MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

[ifilef]

Exactly. He was wrong about featureless being into an option because he was reading into something that wasnt there. I suspect the same thing is going on again. No sense in arguing with him or anyone further though because it's gonna be what it's gonna be.

Follow the regs for now and HOPE the "right people" have some better arguments than our opponents down the road..

Just about everyone here was WRONG that they HAD TO convert to featureless before the end of 2016 in order to avoid the registration mandate.

Bunch of hypocrites criticizing me.

We were all WRONG in the eyes of DOJ.

And now you despicable hypocrites are saying that the legislature is wrong, and the DOJ is wrong, and it was wrong for our parents to have us...

If EVERYONE is wrong, then WHO is RIGHT?

[meno377]

Reading comprehension error. If it were a detachable magazine we would not be able to register it as an AW because definitionally it would be the same as a magazine release, which is unlawful.

That reg states that a BB is NOT a detachable magazine.

And we already know that it NOT a fixed magazine, otherwise we would not have to register it,

BB is a category unto itself. It is a non-detachable, non-fixed magazine mechanism legal to possess prior to 1/1/12017 that when attached to a SACF featured weapon is now an AW that shall be registered by 12/31/2017, unless made featureless.

Not true at all. The bullet button is now defined as a rifle with a detachable magazine. Yesterday 12/31/2016 it was still a fixed magazine.

[redhead]

Has anyone bothered to inform our most excellent Legislature that by requiring 2017 AW's to keep the bullet button the DOJ is removing the only incentive people have from going featureless?

Featureless, it should be explained to our esteemed lawmakers, means no registration, no travel restrictions, no transfer restrictions, standard mag releases (FAST RELOADS), and possibly untouchable from a 2A standpoint.

I think if that were to percolate in their heads for a few days they might realize that this is exactly the opposite of what they were trying to achieve.

Next up: banning featureless.

[IVC]

Yes, Yes (SB 880 revised definition of assault weapon and added definition of fixed magazine), Yes (although I'm not exactly sure what you mean by explicitly stated otherwise).

So, if I look at 30515 and consider two rifles, same S/N, same detachable magazine (per revised 30515), same ALL features (not a single difference in features), that would imply "same AW" per CA law, no?

We must work off of CA definition and I just went through it, item by item, and didn't find A SINGLE difference.

[ifilef]

Not true at all. The bullet button is now defined as a rifle with a detachable magazine. Yesterday 12/31/2016 it was still a fixed magazine.

Reading comprehension error #2. Unbelievable.

Unsubscribed.

[John Browning]

Reading comprehension error #2. Unbelievable.

Unsubscribed.

What do you want to accomplish or add here?

[meno377]

Reading comprehension error #2. Unbelievable.

Unsubscribed.

Show me the wording in the regs that specifically says that it's between a fixed and detachable magazine. Otherwise it's good that you Unsubscribed as you spout this nonsense.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

They don't have the "same detachable magazine (per revised 30515)".

[John Browning]

They don't have the "same detachable magazine (per revised 30515)".

What if it is a Radlock that is backed out? It's the same device. It's just adjusted differently.

[Cokebottle]

Does CA ban SBRs specifically, or is that federal only?

In other words, could we apply for an SBR stamp on a CA RAW after the fact?

Edit: the missing step here is of course swapping an SBR upper on to the CA RAW after receiving the stamp.

California does not allow the possession of SBR/SBS/Suppressors without also having a Dangerous Weapons permit.

As a private, civilian, non-FFL, you are not going to get a DWP.
Yes, SBR is a separate category that falls separately from AW laws.

<30" is an AW, <26" (or less than 16" barrel) is SBR.
All SBRs would be California AW, but not all California AW are SBR.

[seanbo]

It might be time to assault.

[Prolitheus]

Is not 30680a by referring to 30900b just asserting that the firearm must have been legally possessed (and presumably been in a then-legal config) between 2001 and 12/31/ 2016? Thats only eligibility test I see there and it refers to the past not the present.

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.

30900 (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).




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Am I the only one who has a little bit of trouble parsing 30680(a)? You wouldn't have been eligible to register the assault weapon pursuant to 30900(b) before January 1, 2017, because 30900(b) states:

30900 (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).

This seems like very sloppy legislation to me. It is impossible to be eligible to register under 30900(b) before January 1, 2017, because 30900(b) states you can't register before the effective date of the regulations adopted, which is January 1, 2017.

[jcwatchdog]

What if it is a Radlock that is backed out? It's the same device. It's just adjusted differently.

A twist of the screw isn't in the regs or the PC, but I'm sure he will say it is implied somewhere.

[Cokebottle]

Next up: banning featureless.

Yep... this entire debate will be moot by 2021.
We will be either 100% registered or among the majority of "accidental felons" who never registered.

[IVC]

They don't have the "same detachable magazine (per revised 30515)".

Section 30515(a)(8)(B) states:

Both rifles fit equally well into this definition and the legislature even says that the reason for this section in the first place is to clarify that the two detachable magazines are the same since the OLD definition claimed they were different and the PRIMARY change with the new definition is to make them THE SAME.

How much more explicit can the legislators be that the two detachable magazines are THE SAME and that their INTENT was to make them the same?