MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

[nagzul]

"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."

Going to get a rod and bubble gum. Seems they got just a tad too cute.. and specific.

[dieselpower]

Not at all. The intent was to "close the BB loophole" - they clearly see it as a loophole and we know this from the original DOJ informal statement: "BBs will be gone in two weeks."

The only reason we have all this commotion is that there is the unintended consequence of creating millions of new RAWs, which on reflection the legislators really, really don't like.

please dont quote 1/2 of what I said and tell me I am wrong, when we both agree on the same thing.

Or are you now saying the DoJ didnt submit regulations that are trying to create a new class of AW. Because if you are saying that, you clearly have no understanding of the regulations, including the title.

The law that was passed by popular Vote was to cause BB SACF firearms with listed SB23 features as an AW.

The Regulations that were written were clearly written to create a new class of AW, I will submit the freaking title of the regulations as clear proof of that.

[tonyxcom]

"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."

Going to get a rod and bubble gum. Seems they got just a tad too cute.. and specific.

Correct, the parts still have to stay, thats it.

[lrdchivalry]

Not at all. The intent was to "close the BB loophole" - they clearly see it as a loophole and we know this from the original DOJ informal statement: "BBs will be gone in two weeks."

The only reason we have all this commotion is that there is the unintended consequence of creating millions of new RAWs, which on reflection the legislators really, really don't like.

Agreed.

Lets not forget the underground regulation that DOJ created and spread for awhile, that if the weapon is temporarily incapable of accepting a detachable magazine, i.e. a BB, but is readily converted back to accepting a detachable magazine then it is considered an AW. They made the claim that BB equipped rifles were AW's not a new class of AW.

[dieselpower]

Correct, the parts still have to stay, thats it.

there is also nothing wrong with a mag button on the BB if the BBSACF with features is registered.

The only prohibited act is removing the BB.

so even if they can somehow say removal of the BB violates your registration, there is no part of the regulation that says a readily available tool is prohibited only that its constitutes a detachable magazine which is fine because you are registered.

[Sousuke]

there is also nothing wrong with a mag button on the BB if the BBSACF with features is registered.

The only prohibited act is removing the BB.

so even if they can somehow say removal of the BB violates your registration, there is no part of the regulation that says a readily available tool is prohibited only that its constitutes a detachable magazine which is fine because you are registered.

I agree with this.

[dieselpower]

as of right now if your BB SACF Rifle with features has a mag button on it, you are 100% legal registered or not until 12/31/2017.

The only prohibited act is removal of the BB, (yes some people disagree and say you can,that is not the point.)

[wireless]

But guys, you aren't considering the "SPIRIT OF THE LAW" bhahahahahha

[ifilef]

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

It's in the penal code as violative of 35015, 30600, 30900(b)(1), 30680, 30605, to register as AW and then switch the BB out to a mag release. If you understand and read and can interpret those statutes. there is no other conclusion.

Here's authority in support of prohibition in changing out the BB as cited by the DOJ in that regulation [5477(a)]:

Note: Authority cited: Section 30900 Penal Code. Reference: Sections 30515, 30680, 30900,
and 30950 Penal Code

Good luck.

[tonyxcom]

there is also nothing wrong with a mag button on the BB if the BBSACF with features is registered.

The only prohibited act is removing the BB.

so even if they can somehow say removal of the BB violates your registration, there is no part of the regulation that says a readily available tool is prohibited only that its constitutes a detachable magazine which is fine because you are registered.

Thats not what we are getting at. There might be a wormhole by adding that level of specificity.

[dieselpower]

Thats not what we are getting at. There might be a wormhole by adding that level of specificity.

explain.

there is no prohibited act of having the tool readily available, only that it is defined as a detachable magazine.

[lrdchivalry]

please dont quote 1/2 of what I said and tell me I am wrong, when we both agree on the same thing.

Or are you now saying the DoJ didnt submit regulations that are trying to create a new class of AW. Because if you are saying that, you clearly have no understanding of the regulations, including the title.

The law that was passed by popular Vote was to cause BB SACF firearms with listed SB23 features as an AW.

The Regulations that were written were clearly written to create a new class of AW, I will submit the freaking title of the regulations as clear proof of that.

The issue is that the DOJ doesn't have the authority to create a new class of assault weapon, regardless of what the title of the submitted regs states, and my opinion that is what they have done. BB rifles now fall under 30515 (a) of the PC as of 1/1/17, which is not a new class of AW. 30900 only covers what qualifies to be registered under the new law. The PC gives the DOJ the authority to create regs in regards to the registration process but does not allow for the creation of a new class of AW.

[Sousuke]

It's in the penal code as violative of 35015, 30600, 30900(b)(1), 30680, 30605, to register as AW and then switch the BB out to a mag release. If you understand and read and can interpret those statutes. there is no other conclusion.

Good luck.

You must make a number of assumptions to come to that conclusion. I try not to assume anything.

[dieselpower]

The issue is that the DOJ doesn't have the authority to create a new class of assault weapon, regardless of what the title of the submitted regs states, and my opinion that is what they have done. BB rifles now fall under 30515 (a) of the PC as of 1/1/17, which is not a new class of AW. 30900 only covers what qualifies to be registered under the new law. The PC gives the DOJ the authority to create regs in regards to the registration process but does not allow for the creation of a new class of AW.

which is 100% what I said, you then cut 1/2 my post out and made it look like I was saying something I wasnt.

The laws intent was written and passed by popular vote to make BB SACF with features into AWs.

The intent of the regulations written was to created a new class of AW, the BB AW, which was NOT the intent of the law.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

True. But not in any sensible, coherent, or meaningful way. "Tortured interpretation", perhaps. But that's it.

Others seem to be able to follow along, maybe the problem is on your end lol.