MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

[Sousuke]

"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!"

Blame it on the law makers.

[vandal]

MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

I think following FGG's logic you would not be able to drop the Tavor barrel extension after 2017 BB-AW registration because that would create a sub-30" semi auto, and you would not have been eligible to register that.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

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.

Which AW are you talking about, the one you lawfully possessed prior to January 1, 2017, and registered in 2017, or the one you did not lawfully possess prior to January 1, 2017, and did not and could not register in 2017?

[Fox Mulder]

It isn't in the PC. That won't matter when Kamela Harris's successor charges you with felony possession of an illegal registration-voided AW for violating DOJ Rule 5477 - and removing the BB.

Don't do it. We need to challenge the regulation in federal court.

Don't they kind of need something in the PC to write down as the charges?


I sure hope they don't charge me with posession of a super duper baby killing thirty clip magazine super pew pew shoulder thing that goes up equipped able to empty thirty clips in a second extra assaulty super weapon while they're at it.

[Shell]

Don't they kind of need something in the PC to write down as the charges?


I sure hope they don't charge me with posession of a super duper baby killing thirty clip magazine super pew pew shoulder thing that goes up equipped able to empty thirty clips in a second extra assaulty super weapon while they're at it.

They'd charge you under the PC for possession of an unregistered, illegal AW, citing Rule 5477 that if you remove the BB, you have voided your registration.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

Blame it on the law makers.

Yet again making my point lol.

[Virginian]

Dropping back for a moment, had the 13th Amendment been forced to stand without the protection of the 14th for as long as the 2nd has we would still have slavery under a named the legal wordsmiths created. What we have in this State is violation of Civil Rights under color of law.

[Sousuke]

Yet again making my point lol.

I didn't realize your point was that they forgot to codify what happens post registration.

[Shell]

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.

Life has changed. It still is an AW. You can't travel with it. You can only transport it to a range, your work, and your office - or traveling out of state - with the weapon in a locked case.

I fear we will see many BB MSR owners charged for unlawful use of an AW, thinking that because they registered it, that it's fine in the backseat of their car, in an unlocked case, or stowed while going hunting. It isn't.

[Smoothie]

It isn't in the PC. That won't matter when Kamela Harris's successor charges you with felony possession of an illegal registration-voided AW for violating DOJ Rule 5477 - and removing the BB.

Just to be clear, violating a DOJ rule isn't a felony - it's a regulatory infraction. The law requires you to register so as long as you've registered you're compliant with the law. It's not even clear what infracting the DOJ rule would net you - perhaps a fine, perhaps an order to correct it. I think it's pretty obvious the CA DOJ has overreached here and is trying to sneak in additional restrictions not legally enforceable. (What CA code would you be charged with violating?)

My guess is it's a red herring; it's something the politicrats know won't stand up to scrutiny, but which they put it in there draw attention and plan to lose for the sake of letting the rest stand.

[BAJ475]

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

They are not "proposed" because from the instant they were filed there was nothing left to be done other than publication, a ministerial act. Whether on not they are enforceable at this instant, because they have not yet been published, is a different question. Until the AW forms go up, this is academic.

[Redwoodm4]

If the doj voids your registration they would notify you and from then on you could be charged for something right.

[The Gleam]

Oh, was just waiting for someone to pull this kookiness in comparison out for laughs... was expecting it.

You don't need to take pictures of your speedometer, the GPS and ECU are already recording it. Just plug a duramertric cable into your OBD2 port and a laptop with the proper software will show you a log of your car's activity.

You are kidding right? I have a 1965 Mustang - going on 13 years, that I drive every day; just one part of what resides in my repertoire and stable, from old to new. Starts at 1934 and ends with a little 2017 number I just picked up in October.

Your argument billing this in cars versus guns is a hoot considering....

...your BIGGEST fail above is that your are checking evidence AFTER an action is committed. The photo of the BB proves nothing, no more than the photo of the speedometer at 0 proves one will not speed later - each provide nothing about something else in action later.

Thus, goes back to my point; requiring a photo for all submissions is useless. It's a brief moment in time.

