MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

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.

Yeah, it can, that was the BB loophole, and SB 880 codified it.

[Smedkcuf]

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.

Actually it's now either fixed or not fixed, that is how 30515 was amended. "Detachable" is a meaningless word now.

[gdt82]

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

Don't the other categories of AW of which you speak have their own specific penal code that defines them? So a listed lower that has been banned by name is different than an AW that is defined by the features that were introduced with SB 23. But if you read the original text of that bill it specifically said that a new penal code was being "added". The newest law specifically "amends" the existing penal code to include bullet button rifles as SB23 defined AWs by lumping their magazine release devices under the same definition. Seems that to create a new class of AW for bullet button rifles they should have added another penal code rather than amending 30515. I know we're getting into the weeds here, but isn't that an important distinction if a court has to interpret a law based on the words that were written/amended in the penal code?

[IVC]

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.

The end result is "registered standard mag release" in either case because it is clear that the legislature introduced this law in the first place to clarify that BB is the same as any other magazine release that doesn't require opening of the action.

The real problem is that the DOJ knows that a BB is a significant disadvantage and anything-but standard release. The legislators don't.

[JeepFiend]

Simple little fact that everyone seems to ignore. As I understand it, it is the purpose and duty of the judicial branch to interpret laws. No matter what I think, FGG thinks, or anyone else thinks, it will be up to the judge to interpret the laws and sentence accordingly.

The end of the discussion is, if you think you can take it off, take it off! If you wind up in court, and you win, then as far as this discussion goes, you win! If you find yourself in court, and the judge rules you did not interpret the laws according to his view, you lose...and we all lose.

End of story.

Now, who has more popcorn, I ran out...

[IVC]

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.

What I am registering belongs to PRECISELY the narrow group of AWs that the legislature wanted to isolate for ban.

It's the other side that must show why they believe BB makes any difference on my AW when the legislators just explicitly told them it was a loophole and that the BB is as bad as any other mechanism for swapping magazines.

Remember, DOJ knows it makes a difference *to me* (it's a great favor and they hate it), but the legislators simply wanted to stop BB rifles and that's what they are doing. Registration is just part of grandfathering existing AWs.

[cvigue]

I hope to be back in the free states before it matters to me.

[IVC]

End of story.

There is one more part to the story as far as practical issues go. There will be millions of people without any registration papers running their ARs at local ranges with BBs. Those will be the "low handing fruit" if the DOJ wants to make an example, not someone who is very careful about avoiding any "imperial entanglements."

[meno377]

Actually that's not true either. You just described the definition of "not fixed" in the penal code (and DOJ regulations). A "fixed" magazine requires the action to be disassembled to remove. So a bullet button is not-fixed (according to law) but it also "not-detachable" (per DOJ regulations).

Below is how I arrived at the wording. The rifles that are allowed registration were the bb rifles and according to the new law, the bb rifles are defined as non fixed (detachable magazine). Perhaps I missed something.

5471-M: Detachable magazine means any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm without disassembly of the firearm action or use of a tool. A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool. An ammunition feeding device include any belted or linked ammunition, but does not include clips, en bloc clips, or stripper clips that load cartridges into the magazine.

An AR-15 style firearm that has a bullet-button style magazine release with a magnet left on the bullet button constitutes a detachable magazine. An AR-15 style firearm lacking a magazine catch assembly (magazine catch, magazine catch spring and magazine release button) constitutes a detachable magazine. An AK-47 style firearm lacking a magazine catch assembly (magazine catch, spring and rivet/pin) constitutes a detachable magazine.

(b) (1) Any person who, from January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2016, inclusive, lawfully possessed an assault weapon that does not have a fixed magazine, as defined in Section 30515, including those weapons with an ammunition feeding device that can be readily removed from the firearm with the use of a tool, shall register the firearm before January 1, 2018, but not before the effective date of the regulations adopted pursuant to paragraph (5), with the department pursuant to those procedures that the department may establish by regulation pursuant to paragraph (5).

[gdt82]

The real problem is that the DOJ knows that a BB is a significant disadvantage and anything-but standard release. The legislators don't.

The other problem is that for these Regs to be ruled against, we would actually need a judge that cares to listen to all this BS and pay attention to the details without being inherently anti-gun. This thread is 50 pages and counting and if you read through this stuff without being an expert on the history of firearms and the law in California than it is the most boring and ridiculous discussion you can imagine. An anti-gun judge who is inclined to side with the state will probably just gloss over the details and make a decision. The state legislature passed a law based on emotion rather than logic, and their sloppiness results in this mess, but a judge will probably allow the sloppiness to stand and have DOJ just make stuff up to cover all the flaws in the law.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

Don't the other categories of AW of which you speak have their own specific penal code that defines them?

I was fleshing out IVC's position. The interpretation I am articulating is concerned with what the AW laws do functionally via the opening and closing of registration windows.

[JeepFiend]

There is one more part to the story as far as practical issues go. There will be millions of people without any registration papers running their ARs at local ranges with BBs. Those will be the "low handing fruit" if the DOJ wants to make an example, not someone who is very careful about avoiding any "imperial entanglements."

But it still comes down to the judges interpretation of the law if you find yourself in court. It doesn't matter what I think, what you think, or what your lawyer thinks. The judge interprets the law. If he interprets it in a manner that agrees with you, bravo! If not, my condolences. But that really is the end of the story.

You can argue until you're blue in the face, but if the judge says "guilty", you have to appeal and hope another judge disagrees and strikes down his opinion. That rarely happens. But hey, best of luck to you if you find yourself in that position.

[gdt82]

Below is how I arrived at the wording. The rifles that are allowed registration were the bb rifles and according to the new law, the bb rifles are defined as non fixed (detachable magazine). Perhaps I missed something.

I think you misread the first sentence. It says detachable means it can be removed without disassembly of the action OR the use of a tool.

A bullet is a tool. Therefore, bullet button requires use of tool. Therefore, it doesn't meet the definition of detachable because it requires a tool. I agree that sentence can actually be read two different ways, which is interesting. But the way they are using it means a tool does not qualify as detachable. Interesting point though.

[IVC]

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

If you want to call "AW defined by different PC" a different category, there are indeed different categories.

What I am referring to is that exemptions don't distinguish between these categories when addressing AWs - they reference 30515 which then includes 30510. The whole code is about there being a singular concept of "assault weapon" and it either can or cannot be possessed.

Even if there is part of penal code that addresses only, e.g., 30510, it's not relevant for our discussion since SB 880 amended 30515 instead of creating a new section of the code that could then be excluded in exemptions.

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?

They all did. So did SB 880.

What you likely want to ask is whether any other "closing of a loophole" tried to create an artificial distinction between firearms that are labeled "assault weapons." The answer is that I don't know, but I don't believe they did. More importantly, SB 880 did NOT do this, even though DOJ really, really wishes they did.

[meno377]

I think you misread the first sentence. It says detachable means it can be removed without disassembly of the action OR the use of a tool.

A bullet is a tool. Therefore, bullet button requires use of tool. Therefore, it doesn't meet the definition of detachable because it requires a tool. I agree that sentence can actually be read two different ways, which is interesting. But the way they are using it means a tool does not qualify as detachable. Interesting point though.

That's not how I read it. "Or" to me is used as: one way or the other. So if you can use a tool to eject the magazine WITHOUT opening the action, then that constitutes a detachable magazine. A tool can include a bullet. The issue is the opening of the action that separates a detachable magazine vs a fixed magazine.