MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

[parahuman]

Your forgetting the previous AW ban.
At no time after about 2000 can you own an AW with out a BB with out it being registered by the deadline back then.

There is where your reasoning is flawed.

You have to register your BB rifle in 2017 and it had to have been owned prior to 2017.

But wasn't the BB used to keep semi-automatic centerfire rifles with the scary features from being considered assault weapons? I'm was under the impression that an assault weapon is an assault weapon. And that pre-2017 BB Semi auto centerfire rifles with features are now considered the same as pre-2001 non-BB rifles grandfathered in assault weapons.

[parahuman]

You now have an assault weapon, but there's an exemption, essentially a year grace period to register it. The exemption is only for registering a gun that was legal between 2001-2016 i.e. Bullet button gun.

If you put a regular mag release on, you're trying to register something that was NOT legal between 2001-2016, and you no longer fit into the exemption.

CA DOJ is simply taking this a natural step further and doing what regulations are for, detailing out the finer points of a statutory law. They are saying "you get to register what was legal between 2001-2016. After you do, you don't get to turn it into something that would have been illegal in the first place and never eligible for registration."

Everyone here will debate that legislature didn't intend this, and maybe they didn't, but it doesn't matter because DOJ will be given broad latitude on implementing regulations. DOJ is cleaning up the implementation details of the law via regulations, and I doubt our democrat super majority legislature would agree with you and say DOJ is taking it too far, plus due to the simple logic of my 2nd paraphrase, neither will a court.

As Fabio has said, to argue that, is arguing the CA legislature intended to open the pre <2000 registration, and the statutory law is only allowing registration/exemption for bullet button rifles ("legal from 2001-2016" class) NOT regular mag release "legal <2000" class rifles, which proves the point that was not the legislative intent.

Alright then. Thank you.

[edwardm]

If you think you can remove the BB, which is how your post is coming across, then its probably best for you to save your money from suing any school and use it to post bail for taking off the BB if you get caught.

I do think you can remove the BB.

If CalDOJ says you can't, that's one thing, which is incredibly meaningless in context. But I'll have a field day when they start rejecting CRIS registrations with Raddlock-equipped rifles (which they won't).

[edwardm]

You now have an assault weapon, but there's an exemption, essentially a year grace period to register it. The exemption is only for registering a gun that was legal between 2001-2016 i.e. Bullet button gun.

If you put a regular mag release on, you're trying to register something that was NOT legal between 2001-2016, and you no longer fit into the exemption.

CA DOJ is simply taking this a natural step further and doing what regulations are for, detailing out the finer points of a statutory law. They are saying "you get to register what was legal between 2001-2016. After you do, you don't get to turn it into something that would have been illegal in the first place and never eligible for registration."

Except courts generally frown on taking the "natural step", as you put it, absent some clear and guiding statute. And there is none. In order for that to be so, the legislature needs to go back and 'fix' SB-880/AB-1135.

I suspect Brown gave them their bite of the apple, and that won't happen in this session.

[WeStayClean]

Is the site not up yet to register?

[Wiz-of-Awd]

But wasn't the BB used to keep semi-automatic centerfire rifles with the scary features from being considered assault weapons? I'm was under the impression that an assault weapon is an assault weapon. And that pre-2017 BB Semi auto centerfire rifles with features are now considered the same as pre-2001 non-BB rifles grandfathered in assault weapons.

Yes, an AW is indeed an AW.

Apparently though, there's lots of different things that are considered AW's, so we're f**ked.

/thread

A.W.D.

[danez71]

I do think you can remove the BB.

If CalDOJ says you can't, that's one thing, which is incredibly meaningless in context. But I'll have a field day when they start rejecting CRIS registrations with Raddlock-equipped rifles (which they won't).

The Regs specifically say you cant remove it. This has been gone over 100 times already in this thread.

If you, or any one else are unable to follow the reasoning laid out in this thread, please see he other thread were it was laid out a lot more concisely / methodically.

Essentially, the Regs become part of the PC for court case enforcement. That is one of their purposes.

[edwardm]

The Regs specifically say you cant remove it. This has been gone over 100 times already in this thread.

If you, or any one else are unable to follow the reasoning laid out in this thread, please see he other thread were it was laid out a lot more concisely / methodically.

Essentially, the Regs become part of the PC for court case enforcement. That is one of their purposes.

The regulations are meaningless absent enabling statute. I've read the arguments contra, several times. They're without merit or foundation. But the majority of the 'armchair' lawyers revert to "well it's in the regulations, so it must be so."

Yes, I know it's in the regulations. That doesn't mean anything to a man or woman in a black robe, other than as one of the threshold matters for getting in the door and on the docket.

