MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

[IVC]

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.

The two are the *same* assault weapon as much as they would be the same if you replaced pistol grip between 2016 and now. There is nothing in the penal code that indicates otherwise.

[lrdchivalry]

Please read my post again. I am only referring to AW registration. There are 4 categories of AW registration (PC 30900). All AW are not treated equally for registration purposes. PC 30510 and 30515 apply to the definition of an AW...NOT REGISTRATION.

I don't need to re-read it. You are still wrong. Your use of "4 categories of AW registration" imply that there are 4 categories of AW, there are not. You stated in an earlier post

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.

That statement shows that you are making the claim that there are different categories of AW based on registration but it's also false. 30515 (the controlling PC) does not make any distinction between BB rifles and non-BB rifles. 30900 does not make it a new category.

It either is an AW or not, the reason there are additional sections, not categories, within 30900 is to provide a legal basis for allowing registration of now banned weapons.

If I have a BB rifle and I fail to register it by the deadline and I get stopped by the police and they find the rifle, their basis for arresting me for an unregistered AW under 30605 will come from 30515 not 30900(b)(1).

It's the same if I have a unregistered listed rifle under 30510 and get caught with it, they are going to charge me under 30605 because of 30510 not 30900(a)(1)

[vandal]

From a practical perspective, if your registered AW with standard mag release comes under scrutiny from a cop legitimately trying to determine whether it is a crime for you to have or not, are they not going to simply run the S/N and see if it's a registered AW? If I have a SB23 registered AW and a 2017-registered AW, is he/she going to make a decision based on when the registration was recorded, and then try to figure out whether one of them should maybe have a bullet button on it based on a non-penal-code CADOJ "shall not"?

For some reason I suspect it will be a Registered = GTG, Not Registered = No Go decision for that cop.

[IVC]

..., could deem it a termination of your AW permit,

There is no such thing in the law or in the regulation. You are just making it up.

[djhall]

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.

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.

Are you operating on the assumption that 30680 is the ongoing source of exemption for 30605 even after registration is completed?

If so, are you saying our RAWs, once registered, aren't exempt from 30605 simply because they are REGISTERED even if 30680 didn't exist?

[IVC]

From a practical perspective, if your registered AW with standard mag release comes under scrutiny from a cop legitimately trying to determine whether it is a crime for you to have or not, are they not going to simply run the S/N and see if it's a registered AW? If I have a SB23 registered AW and a 2017-registered AW, is he/she going to make a decision based on when the registration was recorded, and then try to figure out whether one of them should maybe have a bullet button on it based on a non-penal-code CADOJ "shall not"?

For some reason I suspect it will be a Registered = GTG, Not Registered = No Go decision for that cop.

That is most likely how it will work in practice.

The DOJ can still push their angle and work with the agencies to encourage arrests based on date of registration, but this would only lead to a prolonged court battle that is quite tricky and has absolutely no potential upside for the DOJ. They will have enough people walking around with unregistered rifles if they want to make an example and scare people.

[nagzul]

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.

I understand your point. But the charges can't say rule "5477". It has to be a PC code. That code is what people would be expected to read and adhere to. I agree, I won't be taking the bullet button off.

But I think a lawyer would be able to make the case that the defendant registered his gun, and replaced it with a magazine release of the same type.

Keeping in mind the new law, causing all this, simply says mag releases requiring the use of a tool are no different than any other and don't qualify as a fixed mag.

I've read the law, it simply isn't in there. The regulations could say that you need any number of things, but if it isn't in the written law, it's simply made up. I think we both agree though..They screwed us.

[Smedkcuf]

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.

The legislators clearly stated the bullet button and standard magazine release are no different:

The "bullet button" is a release button for the ammunition magazine that can be activated with the tip of a bullet. With the tip of the bullet replacing the use of a finger in activating the release, the button can be pushed and the detachable ammunition magazine removed and replaced in seconds. Compared to the release process for a standard detachable ammunition magazine it is a distinction without a difference.

Furthermore, why would they want people to keep bullet buttons on their rifles when the author of SB880 had this to say?

