MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

[ScottsBad]

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?......

That was my thought yesterday when I read the law. Other than the magnet workaround, the law says you have to keep a bullet button on your rifle, but it doesn't appear to indicate how it is used. And I didn't see anything about how the BB must function.

So a Raddlock or other solution would appear to be a gray area... Also, repair is allowed which acknowledges that there could be a failure...

IDK, maybe there is a ray of hope here....

[ScottsBad]

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.

Other than the joint registration, I don't see a way around it right now. Except sending them out of State.

Joint registration with your spouse, and featureless for your kids...until they attack that too.

Fortunately, I took advantage of featureless transfer to my under 18 kids a few years ago when it was still possible.

[Nor*Cal]

That was my thought yesterday when I read the law. Other than the magnet workaround, the law says you have to keep a bullet button on your rifle, but it doesn't appear to indicate how it is used. And I didn't see anything about how the BB must function.

So a Raddlock or other solution would appear to be a gray area... Also, repair is allowed which acknowledges that there could be a failure...

IDK, maybe there is a ray of hope here....

When it comes to the Raddlock, I would argue that the regulations define a bullet button as requiring a tool to release the magazine. If you back out your Raddlock so that it no longer requires a tool, then its no longer a bullet button under their definition. I see it as the same argument that everyone is having about replacing the bullet button after registration with a standard mag release.

Of course most will argue that they included verbiage about the mag magnet but not the Raddlock so it's okay to back it out. I will not be that test case although all of my featured AR's have Raddlocks.

[onelonehorseman]

I'm going to wait for the opinion from Michael and Associates. It seems they did WAY more here than just make BB equiped rifles an AW.

I'm close to just taking all my semi autos apart that are victim to this garbage, except maybe one or two featureless, and just storing them until I move.

^ I hear ya brother. That might be my plan as well.

[ifilef]

Read the first sentence again.

WADR, you can't readily remove the magazine from the receiver with a BB. You must use a separate tool. The first part of the clause does not apply due to the inherent nature of the BB 'locking' the magazine into the well..

To a degree, I can understand the confusion but if you read the sentence a BB is not a detachable magazine.

More importantly it is now NOT a fixed magazine, but lawfully possessed last year and registrable this year.

[meno377]

WADR, you can't readily remove the magazine from the receiver with a BB. You must use the tool. The first part of the clause does not apply due to the inherent nature of the BB 'locking' the magazine into the well..

To a degree, I can understand the confusion but if you read the sentence a BB is not a detachable magazine.

More importantly it is now NOT a fixed magazine, but lawfully possessed last year and registrable this year.

The new law says that unless you open the action, any rifle with a bullet style button that doesn't require you to open the action defines it as a non fixed (detachable) magazine.

[ScottsBad]

When it comes to the Raddlock, I would argue that the regulations define a bullet button as requiring a tool to release the magazine. If you back out your Raddlock so that it no longer requires a tool, then its no longer a bullet button under their definition. I see it as the same argument that everyone is having about replacing the bullet button after registration with a standard mag release.

Of course most will argue that they included verbiage about the mag magnet but not the Raddlock so it's okay to back it out. I will not be that test case although all of my featured AR's have Raddlocks.

Good point. But it's still a bullet button.

But I don't see it as the same argument because the regs specify a bullet button. We'll see.

I guess the guitar pick (tool) is another way.

Law Enforcement has got to be hating the new law and regs.

[Virginian]

The new law says that unless you open the action, any rifle with a bullet style button that doesn't require you to open the action defines it as a non fixed (detachable) magazine.

How far? ;-)

[bohoki]

the only thing i can think is remotely analogous would be to take one of our registered off list lowers and stamp the name of a banned name on it would it then become an illegal assault weapon

[meno377]

How far? ;-)

Careful. They might try to add such a condition.

[Virginian]

Careful. They might try to add such a condition.

My only goal is compliance. ;-)
Also curious if a mechanism that chewed through the cardboard and foam would force ammo makers to package in boxes of ten or less.

[FelixEstrella]

43 pages, 1700+ posts
What did we decide ?

Pretty much!

If it's not clear already, the DOJ has pounded the last nail into the "Gun ownership in CA" coffin. With wishful thinking we can believe that "someone" will save us and overturn insane anti-2nd laws. But, it's not gonna happen. There's no existence proof of such; the fine majority of folks of CA don't like guns and would prefer them gone. Pretending otherwise is fantasy and a useless expenditure of energies.

So, with that said, it helps to read the regs with an "as intended" mindset. Sure, there're grey areas and opportunities for challenge. But, I for one don't want to live in a state of anxiety and I do want to use my guns (disassembly, featureless, out-of-state storage are hence not options) while I'm still living in CA. So, I'll be a good little citizen, take pictures, register all my BB guns and leave them in the configuration thus photographed, and bide my time until I can leave this state and take my guns with me.

YMMV.

[Sousuke]

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 ?

Its pretty simple. This thread has three camps basically.

Camp 1 - 30680 gives the DOJ full authority to regulate if a tool operable mag release can be removed. No overstep.

Camp 2 - The DOJ overstepped their regulatory authority by creating a new category of assault weapons. However they still recognize 30680 has a way to penalize those who remove the tool operable mag release.

Camp 3 - The DOJ overstepped their authority and have nothing to back up the threat of removing the tool operable mag release in the PC. They view 30680(a) as a requirement for registration nothing more or less. They focus on 30515 which lumps tool operable mag releases in with standard release as both are noted as detachable.

On the subject of the raddlock, if you are in camp 1, you believe it cannot be unscrewed. Camp 2 or 3 think its works.

On the subject of mag magnets, I think there about three users that believe the regs create a "not fixed" category separate from "detachable" and do not see them as being synonmous. This group believes therefore that the mag magnet is illegal post registration.

[IVC]

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.

AW is a "firearm + some additional properties and definitions," right?

The definition of AW is in PC 30515, right?

When law talks about AWs, we say: "Gee, what is an AW? Let's look it up." We look up PC 30515 and say: "Ah, now I know what an AW is," right?

How many different classes or groups of AWs are defined in the law?

[FelixEstrella]

AW is a "firearm + some additional properties and definitions," right?

You forget the 50 Cal crap?