MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

[djhall]

What purpose does 30680 serve that 30675 does not? By registering by 2018, you're complying with 30900 and thus 30675(b) exempts you from 30605 along with 30600 and 30610.

The act of registering would be specifically covered by 30675, but the legal exemption for possession prior to registration would only be implied unless the DOJ issued regulations before 1/1/17 which also specifically stated that possession through 12/31/17 was compliant with the registration regulations.

Absent DOJ regulations or 30680, it would be up to interpretation to determine if we were required to disassemble, convert to featureless, or move our weapons out of state between 1/1/17 and the time we completed our registration in order to avoid prosecution under 30605. 30680 made is clear that we did not need to do that provided that we were eligible to register and actually followed through with registering. I would argue that the DOJ regulations that were released also have the effect of making 30680 unnecessary since they clarify that possession prior to registration is legal under their regulations, which means 30675 now applies and covers us in addition to 30680.

[IVC]

What about 30510? That defines an AW also.

So?

We are talking about AWs being somehow different based on magazine release and magazine-based AW status is defined in 30515. If you want to look at listed lowers in 30510, they are certainly not affected by any feature or magazine lock so it doesn't factor into current situation (the same as 50 BMG of fully automatic rifles).

Yes, 30900 (a)(1), (2) and (b) all define different definitions of AW.

No they don't. Any place they reference "AW" is the reference to an "assault weapon as defined in the penal code."

[gdt82]

I wish we could file a 2A challenge to that statement. The legitimate reasons for protecting the private ownership of firearms is "hunting, target practice, sports, and recreation?"

That would be a good case for the right court. 2nd amendment specifically mentions "security of a free state", but not hunting and sports.

[ifilef]

So?

We are talking about AWs being somehow different based on magazine release and magazine-based AW status is defined in 30515. If you want to look at listed lowers in 30510, they are certainly not affected by any feature or magazine lock so it doesn't factor into current situation (the same as 50 BMG of fully automatic rifles).



No they don't. Any place they reference "AW" is the reference to an "assault weapon as defined in the penal code."

They are not affected because they had lawful mag releases before deemed AW.

That is not possible now where no lawful possession of those type mag release mechanisms prior to 1/1/2017.

Anyway, if you don't get what is going on, fine...

Snowball's chance in h*l* that one will be able to switch BACK to a standard mag release after registration as an AW.

[IVC]

There is no such provision that permits a person to register a PC 12276.1 AW (Category 3) after 1/1/2001.

Um, 30680(c) provides registration as the necessary condition for exemption from 30605 and 30605 makes possession of AWs illegal in CA. Fulfil the other two conditions in 30680 and 30605 does NOT apply to you so you can legally posses an AW as defined by the law.

That's what "registration of AW" means - you satisfy some conditions and you are exempt from the ban on possession of AW.

[Prolitheus]

MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

The act of registering would be specifically covered by 30675, but the legal exemption for possession prior to registration would only be implied unless the DOJ issued regulations before 1/1/17 which also specifically stated that possession through 12/31/17 was compliant with the registration regulations.



Absent DOJ regulations or 30680, it would be up to interpretation to determine if we were required to disassemble, convert to featureless, or move our weapons out of state between 1/1/17 and the time we completed our registration in order to avoid prosecution under 30605. 30680 made is clear that we did not need to do that provided that we were eligible to register and actually followed through with registering. I would argue that the DOJ regulations that were released also have the effect of making 30680 unnecessary since they clarify that possession prior to registration is legal under their regulations, which means 30675 now applies and covers us in addition to 30680.

I still see possession being in compliance with 30900 /if/ there's intent to register by 2018, as it says "shall register before January 1st, 2018". They'd have to show you did not intend to register by the deadline. I think 30680 is needlessly confusing, especially 30680(a) as I stated earlier in this thread (you wouldn't have been eligible to register before 2017, as 30900(b) says you can't have registered before the regulations of 30900 were effective). I think I understand what they're getting at with it (the AW wasn't an AW before 2017), but it seems very sloppy to me-- it's as if they wrote 30680(a) before 30900(b) and didn't revisit it.