According to the author, "bullet button-equipped semi-automatic weapons have no legitimate use for sport hunters or competitive shooters. They are designed only to facilitate the maximum destruction of human life. Such weapons have been used in a number of recent gun attacks including the recent terrorist attack in San Bernardino that left 14 Californians dead and 21 injured. Too many Californians have died at the hands of these dangerous weapons. "SB 880 will make our communities safer and upholds our commitment to reduce gun violence in California by closing the bullet button loophole in California's Assault Weapons Ban. This bill clarifies the definition of assault weapons and provides the DOJ the authority to bring existing regulations into conformity with the original intent of California's Assault Weapon Ban. Absent this bill, the assault weapon ban is severely weakened, and these types of military-style firearms will continue to proliferate on our streets and in our neighborhoods."

By the way, why can't the maker of bullet buttons sue for libel in regards to the above bolded part? Or can they?

[IVC]

Are you operating on the assumption that 30680 is the ongoing source of exemption for 30605 even after registration is completed?

That is actually true - conditions of 30680 must be satisfied at all times to be exempt from 30605 and registration is only one of them.

The other two also must be satisfied, but that's where the problem (for the DOJ) is - if I legally possessed "that assault weapon" I'm GTG, so they have to establish that I didn't legally possess that AW. Since my configuration was legal, the only way they can do it is to claim that I possessed "a different AW." (This is also the argument FGG was making.) To be "a different AW" it has to be at least *somehow* differentiable under the law (necessary, not even sufficient condition) which they cannot establish using the NEW 30515. That's the whole problem.

[Prolitheus]

That is actually true - conditions of 30680 must be satisfied to be exempt from 30605 and registration is only one of them. The other two also must be satisfied, but that's where the problem (for the DOJ) is - if I legally possessed "that assault weapon" I'm GTG, so they have to establish that I didn't legally possess that AW. Since my configuration was legal, the only way they can do is to claim that I possessed "a different AW." (This is also the argument FGG was making.) To be "a different AW" it has to be at least *somehow* differentiable under the law (necessary, not even sufficient condition) which they cannot establish using the NEW 30515. That's the whole problem.

30675 also exempts you if you're in compliance with 30900(b). 30680 is an exemption to 30605, but not the sole exemption.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[nagzul]

From a practical perspective, if your registered AW with standard mag release comes under scrutiny from a cop legitimately trying to determine whether it is a crime for you to have or not, are they not going to simply run the S/N and see if it's a registered AW? If I have a SB23 registered AW and a 2017-registered AW, is he/she going to make a decision based on when the registration was recorded, and then try to figure out whether one of them should maybe have a bullet button on it based on a non-penal-code CADOJ "shall not"?

For some reason I suspect it will be a Registered = GTG, Not Registered = No Go decision for that cop.

This is probably the real world scenerio. But what if this is the deciding factor from a cop that wants to make an arrest. Off to jail you go.

Than what?

[Prolitheus]

This is probably the real world scenerio. But what is this is the deciding factor from a cop that wants to make an arrest. Off to jail you go.



Than what?

Does their system show them any sort of notes or advisories? It could say "must have a bullet button" when they look it up as far as I know.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[nagzul]

" must have bullet button with no magnet attached and in proper working condition."

Perhaps that

[djhall]

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.

I think where I differ is that I read 30680 to be temporary and applicable to possession prior to registration. Once the weapon is registered the protection from 30605 is due to the registration and being the registered owner rather than ongoing coverage by 30680.

"Section 30605 does not apply to the possession of an assault weapon by a person who has possessed the assault weapon..." Section 30605 doesn't apply to registered owners of registered assault weapons. Once the weapons are registered why is this relevant or necessary?

"(c) The person registers the assault weapon by January 1, 2018..." Registers by is future tense, which makes sense for weapons not yet registered. If this was ongoing and intended to cover already registered weapons, shouldn't this read "The person registered the assault weapon..."?

Then again, this stuff is confusing as hell even without the added complication of vaugely written laws.

[IVC]

30675 also exempts you if you're in compliance with 30900(b).

30900(b) is referenced in 30680(a) as the necessary condition. It's not sufficient. 30675 is about other AW exemptions that are not connected either to what we are talking about, or to 30900.

30680 is an exemption to 30605, but not the sole exemption.

It's the one under which we would operate so it's the only one relevant to this thread.