MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

[ifilef]

Your position assumes that all AWs are treated equal for registration/possession purposes, but this is not true. In California, there is a "Category" for each AW ban. When one lawfully registers his/her AW, CalDOJ will assign the AW to the category that corresponds with the ban. In this case, it will likely be Category 4.

If your AW is lawfully registered under Category 4, but you modify it to be a Category 3 AW (i.e., detachable magazine), then you would need a Category 3 registration for that AW to maintain lawful possession. However, the window for registering Category 3 AWs expired 12/31/2000.

No kidding?

Thanks for expressing it better than I.

Perhaps that is why DOJ cited authority for 5477 as PC 30900.

[ifilef]

I agree that if you commit a felony you would be screwed. That's the whole question here. How is changing a mag release AFTER registration committing a felony when you stay within penal code? DOJ reg 5477 does not a felony make. Only PC.

Specifically penal code 30675b:
(b) Sections 30600, 30605, and 30610 shall not apply to any of the following persons:
(1) A person acting in accordance with Article 5 (commencing with Section 30900).

This whole thing takes us back to 30900 and the regulations. So the question is, can the DOJ make broad sweeping regulations that go well beyond the letter of the law? If the answer is yes, then we're stuck, but that should be a concern to all citizens regardless of their position on guns. The executive branch should not be able to go beyond what the legislative branch allows in the law.

You make an assumption in bold that I think is erroneous. I think there's ample authority merely by reading 30900 and understanding what (a)(1) and (a)(2) represent vs. the newest Class of BB Assault Weapons as represented in (b)(1).

The train left the station long ago in 2000 to be able to register a SACF featured weapon with a magazine release.

[Smedkcuf]

Then they may call the DOJ and ask what to charge you with. Not a position you want to be in. I will now only take my AW, now that it is an AW, between the range and the house - save for maybe (maybe) getting gasoline.

I'm not sure what exceptions they would allow, but as far as getting gas maybe they'd only allow that if you were truly on empty, so what happens if they get your receipt to see how many gallons you filled up, and subtract that from your current tank level to see how much gas you had? And as for stopping to get food, maybe they'd only allow it if you were truly starving and about to die.

[Smedkcuf]

OK, I think I see the point of disagreement. You're saying, "I had the firearm prior to January 1, 2017, and at that time it satisfied the registration eligibility requirements, so, boom, I pass the 30680(a) test."

What I'm saying is that the firearm that needs to pass the 30680(a) test ("that assault weapon") is the one that is currently in your possession (or was in your possession until the police took it away from you ).

So, under my theory, the prosecutor will look at your rifle, in the configuration it was in when you last possessed it, and ask, "prior to January 1, 2017, would the suspect have been eligible to register that assault weapon pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 30900?"

So then you're also saying once registered, we're unable to shorten the overall length to under 30" but over 26", even though the regulations mention nothing about not being able to do this? Because the same logic you're using for the bullet button would also apply here.

[Discogodfather]

So then you're also saying once registered, we're unable to shorten the overall length to under 30" but over 26", even though the regulations mention nothing about not being able to do this? Because the same logic you're using for the bullet button would also apply here.

Why, it makes zero sense. The reason the BB can't be changed is because they say so. They say nothing about anything else. Not in the law nor in the regs. Your telling me a prosecutor is going to go after you for having a 26" rifle? Explain to me how this is even remotely possible.

Under the same logic if I changed the barrel out for a different one or changed the handgrip I would be guilt of changing something from a picture at the time of registration? That's nuts.

The reason they want the photo is for the BB, nothing else. If they meant anything else they would say it in the regs.

[Smedkcuf]

Why, it makes zero sense. The reason the BB can't be changed is because they say so. They say nothing about anything else. Not in the law nor in the regs. Your telling me a prosecutor is going to go after you for having a 26" rifle? Explain to me how this is even remotely possible.

Under the same logic if I changed the barrel out for a different one or changed the handgrip I would be guilt of changing something from a picture at the time of registration? That's nuts.

The reason they want the photo is for the BB, nothing else. If they meant anything else they would say it in the regs.

That's what I was saying, if the logic is that you can't remove the bullet button because that would have been illegal prior to 2017, then the same would also have to apply to the length requirement as well.

[Discogodfather]

That's what I was saying, if the logic is that you can't remove the bullet button because that would have been illegal prior to 2017, then the same would also have to apply to the length requirement as well.

The lawyers can discuss legal theory until they are blue in the face, the only real thing to understand that is not some silly theory is what the law says and what the regs say.

The BB cannot be taken off because they expressly say so in black and white clear as day. What gives them that authority or whether it is legal or logical is all besides the point.

What matters is what they say they want, and they say nothing about any other features of the rifle remaining the same other than the BB. Changing a OAL length could easily have been accomplished by the regs stating that. They don't. Now some legalese argument that BB needs to stay because of some old legal config applies to all features of the rifle is just ludicrous.

