MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

[jrr]

I'm curious as to why people suddenly question the legality of the raddlock or prince 50? They are just as compliant with 11 CCR 5469 as the standard bullet button, so long as they are properly installed and kept in "camp mode". Nothing in the new regs changes that either, both require a tool to remove a magazine. As for the website disclaimer on the raddlock website; so what? The bullet button has never been " approved" either, nor have the thordsen stock, monster man grip, grip fin, or any other compliance device, because the doj made it a policy to keep us all in the dark and never approve anything. So what gives?

[jrr]

[one9kilo]

Bookmarked

[ifilef]

Can you point me to where it says a detachable magazine illegal in the PC or regs? I'm only finding it under "not fixed"

That is enough.

PC 30515(a)(1)(A-F).

[Sousuke]

That is enough.

30515(a)(1).

If thats the case I'm still not getting your argument regarding the mag magnet.

[ifilef]

In addition to 5471(m) which makes a BB with magnet attached an unlawful detachable magazine, prior to 1/1/2017 it was unlawful to do so because it took it out of the province of a tool and made it part of the BB'd firearm if attached. So, they are basically reiterating that it's unlawful as a detachable magazine and not eligible for registration as an AW.

And if it's not eligible for registration as an AW it's not lawful to possess post-registration. That is DOJ's view and it happens to be mine as well.

All that registration grants one is the right to continued possession in the previously lawful configuration before it was designated as an AW.

I am through discussing this further.

[danez71]

Lmk when your real lawyers cite a time when a person has been arrested for a regulation. If regs are part of the penal code then they need to spell it out in the penal code so an officer who isn't a lawyer can read it and write it on the booking sheet. Otherwise, an officer might just run your AW and see it registered and be on their way.

Selectively read much? But yes, that could happen. LEO's makes mistakes everyday. So what? It doesn't help your case.


You're arrested for the PC. The Regs do not need to be spelled out in the PC. (Essentially, in laymans terms, they are a supplement to the PC)

The judge applies the Regs as part of the PC.



Again, see the other thread for a detailed explanation from a real life lawyer.


But maybe this simple example will help.

California Code of Regulations # 4033

(a) All dealers shall process a section 28050 transaction upon the request of the transferor. All such requests shall:

(1) Be in writing and contain all of the terms of the transaction, and

(2) Be signed by the transferor and the transferee.

(b) Except as otherwise provided in Penal Code sections 28050 through 28070, a dealer shall process a section 28050 transaction in the same manner as if it were a dealer retail sale.


Note: Authority cited: Section 28060, Penal Code. Reference: Sections 26700, 26710, 26825, 27535, 27545, 28100, 28160, 28165, 28210 and 28215, Penal Code.

PC 28050

a) A person shall complete any sale, loan, or transfer of a firearm through a person licensed pursuant to Sections 26700 to 26915, inclusive, in accordance with this chapter in order to comply with Section 27545. (b) The seller or transferor or the person loaning the firearm shall deliver the firearm to the dealer who shall retain possession of that firearm. (c) The dealer shall then deliver the firearm to the purchaser or transferee or the person being loaned the firearm, if it is not prohibited, in accordance with Section 27540. (d) If the dealer cannot legally deliver the firearm to the purchaser or transferee or the person being loaned the firearm, the dealer shall forthwith, without waiting for the conclusion of the waiting period described in Sections 26815 and 27540, return the firearm to the transferor or seller or the person loaning the firearm.  The dealer shall not return the firearm to the seller or transferor or the person loaning the firearm when to do so would constitute a violation of Section 27500, 27505, 27515, 27520, 27525, 27530, or 27535.  If the dealer cannot legally return the firearm to the transferor or seller or the person loaning the firearm, then the dealer shall forthwith deliver the firearm to the sheriff of the county or the chief of police or other head of a municipal police department of any city or city and county, who shall then dispose of the firearm in the manner provided by Sections 18000, 18005, and 34000. - See more at: http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-co....uaYXMLT5.dpuf

Keeping it simple, the 4033 Regulation has additional terms not noted in PC 28050; most noticeably that the transfer is done in writing and has to signed by the appropriate people.

(Then we get into having to use particular forms and what info has to be on the forms and what is acceptable for I.D. etc etc etc. but we'll skip that for now)


So a person can be charge for violating PC280550 because they didn't follow the requirement of doing it properly under the Regs associated with PC28050 even though those weren't 'spelled out' in the PC.

The person could try claiming to the judge that the requirement of it being in writing and signed etc isn't in the PC but that has about a much potential as Pelosi promoting CCW.



Hopefully, this example helps how the Regs are incorporated as part of the PC.

If it doesn't, and the other thread doesn't help either, I think you may be beyond the capability of understanding it at all.

[djhall]

I think fundamentally we are carrying on two separate but parallel debates in this thread.

1) What can they legitimately do in the moral/ethical sense? This debate is more about what the legislature, DOJ, LEOs, DAs, and courts ought to do and/or ought to have done in order for us to recognize the laws or regulations as morally/ethically binding and the imposition of penalties for violating them as morally/ethically just.

2) What can they legitimately do in the legal sense? By legitimate in the legal sense, I mean nothing more than legitimate in the eyes of the people who will come to kill you or lock you in a cage. Or at least legitimate enough that they will do it anyway in order to keep their civil service protections, salaries, benefits, and pension.

