MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

[dieselpower]

5471(m): ""Detachable magazine" means any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm without disassembly of the firearm action or use of a tool A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool. Ammunition feeding device includes any belted or linked ammunition, but does not include clips, en bloc clips, or stripper clips that load cartridges into the magazine

An AR-15 style firearm that has a bullet-button style magazine release with a magnet left on the bullet-button constitutes a detachable magazine. An AR-15 style firearm lacking a magazine catch assembly (magazine catch magazine catch siring and magazine release button constitutes a detachable magazine. An AK-47 style
firearm lacking a magazine catch assembly {magazine catch rivet and pin} constitutes a detachable magazine

I am curious about this definition. It seems it was inserted to outlaw mag magnets on BB post registration but then its like they forgot about it in the main text.

No they didnt forget to change the text. They are clearly saying if your tool is readily available for use, your magazine is detachable.

like having a magnet button on the bullet button.

This can mean any readily available tool makes your BB a detachable magazine.

read it slowly.

[AlexDD]

Here is an example FWIW I thought might be helpful for those who do not want to get into the legal nuances. If it does not work for you, no worries, drive on….

The state decides to ban all home electric generators. They require permits for all the existing ones in operation. Their regulatory/statute definition only mentions gasoline powered generators and no further importation of gasoline powered generators.

People decide to get propane generators and manufacturers retrofit gasoline generators to use propane for import. The definition was not crafted to disallow the use of propane home generators. The state then years later decides it does not want propane generators either. It bans them. They require permits for all the existing ones creating a new permit category for the home propane generator.

It is clear to me in this example that one could not decide once get a permit for their existing propane generator then change it back to a gasoline because the permit is for a propane generator.

This example does not seem different than Featured vs BB AW permits.

[ifilef]

I disagree.

we went from


to



do you not see the language difference? I understand you are saying its its own category and I nearly agree, but that is not correct.

I see no real difference in the two definitions and each is consistent with the other.

Perhaps you should read again

[IVC]

I am basing my statements solely on the penal code, not using regs as a crutch.

What you claim is NOT in the penal code. That's why we are having all this discussion.

[strelok76254]

This maybe a silly question, but what is the timeline for the next 60 days?

To me it sounds like regulations are just a PROPOSAL, people are mentioning 15 days, plus NRA legal team didn't yet respond.

When can we read actual regulations? There will also be numerous attempts to appeal them.

In other words, when can we stop speculating and start discussing the actual regulations?

CA has some very clever politicians that "sneak" in verbiage, but they too should have a deadline, otherwise CA regulations will be like constitution of a 3rd world country, written in pencil.

Proposal:

https://cdn.firearmspolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/bullet-button-proposed-regulations.pdf

A final version of actual regulations should appear on ca.gov, correct?

[ARDude]

All we need is a

[dieselpower]

Here is an example FWIW I thought might be helpful for those who do not want to get into the legal nuances. If it does not work for you, no worries, drive on….

The state decides to ban all home electric generators. They require permits for all the existing ones in operation. Their regulatory/statute definition only mentions gasoline powered generators and no further importation of gasoline powered generators.

People decide to get propane generators and manufacturers retrofit gasoline generators to use propane for import. The definition was not crafted to disallow the use of propane home generators. The state then years later decides it does not want propane generators either. It bans them. They require permits for all the existing ones creating a new permit category for the home propane generator.

It is clear to me in this example that one could not decide once get a permit for their existing propane generator then change it back to a gasoline because the permit is for a propane generator.

This example does not seem different than Featured vs BB AW permits.

agreed, but please note the law as written and passed by vote did not allow the regulation to differentiate between fuels, only that propane was added to the original registration because the target of the law was home generators not the fuel that they use.

[Mayor McRifle]

Were you one who felt compelled to convert to featureless by the end of 2016?

That's a negative, Ghost Rider.

They were 'wrong' about that too.