There is no logic to any of it, just a battle of wills. If fact you could say the DOJ has the "Triumph of the Will".

[Mayor McRifle]

Yes, I acknowledge different opinions on the PC.

Are we up on a vote? Whoever gets the most votes is clearly right about the issue? The mob rules? lol

Well, you were outnumbered by about 10,000 to 1 when you ranted ad nauseam that featureless rifles had to be registered as assault weapons. The mob was clearly right on that one.

By the way, what happened to your patronizing signature line? Did you remove it after you crashed and burned?

[depthcharge]

best outcome is not reg and go featureless. as much as i hate going that route i dont like the goberment having their way. this is seriously pissing me off. is like those ban shinny mufflers cause its now a modified racing car. the only way I see this bs pc is not comply in anyway possible making it useless law.

[Mayor McRifle]

best outcome is not reg and go featureless. as much as i hate going that route i dont like the goberment having their way. this is seriously pissing me off. is like those ban shinny mufflers cause its now a modified racing car. the only way I see this bs pc is not comply in anyway possible making it useless law.

Of course, as this gentleman points out, if everyone goes featureless, then it makes the state's banning of features much less of an "infringement," as it makes it appear as though we really didn't need them after all:

https://youtu.be/YRNydjFf4Z4

[God Bless America]

There is no logic to any of it, just a battle of wills. If fact you could say the DOJ has the "Triumph of the Will".

Haha ouch.

But don't misdirect your anger. It's the legislature; the DOJ does what they are told to do. And DOJ did not screw us as badly as they could have.

For example, they specifically excepted from definition as an AW guns with certain parts removed, or with separated upper and lower receivers.

They did not have to do that, and it is to our benefit.

[God Bless America]

If you shorten the length to 26" after you register, you also would have not been allowed to lawfully possess it like that prior to Jan 1 2017, but that's irrelevant because it's now a registered assault weapon, which allows for that feature, and the same goes for a standard mag release per 30515 (a). What you're saying is equivalent to saying that if the regulations said you must paint the rifle pink in order to register, you must do so or you're breaking the law. They don't have legal authority to do so, but of course a court has to agree in the end.

They don't have authority to do so? They do, and they just did.

The BBelievers are seizing upon ambiguity in the law to see what they want: reopened SB23 registration. However, in the event of ambiguity, a court will look to the intent of the legislators. Not the hopes of the legislated.

The intent of AB880 was not to reopen SB23 registration. It was to get rid of bullet buttons, in further restriction of AWs. To do that, the BBs must stay on.

As a result, as written, now, the BBs must stay on.

Let's hope something changes.

[lordmorgul]

MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

If your AW is lawfully registered under Category 4, but you modify it to be a Category 3 AW (i.e., detachable magazine), then you would need a Category 3 registration for that AW to maintain lawful possession. However, the window for registering Category 3 AWs expired 12/31/2000.

I think the difficulty here is that there is no case law to support that? (That I am aware of?) There is no way to convert a Cat 3 AW to a Cat 1/2 AW, they are either in or out by model name and you can't change that after the fact. So this has not been tested.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[9M62]

I don't see many people registering their rifles until the BB can be removed, and I don't see that happening anytime soon.

My guess as to what happens:

People wait until a court case says "BB's can be removed," but the DOJ pushes that court case until 2018. The DOJ admits "oops, we were wrong to make that regulation" except it won't matter because at that point the registration period will have closed. All of those who didn't register will have to go featureless or fixed. Those few who did, will get to remove their BB.

And that's if the court case ever happens.

Personally, with the options on the market - BBv2, AR MagLok, DFM Magazine and a few other options that are faster than a regular BB ever was - not to mention featureless - I don't see much registration in the future.

[Blade Gunner]

There was no new "window" - SB 880 declared all BB-toting guns to be AWs under the old law. SB 880 explicitly says there is not a new AW registry window. It merely offers a waiver period for existing BB-toting guns to register, as a means of ensuring SB 880 does not face a 2A challenge at SCOTUS.

All AWs were banned in 89. SB 880 adds BB guns to the AW list, under the same original window. You just won't be prosecuted for not adding your gun until Jan 1 2018.

Hence DOJ does not have the power to create a new class of AW. Hence DOJ has no power to implement rule 5477 and deny people the ability to remove the bullet button.

SB 880 could have been crafted to do all of this. But it would have faced the greater risk of a 2A threat at SCOTUS, because it would have allowed a new challenge to the evil feature prohibition - the bill was narrowly tailored to avoid that risk.

This makes more sense than "the Progs in the Legislature are stupid" rationale. They may be arrogant, but don't under-estimate their intelligence. They have an army of skilled minions (that you pay for) working behind the scenes to craft these bills. This may all end up working its way through the rigged federal court system only to arrive at SCOTUS declining to hear the case. Beside Heller and McDonald, the majority of SCOTUS has shown no interest taking up 2A cases.