MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

[meno377]

Right, and that is why a BB is NOT a detachable magazine by definition in 5471(m), otherwise there would be no authority to register as AW.

Wrong. Re-read what I posted and re-typed. Post #1643

[ifilef]

Stick to the penal code. It must be in the penal code before a regulation can clarify it. The whole idea is that the regulation cannot create a two tier AW system that doesn't exist in the penal code.

I don't understand your comment about two tier system. It's now a three or four tiered system based upon this and prior registration periods.

Authority you requested: PC 30900(b)(1).

[gdt82]

The way I interpret those two parts is that a BB is NOT a detachable magazine (unlawful to register) because it does require a tool. How can one read the definition in 5471(m) and come to any other conclusion.

No clear answers obviously, but here is an interesting exercise. Read the text of SB 880 and do a word search for the word detachable. I did, and it only appears 3 times in the text. One is in the introduction describing previous versions of the law (which they change). The other two appearances are concerning definitions of AW pistols and shotguns. That's it.

So the question is how can DOJ regulate something that is no longer in the penal code? I agree it is relevant for registration purposes under the exceptions listed in 30680, because the firearm needs to have been legally possessed in 2016. But in 2017 after registration, whether or not a rifle has a detachable magazine is no longer relevant under CA penal codes. It's been written out of the code. Hard to regulate something that is no longer in the CA penal code.

[dieselpower]

What is the matter with you people? READ the definition of detachable magazine contained in 5471(m). I'm sorry but I can't copy n paste it.

BB is NOT a detachable magazine, if it were, we could not presently register it as an AW because it would basically be a standard magazine release which has been unlawfully possessed prior to 1/1/2017. If it requires a tool to remove it then it can not be a detachable magazine. Read it again and again until understood.

BB is a magazine category unto itself that can be registered as an AW. It is neither a fixed magazine (for which registration is not required) nor detachable magazine (unlawful-felony) which is verboten to be registered.

dude, 10 or 20 pages ago I posted both the new definition of detachable magazine and the old definition. I showed you your error in black and white.

You still think the use of a tool disqualifies a magazine from being a detachable one, that was the old law. The new law in the regs isnt saying that. Its saying your readily available tool makes a magazine a detachable one.

old reg definition

"detachable magazine" means any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action nor use of a tool being required. A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool. Ammunition feeding device includes any belted or linked ammunition, but does not include clips, en bloc clips, or stripper clips that load cartridges into the magazine.

new reg definition

""Detachable magazine" means any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm without disassembly of the firearm action or use of a tool A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool. Ammunition feeding device includes any belted or linked ammunition, but does not include clips, en bloc clips, or stripper clips that load cartridges into the magazine

An AR-15 style firearm that has a bullet-button style magazine release with a magnet left on the bullet-button constitutes a detachable magazine. An AR-15 style firearm lacking a magazine catch assembly (magazine catch magazine catch siring and magazine release button constitutes a detachable magazine. An AK-47 style
firearm lacking a magazine catch assembly {magazine catch rivet and pin} constitutes a detachable magazine

The large print proves you are 100% wrong in the way you are reading the text.
They are saying a readily available tool to detach the magazine makes a detachable magazine, as does any action that can detach the magazine without disassembly.

The BB-AW is not a new form of magazine, its a firearm. Its an AW that requires a tool to detach its NOT fixed magazine.

There are only two kinds of magazines now, when in the old law there was many, but guys assumed only two.

There are Fixed magazines and there are detachable magazines because now for the first freaking time in 100 years the law actually identifies both a fixed magazine and a detachable magazine. only 2 types.

lets look at the definitions together shall we;

Bullet-button" means a product requiring a tool to remove an ammunition feeding device or magazine by depressing a recessed button or lever shielded by a magazine lock. A bullet-button equipped fully functional semiautomatic firearm does not meet the fixed magazine definition under Penal Code section 30515(b~

Note the BB is not a magazine, but a device that detaches a magazine that is also not a Fixed Magazine.

Detachable magazine" means any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm without disassembly of the firearm action or use of a tool A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool. Ammunition feeding device includes any belted or linked ammunition, but does not include clips, en bloc clips, or stripper clips that load cartridges into the magazine

An AR-15 style firearm that has a bullet-button style magazine release with a magnet left on the bullet-button constitutes a detachable magazine. An AR-15 style firearm lacking a magazine catch assembly (magazine catch magazine catch siring and magazine release button constitutes a detachable magazine. An AK-47 style
firearm lacking a magazine catch assembly {magazine catch rivet and pin} constitutes a detachable magazine

Once again they are not identifying a BB as a type of Magazine, they are merely stating a mag tool left on a BB is also a detachable magazine as is removing all the parts of a release button.

fixed magazine” means an ammunition feeding device contained in, or permanently attached to, a firearm in such a manner that the device cannot be removed without disassembly of the firearm action.