Who was 'wrong' about that? And why is 'wrong' in single quotes? Are there degrees of truth and accuracy when it comes to assault weapon registration? Or are you somehow implying that although you were wrong the hundred or so times you posted your assertion that even featureless rifles needed to be registered as assault weapons, you weren't really 'wrong'?

[Sousuke]

No they didnt forget to change the text. They are clearly saying if your tool is readily available for use, your magazine is detachable.

like having a magnet button on the bullet button.

This can mean any readily available tool makes your BB a detachable magazine.

read it slowly.

I get that but a bulletbutton is defined as not fixed.

The penal code only refers to fixed, so therefore a bullet button with a mag magnet is the same as a bullet button without in context of the law.

All I can say is that the regs were very slopply written.

[IVC]

If you remove the BB you will no longer be covered under the 30680(a) exemption for assault weapon possession.

That's open for debate, but let's just pretend that we FIRST register, THEN remove BB so we don't worry about the exemption and only worry about the post-registration AW configurations.

At this time it wouldn't be prudent to remove BB before registration just to openly flaunt the DOJ as they might try to make an example of you.

Would you have been able to lawfully possess an assault weapon without a BB prior to 2017? I think the answer is "no."

Correct, but the question is whether "you possessed the assault weapon legally prior to 2017" as stated in the code, not whether you should/would/could have something or something else.

To answer "no" means that you, at some point before 2017, possessed it illegally (it was in an illegal configuration), or that you didn't possess it at all before 2017 (which is the primary reason that section is in the code).

[ifilef]

I give up. Have a good day.

Go out to the range today and get arrested if you shoot SACF featured with a magazine release. Go out to the range after you register and get arrested for manufacturing an AW.

Some of you are so nasty here that I don't care to spend any more of my time in this thread warning you of the pitfalls.

Doesn't matter, NONE of you will shoot featured with magazine release this year whether you have registered or not. Mark my words. Big 'talkers', no action. You will wait on your butts until you are assured that it's okay, and it never will be absent a court order that will never occur in this state. The AG will cut your specious arguments above your knees. Try running thereafter.

Out of here.

[dieselpower]

I see no real difference in the two definitions and each is consistent with the other.

Perhaps you should read again

wow man...

Definition 1 clearly says if you use a tool its NOT a detachable magazine.

Definition 2 clearly says if your tool is readily available your magazine is detachable.

they are worlds apart.

I understand your primary language was not English, but a quick google search of the terms we are talking about would help you figure this out.

[tonyxcom]

Out of here.

BYE

[Fox Mulder]

Sounds like a winning second amendment CGF case: my bullet button does exactly the same thing as a standard mag release, so you are burdening the exercise of my constitutional rights by not letting me have a standard mag release. lol.

To respond to the "statute didn't create a new category of AW" or "the statute doesn't even mention bullet buttons" claims, the statute doesn't have to mention bullet buttons, as by process of elimination the registration window is open only for a limited subset/category/class of AWs, i.e., those that do not have fixed magazines and which are not in a configuration that was prohibited under pre January 1, 2017 AW law. In other words, AWs with "compliance devices" that negated the AWs ability to accept a detachable magazine under SB23 and its regulations. The prior law is still a live issue with respect to certain compliance devices, but there is certainty that a garden variety bullet button device was compliant under prior law and therefore can be registered.

We (gun owners) didn't say it does the same thing, they (the legislature) did. If they say they're the same, then they should be interchangeable.

[Sousuke]

That's open for debate, but let's just pretend that we FIRST register, THEN remove BB so we don't worry about the exemption and only worry about the post-registration AW configurations.

At this time it wouldn't be prudent to remove BB before registration just to openly flaunt the DOJ as they might try to make an example of you.



Correct, but the question is whether "you possessed the assault weapon legally prior to 2017" as stated in the code, not whether you should/would/could have something or something else.

To answer "no" means that you, at some point before 2017, possessed it illegally (it was in an illegal configuration), or that you didn't possess it at all before 2017 (which is the primary reason that section is in the code).

Yeah I'm not advocating taking them off but I think we will come to find that the prohibition comes without penalty.