MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

[Wiz-of-Awd]

We know what the law says. Now we know how the DOJ has chosen to interpret it. We don't know how LEO will enforce it and what the consequences will be if they do. How much more discussion can be had at this point?

None.
It's simply time to move.

A.W.D.

[JackRydden224]

Agreed

We'll have to wait until more news/info comes out.

None.
It's simply time to move.

A.W.D.

[danez71]

I've been too busy repeating myself in this thread to spend much time looking at them. lol. They are horribly drafted. There are circular definitions, there are vague definitions. The definition of "bullet button" leaves the status of certain compliance devices in doubt. In some places the regs arguably exceed DoJ's authority.

Again, Thank you.


In light of that......


How do you go about capitalizing on that?

Loosely meaning, is that something that you can use to attack it now or do we have to wait until a test case?

I would think you use the PC to attack the Regs since the Regs are like a subordinate doc.

But maybe I'm wrong; maybe its best to use the Regs to attack the PC in the sense of 'Your Honor, The PC is a bunch of malarkey as shown by the Regs that cant even make it clear, and potentially make it even murkier.... drain the swamp!!! (PC)'.

[God Bless America]

They are the same functionally. Both are removable magazines and both count as such or BB rifles could still be sold since BB would still be considered permanently fixed/not removable.

But "functionally" isn't in your PC. You are bringing that in. Hoisted by your own petard.

[Drew Eckhardt]

No receipts, no letter. Perhaps you had the foresight to take photos of all of the assembled AW's and mailed them to yourself before the end of the year?..... that would be evidence of completion if you do not have reciepts

Of course.

After it passed I read the law which said I could only register bullet buttoned featured semiautomatic center fire rifles lawfully possessed between January 1, 2001 and December 31st, 2016.

I observed that anything less than a functioning rifle was not an "assault weapon" under the law and assembled everything before the end of the year.

I took pictures in case the authorities choose not to believe me.

If you think your explanation will suffice, go ahead and submit

I'll submit, and hope my explanation is sufficient so I don't need to deal with the hassle of providing more evidence.

[PaIadin]

They cannot create a new class of assault weapon. It's either registered as a Category 3 assault weapon or it isn't. Once registered, there are no laws governing. IMHO this is a last minute grenade from the fading power at the top; as expected.

For example, the 50 cal ban is it's own category so they can mandate no SB 23 features, which they did.

For them to limit configurations, they have to create a NEW class of AW. They haven't done that.

Now, all that said, it won't stop them from trying to do as much as they can to keep us from owning and using guns and ammo... as usual.

This stuff is
1) only purposed at the moment
2) full of loop holes.

As Arnold said, "Das got loop-oles so big I gould dribe my 'ummer drew it!"

...upload pics? Can you imagine what people will upload?

Dick pic's and DOJ are c--ts coming up.

[Discogodfather]

Quick question, someone gave me this section of the PC, does this mean that RAW owners are required to be inspected? If over 5 RAW? I have a feeling this has to do with other things, like a DD permit, but wanted to get the expert opinions. It's an old section that went into effect in 2014.


31110. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), the Department of Justice shall, for every person to whom a permit is issued pursuant to this article, annually conduct an inspection for security and safe storage purposes, and to reconcile the inventory of assault weapons.
(b) A person, firm, or corporation with an inventory of fewer than five devices that require any Department of Justice permit shall be subject to an inspection for security and safe storage purposes, and to reconcile inventory, once every five years, or more frequently if determined by the department.
(Amended by Stats. 2013, Ch. 729, Sec. 3. Effective January 1, 2014.)

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&division=10.&t itle=4.&part=6.&chapter=2.&article=8.

[tninety]

Quick question, someone gave me this section of the PC, does this mean that RAW owners are required to be inspected? If over 5 RAW? I have a feeling this has to do with other things, like a DD permit, but wanted to get the expert opinions. It's an old section that went into effect in 2014.


31110. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), the Department of Justice shall, for every person to whom a permit is issued pursuant to this article, annually conduct an inspection for security and safe storage purposes, and to reconcile the inventory of assault weapons.
(b) A person, firm, or corporation with an inventory of fewer than five devices that require any Department of Justice permit shall be subject to an inspection for security and safe storage purposes, and to reconcile inventory, once every five years, or more frequently if determined by the department.
(Amended by Stats. 2013, Ch. 729, Sec. 3. Effective January 1, 2014.)

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&division=10.&t itle=4.&part=6.&chapter=2.&article=8.

I think that's only for those with an AW permit

[CreamyFettucini]

Quick question, someone gave me this section of the PC, does this mean that RAW owners are required to be inspected? If over 5 RAW? I have a feeling this has to do with other things, like a DD permit, but wanted to get the expert opinions. It's an old section that went into effect in 2014.


31110. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), the Department of Justice shall, for every person to whom a permit is issued pursuant to this article, annually conduct an inspection for security and safe storage purposes, and to reconcile the inventory of assault weapons.
(b) A person, firm, or corporation with an inventory of fewer than five devices that require any Department of Justice permit shall be subject to an inspection for security and safe storage purposes, and to reconcile inventory, once every five years, or more frequently if determined by the department.
(Amended by Stats. 2013, Ch. 729, Sec. 3. Effective January 1, 2014.)

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&division=10.&t itle=4.&part=6.&chapter=2.&article=8.

That would be for someone issued an "assault weapon permit"

[jandmtv]

Guys a simple question. Will using bullet button magnets be legal post registration? Are they legal now?

[ifilef]

Have you noticed that he hasn't ONCE answered the details of why 30680(b) would be violated if one removed BB post-registration?

This is not a question that is being asked, this is asking for proof of an assertion. Saying "you didn't posses" or "it wasn't legal" is an assertion. It's an opinion. Now we have to figure out how to support this based on penal code.

You assume too much in reading 30680(b). It initially will serve to protect because it assumes that you registered an eligible weapon and will continue to possess it as lawfully configured, not with the later unlawful modification to it that comes with a 'felony' attached.

That 'bad act' will not avail one the protection afforded under 30680 and will void the registration from the get-go.

Moreover, what makes the modification unlawful is 30900 and is the authority cited for adoption of 5477.

[bob.dakeelstripe]

Guys a simple question. Will using bullet button magnets be legal post registration? Are they legal now?

Regs arnt out yet let them get the pen to paper. ...

Curnetly if u leave a magnet on the BB it's considered an AW and should of been registered.



Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[jandmtv]

Regs arnt out yet let them get the pen to paper. ...

Curnetly if u leave a magnet on the BB it's considered an AW and should of been registered.



Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

So as of this second leaving a magnet on the bb while at the range is illegal? Curious if after we ref them as AW they will be allowed. I mean it doesn't change the fact that the rifle still has a bb installed.

[ifilef]

I know I did lol. In its simplest iteration, the counter argument is I registered an AW that does not have a fixed magazine, and if I swap the BB for a standard mag release post-registration, I still have a registered AW that does not have a fixed magazine.

That would be a specious argument and not relevant. 30900 is the relevant statute. You can't register then unilaterally render the registration meaningless by modifying the weapon into an unlawful configuration. You have made the registration null and void as a matter of law.

[bob.dakeelstripe]

So as of this second leaving a magnet on the bb while at the range is illegal? Curious if after we ref them as AW they will be allowed. I mean it doesn't change the fact that the rifle still has a bb installed.

It has been stated that the magnet is not considered a tool once it is left on the lower it becomes part of the gun.

I WOULD USE THE BB as its intended . Even at the range

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk