MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

[Crazed_SS]

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 gives them the authority is the absolute crux of the issue.
At the end of the day, they can't rule by decree.

A cop can't simply arrest someone because he has the power to do so. His authority is derived from somewhere else, not simply by virtue of the fact that he's a cop. Same principle applies to the DOJ.


I just don't think this is as open and shut as people here are.makimg it out to be. I can see it going either way. Once again, these people aren't infallible. They're the ones that literally gave us the BB in the first place. Calguns has even gone after them for regulations and won.

So I don't think it's totally out of the question that they are trying to overstep their boundaries here..

[thorium]

I was posting back in October that DOJ would write their regulations to not allow one to revert a 2001-2016 class assault weapon to a configuration that was never legal during that period (i.e. You can't take the bullet button off, as youre being allowed to register something and keep possessing it IF you legally possessed it, i.e. It had a bullet button, between 2001/2016. Reverting it to something that would never have been legal to register or possess, after you register, was not the legislatures intent and the regulations simply codify this into administrative law.) It seems pretty obvious, the law does define a new class (by years that class was legal before registration required). I was harassed and told that wasn't in the law. Regulations are administrative law. And these regulations are in line with the legislatures intent, whether we like it or not.

There will be work arounds and legal gray area galore... for example, what if I have a raddlock, I don't change the raddlock, but I unscrew it so it works as a normal magazine release. Did I change the magazine release?

Pointless to fight in court because the legislatures intent was never to let you take the bullet button off. CA legislature would just amend the law and moot the lawsuit. Only hope is federal preemption by courts or congress.

Eventually CA will go too far and ban such a large category, e.g. All semi auto centerfire, that they'll be in Heller territory and then we'll get our day in court... they'll push too far and SCOTUS will push back.

Until then CA will just cause more sales and not reduce gun crime. Semi auto center fire rifles sold at something like 250% of 2015 sales in 2016, 2.5x jump. As we all know a featureless, a mini 14, a keltec Su16CA... they all shoot the same bullets at the same rate of fire... as always it's about the appearance of doing something, not actually doing something.

[Crazed_SS]

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.

Yes the requirements to register each generation may have been different but we are more concerned with what can be legally done with then after the fact.

Post registration, how are cat 1,2, or 3 AWs treated any differently? As far as I know, they are all simply AWs and treated as such. For continued possession purposes, can you point out an example of a law that makes a distinction between them.


Also there is no Cat4. Our BB rifles are AWs due to what's written in PC 30515.. just like Cat 3 AWs. The same law is used to determine a BB rifle and a normal mag release rifle are AWs.

[dieselpower]

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

and in your 100 posts you have not shown any thing to back up what you claim.

A BB is not a magazine, its a device used to detach a magazine using a tool. Its not a fixed magazine.

The regulations only identify two kinds of magazines and frankly only 1 kind is the focus of the regs.

A firearm with a BB is regulated by the CCoRs 5469 -5478. Once registered under those regulations its a RBBAW and not a regular AW because CCoR 5477 says the BB cant be removed.

definition of a detachable magazine is a magazine that can be removed without disassembly or using a tool.

Using a tool doesnt mean your magazine isnt a detachable one
This is the OLD REGULATION, notice how its worded.

"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.

So to qualify an action by process the you have an exclusive and an inclusive verbiage.
1- A detachable magazine can be removed with NEITHER disassembly NOR use of a tool. Meaning a tool disqualifies detachable just like disassembly would.

2- A detachable magazine can be removed WITHOUT disassembly or use of a tool. Meaning a Detachable magazine can be detached with a tool, but not if it needs disassembly. The word "or" as used in the law indicates a complete and separate action from the previous action.

You are applying the word "without" to "or use of a tool", when the sentence would use the word "nor" if that was the case.

Search Results
nor

This is backed up by the definition of a Fixed Magazine in which the use of a tool has no bearing on it.

They then go on to say a mag button left on the BB constitutes a detachable magazine as would removal of all the release mechanism parts.

They are doing that to stop the focus of an action on a device to dictate the type of magazine.

I know what you are attempting to say they were doing and you are probably correct, but they failed to do that.

You are saying they wanted to outlaw the readily detachable portion of a BB by use of a tool attached to the BB itself, the problem is they didnt do that correctly.

They would have needed to place that action in the 5477 prohibited acts portion of the regulation. By simply placing the action into the definitions, the act of using a mag button on a BB just becomes a definition of a detachable magazine.

There is nothing wrong with having a detachable magazine if you dont remove your BB.

Once again,
the only prohibited action is removal of the BB

Now you are saying that since the BB+mag button wouldnt be legal prior to 2016, you dont have a legally owned firearm. Which is 100% correct.. You cannot register a firearm with a BB and mag button.

But there is nothing in the law to stop you from using a mag button after registration, why???? ----- because the only prohibited act is removing the BB.

and I need to add you can switch your RADLOCK to detachable after registration also, as long as the RADLOCK stays on the firearm.

[lrdchivalry]

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.

I disagree.

First off only the legislature has the authority to create a new class of AW, that new class would be codified in the PC, just as it was done with cats 1-3, it is not, therefore there is no new category of AW. DOJ does not have the authority to create PC.

All BB rifles are now Cat 3 AW by feature. Why is that? Because a BB rifle now meets the conditions under cat 3, not some new class that is not codified in the PC. Some here will argue that 30900 creates the new class of AW and they would be wrong. 30900 only creates a registration process for registration of now non-compliant rifles, such as what rifles qualify for registration under that particular statute. 30900 also covers the registration guidelines of cat 1-3 AW's as well but didn't created those categories.

