MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

[Crazed_SS]

if i had to guess id say:
they will rely on people self policing with scary verbiage and e-signing a document agreeing to penalty of perjury. i dont think they will be reviewing every photo, even remotely so. im guessing they will take random samples; X per month for X number months and after that time calculating faulty registrations based on their total sample size. if there are X or greater number of faulty registrations, they will increase their sample size every month until faulty registrations are under X.

Yea this seems likely.

[gdt82]

Slippers are for taking those long walks to the showers in the 'big' house, or at least county jail after arrested and handcuffed.

Oh, I thought it was just so my feet would be nice and comfy.

[ifilef]

Oh, I thought it was just so my feet would be nice and comfy.

That, too!

[Shell]

Actually it had to have been a complete functioning SACF rifle by December 31, a stripped lower with a bullet button wouldn't be eligible.

I don't want to start a debate on that. Even if you bought a stripped lower on December 21 and cleared DROS on December 31, there is no statutory way to validate that.

In my view, a rifle above 80% is legally a firearm, and thus is "completed" provided the BB is attached (and, possibly, a single evil feature). But, for the reasons stated above, it doesn't matter... which is why DOJ didn't write eight rules to Sunday about it (like, um, removing the BB from your rifle).

[ifilef]

BLM land, Panoche Hills three years ago, a Ranger. We were shooting at around 200 yards to a hillside. He pulled up and claimed we were shooting across a trail which was not allowed, so we agreed to move. He inspected all our firearms. Nice guy, no problems.

Just curious. Thanks for the info. He could probably do that under that statute (which I don't recall at the moment) so perhaps no reasonable suspicion or probable cause required. I'm really not clear on those situations, to be honest with you.

Under those circumstances, you did the smart thing by cooperating with him.
Comments?

Here is the statute. There may be others statutes of which I'm not aware. It appears maybe he did not have the right to inspect without reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Then again, officer safety.. I don't know what would be the appropriate standard for that but it appears your location at the time may not have fit within the statute.

In any event, you did the better thing by cooperating due to the alleged trail shooting incident and having to move.

PC 25850.
"(a) A person is guilty of carrying a loaded firearm when the person carries a loaded firearm on the person or in a vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city or in any public place or on any public street in a prohibited area of unincorporated territory.

(b) In order to determine whether or not a firearm is loaded for the purpose of enforcing this section, peace officers are authorized to examine any firearm carried by anyone on the person or in a vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city or prohibited area of an unincorporated territory. Refusal to allow a peace officer to inspect a firearm pursuant to this section constitutes probable cause for arrest for violation of this section.
...
...
..."

Hhhmmm... You were shooting in authorized area, right. Is BLM land public place? Beats me...

So even if you refused how could you be arrested for carrying a loaded firearm for that refusal? Whatever, just thinking out loud, purely academic exercise.

thanks and cheers,

[unclerandy]

bookmark

[Smedkcuf]

I don't want to start a debate on that. Even if you bought a stripped lower on December 21 and cleared DROS on December 31, there is no statutory way to validate that.

In my view, a rifle above 80% is legally a firearm, and thus is "completed" provided the BB is attached (and, possibly, a single evil feature).

Yes it's a firearm, but it's not a semiautomatic centerfire rifle at that point until it's fully completed. And that's what AW registration is involving, not just any firearm. This has been established long before the regulations came out, and there hasn't been any disagreement over this.

[Shell]

Yes it's a firearm, but it's not a semiautomatic centerfire rifle at that point until it's fully completed. And that's what AW registration is involving, not just any firearm. This has been established long before the regulations came out, and there hasn't been any disagreement over this.

That just opens a can of theoretical worms, like what if at the stroke of midnight you were cleaning or repairing your rifle. Like I said, there is no statutory way to validate that, and in retaining gun rights, the broadest interpretation works (including with what DOJ could charge you with).

DOJ is not asking for you to prove the gun was assembled 100% by December 31, because they can't. If they cared, they would have published the final rule by October, or November - giving people sufficient time to make sure it was in that state at the stroke of midnight.

Unlike Rule 5477, I don't think anyone at DOJ cares. At all.

[Smedkcuf]

That just opens a can of theoretical worms, like what if at the stroke of midnight you were cleaning or repairing your rifle. Like I said, there is no statutory way to validate that, and in retaining gun rights, the broadest interpretation works (including with what DOJ could charge you with).

My interpretation is that scenario wouldn't be an issue, as long as you possessed the rifle in an AW configuration prior to 2017, it doesn't have to be in an AW configuration at the stroke of midnight 2017. And that's clearly backed up in the PC as well. There may not be a way to enforce this but that's what the law says, and not all of them are easily enforceable.

[KrisDSA]

**** all this BB talk. Just go featureless

[Discogodfather]

Hhhmmm... You were shooting in authorized area, right. Is BLM land public place? Beats me...

Panoche is a popular shooting spot. He had a problem with us shooting over a trail, that's why he rolled up. He asked us if we knew there was a trail there, and we said no, it didn't seem obvious at all. Since then I have looked up the rules and sure enough, even on their website, it says no shooting over trails.

We were all unloaded already and we had put the firearms on a fold out table we brought next to the truck. He asks politely to do a safety check and we said yes. Our rifles where bolt open, no mag. He just stared at it on the table then pushed the mag release, I assume to see if the button worked but I have no idea what he was doing. He didn't even pick it up.

He checked an AK and my .338 Lapua bolt gun, but he didn't pick those up either, he just looked. Then he walked over to us and said "ok, be safe" and said something about sundown time and drove off. We ended up moving 50 yards away and kept shooting for hours.

[Murmur]

Yup, sorry.

Edit: duh it's a joke.

[Virginian]

He thinks Trump could issue an EO or Jeff Sessions could issue a directive to sue CA for SB 880 as a 2A violation. A pipe dream, isn't going to happen. But it might happen down the road if the state tries to mandate mag locks on featureless rifles... which is next.

The pipe dream is prosecution for conspiracy. ;-)
It's clear to me that, as a Federal Right, Federal definitions should apply. Imagine if the 13th had prohibited slavery, but we let the South define the terms. Check the actions of the AG over civil rights in the sixties for where this will have to go. With luck we can make Newsom as unpopular as George Wallace.

[swiftone]

What for? What for?

I'm at least going to wait to see what the legislature is up to in this new session, take it from there.

I don't often agree with your posts, but I do with this one.

Why rush? Wait and see what they are up to in 2017

[edwardm]

It's not my interpretation of what they think it's their interpretation of what they think lol.



Where did you find that? Legislative history? I do think there is no ambiguity that would require a look at legislative history, as SB 880 plainly limits registration to bullet button rifles and plainly does not allow registration of SB 23 AWs.

Actually, it doesn't say that.
...

Which covers more than just the Bullet Button. It covers the iterations of the BB, Raddlock, the original Prince50 kit (which for early adopters, meant reloading by splitting the upper & lower), and whatever other variations exist on the "bullet is a tool" category of magazine releases.