MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

[tonyxcom]

No answer to this eh?

Its been answered several times to other posters, but quickly buried in all the posting.

It is final and will appear in the CCR's this week (likely). The PC appears to have already been updated.

[nagzul]

"An AR-15 style firearm that has abullet-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
buttonLconstitutes adetachable magazine. An AK-47 style firearm lacking a magazine
catch assembly {magazine catch siring and rivet pin} constitutes a detachable magazine."

The first sentence is what I was referring to. I was just wondering what can be done to adhere to the new regs, and keep the BB on.
I just forsee a new device that disables the BB.
I also don't know how this is even remotely enforceable. If the gun is a RAW, and ran through the system and it comes back as such with a LEO encounter, why would he take it?
Will there really be an A, B, and C classification? I am doubtful.

Look for an auto sear and move along. That's my guess. If I register, I'll try to be as legal as possible, but never look back once I make a decision. This whole thing is a ****in joke.

[dieselpower]

So what are everyone's thoughts on a full featured SACF rifle running a CMMG .22lr conversion bolt. It's my understanding is that it's no longer a SACF rifle and can have the AW prohibited features.

as per the regs if the Bolt is removed from the rifle, its not semiautomatic.

Semiautomatic" means a firearm functionally able to fire a single cartridge eject the empty case and reload the chamber each time the trigger is pulled and released. Further certain necessary mechanical parts that will allow a firearm to function in a semiautomatic nature must be present for a weapon to be deemed semiautomatic. A weapon clearly designed to be semiautomatic but lacking a firing pin, bolt carrier, gas tube or some other crucial part of the firearm is not semiautomatic for purposes of Pedal Code section 3051530600 and 34605(a) and 3Q900

so even with or without the .22lr Bolt installed its not an AW. Just dont ever install a CF bolt.

[tonyxcom]

First casualty of the lack of clear and concise guidance.

"Registered mine today and a $19 fee but it goes into In-PROGRESS for approval. The CRI site is up"

[IVC]

I think that you might have misunderstood me. I'm arguing that 30680(a) prevents one from using a configuration after 1/1/2017 that would have been illegal before 1/1/2017. This would be independent of a firearm's registration status.

30680(a) doesn't apply after registration so it's not relevant at that point.

FGG suggests essentially the same thing as you, so we are trying to figure out where the limits are and what the sticking points will be in the future, both for litigation and as personal risk.

[dieselpower]

"An AR-15 style firearm that has abullet-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
buttonLconstitutes adetachable magazine. An AK-47 style firearm lacking a magazine
catch assembly {magazine catch siring and rivet pin} constitutes a detachable magazine."

The first sentence is what I was referring to. I was just wondering what can be done to adhere to the new regs, and keep the BB on.
I just forsee a new device that disables the BB.
I also don't know how this is even remotely enforceable. If the gun is a RAW, and ran through the system and it comes back as such with a LEO encounter, why would he take it?
Will there really be an A, B, and C classification? I am doubtful.

Look for an auto sear and move along. That's my guess. If I register, I'll try to be as legal as possible, but never look back once I make a decision. This whole thing is a ****in joke.

you are not breaking a law by disabling the BB. If the reg is to be used as a measuring stick for actual charges filed against you, as long as its not removed, you are fine.

The regulation is just defining a detachable magazine by saying clearly a detachable magazine is one that can be readily detached without disassembly or using a tool.

The law says an AW lacks a Fixed Magazine.

anything not a fixed magazine is equal in the eyes of the law and regulations only forbid removal of the BB.

Your BBAW (hahahaha) is still a BBAW with a mag button attached. and still legal until 12/31/2017 and in 2018 and beyond must be registered to be legal its then a BBRAW (even more hahahaha).

[nagzul]

Agreed. Ty

[hossb7]

First casualty of the lack of clear and concise guidance.

"Registered mine today and a $19 fee but it goes into In-PROGRESS for approval. The CRI site is up"

Reporting Forms

• Firearm Ownership Report
• New Resident Report of Firearm Ownership
• Collector In-State Acquisition of Curio or Relic Long Gun Report
• Curio or Relic Firearm Report
• Report of Operation of Law
• Report of Intra-Familial Firearm Transaction
• Law Enforcement Gun Release Application

None of which are assault weapon registration.

[dieselpower]

Reporting Forms

• Firearm Ownership Report
• New Resident Report of Firearm Ownership
• Collector In-State Acquisition of Curio or Relic Long Gun Report
• Curio or Relic Firearm Report
• Report of Operation of Law
• Report of Intra-Familial Firearm Transaction
• Law Enforcement Gun Release Application

None of which are assault weapon registration.

I dont have access to that forum board...hahaha, I must have pissed off a mod by disagreeing with him.

[danez71]

They made that claim all the time when they were trying to ban it.



They claim functional indifference, but the procedure is different.



Sure, they describe that the process is different but that the result is the same and therefore although there is a distinction there is no difference.

Yes they did when theyou were trying to ban the BB.. however, I was referring to when they intentionally wrote the previous ban so that the use of a tool was ok. That's not a loophole. That was intentional on their part.... with our prodding of course.

In regards to the other 2 parts... right. And that's why they are addressing that other mag release that is distinctively different than a std mag release AKA the BB.

IOW, the std mag release was addressed/banned. Now they have banned the distinctively different BB.

[ifilef]

A 'head's up'

If you are looking for the authority DOJ has cited and referenced for each and every regulation recently submitted, just read the applicable Penal Code sections which follow the language at the bottom of each regulatory section.

Some of you were saying that you saw no authority for various regulations. Well, there you have it.

I'm not commenting upon the DOJ justification for each reg, just guiding you to it if you missed it or glossed over those parts of the document,

[umd]

Yes they did when theyou were trying to ban the BB.. however, I was referring to when they intentionally wrote the previous ban so that the use of a tool was ok. That's not a loophole. That was intentional on their part.... with our prodding of course.

In regards to the other 2 parts... right. And that's why they are addressing that other mag release that is distinctively different than a std mag release AKA the BB.

IOW, the std mag release was addressed/banned. Now they have banned the distinctively different BB.

And that's the whole point. The legislature said hey, this BB loophole performs the same as a regular release, so we need to ban them. The DOJ said hey wait a moment you guys, the BB is not the same we want them to leave it on!

[hossb7]

I dont have access to that forum board...hahaha, I must have pissed off a mod by disagreeing with him.

The semi auto rifle forum?

Not really something to be proud of, but whatever floats your boat?

[IVC]

Some of you were saying that you saw no authority for various regulations. Well, there you have it.

Of course they have authority. The question is whether they can change the law under the guise of authority to regulate and whether some of their "regulation" can be used to prosecute people when the offense is not in the original law.

If the text of the regulation was included in the law, we wouldn't have this discussion at all - it would be all clearly spelled out in the penal code.

[Mayor McRifle]

I give up. Have a good day.

. . .

Out of here.

Tick tock, tick tock . . .

If you are looking for the authority DOJ has referenced for each and every regulation recently submitted, just read the applicable penal code sections which follow the language at the bottom of that section.

Some of you were saying that you saw no authority for various regulations. Well, there you have it. I'm not commenting upon the DOJ justification for each reg, just guiding you to it if you missed it or glossed over that part of the document,

Welcome back, ifilef. You were gone for an hour and a half; we were beginning to get worried.