MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

[unclerandy]

Having a bullet button equipped rifle is the requirement for registration.
The bullet button no longer qualifies as a fixed mag device, hence them opening it up for registration.
Having a raddloc on the rifle as it's compliant device the whole time, and getting an approval, should allow you to unscrew it and use it. "Should".
Simply because a fixed mag device was the reason it was allowed to be registered, not that is is still deemed a fixed mag compliant devise. It is not. And no bullet button now is considered as much.

My friend will try to register his. And if it is approved, will run it screwed out. We both agree that there is some small risk, but he has run it for years legally like it is.

The requirement is met that is was bullet button equipped prior to 2017.
Now that a bullet button no longer qualifies as a fixed mag devise.....

A Raddloc is not a bullet button though. You cant use a bullet to release a magazine on a Raddloc. Period and done.

[gdt82]

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.

Unlawful according to what penal code? Clearly not 30515. I think everyone agrees on that because they deleted the word "detachable" from 30515 and replaced it with either fixed or not fixed. 30680 provides exceptions to 30515 for registration purposes. Once registered, 30680 no longer applies. So that leaves 30900, which allows for DOJ regulations to implement the above. This is not cut and dry. One problem with the proposed regulations (which cite 30900 as authority) is that they can't regulate something that is not in the penal codes. The second problem is there is no specified code for revoking a lawful registration. So this is not so cut and dry despite what the regulations say. It will be most interesting to read the professional legal interpretations later this week. I have no doubt they will say to err on the side of caution and not remove the BB, but I have doubts as to the legal basis for the DOJ regulations.

[ifilef]

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

You with your 9 posts are Ignored. Probably have little to contribute anyway in light of using 1/9 of your posts to brand me a 'troll'.

Ignored.

[Shell]

A Raddloc is not a bullet button though. You cant use a bullet to release a magazine on a Raddloc. Period and done.

No, but it is a tool device. The question is if you loosen the screw, and make it a regular button, would that meet the DOJ's no-further-modification requirement?

My guess is the DOJ would say no, because that position (untightening the screw) was illegal prior to SB 880, and thus post-Rule 5477, it's still illegal.

Hence, the only way to make an unscrewed Raddloc legit, is for a court to rule that Rule 5477 is illegal. Back in the same place we started.

[meno377]

A Raddloc is not a bullet button though. You cant use a bullet to release a magazine on a Raddloc. Period and done.

HUH? Read position one section 2 in the pic posted:

BDE-701-AR-Install-Guide.jpg

Also the regs say "bullet button style"

[Shell]

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.

This is the 2A process question that SCOTUS could attack. Can a state (or federal) DOJ regulator make a rule based on them "knowing better" than the legislature, and simply ruling by fiat?

I think it's a valid test case for SCOTUS, to strike down Administrative Fiats when it comes to gun laws.

SCOTUS could easily rule that Rule 5477 infringes on 2A, and that administrative rules for firearms, for which no plenary power exists, shall be null and void in all 50 states.

[Nvidkiller]

You with your 9 posts are Ignored. Probably have little to contribute anyway in light of using 1/9 of your posts to brand me a 'troll'.

Ignored.

The biggest tragedy in these new laws is that people such as yourself, retarded or not, have a right to bear arms. Your inability to interpret these new laws will ultimately lead to you missing your deadline or maintaining possession of an illegal AW after registration closes. You will NOT be able to hold up your post count on Calguns and beg the DOJ to not prosecute you.

[jasonem]

So as I see it the only good thing about registering is that standard mag release becomes legal so you can throw away the bullet button.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

[gdt82]

Riddle me this. DOJ regulation 5477b allows for the replacement of magazine release device with "like-kind" replacement. Of course, that terminology doesn't mean anything outside of penal code definitions. No reasonable court could deem otherwise. After all, you can't bring in random definitions into court that defy those specified in the penal code. So what is "like-kind" according to the penal code? Well, they just changed it so that bullet buttons are like-kind with detachable mags. So basically the new penal code itself completely undermines Reg 5477.

[jcwatchdog]

A Raddloc is not a bullet button though. You cant use a bullet to release a magazine on a Raddloc. Period and done.

A bullet button is defined as "using a tool". It doesn't HAVE to be a bullet.

[ifilef]

Unlawful according to what penal code? Clearly not 30515. I think everyone agrees on that because they deleted the word "detachable" from 30515 and replaced it with either fixed or not fixed. 30680 provides exceptions to 30515 for registration purposes. Once registered, 30680 no longer applies. So that leaves 30900, which allows for DOJ regulations to implement the above. This is not cut and dry. One problem with the proposed regulations (which cite 30900 as authority) is that they can't regulate something that is not in the penal codes. The second problem is there is no specified code for revoking a lawful registration. So this is not so cut and dry despite what the regulations say. It will be most interesting to read the professional legal interpretations later this week. I have no doubt they will say to err on the side of caution and not remove the BB, but I have doubts as to the legal basis for the DOJ regulations.

30600 I believe is manufacturing. 30605 is poss of unlawful AW.

[ifilef]

Riddle me this. DOJ regulation 5477b allows for the replacement of magazine release device with "like-kind" replacement. Of course, that terminology doesn't mean anything outside of penal code definitions. No reasonable court could deem otherwise. After all, you can't bring in random definitions into court that defy those specified in the penal code. So what is "like-kind" according to the penal code? Well, they just changed it so that bullet buttons are like-kind with detachable mags. So basically the new penal code itself completely undermines Reg 5477.

Do you really think equating a standard mag release with a BB will fly vis-a-vis like-kind replacement device?

Is this some kind of 'joke'? lol

[Smedkcuf]

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

I think the better questions is; what if, at 11:00pm on Dec 31 2016, someone in CA had remote control of their rifle in a different state with a later timezone (2:00am, Jan 1 2017) and remotely installed a bullet button using robotic mechanisms at that time? Would they be illegally manufacturing an assault weapon or not?

[gdt82]

Do you really think equating a standard mag release with a BB will fly vis-a-vis like-kind replacement device?

Is this some kind of 'joke'? lol

Is your response a joke? The new law specifically makes them the same LOL. In a legal sense you have to use definitions in the penal code. Common sense need not apply. How do you think the original bullet button was OK? It was a strange device that cleverly used the wording of the penal code to its advantage. Under the new penal code 30515, a standard mag release is absolutely the same device as a bullet button.

[ifilef]

Is your response a joke? The new law specifically makes them the same LOL. In a legal sense you have to use definitions in the penal code. Common sense need not apply. How do you think the original bullet button was OK? It was a strange device that cleverly used the wording of the penal code to its advantage. Under the new penal code 30515, a standard mag release is absolutely the same device as a bullet button.

Not so. It only lumps this registration to the others that do not contain a fixed magazine.

It does not entitle one to shoot with a magazine release. You missed the boat on those.

Magazine release not lawful after 2000.

Magazine release not lawful before 1/1/2017.

Apples n oranges

Don't, not registrable, felony.

Good 'luck'.