MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

[CreamyFettucini]

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

As Raddlock notes

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.

So correct me if I'm wrong, but the bullet button was never DOJ approved. The Raddlock states that to prevent possible liability.

[ugimports]

On cfar website this morning:

ATTENTION: The ability to register an Assault Weapon pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 1135 and Senate Bill (SB) 880, is not yet available. Pursuant to AB 1135 and SB 880, Assault Weapon registration regulations must be effective before any registrations can take place. At this time, the regulations are still pending, however they should be effective in the very near future. Please check the Bureau of Firearms website periodically for updates. https://oag.ca.gov/firearms.

[colossians323]

On cfar website this morning:

Wonder if that menas so far that there is a 4 day extension on the registering, for those who are willing to roll over so easy

[AceGirlsHusband]

On cfar website this morning:

I was just about to post this myself. DOJ isn't even ready to execute their own mandates. Figures.

[Fox Mulder]

I was just about to post this myself. DOJ isn't even ready to execute their own mandates. Figures.

Yeah. Somebody probably had an "oh sh!!" moment when they realized the vulnerable legal footing their regulations put them on.

[Shell]

Wonder if that menas so far that there is a 4 day extension on the registering, for those who are willing to roll over so easy

No. The statue gives DOJ reasonable time to implement in January. I only foresee an extension if the site isn't live by month's end. CRIS will almost certainly be ready by then.

[Shell]

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 problem is when you're sitting in the Defendant chair in a felony prosecution, because during a car accident while returning from the range, your de-BB'ed AR fell out of the back of your trunk.

We're in California. Xavier is the incoming AG. Xavier. The one person worse than Kamala.

We can fight it in the new Trump-majority 9th Circuit (and we may get to finally, finally stop calling it a circus!) But don't drop the BB until it's safe to do so.

[Crazed_SS]

Yeah. Somebody probably had an "oh sh!!" moment when they realized the vulnerable legal footing their regulations put them on.

Lettuce hope lol..

I do find it interesting that they state the site isnt ready because the regs are not finalized, not due to a technical issue with the site. Hopefully, like you eluded to, they're "clarifying" a couple things in the regs after no doubt reading through this thread haha

[Shell]

Lettuce hope lol..

I do find it interesting that they state the site isnt ready because the regs are not finalized, not due to a technical issue with the site. Hopefully, like you eluded to, they're "clarifying" a couple things in the regs after no doubt reading through this thread haha

So, for some clarity there. DOJ may have felt the regs couldn't get printed until Jan 1, and needed a two week period to go live.

I suspect the CRIS work was done last year, and is ready to go. It's a simple image upload tool and form, not a lot of effort... well, for the private sector anyways. I could have done it for under $10,000, with database and duplicate copies in archival. Don't want to know what they charged internally.

[WeStayClean]

The problem is when you're sitting in the Defendant chair in a felony prosecution, because during a car accident while returning from the range, your de-BB'ed AR fell out of the back of your trunk.

We're in California. Xavier is the incoming AG. Xavier. The one person worse than Kamala.

We can fight it in the new Trump-majority 9th Circuit (and we may get to finally, finally stop calling it a circus!) But don't drop the BB until it's safe to do so.

what penal code would the officer charged this guy with?

[ifilef]

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?

And you won't find anything that explicit. Read PC 30515, 30900(b)(1).

Guys, you just apply the facts to the law or law to the facts.

It doesn't have to be explicit to every fact situation. It usually never is, unless in a regulation, e.g. 5477, and many of those will be subject to interpretation.

[FelixEstrella]

what penal code would the officer charged this guy with?

"Unregistered assault rifle", after the officer confiscates your rifle, and the DOJ deregisters it since the config the rifle is in is no longer that in which the rifle was registered.

I'm having trouble understanding why this is such a difficult concept.

[WeStayClean]

"Unregistered assault rifle", after the officer confiscates your rifle, and the DOJ deregisters it since the config the rifle is in is no longer that in which the rifle was registered.

I'm having trouble understanding why this is such a difficult concept.

how was it unregistered if it was registered? so again, what penal code section would the officer put on the booking sheet? which penal code section says its illegal to make an assault weapon more assaultier and gives the punishment?

[Virginian]

When can we get down to the important business of designing to accommodate the laws? Quite obvious that this whole thing boils down to DOJ and hobbyists screwing with each other... the criminals will just walk their stuff in from out of State. So when is it our turn to develope the 2017 "Not an AW"? :-)

I realize this is an engineer's point of view... I'm sure the lawyers are as eager to start their sport as well.

[Mitch]

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."

The "armchair lawyer" who has been most vocal in this thread that the regulations mean what they say and are enforceable is not "armchair" at all.