No mention of what is not a Fixed Magazine, only what is a Fixed Magazine.

there are absolutely positively no other definitions of a magazine other than a Fixed and Detachable.

A BB is neither a Fixed Magazine nor a Detachable magazine. It is a device used to detach a magazine. Since there is no disassembly required to do so, the magazine is a detachable one.

[ifilef]

Wrong. Re-read what I posted and re-typed. Post #1643

NO, YOU ARE NOT CORRECT.

it says 'without'...'use of a tool' as constituting a detachable magazine. That makes sense, right?

With a BB, one can't remove the magazine without a tool, right? It is not considered detachable.

Just think of a standard magazine release as a detachable magazine and you'll get it.

A BB is NOT a detachable magazine. If it were, it would not be lawfully possessed prior to 1/1/2017 and would be a felony just like a magazine release in these SACF featured rifles.

[Crazed_SS]

I don't understand your comment about two tier system. It's now a three or four tiered system based upon this and prior registration periods.

Authority you requested: PC 30900(b)(1).

More like a two-tier system.

With respect to how Cat1,2, and 3 AWs are treated, it's pretty much all the same thing. They're all AWs. That's it. The category names are more administrative so we know which AWs are being referred to. But ultimately, they're all AW and treated as such. Same laws, rules, and restrictions apply to Cat 1,2, and 3 AWs

NOW.. The DOJ has created (or is trying to create) a second tier of AWs. A bullet button AW that is subject to different restrictions than all other AWs. That's the point of contention here. I mean, if we're going off what's codified in the penal code, we all have Cat-3 (features ban) AWs right now.

There is no Cat-4 or anything like that. We straight up have features ban AWs.

It just seems to me that any post-registration restrictions are the perfect kind of thing to put in the penal code. Just like if they had wanted to prevent people from going to featureless to avoid registration, that would have been something that you write into the actual law and provide a clear punishment for.

[meno377]

NO, YOU ARE NOT CORRECT.

it says 'without'...'use of a tool' as constituting a detachable magazine. That makes sense, right?

With a BB, one can't remove the magazine without a tool, right? It is not considered detachable.

Just think of a standard magazine release as a detachable magazine and you'll get it.

A BB is NOT a detachable magazine. If it were, it would not be lawfully possessed prior to 1/1/2017 and would be a felony just like a magazine release in these SACF featured rifles.

5471-M: Detachable magazine means any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm without disassembly of the firearm action or use of a tool. A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool. An ammunition feeding device include any belted or linked ammunition, but does not include clips, en bloc clips, or stripper clips that load cartridges into the magazine.

An AR-15 style firearm that has a bullet-button style magazine release with a magnet left on the bullet button constitutes a detachable magazine. An AR-15 style firearm lacking a magazine catch assembly (magazine catch, magazine catch spring and magazine release button) constitutes a detachable magazine. An AK-47 style firearm lacking a magazine catch assembly (magazine catch, spring and rivet/pin) constitutes a detachable magazine.

Read the first sentence again.

[ifilef]

dude, 10 or 20 pages ago I posted both the new definition of detachable magazine and the old definition. I showed you your error in black and white.

You still think the use of a tool disqualifies a magazine from being a detachable one, that was the old law. The new law in the regs isnt saying that. Its saying your readily available tool makes a magazine a detachable one.

old reg definition


new reg definition


The large print proves you are 100% wrong in the way you are reading the text.
They are saying a readily available tool to detach the magazine makes a detachable magazine, as does any action that can detach the magazine without disassembly.

The BB-AW is not a new form of magazine, its a firearm. Its an AW that requires a tool to detach its NOT fixed magazine.

There are only two kinds of magazines now, when in the old law there was many, but guys assumed only two.

There are Fixed magazines and there are detachable magazines because now for the first freaking time in 100 years the law actually identifies both a fixed magazine and a detachable magazine. only 2 types.

lets look at the definitions together shall we;

Note the BB is not a magazine, but a device that detaches a magazine that is also not a Fixed Magazine.



Once again they are not identifying a BB as a type of Magazine, they are merely stating a mag tool left on a BB is also a detachable magazine as is removing all the parts of a release button.



No mention of what is not a Fixed Magazine, only what is a Fixed Magazine.

there are absolutely positively no other definitions of a magazine other than a Fixed and Detachable.

