits possession of AWs. If you have what is defined as an assault weapon with no BB you cannot say that you lawfully possessed that assault weapon prior to January 1, 2017. PC 30680(b). If you register an assault weapon that was lawfully possessed prior to January 1, 2017, you cannot argue that the registration constitutes/amounts to/is the functional equivalent of registration of a firearm that was required to be registered under prior assault weapon registration laws in effect before January 1, 2017, because DoJ will not register those. PC 30680(c), 11 CCR 5472(b). Yes, you can wave around the registration paperwork and say "haha I have a registered assault weapon" but you are not within PC 30680 because the assault weapon you have was not lawfully possessed prior to January 1, 2017, and you have not registered the assault weapon you now possess.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

How would one challenge these regulations?

You would learn more if did your own research. Edited to add: not trying to be a dick, just recommending that looking this up yourself is best.

[BAJ475]

DoJ isn't doing anything new here, it is the statute that defines "assault weapon" and then says the possessor of the assault weapon "shall register the firearm" i.e. the assault weapon which is a collection of parts/features/receivers that amounts to an assault weapon as defined. The further restriction here is that registration is now authorized only for the uniquely identified "firearm" that is described in the registration and lawfully possessed prior to 1/1/17. This is how it is under the statute alone, it says all this before you even look at the regulations.

No disagreement but given that I currently possess several BB ARs it seems that each combination of an upper and lower would constitute a separate "uniquely identified firearm" that I could and must register to not violate the law, as long as I possessed that combination this year. Your thoughts.

[Sousuke]

Just a head's up that I feel like I am repeating myself and am losing interest in explaining the same thing in dozens of different ways but: you need to bring yourself within the terms of PC 30680 to avoid PC 30605, which prohibits possession of AWs. If you have what is defined as an assault weapon with no BB you cannot say that you lawfully possessed that assault weapon prior to January 1, 2017. PC 30680(b). If you register an assault weapon that was lawfully possessed prior to January 1, 2017, you cannot argue that the registration constitutes/amounts to/is the functional equivalent of registration of a firearm that was required to be registered under prior assault weapon registration laws in effect before January 1, 2017, because DoJ will not register those. PC 30680(c), 11 CCR 5472(b). Yes, you can wave around the registration paperwork and say "haha I have a registered assault weapon" but you are not within PC 30680 because the assault weapon you have was not lawfully possessed prior to January 1, 2017, and you have not registered the assault weapon you now possess.

That infers that by changing a mag release the firearm becomes a whole different firearm. Unfortunately for them they have not codified that.

[Malthusian]

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?

If you can afford $20K+ for a lawyer

Loss of guns rights and jail time

Go for it

[ugimports]

Let's look at this a different way (and we will need an LEO's help).. The person arresting you will be an LEO. I was speaking to a CHP officer today picking up his lower and we were discussing this debacle. I asked him: "If you were to run a serial number on an AR today to see if it was registered in the 99-00 ban what would you see?" -- he thought about it and said he'd see make/model, etc.. I asked "would you see a flag as to what version of assault weapon it is registered as"... he thought about it and said "no". easiest way for us to find out how this is going to be enforceable is to have an LEO somehow look up AFS (or whatever system) on a newly registered AW.. if it just shows up "registered" with no other qualifying data then I find it HIGHLY unlikely anyone would ever be arrested for having the BB off the rifle POST registration, because the people that would arrest you would have no reason to.

That's my $.02 on the subject.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

I do not have a problem with the requirement of a picture showing that you have a bullet button at the time of registration (ie 2016 lawful AR) and that the firearm is a 2017 registerable AW. My concern is with the part of the regulations that states that after I register my ARs as AWs I cannot remove the BB and go to a regular magazine release. Given that all of my AR15s were built with 100% complete stripped lowers, the serial number that was part of the DROS combined with their barrel lengths and calibers should be sufficient to uniquely identify them as 2016 lawful BB ARs. So my question is do you see a suit to void the regulation prohibiting removal of the BB and replacement with a normal AR magazine and 100% unwinable. If so, I would be glad to hear you explanation.

Yes, I see it as unwinnable because that regulation is part and parcel of the limiting of AW registrations under the new legislation to BB firearms; the limitation is a reasonable interpretation of the AW law as amended; and an interpretation that would allow possession of AWs in configurations prohibited by prior AW law and for which the registration period has long since expired would be an unreasonable interpretation. Again, all of this is IMO, it is how I think it would it would play out if the regulations were challenged.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

That infers that by changing a mag release the firearm becomes a whole different firearm. Unfortunately for them they have not codified that.

It does become a different assault weapon, one that was not lawfully possessed prior to January 1, 2017. This concept is built into the statute.