MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

[Sousuke]

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?

Correct me if I am wrong, the Assault Weapon Categories were a classification system created to differentiate three separate registration windows. The penal code itself does not "tier" them correct? IE in the history of California Assault Weapons the penal code simply treats them as "an assault weapon".

[IVC]

43 pages, 1700+ posts

What did we decide ?

We are not "deciding" anything. We are discussing different angles and different interpretations, as well as possible courses of action by the DOJ and possible outcomes.

Compare to SSE - how many here were saying that it's not legal? How many claimed that the DOJ could come and confiscate your SSE guns? How many LGS employees claimed that the FFLs doing SSE will all go to jail?

Or, compare to the original BB. How many believed BB was an option when the first ban happened? How many took DOJ at the face value when one of theirs said "BB rifles will be gone in two weeks?"

There are serious problems in what DOJ is trying to do via regulation because legislators did something that implies exactly the opposite via the law. There is some room for playing with overall interpretation as FGG is suggesting, but he hasn't come up with a detailed method that would work by being defensible at every step. That's a problem for both FGG and the DOJ.

Sousuke explains it well just a few posts above - there are THREE CAMPS. We are not trying to figure out "who is right" as much as we are trying to figure out how many camps are there and what are their arguments. It is certain that the courts will have to resolve the issue, so "joining a camp" then believing you're right is simply silly - there is no such thing as determining "who is right" on a forum outside the courts.

[djhall]

Did I miss anything ?

Possibly that the DOJ seems to have killed the validity of constructive possession and broken weapon arguments for prosecuting AW violations.

Since the DOJ has publicly issued regulations that say separating the upper and lower and having both parts in your possession doesn't constitute possession of an AW, then surely all other constructive possession arguments are dead.

Similarly, with the regs stating that removal of the gas tube, buffer spring, or other essential parts are sufficient to make the firearm not semiautomatic and therefore not an assault weapon, surely most of the other "broken assault weapon" arguments are dead as well.

[IVC]

Correct me if I am wrong, the Assault Weapon Categories were a classification system created to differentiate three separate registration windows.

Not really. There were different firearms that were added to different lists at different times, but they are all just an AW.

The penal code itself does not "tier" them correct? IE in the history of California Assault Weapons the penal code simply treats them as "an assault weapon".

Correct. Read PC 30515 and it will tell you what the assault weapons are.

Note that is starts by including section PC 30510 which contains listed AWs - those are AWs regardless of any other characteristics. That's also why "listed lowers" can never be featureless and cannot be possessed unless registered a long time ago.

Their idea was to keep the "list" vague and open ended by calling them "AK/AR style weapons," but the court forced them to list explicitly what those are. That's yet another example of overreach that turned out not to be what people would believe - ban "AR style rifle" and you'll see hundreds of posts along the lines "They can do that because we know one when we see one." Well, didn't work out that way.

[M1AFrankie32]

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.

But the legislature has created a new category, which HAS been codified. PC 30900(b)(1) is a new category, as this statute only applies to lawful possession from 1/1/2001-12/31/2016, or tool/bullet button AWs.

The Category 3 AW (detachable mag AWs) is outlined in PC 30900(a)(2), which states "any person who lawfully possessed an assault weapon prior to the date it was defined as an assault weapon pursuant to former Section 12276.1...shall register the firearm byJanuary 1, 2001, with the department pursuant to those procedures which the department may establish."

At this point, we're just waiting for the regulations. CalDOJ has authority to make regulations for this new category pursuant to PC 30900(b)(5).

[ifilef]

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 see Radlock as problematic characterized as a BB because within the device itself is the ability to make it a detachable magazine. Little doubt it will have to be litigated.

I'm not sure about magnets but regs say that attaching it to a BB makes it a detachable magazine. Now we all know under prior law that would apparently be a crime.

So, if you attach it in your photos do you think that DOJ will approve the registration if they become aware of it? Doubtful because of prior law and the new regs, PC too.

If you don't attach and do register, and then later attach it, the issue becomes whether it is lawful to do so?

Under the regs, I don't think so as it would be similar to switching out to a mag release and that is verboten under 5477. It would be argued by the AG as a significant change to the release mechanism and one shall not change the release mechanism under 5477 and PC 30900.

Will just have to see how that pans out.

