MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

[IVC]

If legislative counsel analyzed what SB 880 actually does, in a bill analysis in the legislative history, we can infer legislative intent from that, wouldn't you agree?

There is more than one way to infer intent, but glad you brought it up.

The history can be found with the text of the bill at here under the tab "Bill Analysis."

It is pretty clear that the intent is to "close a loophole" along the lines of how it's been done before. No other "closing of a loophole" created a separate class of AW once registered. It's also (in)convenient to notice that a featured AW couldn't be converted to a listed lower AW since the lower itself was the firearm.

[Nvidkiller]

This makes more sense....

So folding (so long as OAL is >26") is legal?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Legal as long as registered. We are no longer allowed to include a non permanent muzzle attachment when measuring OAL. So featureless rifles that took advantage of this such as Tavors and Scars will need to weld on their muzzle attachments if they plan to stay featureless. There's a few threads already going on this for bullpups and scars

[curtisfong]

Does anybody here really think the VPC (et al) aren't involved in writing the actual text of the laws in question?

It would be nice if the "smart" people here spent as much time exploring the weaknesses in that wording rather than insulting everyone posting here.

[target_shot]

Legal as long as registered. We are no longer allowed to include a non permanent muzzle attachment when measuring OAL. So featureless rifles that took advantage of this such as Tavors and Scars will need to weld on their muzzle attachments if they plan to stay featureless. There's a few threads already going on this for bullpups and scars

Got it. Thanks!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[nicky c]

Except they did say the same thing in the analysis...

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB880

Read page 6 from 05/18/16- Senate Floor Analyses, and page 5 from 06/13/16- Assembly Public Safety.

Also from that link:

"....This bill amends the definition of assault weapon to a firearm that has one of several specified features and does not have a “fixed magazine,” rather than a firearm that has one of those features and “has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine.”

It also defines, “fixed magazine” as “an ammunition feeding device contained in, or permanently attached to, a firearm in such a manner that the device cannot be removed without disassembly of the firearm action.” So, a semiautomatic rifle could have a detachable magazine, as long as it does not also have any features or it could have the features as long as it had a fixed magazine. The purpose of this change is to clarify that equipping a weapon with a “bullet button” magazine release does not take that weapon outside the definition of an assault weapon....."

AW Definition is being 'amended'.

[Smedkcuf]

Legal as long as registered. We are no longer allowed to include a non permanent muzzle attachment when measuring OAL. So featureless rifles that took advantage of this such as Tavors and Scars will need to weld on their muzzle attachments if they plan to stay featureless. There's a few threads already going on this for bullpups and scars

I don't know about Tavors but I know the overall length of the Scar with the stock fully collapsed is 36", so why would they need to weld on the muzzle attachment?

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

Personally, I believe that to be true. However, I *explicitly* don't want to challenge the registration itself - I'll play by whatever rules DOJ decided, whether I think they are valid (consistent with the law) or not.

So, my "official" position would be that I don't know the answers to the above and, because of that, I *did* register my rifle the way DOJ wanted.

You wouldn't have the luxury of being dodgy like that where a court is doing statutory interpretation and the other side is interpreting SB 880 as isolating a specific AW configuration and limiting registration to AWs with that configuration. If the court buys that interpretation, and you say "I'll just concede that registration can be limited to BB rifles, but it's irrelevant because the law doesn't say what I can or can't do post-registration, an assault weapon is an assault weapon, the law does not treat BB rifles differently from standard mag release rifles", how do you think that's going to play out? In other words, the court agrees the legislature intended to isolate BB rifles and limit registration to BB rifles, and SB 880 actually does isolate BB rifles and limits registration to BB rifles, you concede that is what was intended and what SB 880 actually does, and the end result of your position is a registered standard mag release AW. This is a 100% losing position.

[Jedediah Munroe]

I don't know about Tavors but I know the overall length of the Scar with the stock fully collapsed is 36", so why would they need to weld on the muzzle attachment?

Anyone know length of scar 17 w stock folded w/o muzzle device?

[Nvidkiller]

I don't know about Tavors but I know the overall length of the Scar with the stock fully collapsed is 36", so why would they need to weld on the muzzle attachment?

You're right. I was assuming you didn't have a pinned stock. They're appx 36 fully extended aren't they? And somewhere around 28 collapsed..

[Smedkcuf]

You're right. I was assuming you didn't have a pinned stock. They're appx 36 fully extended aren't they? And somewhere around 28 collapsed..

Right, but if the stock wasn't pinned it would have been an illegal AW to begin with since the overall length would have been 28.5".

Anyone know length of scar 17 w stock folded w/o muzzle device?

26.25", since according to my measurement the OEM muzzle brake adds 2.25" to the end of the barrel, and the official overall length while folded is 28.5" which includes the OEM muzzle brake.

[Nvidkiller]

Right, but if the stock wasn't pinned it would have been an illegal AW to begin with since the overall length would have been 28.5".

Unless, like I said, they took advantage of a screw on barrel extension to achieve that 30" length. Now that extension needs to be welded.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

No other "closing of a loophole" created a separate class of AW once registered.

Are you saying there are no "categories" of AW?

Did any other "closing of a loophole" isolate a configuration, ban it, allow registration within a specified period time, after which time possession was prohibited if not timely registered?

[nicky c]

Tavors are 26.1" without the muzzle device. It's why IWI decided to go with a 16.5" barrel in order to avoid Fed SBR problems.

With the 4" muzzle device it makes the CA 30" requirement; however it's not a fixed or pinned device..... I am contemplating trying to register a featureless Tavor since it was legally possessed in 2016, but is now an AW in 2017 as viewed by the CA DOJ due to the 26.1" length without the muzzle device.

[Jedediah Munroe]

Right, but if the stock wasn't pinned it would have been an illegal AW to begin with since the overall length would have been 28.5".



26.25", since according to my measurement the OEM muzzle brake adds 2.25" to the end of the barrel, and the official overall length while folded is 28.5" which includes the OEM muzzle brake.

Thanks.

[spoof145]

I'm not really surprised that DOJ wrote this. But seriously...
It's either Detachable or it's Fixed. It can't be something else.