MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

[lrdchivalry]

thats not what he was saying.

He said "There is also no PC or reg, including the submitted regs by DOJ that invalidates a registration based on a violation of 5477."

He is keying on invalidation of registry which is not mentioned. There is an assumption that one line of text from the penal code that FGG keeps repeating ties in to invalidation, but I and others disagree.

I also make the argument that the PC that DP like to throw out there doesn't make removal of a BB post registration illegal or grant the DOJ the authority to create a reg that prohibits it.

[Sousuke]

Lets throw this out there.

Has the CA DOJ EVER invalidated a registration?

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

thats not what he was saying.

He said "There is also no PC or reg, including the submitted regs by DOJ that invalidates a registration based on a violation of 5477."

He is keying on invalidation of registry which is not mentioned. There is an assumption that one line of text from the penal code that FGG keeps repeating ties in to invalidation, but I and others disagree.

For the record I never said anything about invalidation and do not endorse a concept of invalidation of registration

[dieselpower]

Again I would disagree, 30900(b)(1) says no such thing. It only states what rifles can be registered under the new law.

30900(5) is where the legislators have granted DOJ the authority to create regs governing the registration process only. Nothing in the PC grants them the authority to create new law, especially a law that contradicts 30515(a), which BB rifles now fall under.

its been posted 100 times????

(b) (1) Any person who, from January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2016, inclusive, lawfully possessed an assault weapon that does not have a fixed magazine, as defined in Section 30515, including those weapons with an ammunition feeding device that can be readily removed from the firearm with the use of a tool, shall register the firearm before January 1, 2018, but not before the effective date of the regulations adopted pursuant to paragraph (5), with the department pursuant to those procedures that the department may establish by regulation pursuant to paragraph (5).(5) The department shall adopt regulations for the purpose of implementing this subdivision.

this clearly says the department has the authority to write regulations
the regulations they wrote clearly say the removal of the BB is prohibited.

therefor its a violation of the subdivision to not follow the regulations.

[dieselpower]

Lets throw this out there.

Has the CA DOJ EVER invalidated a registration?

yes.

[ifilef]

Again I would disagree, 30900(b)(1) says no such thing. It only states what rifles can be registered under the new law.

,,,

And all others not so mentioned are prohibited by 30900(b)(1). Must have lawfully possessed prior to 1/1/2017.

[Sousuke]

For the record I never said anything about invalidation and do not endorse a concept of invalidation of registration

Well you are saying the firearm is no longer registered because its not the in the pre 2017 config.

Call it what you like.

[phdo]

Kamala and Newsom are having a field day with this thread. They're probably reading everything and munching on a bowl of popcorn laughing at us.

[Sousuke]

yes.

Okay how, why and when

[beacon179]

Is the best thing to do right now, while all this works out, is to remove the upper from the lower?

[lrdchivalry]

Violative of 30900(b)(1) and 30600. 30680 does not shield from manufacturing even if it might apply to possession. Moreover, likely by doing so the unilateral act will VOID your AW registration. You can't unscramble that egg by using a RAW to commit a felony directly related to the foundation upon which registration was approved. Malum in se crime, mens rea, all that good stuff.

Let me see if I understood you correctly. If someone has a registered assault weapon they can be charged with manufacturing if they remove a BB and replace it with a regular mag release post registration?

30900(b)(1), 30600 and 30515(a) does not support your argument. Once a rifle is a registered AW under 30515(a), which a BB rifle now falls under, it becomes a registered aw period.

30900(b)(1) only specifies what rifles qualify for registration not what can be done afterwards.

You also keep throwing out this view that a valid aw registration can be voided without any facts to back that up. That view is not even supported by the PC or the regs.

[FatalKitty]

First off, why would you want to lack those parts? You would then have to hold the magazine in place.

5477 says you cant remove the BB, fine, whatever, we will all fight this in court, but in the meantime, install a mag button. They are currently $25.

what about one of the configurable BBs ? ones that allow you to turn out the button set screw so it works like a normal mag release? would one of those be the same thing?

[AlexDD]

its been posted 100 times????



this clearly says the department has the authority to write regulations
the regulations they wrote clearly say the removal of the BB is prohibited.

therefor its a violation of the subdivision to not follow the regulations.

I totally agree with regard to the bullet button.

But on featureless issues, did the legislature authorize them to change the regulations/definitions not related to assault weapons?

"(b) (1) Any person who, from January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2016, inclusive, lawfully possessed an assault weapon that does not have a fixed magazine, as defined in Section 30515, including those weapons with an ammunition feeding device that can be readily removed from the firearm with the use of a tool, shall register the firearm before January 1, 2018, but not before the effective date of the regulations adopted pursuant to paragraph (5), with the department pursuant to those procedures that the department may establish by regulation pursuant to paragraph (5).(5) The department shall adopt regulations for the purpose of implementing this subdivision."

A featureless weapon, like a mini-14, m1A, or exile hammerhead/mmg equipped AR15 was not an assault weapon from 2001 to 2016. Any of these new/refined/added definitions for flash suppressor, overall length, etc... should not apply to "featureless" as the legislature did not grant them the power to adopt these regulations for those purposes.

DOJ did anyway. There is the rub. The problem is the old code is now amended.

[IVC]

Kamala and Newsom are having a field day with this thread. They're probably reading everything and munching on a bowl of popcorn laughing at us.

If they are, I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts they are sweating, not eating popcorn. Certainly not laughing.

A successful legal challenge of the regulations not being in line with the code would not only open door to millions of proper RAWs, but would also create another "DOH! moment" along the lines of the original BB.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

Well you are saying the firearm is no longer registered because its not the in the pre 2017 config.

Call it what you like.

I'm not saying that either.