If there were video of me robbing a bank with my AR, whereby my car was in the video, sure, they can get a warrant to check all these things on my car for time and placement (if meaningful) just as they could get a warrant to search my safe to check on the AR - should they find it's in an illegal AW configuration THEN - what good is the previous photo? That is when they can take all the photos they want for evidence, that will actually mean something.

You also are required bi-annual CARB inspections to renew your vehicle registration. This includes a visual inspection. Change anything from your air intake to the back of the catalytic converters, and your car fails.


You are kidding right? I have a 1965 Mustang - going on 13 years, that I drive every day. I am not required to do squat.

Regardless, the above is not true; you don't know as much as you think you do. There are plenty of C.A.R.B. approved aftermarket parts now, from intake to cats, that may be changed and are still compliant. (It's not 1990 anymore by the way).

Vehicle code compliance tickets I have received;

Tinted windows multiple times - You must have something wrong with you.
No front plate multiple times - You DO have something wrong with you.
Loud exhaust - You DO have something wrong with you.
Lowered ride height You DO have something wrong with you.


Have never gotten tickets for any of the above, and yet, been on the road for more than 40 years with more than 160 different cars over the course of 40 years.

However these are all "fix it" infractions and I get to keep my car and drivers license.

This is where you went off the rails...

Having an unregistered (or unregisterable) AW is a felony and you loose all your gun rights, spend mountains of money, and win a free trip to one of California's exotic and exciting prisons.

Loose?

In any case, that is not what happens. Read up on the CCR before making such broad assumptions - regardless, what in the hell does this have to do with the useless, futile point of a photo being submitted for the application?

Where YOU fail in the above, is that a photo is a brief moment in time. It means nothing seconds later. You are comparing tools for checking evidence after the fact of a misdemeanor/crime committed.

Your comparison to emissions testing in combination of a photo is a joke, because that is known to be a condition in person at the time it is tested, then tested again 2 years later, and so on; just as a visual inspection is in conjunction with that.

For example, a photo of my car with the hood closed from afar would be useless for making sure it passes an emissions test, or even sufficient for registration - among many other things.

That is the equivalent of this photo for submitting to the DOJ/BOF, which by the way, I still stand by the likelihood it will be relegated to "if needed" only and not a mandate WITH submission.

Lastly, if you are going to take up an argument comparing vehicle-compliance with Anti-2nd Amendment Law compliance, or even expand on the technology of vehicles and/or guns in general, you would be daft to assume you have more experience with either than myself.

[Shell]

Just to be clear, violating a DOJ rule isn't a felony - it's a regulatory infraction. The law requires you to register so as long as you've registered you're compliant with the law. It's not even clear what infracting the DOJ rule would net you - perhaps a fine, perhaps an order to correct it. I think it's pretty obvious the CA DOJ has overreached here and is trying to sneak in additional restrictions not legally enforceable. (What CA code would you be charged with violating?)

My guess is it's a red herring; it's something the politicrats know won't stand up to scrutiny, but they put it in there draw attention and which they can easily surrender for the sake of letting the rest stand.

The problem is that Rule 5477 establishes a rule for which violating (removing the BB) would instantly terminate your AW registration, thus leaving you in possession of an unregistered AW. The rule doesn't make you a felon, the fact you don't immediately dispose of the de-BB'ed gun, does.

If you take the BB off the gun, you have to immediately surrender it to police per Rule 5477, or you are a felon by possessing an AW that has lost its basis for registration. That is how the DOJ sees it, and that's how they will charge you.

That said, I agree with your opinion of the rule being illegal. The CA Supreme Court in hearing your felony sentence appeal, not so much. We need to challenge the regulation in federal court (as an overreach that violates 2A by exceeding state law authority), or accept it.

[Fox Mulder]

They'd charge you under the PC for possession of an unregistered, illegal AW, citing Rule 5477 that if you remove the BB, you have voided your registration.

Wouldnt they have had to have made it part of the rule that doing so would void the registration?


Also I'm still of the opinion that they exceeded the scope of their abilities in making the rule in the first place.