30900(b)(1) governs the registration process for bb rifle owners to register their now cat 3 AW only. It does not grant the DOJ the authority to create a new category of AW or create a law (5477) banning post modification of the release mechanism.

There is no Cat IV AW.

[lrdchivalry]

But there is nothing in the law to stop you from using a mag button after registration, why???? ----- because the only prohibited act is removing the BB.

and I need to add you can switch your RADLOCK to detachable after registration also, as long as the RADLOCK stays on the firearm.

Although, I think 4577 is illegal, the above quote would make the situation a little more palatable.

[ScottsBad]

Except that featureless free-release rifles could be banned someday. Registering at least one BB MSR gives you the freedom to BB eject, when featureless rifles could be required to affix a total mag lock someday.

The more ARMagLock and BB Reloaded become popular, the more the state may make it mandatory - on all detachable magazine rifles.

There's no guarantee a (future) ban of featureless mag-ejects would permit you to register them as AWs down the road. You may just be required to install a mag lock, and not get a chance to put it in the AW category with free-eject maintained.

I encourage people to register at least one featured BB AR-15 and keep it that way. Buy a second one for featureless... like I am.

That's what some of us will do, but there are many who only have one AR or one lower. I planned for this so going both ways is really optimal.

My plan is to leave the sinking ship in 3-4 years anyway, but I'm planning as if I am staying in CA.

[lrdchivalry]

That's what some of us will do, but there are many who only have one AR or one lower. I planned for this so going both ways is really optimal.

My plan is to leave the sinking ship in 3-4 years anyway, but I'm planning as if I am staying in CA.

I think that will be my plan, I will keep my 80% lowers featureless and register my raddlocked Colt.

I am also looking/working on getting out of California.

[dieselpower]

I disagree.

First off only the legislature has the authority to create a new class of AW, that new class would be codified in the PC, just as it was done with cats 1-3, it is not, therefore there is no new category of AW. DOJ does not have the authority to create PC.

All BB rifles are now Cat 3 AW by feature. Why is that? Because a BB rifle now meets the conditions under cat 3, not some new class that is not codified in the PC. Some here will argue that 30900 creates the new class of AW and they would be wrong. 30900 only creates a registration process for registration of now non-compliant rifles, such as what rifles qualify for registration under that particular statute. 30900 also covers the registration guidelines of cat 1-3 AW's as well but didn't created those categories.

30900(b)(1) governs the registration process for bb rifle owners to register their now cat 3 AW only. It does not grant the DOJ the authority to create a new category of AW or create a law (5477) banning post modification of the release mechanism.

There is no Cat IV AW.

Although, I think 4577 is illegal, the above quote would make the situation a little more palatable.

no one is saying what they did was legal, we are only pointing out what they did.
ifilef is trying to justify what they did and he isnt doing a good job because even if he is correct, (which he is correct they wanted to do what he is saying) they didnt actually do that.

ifilef is saying they wanted to ban not only the removal of the BB but also any attempt to place the firearm into a condition that would equal that of a 2000 era RAW. The problem is, they didnt do that because they only included (illegally) a prohibition on removal of the BB post registration.

So even if they dont like us using a tool on the end of our finger or a mag button on the BB as long as its a BB-RAW and the BB is still on there, its legal as per the Regulations.

[Virginian]

Are there other laws out there that are so obviously nothing but a pissing contest between hobbyists and Government?

[BucDan]

I can't wait to hear a more professional opinion. If the bb does have to stay on, then I bet everyone will be buying mag magnets or unscrewing their raddlock.

[dieselpower]

I can't wait to hear a more professional opinion. If the bb does have to stay on, then I bet everyone will be buying mag magnets or unscrewing their raddlock.

I seriously doubt that 5477 will hold up in court.

What worries me more is the family registration portion. I should be allowed to pass all my RAWs down to family members, not just BB-AWs.

[foxtrotuniformlima]

43 pages, 1700+ posts

What did we decide ?

A SACF rifle with a pistol grip has to be registered with a BB on and said BB cannot be removed.

During 2017, treat said rifle as an RAW when transporting and storing.

The DoJ overstepped it's CalGuns granted authority and there is nothing we can do about it.

FGG is tired of repeating himself.

ifilef says good bye but hangs around for at least one more post.

dieselpower seems to have a pretty good handle on things.

Did I miss anything ?

[Virginian]

43 pages, 1700+ posts

What did we decide ?

A SACF rifle with a pistol grip has to be registered with a BB on and said BB cannot be removed.

During 2017, treat said rifle as an RAW when transporting and storing.

The DoJ overstepped it's CalGuns granted authority and there is nothing we can do about it.

FGG is tired of repeating himself.

ifilef says good bye but hangs around for at least one more post.

dieselpower seems to have a pretty good handle on things.

Did I miss anything ?

Yes, the question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The correct answer is 47. So now you know.

[meno377]

43 pages, 1700+ posts

What did we decide ?

A SACF rifle with a collapsible stock has to be registered with a BB on and said BB cannot be removed.

During 2017, treat said rifle as an RAW when transporting and storing.

The DoJ overstepped it's CalGuns granted authority and there is nothing we can do about it.

FGG is tired of repeating himself.

ifilef says good bye but hangs around for at least one more post.

dieselpower seems to have a pretty good handle on things.

Did I miss anything ?

LOLz But you made a mistake. It's the collapsible stock. JK