I'm not a lawyer though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[M1AFrankie32]

Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that M1AFrankie32 has only been on calguns since 1/1/17, has only 7 posts in the same thread, which all push the government narrative. Interesting. Kes should look into it.

I hope your comment is not indicative of how the site treats those who dissent.

[IVC]

Snowball's chance in h*l* that one will be able to switch BACK to a standard mag release after registration as an AW.

I am certainly able to switch back.

[naught]

(I think you mean 30680(b) - that's the one that talks about it.)

Again, the question is not whether "it would have been legal," but whether it was "legally possessed." There is a big difference. If you want to claim that removal of BB in 2017 changes whether it was "legally possessed prior to 2017" say so and explain how it changes the legality of the configuration prior to 2017 for which I gurantee was legal at the time.

I actually meant 30680(a).

I'm saying that removal of the BB in 2017 makes it illegal in 2017 because that configuration is not one that would have been eligible for registration prior to January 1, 2017.

30680(a) Prior to January 1, 2017, the person would have been eligible to register that assault weapon pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 30900.

We seem to differ on our interpretation of the meaning of "that assault weapon" in 30680(a). Since 30680 concerns the lawful possession of an assault weapon, I am assuming that "that assault weapon" refers to the one you are currently in possession of, and not one that you had at some time in that past that may or may have been in a different configuration.

[nagzul]

They are not affected because they had lawful mag releases before deemed AW.

That is not possible now where no lawful possession of those type mag release mechanisms prior to 1/1/2017.

Anyway, if you don't get what is going on, fine...

Snowball's chance in h*l* that one will be able to switch BACK to a standard mag release after registration as an AW.

What PC, exactly, would they charge you with?

Good lawyers get paid to live in the undefined zones of laws.
Hell, I got out of a ticket because of the difference in the term "turn" and "changing lanes."

It is not as clear cut as you think my friend.

[ifilef]

I am certainly able to switch back.

Go ahead! I will not stop you!

But I certainly don't recommend that you do so.

Bye.

[Shell]

I am certainly able to switch back.

You are able to... physically. But it violates Rule 5477, which if the DOJ exercises their full power, could deem it a termination of your AW permit, thus leaving you holding an illegal AW - and thus, committing a felony.

Also you cannot switch to featureless after AW reg, and go free mag either. The DOJ rule also prohibits that. You can go featureless and BB while a registered AW, but you must cancel the AW permit before switching to free mag.

Again, it's the DOJ final rule doing this - without any authorization from the Legislature.

[nagzul]

"Bye"

~insert Willy Wonka MeMe here~

I said good day!

[Shell]

What PC, exactly, would they charge you with?

Good lawyers get paid to live in the undefined zones of laws.
Hell, I got out of a ticket because of the difference in the term "turn" and "changing lanes."

It is not as clear cut as you think my friend.

Possession of an illegal AW. You breached Rule 5477, thus terminated your own AW permit, thus you are in possession of an AW without permit.

I don't agree this is legal. Rule 5477 needs to be challenged in court. But if a cop inspects your gun, and calls DOJ, this is likely what DOJ will instruct the office to charge for.

[ifilef]

What PC, exactly, would they charge you with?

Good lawyers get paid to live in the undefined zones of laws.
Hell, I got out of a ticket because of the difference in the term "turn" and "changing lanes."

It is not as clear cut as you think my friend.

Well, those two you describe with the ticket can be distinguished.
---------------------------

Probable revocation or voiding AW registration.

Then:

Manufacturing
Possession of AW

Do you want to be the test case?

Bye-bye!

p.s. Don't forget the warning they give via 5477. I am grateful for it, at least we know their position. Do expect prosecution if not overturned.