[dieselpower]

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. only per regulations on registration. (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. As you and a few others claim, but no court or law says that.

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. Show me that in the law? You cant. The only place you are referring to is a regulation on registration.

So, it appears that registered or not that attaching a magnet to a BB is unlawful and a felony offense. Again, show me that in the law.

You can not change the release mechanism. Correct, after REGISTRATION you cant.

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.

5471 (m) defines a detachable magazine. so what. The law says anything not a Fixed Magazine is an AW.

5477 says you cant change the release mechanism, so what no one has ever proven that it changed the release mechanism beyond what it already is, a tool released detachable magazine.

5477 is directly stating changing as to changing to another type. A BB with a mag-button attached is still a BB.

5471 (m) is defining as per REGISTRATION as is 5477.

After registration the use of any tool is within the law, because the law only recognizes one type of magazine as non-AW, that is a Fixed Magazine.

An LEO would first need to arrest for using a mag-button under a PC.
Then a DA would need to charge under a PC.
Then a court would need to convict under a PC.

You have never made a good case for why all of this is possible based on a regulation on registering an AW. You are using flawed english reading, flawed understanding of law and flawed common sense.

I am not saying an LEO, an ADA, a Court and a Jury couldnt be be fooled into thinking eating a ham sandwich on Sunday was illegal, but its fringe at best.

[Drew Eckhardt]

But I'll have a field day when they start rejecting CRIS registrations with Raddlock-equipped rifles (which they won't).

That remains to be seen. Unlike BATF, DOJ does not offer binding opinions on what's legal.

As Raddlock notes

Raddlock Lock Kit has Not been approved by CA DOJ!

They could forward Raddlock pictures to law enforcement so they can prosecute people for felony assault weapon possession.

They could refuse to register those receivers because they assume the guns had detachable magazines before the ban and therefore aren't covered by 30900(b).

I'm waiting for a successful Raddlock registration before I try.

[WeStayClean]

I'm not going to be the officer arresting someone for these idiotic new REGULATIONS LOL. I'll stick to my convicted gangbanger felons.

[9mmContagion]

Everyone's speculation is just ridiculous... I remember months ago, saying that you would have to leave your bullet button attached after registration. And I was torched by everybody and their mother. Now everybody is starting to realize what I said months and months ago. Now 75% agree with BB required to stay on...

Why argue over a matter that we have no clue of?! Just wait till the registration is up and see how the system works and is implemented. This is the same BS thread that happened in May and June when we were presented with the bills. All of this speculation over something we don't have facts on.

We all know how DOJ works, you might as well plan for the worst!

[God Bless America]

Everyone's speculation is just ridiculous... I remember months ago, saying that you would have to leave your bullet button attached after registration. And I was torched by everybody and their mother. Now everybody is starting to realize what I said months and months ago. Now 75% agree with BB required to stay on...

Why argue over a matter that we have no clue of?! Just wait till the registration is up and see how the system works and is implemented. This is the same BS thread that happened in May and June when we were presented with the bills. All of this speculation over something we don't have facts on.

We all know how DOJ works, you might as well plan for the worst!

Because some people heard "remove BB" and they want it so badly, that they will say, believe, and accept any argument that gets them there. Just human nature.

The only reason I have participated in these threads is to prevent misinformed decision making. The BBelievers are selling their belief as inevitable fact, when it was only a hope, and is now (post-regulation) an error contrary to law. "Reality seems valueless by comparison with the dreams of fevered imaginations; reality is therefore abandoned."

We have an obligation to our fellow shooters who are now coming to this site for information. An obligation to give them an objective and intelligent evaluation of the law. Which is: 1) BBs must stay on. 2) a legal challenge is likely (hopefully) forthcoming, but not likely to succeed.

[hiyabrad]

You know, this is interesting. I can't find anything that explicitly states that they will not register a rifle with a standard mag release. But if you take the BB off and install standard mag release, then you will be guilty of manufacturing an AW, and thus setting yourself up for prosecution with a submitted photo?

How does this apply to AK owners who have a cage around the std. mag release? You don't have to change the mag release or even touch the mag release to remove the cage?

That is 100% different from swapping BB's on AR's.

[danez71]

The regulations are meaningless absent enabling statute. I've read the arguments contra, several times. They're without merit or foundation. But the majority of the 'armchair' lawyers revert to "well it's in the regulations, so it must be so."

Yes, I know it's in the regulations. That doesn't mean anything to a man or woman in a black robe, other than as one of the threshold matters for getting in the door and on the docket.

The enabling statute is the PC.

At least 2 real lawyers have indicated that you are wrong and its been explained why in a concise manner.


Conversely, your armchair opinion and claims haven't been supported by anything.