MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

[ifilef]

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 ).[/QUOTE]

I clicked on the blue links with the code number and they were identical.

[lrdchivalry]

See the above in blue bold.

This is what you said

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.

I don't see arrest in there. Show me in the statute that modifying a registered assault weapon amounts to manufacturing because 30600 doesn't support that. Also show me where in the statute or the reg that states that a valid AW registration becomes null and void if someone removes their bb post registration.

Do you think if you changed your configuration to full auto you would not be arrested? Or a grenade launcher? Or switched to a banned magazine release you would not be arrested.

Converting an AW to full auto is a poor example as they are two different types of weapons, with different laws governing them. Nice try at a diversion though.

You do know a grenade or flare launcher is an assault weapon feature right? If I have a registered AW and decide to place a grenade/flare launcher on it, I am not worried about being arrest for manufacturing. Why, because you can't manufacture an AW IF it already is a registered assault weapon. As for the mag release, none of the penal codes you cited supports your assertion.

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

I am assuming you mean 30900(b)(1). Please show me in the PC that states that someone cannot remove their bb after registration? What the statute does say is what configuration the rifle has to be in at the time of registration in order to QUALIFY for registration. I would also like to point out that 30515(a), which is the controlling statute on what an AW by feature is, also doesn't mention the BB must stay on. Last, where does it state in 30900(b)(1), 30515(a) or in the regs submitted that it's a felony. You wont because it's not there.

I think as a matter of law it would be voided

Please provide the statute that states such? None of the PC's or the regs support that position.

[IVC]

In fact if you waited until 2017 to install the standard mag release you did not possess that assault weapon at all prior to Jan 1 2017.

Good - I've been trying to get this from you for a while. Your claim is, therefore, that if you remove BB you are creating a different rifle/AW.

[ant21b]

What about semiautomatic shotguns such as a saiga .410 with a maglock. Do these have to be registered as an assault weapon under the new regulations it seems unclear. I would think yes as it has a detachable magazine with a type of bullet button.

[Fox Mulder]

No.

Then, is your position that the rifle is a different weapon, by virtue of changing one part, regardless of serial number and any other identifying characteristics?

[Shell]

Not sure why Shell is continuing to call these regulations "proposed". These are live regulations.

To be clear, I am calling them proposed for a few reasons:

1) The experts are calling them proposed. See the file name in the URL: https://cdn.firearmspolicy.org/wp-co...egulations.pdf (and yes, FPC is still calling them "proposed" on their blog as of the latest update)
2) The rule has not yet been published in the state record. It won’t even be possible to publish until Tuesday.
3) If DOJ realizes a loophole in the rule, they’ll just call the Secretary of State and ask that the rule not be published on Tuesday. One of the benefits of putting it out on a holiday weekend - the anti-gun folks get time to review and hit the panic button.
4) Even after being published, DOJ can amend the final rule up until CRIS starts registering AWs with little concern for anyone crying foul. Once you have a single registration, there's a meeting of the minds, and changing the regulation becomes much more problematic.

[IVC]

the same code you would be charged with for having a SACF rifle with Detachable magazine and features, because that is what you have.

How about the exemption for registered rifles?

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

So what if one installed a bullet button on New Year's eve at exactly midnight at the second in between 2016 and 2017?

Not sure if this was intended to be funny but you're cracking me up. Did you want an answer? The question doesn't really address what was being talked about.

[IVC]

...and your registration is invalid.

We've already established there is no such thing.

[Hoop]

Again, your argument seems to be that if on Saturday 12/31/16 I had a semi auto, featured rifle equipped with a bullet button, legally possessed, in completely registerable condition, and I register it, in the exact same condition and configuration on 7/15/17, and then remove the bullet button and replace it with a regular magazine release button on 9/15/17, that the rifle was not in fact in registerable condition on 12/31/16 and did not continue to be in registerable condition through 7/15/17, and as of 9/15/17 is not, and never was a registered assault weapon.

Am I accurately representing your position?

His argument is that if you take the BB off after registration your rifle is no longer "compliant" with said registration. What the consequences for that would be...who knows. I have a few ideas but don't want to type them out for fear that some DOJ jagoff is reading this thread looking for new ways to **** us over...instead of going after real criminals...

We've already established there is no such thing.

AW registration can be revoked. I know of one person who had that happen to them. He had augs and a few other things from way back during the 80s.

[danez71]

So what if one installed a bullet button on New Year's eve at exactly midnight at the second in between 2016 and 2017?

There is no such thing as being in between 2 days: not even a second.

[dieselpower]

Please for the love of all that holy in this world, explain to me how you still have a Bullet Button Assault Weapon which this regulation created, after you remove the Bullet Button?

You dont. You now have an Assault Weapon.

Did you register is AW in 2000? No, you didnt.

I buy a Mini-14. I install a Grip Pod on it. Please show me the law that says a Grip Pod is not a Bi-pod.

How can I be charged with AW possession for a featureless Firearm? Bi-pods are not illegal?

I buy an AR15 and install a FRS-15, many many many people here say I have an illegal AW? How is that? I see nothing in the law that says that? Why do they say that? What are they referring to?

[ifilef]

The Penal Code section 30900(b)(1) and 30515 created a new class of AW, and that was backed up by the regulations. It should not have come as a surprise these weapons were specifically targeted.

[naught]

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.

There's nothing in 30680(a) that says it doesn't apply after registration. Can you describe what you think 30680(a) means?

[Fox Mulder]

His argument is that if you take the BB off after registration your rifle is no longer "compliant" with said registration. What the consequences for that would be...who knows. I have a few ideas but don't want to type them out for fear that some DOJ jagoff is reading this thread looking for new ways to **** us over...instead of going after real criminals...

I don't think he's actually stated that. Trying to get FGG to simply and concisely state a position is like pulling teeth.