MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

[ir0nclash86]

What if at the time of registration, we register while it's in a featureless state, take pics to show , then just swap out the grip to a pistol grip or whatever? youre not changing the magazine release like it says not to. Can we do that?

[peter95]

Interesting theory crafting since wild conjecture is the currency of the boards: did the DOJ have this in mind all along? They waited until the last minute of 2016. They purposefully created a situation where there was ambiguity on the BB issue, then gave the gun community NO TIME to react. For instance, if I knew today that BB would be still required, I would probably have liked to sell a few rifles before the deadline. Now we are trapped, incapable of selling, using, or otherwise doing anything other than going featureless. Strange times!

I think a lot of gun owners talk a out this whole bullet button. is what really fkd us in the as $. this is why moderators kept locking and deleting threads about the whole bb thing but many idiots kept ignoring it. DOJ finally found out the while bb removal and. ow were paying the price.

[penguinman]

What if at the time of registration, we register while it's in a featureless state, take pics to show , then just swap out the grip to a pistol grip or whatever? youre not changing the magazine release like it says not to. Can we do that?

They won't register a featureless rifle.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

PC 30515 says both a firearm with a standard mag release AND a bullet button firearm are both assault weapons.

No, really? Back to the drawing board! lol

[9M62]

If it's featureless then it isnt' an AW and as such, you cant register it.

[naught]

See bold.

Registration is only one part of 30680, you need to satisfy the other two sections (a & b) also.

The question posed by 30680(a) is essentially, "would your currently possessed rifle have been lawful to possess in its current configuration prior to January 1, 2017?" If the answer to this question is, "no," then it will be an unlawful rifle after January 1, 2017 too, regardless of whether or not it's been registered. We don't even have to look at 30680(c) since you have failed to satisfy 30680(a).

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 would have been 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.

[Sousuke]

No, really? Back to the drawing board! lol

As in there is nothing distinguishing the two. 30680a is to stop assault weapons that weren't registered in the previous bans from being given an avenue of registration. Once registered and assault weapon is an assault weapon. The penal code does not distinguish between them.

[Shell]

Look, FGG is correct in that unless FPC, CGN, or a similar organization challenges it, the DOJ will get to craft this new distinction (in Rule 5477), hence - a new class of AW that prohibits removal of the BB.

All the rest of us are right that the DOJ is overstepping the letter of the law (SB 880) to do it.

We need to get an attorney to challenge this (preferably in federal court, on 2A grounds for infringing on the 2A with regulations not authorized by state law), or all this talk is just talk.

[JackRydden224]

To be honest if you register your ARs with BB then life really hasn't changed from 12/31/2016. As far as configuration goes we are at status quo. I will be bummed if I cannot take the BB off but the fact is things have not gotten worse compared to years past.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

As in there is nothing distinguishing the two. 30680a is to stop assault weapons that weren't registered in the previous bans from being given an avenue of registration. Once registered and assault weapon is an assault weapon. The penal code does not distinguish between them.

You are making my point for me lol.

[Sousuke]

You are making my point for me lol.

Only if you jump to assumption that a BB firearm lawfully held and registered in 2017 somehow becomes an unregistered assault weapon after removing the BB. But its not written anywhere as such.

[Nvidkiller]

Another nugget - redefining their OAL requirement to measure from the bare muzzle, or a permanently fixed muzzle device. Many folding AKs & Tavors will be affected.

This. I spotted this right away when reading the new literature. It would appear they accept my Tavor as 26.1 oal not 30" including added brake. So either I can remove my muzzle extension or I need to permanently attach it. But the literature is telling me where to measure from NOT what to do to be compliant.

[BAJ475]

naught is spot on. Compliance with PC 36080 is ongoing, if you are in possession of an AW with standard mag release you are not within 36080(b) because you did not lawfully possess that assault weapon prior to January 1, 2017.

First, let me say that I fully understand your arguments about removing BBs after registration. While I am not in agreement that a challenge to the not remove the BB regulation is 100% unwinable, I disagree with those that challenge your arguments as illogical or irrational. I fully expect that the DoJ will parrot those arguments. If I were on their side, I surely would, because the statutes themselves do not express such an intent.

What I question is your basis for arguing/concluding that compliance with PC 36080 is ongoing. I see nothing in section 36080 that states or hints that compliance is ongoing. It has three simple requirements. Lawful possession prior to 1/1/17. Nothing one does after 1/1/17 can change what happened before 1/1/17. Registration after 1/1/17 but prior to 1/1/18. Once registered, nothing that happens afterwords can undue the fact that the AW had been registered as required. The third requirement is that prior to 1/1/17 the person would have been eligible to register that firearm under subdivision(b) of Section 30900. Again, nothing that happens after the AW is registered can change the person's eligibility prior to 1/1/17. In fact, nothing that happens after 12/31/16 could change that eligibility. Since, I see nothing ambiguous about Section 36080, I see no way for the courts to construe Section 36080 as imposing a condition that the AW retain a devise that prevented it from becoming an AW prior to 1/1/17. Your thoughts and comments will be appreciated.

[ifilef]

I would disagree.
30680 is a pre-registration PC which exempts from prosecution for possession, any bb rifle owner during the specified registration period which is 1/1/17-1/1/18.

30605 is negated by 30680 for bb rifle owners for the duration of the registration period and only governs possession of unregistered AW's . After the registration period closes, 30680 is negated and 30605 would come back into play.

30900(b)(1) designates which weapons qualify for registration, it doesn't control post registered rifles.

Once you register, 30680, 30605 and 30900 no longer apply due to the fact that the rifle is now a registered AW, therefore no need for the possession exemption, cannot be prosecuted for possession since the rifle is registered and 30900 no longer applies due to the rifle already being registered.

As of this point in time the law that designates a bb rifle an AW is 30515(a), which doesn't prohibit modification.

That is where the argument totally fails- in your last sentence.

There are numerous inaccuracies above that, but last sentence is seriously flawed.

You think there is no distinction between rifles registered under the prior registration periods and because ours now fall within 30515(a) they are 'elevated' to the prior weapons' status...can shoot now without BB?

Good luck.

The sole authority cited for 5477 is 30900. Suggest that you read the entire statute to understand DOJ's justification for the regulation.

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

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

Only if you jump to assumption that a BB firearm lawfully held and registered in 2017 somehow becomes an unregistered assault weapon after removing the BB. But its not written anywhere as such.

"30680a is to stop assault weapons that weren't registered in the previous bans from being given an avenue of registration" yet that's what you end up with under your interpretation, a registered assault weapon that wasn't registered in the previous bans but should have been. The new law stops assault weapons that weren't registered in the previous bans from being given an avenue of registration but if you register then remove BB and end up at the same place, no problem! "The law doesn't say what you can and can't do after you register, gotcha!"