MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

[ifilef]

Thanks. But I think I'm more confused now.

A BB is a non-detachable magazine. 5472(m). The magazine can NOT be readily removed with a BB in its native state. You must use a tool to remove the locked magazine, thus it is NOT a detachable magazine.

A standard magazine release is an example of a detachable magazine.

When a magnet is attached to the BB the regs state it then becomes a detachable magazine. (After all, one can see that it really turns the bullet button into a magazine release with a press on the magnet.. that is substantially the same 'release mechanism' as the finger pad on a standard magazine release.

This time around, unlike 2000, detachable magazines are not eligible for registration as an AW. It's unlawful and banned and if configured on your SACF featured rifle it's a felony.

So, it appears that registered or not that attaching a magnet to a BB is unlawful and a felony offense.

You can not change the release mechanism.

So there's two bases for my opinion re magnets attached to the BB.

5471(m) and 5477.

Hope this alleviates some of your confusion.

One can simply look at it this way: With these new laws, if you can't register it in the desired configuration, you can't possess it in that configuration. Period.

[CreamyFettucini]

30675 and 30945 will exempt you from 30605 and 30610 as a registered owner (with some caveats if you read those sections), but for exemptions to 30600 by way of 30675 you need compliance with 30900 specifically. But, that still comes back to whether or not you're registered if you don't comply with 30900 and this needs challenged.

I need to look again for other exemptions to 30600. If you're not under the exemptions that hinge on 30900 you need some other exemptions to the penalties of 30600 and 30605. This is assuming you don't have a permit or some other LEO exemption obviously.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But if it's already a registered assault weapon how can you be charged with 30600 for manufacturing an assault weapon?

Don't get me wrong, the DOJ regs are law and I'm not going to risk switching to a standard mag release to be the test case. I just think:

A) the legislature just saw the bullet button as a loophole to the sb23 ban and redefined the bullet button to be equal to a standard mag release
B) the legislature didn't give the DOJ the authority to do much of what they did with the regs(including shotguns, requiring BB stay, changing OAL)

[gdt82]

But the detachable magazine isn't the feature, that fact that it is outside of the grip is the evil feature.

You're right it's both. If it was a fixed magazine outside the grip it's fine. In fact, that's why we had AR pistols with bullet buttons at all.

[ifilef]

But if it's already a registered assault weapon how can you be charged with 30600 for manufacturing an assault weapon?

Don't get me wrong, the DOJ regs are law and I'm not going to risk switching to a standard mag release to be the test case. I just think:

A) the legislature just saw the bullet button as a loophole to the sb23 ban and redefined the bullet button to be equal to a standard mag release
B) the legislature didn't give the DOJ the authority to do much of what they did with the regs(including shotguns, requiring BB stay, changing OAL)

They are NOT equal. They are just not fixed magazines under the current definition, that gives no right to become a felon and shoot with a prior unlawful configuration that could not be registered this year as an AW.

[CreamyFettucini]

They are NOT equal. They are just not fixed magazines under the current definition, that gives no right to become a felon and shoot with a prior unlawful configuration that could not be registered this year as an AW.

I guess you didn't see where I said the DOJ regs are law. Never said I had the right to go shoot with a regular mag release. And I love how you keep saying something is a felony, yet we don't know what the penalties would be for not following the title 11 section.

But to get back to my point, please show me in the PENAL CODE that the legislature saw a difference between the BB and a standard mag release. If you do I'll disappear like you said you were going to do multiple times.

[Prolitheus]

But if it's already a registered assault weapon how can you be charged with 30600 for manufacturing an assault weapon?

Don't get me wrong, the DOJ regs are law and I'm not going to risk switching to a standard mag release to be the test case. I just think:

A) the legislature just saw the bullet button as a loophole to the sb23 ban and redefined the bullet button to be equal to a standard mag release
B) the legislature didn't give the DOJ the authority to do much of what they did with the regs(including shotguns, requiring BB stay, changing OAL)

30600 and 30605 are charges you need to be exempt from. You have an assault weapon, now, it's a matter of /can you have it/. If you're not being exempted by 30900, you need to be exempted by /something/.

What exempts you because you're registered? I pointed toward some exemptions for 30605 by way of 30675->30945 before. 30945 does indeed use "registered owner". Okay. But, if the DOJ says "Hold on one moment, you're not registered..."--that's what I want to be challenged here and that's the crux of most of the arguments in this thread. Can they revoke your registration?

Exemptions that specify compliance with 30900(b) are on shakier ground, as 30900(b)(5) says that regulations will be adopted for registration. Does that apply to keeping registration? Case law and other things probably need consideration here (some SKS owners had their registration yanked in the past).

I still need to read over and see what will let you transport (30600 covers transportation, among other things) that doesn't directly reference 30900. Will probably do that tonight.

RE:

A) I agree, and I think the legislative analysis supports this. (I'm also not a lawyer, but as a citizen, I'm trying to follow laws).

