MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

[ifilef]

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

You were alluding to it in a prior post. Then you said there would likely be prosecution even if the registration remained effective.

[IVC]

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.

One doesn't violate a subdivision. One violates a specific code. Ever got a speeding ticket? They put as violation something starting with "VC."

DOJ can and will create regulation for implementation of the registration. That's about it. Anything extra and it's going to be very interesting...

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

You were alluding to it in a prior post. Then you said there would likely be prosecution even if the registration remained effective.

I was never alluding to invalidation of registration, that's someone else's argument. If you'd like, post a link to the prior post.

[IVC]

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

No. The best thing is to do nothing. Sit and wait until it's sorted out. Action is required by 2018.

One aspect of the law we all agree on is that you are protected in 2017 if you don't modify your configuration.

[dieselpower]

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.

big time. we might all be debating variations of poor wording and what it all means, but that only shows the regulations are on rocky ground.

if they are reading this, its to figure out how they are going to bail the water out of the sinking boat.

[lrdchivalry]

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

No they are not. 30900 does not prohibit any AW, that statute only covers what can be registered under the new laws. 30900(b)(1) covers the rifles that can be registered mentioned in the section, just as 30990 (a)(1) and (2) covers registration for rifles under the previous bans.

BB rifles are now banned under 30515(a) just like all the other rifles that are banned by feature.

[ifilef]

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?

I think that I said arrested.

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.

I thought registered under 30900(b)(1). Maybe I am mistaken,

Do you think if you changed your configuration to full auto you would not be arrested? Or attached a grenade to the launcher? Or modified the OAL to less than is mandated? Or switched to the banned magazine release you would not be arrested?


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

Don't be absurd. One can't modify an AW to a configuration that was not authorized under the implementation statute and is moreover a felony.

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.

I think that as a matter of law it might be held as void, or void ab initio, by a court of law if proven switch over to magazine release, which is a felony and banned on SACF featured weapons that were not registered during the prior registration period(s).

See the above in blue bold.

Authority in support of 5477 cited and referenced by DOJ:
Authority cited: Section 30900 Penal Code. Reference: Sections 30515, 30680, 30900,
and 30950 Penal Code

[dieselpower]

One doesn't violate a subdivision. One violates a specific code. Ever got a speeding ticket? They put as violation something starting with "VC."

DOJ can and will create regulation for implementation of the registration. That's about it. Anything extra and it's going to be very interesting...

Do you agree that regulations are a guide to compliance?

If a regulations says you need to do A B and C, that if you dont follow those steps, you are not in compliance?

The regulation says you cant do X, then doing X is non-compliance with the regulation.

The law says you are exempt for criminal charges if you follow the regulations.

therefore non-compliance with the regulation places you squarely in the middle of non-compliance with the law, so you are now subject to criminal charges.

[dieselpower]

Okay how, why and when

are you actually asking if any person or business has been charged with a crime by the Department of Justice for non-compliance with regulations relating the registration of some kind?

Its like asking if an LEO has ever shot a criminal. While not their primary function, they have guns for a reason.

[Strykeback]

I love how you guys are arguing back and forth over the placement of a word in the new codes, but forget it will be an anti gun overzealous rookie cop that interprets it however he wants when he pulls you over on your way from the range, and whether he's wrong or right, will start this thing off and causes thousands in legal fees for the unlucky fool.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[EZOG]

Description including color, barrel length, unique features etc...?? Photos? The pictures and descriptions can change if you modify and upgrade parts such as a free float handguard, 16 barrell to 18 inch etc...What if you want to change colors via cerakote? What's the purpose of all this really? If you make modifications to your rifle, are you required to submit new pictures and a new updated description??

Sent from my SM-G530T using Tapatalk

[tonyxcom]

I love how you guys are arguing back and forth over the placement of a word in the new codes, but forget it will be an anti gun overzealous rookie cop that interprets it however he wants when he pulls you over on your way from the range, and whether he's wrong or right, will start this thing off and causes thousands in legal fees for the unlucky fool.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Thats about the stupidest argument one could make. How do you take any legally owned firearm to the range without some overzealous rookie cop interpreting the law however he wants?

[naught]

I would disagree. The PC does not state that the BB must remain on the weapon post registration. 30680 only states that a person will not be charged with possession if they meet the conditions listed.

30680.*Section 30605 does not apply to the possession of an assault weapon by a person who has possessed the assault weapon prior to January 1, 2017, if all of the following are applicable:
(a)*Prior to January 1, 2017, the person was eligible to register that assault weapon pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 30900.
(b)*The person lawfully possessed that assault weapon prior to January 1, 2017.
(c)*The person registers the assault weapon by January 1, 2018, in accordance with subdivision (b) of Section 30900.

30900 (b)(1) states what rifles are eligible for registration, no mention of a BB must remain on weapon post registration. Why is that? Because BB rifles now fall under the definition of AW per 30515(a), which also never mentions a mag release mechanism must remain on the rifle post registration.

30900(5) only gives the DOJ the authority to create regs for the purposes of registering BB rifles, nowhere does (5) grant the DOJ the authority to create a reg prohibiting post registration modifications of the rifle.

There is also no PC or reg, including the submitted regs by DOJ that invalidates a registration based on a violation of 4577.

Once the BB AW is a registered AW, it's a registered AW per 30515(a)

Possession of an assault weapon is illegal unless you fall under one of the listed exemptions in the Penal Code. For the current discussion, the applicable exemption is 30680 (as you have quoted above). All three subsections of 30680 must be satisfied for the exemption to hold. Registration alone is not sufficient to satisfy 30680.

Note that the wording in 30680(a) is "register that assault weapon." The "that" refers to the assault weapon that you are currently in possession of. It's that assault weapon -- the one you are currently in possession of -- that needs to be eligible for registration under 30900(b). An assault weapon without a BB would not be eligible for registration under 30900(b), even if it had already been registered, so you would not be covered by 30680(a), and your possession of that assault weapon would not be legal.

An aside:

There are currently two different versions of 30680(a) at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov, one right above the other. The one on the top has the wording, "would have been eligible to register," while the one on the bottom says, "was eligible to register." This seems to reflect the differences between SB880 and AB1135. Not sure how these discrepancies get reconciled (during trial, do I get to pick the version I want ).

[danez71]

*

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!

Agreed.
There the same but different, lol. They are different but they want them banned so they can prosecute with the same misguided mental deficiency as before.



*

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.

Also agreed.

My posts have been in the context of how they will bridge the PC and the Regs together in order to get a conviction.


*

Of course it was a loophole, and the side effect that it would open the door to tens or hundreds of thousands of AR-15s being legally sold in California was completely unintentional.

The rule that allowed the bullet button was nothing more than a clarification to ensure that ordinary standard configuration SKS rifles were not defined as assault weapons.

Clever people later used this language against them by applying it to AR-15s and other EBRs.

I guess we have different semantics of loophole and that's not exactly how I remember it.

But it neither here nor there. We're agreeing in essence

[IVC]

Do you agree that regulations are a guide to compliance?

If a regulations says you need to do A B and C, that if you dont follow those steps, you are not in compliance?

The regulation says you cant do X, then doing X is non-compliance with the regulation.

The law says you are exempt for criminal charges if you follow the regulations.

therefore non-compliance with the regulation places you squarely in the middle of non-compliance with the law, so you are now subject to criminal charges.

That's how it works in theory.

The problem is when regulation says: "you can't do X" without saying "or else you will violate penal code Y." What specific PC does "you cannot remove BB after registration" clarify so you are not in compliance if you do it?

FGG is sticking to a sort of "it can be interpreted to violate 30900(b)," but even he is not claiming that "you cannot remove BB" will create a "you didn't possess the AW legally prior to 2017." There is a faith-based logical jump from "possessed legally prior to 2017" to "wouldn't have been legal prior to 2017."