It would certainly be the intent of this legislature that registration as an AW in this registration window does not grant the right and power to make the pre-existing BB configuration purportedly more 'dangerous' to the public safety, health and welfare.

[IVC]

You forget the 50 Cal crap?

Sure, but we are not talking about them. We are talking about what DOJ is trying to do. An artificial separation into tiers of AW when such tiers don't exist in the penal code.

If you follow the discussion of details (not the generic "big picture" posts) you'll notice that the whole thing depends on whether DOJ can claim that the same rifle in two configuration, one with BB and one without, is a *different AW*. The problem is that the amended penal code is modified PRECISELY to clarify that the two configurations are the same and that they both fall under 30515.

[Nor*Cal]

Possibly that the DOJ seems to have killed the validity of constructive possession and broken weapon arguments for prosecuting AW violations.

Since the DOJ has publicly issued regulations that say separating the upper and lower and having both parts in your possession doesn't constitute possession of an AW, then surely all other constructive possession arguments are dead.

Similarly, with the regs stating that removal of the gas tube, buffer spring, or other essential parts are sufficient to make the firearm not semiautomatic and therefore not an assault weapon, surely most of the other "broken assault weapon" arguments are dead as well.

Good points.

I wonder if we can use this stated regulation for magazines. For example, take the spring out of a standard capacity magazine that holds more than 10 rounds, do I still have what CA considers a "high capacity" magazine?

[IVC]

At this point, we're just waiting for the regulations. CalDOJ has authority to make regulations for this new category pursuant to PC 30900(b)(5).

Not really. First, we know what the regulations are. Second, read again what authority DOJ has. Third, any regulation must be in compliance with the law - it cannot invent crimes that don't exist.

[Virginian]

4 camps, though this one is pretty lonely. Heller and MacDonald set forth a Federal Right, and ATF has demonstrated by the NFA and attendant regulation that they completely populate the fields of manufacture and distribution at the Federal Level. Where, as the Court noted, some regulation is allowable, the existence of a Federal Right demands that regulation be equal among the several States. One EO directing US Atorneys to procecute violation by States under color of law, and conspiracy to commit the same, and this nonsense will be over in hours.

[IVC]

If you don't attach and do register, and then later attach it, the issue becomes whether it is lawful to do so?

Bingo. That's the only question in this thread.

Regulations say one thing, but the law says something else. The question is when there is a conflict between the two, can one get charged with something that is not in the penal code. Another question is whether the regulation will get challenged by our side in order to resolve this conflict in advance, so we don't have to worry about it later.

[Drew Eckhardt]

I'm not sure about magnets but regs say that attaching it to a BB makes it a detachable magazine, if I am not mistaken,

I'd argue that's OK as long as it's not a "change" under the proposed 11 CFR 5477(a)

5477. Registration of Assault Weapons Pursuant to Penal Code Section 30900(b)(1); Post-Registration Modification of Registered Assault Weapons, Prohibition.
(a) The release mechanism for an amunition feeding device on an assault weapon registered pursuant to Penal Code section 30900, subdivision b(1) shall not be changed after the assault weapon is registered

While replacing the fixed magazine catch on a featured semi-automatic rifle with one accepting detachable magazines would be manufacturing an assault weapon, we already have statutory assault weapons as defined by PC 30515(a) and can't manufacture something into itself.

[Sousuke]

I'd argue that's OK as long as it's not a "change" under the proposed 11 CFR 5477(a)

Your are about to receive the "not fixed" vs "detachable" argument from him.

[ifilef]

Sure, but we are not talking about them. We are talking about what DOJ is trying to do. An artificial separation into tiers of AW when such tiers don't exist in the penal code.

If you follow the discussion of details (not the generic "big picture" posts) you'll notice that the whole thing depends on whether DOJ can claim that the same rifle in two configuration, one with BB and one without, is a *different AW*. The problem is that the amended penal code is modified PRECISELY to clarify that the two configurations are the same and that they both fall under 30515.

They are NOT the same. 30515(a) only lumps the new BB Assault Weapons into the category of those that do not contain a fixed magazine. It does not grant one the right to set up a configuration that now constitutes a felony and only applied to weapons lawful to possess with said magazine releases before those other bans.

[M1AFrankie32]

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

There's statutory law. Take a look at PC 30900(a)(2) and 30900(b).