B) 30900(b)(5) makes me wonder about this with regards to remaining compliant with 30900 and Article 5 in general. Regarding OAL and shotguns, etc., I think you're definitely on the mark though. I haven't looked into all the details but it seems the regulations themselves have made some SACF rifles and shotguns Assault Weapons here, even though 30515 and other parts of the Penal Code did not.

[ifilef]

I guess you didn't see where I said the DOJ regs are law. Never said I had the right to go shoot with a regular mag release. And I love how you keep saying something is a felony, yet we don't know what the penalties would be for not following the title 11 section.

But to get back to my point, please show me in the PENAL CODE that the legislature saw a difference between the BB and a standard mag release. If you do I'll disappear like you said you were going to do multiple times.

PC 30900, the entire section, [e.g., (a) (1), (2), and (b)] and particularly 30900(b)(1) where it had to be LAWFULLY POSSESSED prior to 1/1/2017 and within the applicable proscribed period in order to be registrable.
Also 30505, 30510, 30515, 30680. That all I can think of right now.

One of the first things a new AR/AK owner learns here on Calguns is to never shoot a SACF featured weapon with a magazine release. It is a felony, that's why BBs were invented to be a lawful workaround at the time. Now BB can no longer be sold on SACF featured firearms. It's banned starting two days ago.

If you can't register it as an AW with a standard magazine release you can't possess it in that configuration.

[Crazed_SS]

Yea but then they recently passed a law that put BBs and normal mag release on the same legal footing. The law that designates a pre 2000 featured rifle with normal mag release as an AW is the same one that designates a 2001-2016 rifle as an AW as they are both SACF rifles that do not have fixed magazines and have one of the following yada yada yada..

[Discogodfather]

So a BB is a detachable magazine, and it is a distinction without a difference. There are fixed magazines and detachable magazines. A BB is a detachable magazine and a regular mag release is a detachable magazine.

Except for one sentence in the new regs:

"The release mechanism for an ammunition feeding device on an assault weapon registered pursuant to Penal Code section 30900, subdivision (b)(1) shall not be changed after the assault weapon is registered."

Everyone would have assumed the BB could come off if this sentence did not exist in the regs.

So, all lawyering aside, the only issue is if this sentence in the regs is legal and/or can be enforced.

It seems like they have committed a huge logical error in equating the BB with a detachable magazine but now claim that it needs to stay on. Where is the logic in that? I know that a legal argument is way beyond (or below) logic but how can they ever really get beyond the "distinction without a difference" argument they made.

[ifilef]

Yea but then they recently passed a law that put BBs and normal mag release on the same legal footing. The law that designates a pre 2000 featured rifle with normal mag release as an AW is the same one that designates a 2001-2016 rifle as an AW as they are both SACF rifles that do not have fixed magazines and have one of the following yada yada yada..

Those in prior periods were lawfully possessed with standard magazine releases before they were designated AW, and people who registered were able to keep in that configuration.

Same principle or rule applies this time.

Good night.

[CreamyFettucini]

PC 30900, the entire section, [e.g., (a) (1), (2), and (b)] and particularly 30900(b)(1) where it had to be LAWFULLY POSSESSED prior to 1/1/2017 and within the applicable proscribed period in order to be registrable.

One of the first things a new AR/AK owner learns here on Calguns is to never shoot a SACF featured weapon with a magazine release. It is a felony, that's why BBs were invented to be a lawful workaround at the time. Now BB can no longer be sold on SACF featured firearms. It's banned starting two days ago.

If you can't register it as an AW you can't possess it.

Not arguing that it had to be lawfully possessed PRIOR to 1/1/17 don't know why you keep bring that up.

[CreamyFettucini]

So a BB is a detachable magazine, and it is a distinction without a difference. There are fixed magazines and detachable magazines. A BB is a detachable magazine and a regular mag release is a detachable magazine.

Except for one sentence in the new regs:

"The release mechanism for an ammunition feeding device on an assault weapon registered pursuant to Penal Code section 30900, subdivision (b)(1) shall not be changed after the assault weapon is registered."

Everyone would have assumed the BB could come off if this sentence did not exist in the regs.

So, all lawyering aside, the only issue is if this sentence in the regs is legal and/or can be enforced.

It seems like they have committed a huge logical error in equating the BB with a detachable magazine but now claim that it needs to stay on. Where is the logic in that? I know that a legal argument is way beyond (or below) logic but how can they ever really get beyond the "distinction without a difference" argument they made.

But the DOJ defined detachable magazine as not requiring disassembly of action or use of a tool. I think this was done so they can set a distinct difference between standard mag release(detachable and not fixed) and bullet button(not detachable but also not fixed)

[ifilef]

A magazine release is a detachable magazine.

A BB is NOT a detachable magazine. 5471(m).

There is a difference legally. A SACF featured rife with a magazine release CAN NOT be registered as an AW this time.

A BB'd one can.

[blue0ctober]

following

[Smedkcuf]

Instead of asking the question "where in the law does it say you have to leave the bullet button on?" (Which it doesn't)... you should be asking "where does it say you get to take the bullet button off?" (It doesn't).

That's not how our legal system works.. that's like saying "where in the law does it say you get to paint your rifle purple?" I guess that means you can't according to that logic.