A BB is neither a Fixed Magazine nor a Detachable magazine. It is a device used to detach a magazine. Since there is no disassembly required to do so, the magazine is a detachable one.

Bold paragraph directly above- What? Appears somewhat contradictory to me.

I am sorry that you just don't get it.

"Detachable magazine" means any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm without disassembly of the firearm action or use of a tool." A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool."

Because a BB requires a tool to disengage the magazine it is NOT and CAN NOT be considered a detachable magazine.

Moreover, one can not readily remove the magazine from the receiver without use of the tool. Get it? Try removing without the tool. It can not be readily removed.

Additionally, I interpret that sentence as follows: to be a detachable magazine it must be able to be removed readily from the firearm and without a tool being required to disengage the magazine. An example: a standard magazine release.

In SACF featured weapons, it is true, is it not, that detachable magazine devices (aka standard magazine releases) were banned after the year 2000 (or thereabouts)? Please answer Yes or No.


Are you maintaining that a BB is a detachable magazine? Because if it were it could not be registered as an AW because detachable magazines (aka standard mag releases) were UNLAWFUL TO POSSESS prior to 1/1/2017 in SACF featured rifles.

They were legal before 2000 or so.

BB is a non-detachable, non-fixed, previously lawfully possessed magazine configuration that can be registered while a standard magazine release type firearm (detachable magazine) is a felony and can not be registered this go-round.

Put that magnet on it and it is THEN defined in the regs to be a detachable magazine. Recommend not doing it. Felony.

The SB880 legislation did indeed create "Bullet-Buttoned Assault Weapons". I hope that I got the registration title correctly.

[colossians323]

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?

to be clear, FGG has been here a long time and has been right more than wrong. He works for the government in some form, just have never figured it out

[Nvidkiller]

Read the first sentence again.

Ifilef has been trolling you for like 40 pages. There's no way he's not getting it. If a BB rifle wasn't allowed to be registered then there'd be no law to discuss here.

[bohoki]

i just came here to ask what would they charge you with if you registered your bullet button firearm and then replaced it with a regular one?

[ifilef]

i just came here to ask what would they charge you with if you registered your bullet button firearm and then replaced it with a regular one?

Manufacturing and/or possession of an unlawful AW. 30680 ain't gonna help you. Even if it does, it goes to possession and not manufacturing.

It's kind of amusing, because NO ONE here is going to openly shoot and brag they have a standard magazine release before or after registration because they KNOW what will likely happen to them, absent court ruling to the contrary. And that ain't gonna happen in the CA courts.

Exception: stupid is as stupid does.

[ifilef]

Ifilef has been trolling you for like 40 pages. There's no way he's not getting it. If a BB rifle wasn't allowed to be registered then there'd be no law to discuss here.

You haven't contributed anything with your 9 posts. You're the troll, probably some teenager.

[Nvidkiller]

You haven't contributed anything with your 9 posts. You're the troll, probably some teen.

Ouch. Way to kick it up a knotch. Quality over quantity right?

[djhall]

I am sorry that you just don't get it. What is going on with you?

"Detachable magazine" means any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm without disassembly of the firearm action or use of a tool." A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool."

Because a BB requires a tool to disengage the magazine it is NOT and CAN NOT be considered a detachable magazine.

People aren't missing your point, they just don't think it was created by the legislature in their law rather than by the DOJ in their regs. If you only look at the text passed by the legislature, whether a magazine is "detachable" or not isn't relevant. The law text only recognizes "fixed magazine" or "not a fixed magazine". There are no distinctions in the law text between different types or categories of non-fixed magazines or whether a particular type of non-fixed magazine is a "detachable magazine". Those distinctions only appear once the DOJ issues registration regulations.

Which is the more reasonable scenario? Do you really think the legislature specifically wanted to create a new class of BB equipped assault weapons that had to retain the BB to avoid felony possession of an assault weapon and they just happened to neglect to include any of that language in the law? Or is is more likely that the legislature bought into the hysteria about how BBs don't slow down shooters and are just as bad as assault weapons without them and as a result they wrote a law that reflected precisely that belief?

Of course, even if the legislature believes that BB equipped rifles are equivalent to standard AWs, the DOJ knows better. They can't very well go back to the legislature, claim that BBs really are an effective safety measure, and ask them to repeal the law and pass a new one that reflects that though, can they? So they did the one thing they could do, and that was to codify the distinction in the registration conditions.

Of course, a court may not care whether the DOJ created the distinction in regulations rather than precisely mirroring the terminology in the law text.