I don't believe the regulations are legitimate in the moral/ethical sense.

If "ignorance of the law is no excuse" then the law darn well better be simple enough and clear enough that the vast majority of people who read it can understand exactly what is prohibited and agree on it. If they can't, then it shouldn't be considered unlawful. The fact is, we DO have appearingly endless debate about the legality of changing a registered assault weapon from one assault weapon configuration to another assault weapon configuration. We DON'T have endless debate about the legality of 2018 possession of a SACF rifle with a bullet button and a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon. The obvious reason is that the law is ambiguous about the former and clear about the latter.

If text is going to carry the force of law then that precise text should be voted on by our elected legislators and signed by our elected governor. I don't challenge the need or desirability of regulatory agencies making regulatory "clarifications". There is a legitimate public service in an agency like the DOJ issuing regulations or clarifications about things like whether a pistol grip with a wrap is still a pistol grip, whether the tip of a bullet is a tool, or whether a rivet is considered permanent. The alternative is people having to be arrested, charged, and placed at risk of conviction in order to figure out if these things meet the letter of the law. However, at some point you go past clarifying the specific words or terminology of the law and start creating law based on your interpretation of what they meant to do or say. At that point bureaucrats are making the law instead of our elected representatives, and if the legislature actually meant that then they can clarify what they meant, pass it with a vote, and get the governor to sign it.

I also don't believe any of that matters. Most of us have no doubt acknowledged by now that our state rules us by diktat, majority will has replaced limited government, and the criminal "justice" system only recognizes our rights as being whatever our overlords say they are.

The DOJ regs will probably stand because the courts routinely defer to them and justify it on the grounds that the legislature has the ability to pass overriding legislation if they disagree with those regulations. The criminal justice system will enforce them because the courts upheld them. Law enforcement and corrections will keep any reservations to themselves to protect their jobs and benefits. Anyone who openly defies them will enjoy their moral high ground from their prison cell.

If we win this battle then we will get to put standard magazine releases on our RAWs. That win is like a small rock the tide goes around as it flows out to the sea. No matter how defiantly the rock may stand, it doesn't stop or even slow the tide. The liberal supermajority will continue to pass legislation, Newsome will sign it as governor, Becerra will endorse it as attorney general, and the tide will continue to flow onward.

[chills]

^^^^^

Well said that man.

[jcwatchdog]

No one has said it makes it an assultier weapon.

Its codes have been stated many many times.









No no no.

They charge you for unregistered.

You defend yourself and the judge decides your registration isn't valid (and its been done before with the SKS debacle) when YOU violated the Regs which was before the charge was made against you.


The Regs are part of the PC as noted before by real lawyer(s).

Really? So all lawyers in America should hang up their ties because a couple people who claim to be lawyers and they are the only ones who are right? I think I'll wait for a real attorney that specializes in gun laws to make a statement.

Pleas don't bring up the SKS debacle as it's a dead horse. It's a completely different situation.

[dieselpower]

In addition to 5471(m) which makes a BB with magnet attached an unlawful detachable magazine, <- error striked out) prior to 1/1/2017 it was unlawful to do so because it took it out of the province of a tool and made it part of the BB'd firearm if attached. <- Never proven in a court of law and no law defined that. It was an opinion we held. So, they are basically reiterating that it's unlawful as a detachable magazine and not eligible for registration as an AW. <- NOWHERE DOES IT SAY ITS ILLEGAL

And if it's not eligible for registration as an AW it's not lawful to possess post-registration. <- Again, wrong. you have nothing to back that statement up. Its your opinion only. That is DOJ's view and it happens to be mine as well. <- yeah we get that you would take rights away from people if you were allowed to. You seem to be the type the DoJ would hire to screw gun owners for a paycheck.

All that registration grants one is the right to continued possession in the previously lawful configuration before it was designated as an AW. <- agreed.

I am through discussing this further.

<- you have said this 1/2 a dozen times.


and you have been told this is a false argument which has no legal merit.

what do all these have in common if found on a SACF rifle with a pistol grip;
1- A fixed magazine that holds 15 rounds.
2- A fixed magazine that is not permanent and can be removed without disassembly of the action.
3- A fixed magazine that requires tools but no disassembly to remove.
4- A detachable magazine.
5- A Bullet Button release. <- please note there is no freaking thing called a BB magazine.
6- A RadLock release
7- A Bullet Button with a mag-button on it.
8- A Bullet Button with a screwdriver hanging from a cord tied to the handguard.
9- All magazine release parts removed from the rifle.
10- A Bullet Button with a 30rd magazine installed.

when you can tell me why all of these are the exact same thing, you might figure out why you are wrong about the law.

[ifilef]

<- you have said this 1/2 a dozen times.


and you have been told this is a false argument which has no legal merit.

what do all these have in common if found on a SACF rifle with a pistol grip;
1- A fixed magazine that holds 15 rounds.
2- A fixed magazine that is not permanent and can be removed without disassembly of the action.
3- A fixed magazine that requires tools but no disassembly to remove.
4- A detachable magazine.
5- A Bullet Button release. <- please note there is no freaking thing called a BB magazine.
6- A RadLock release
7- A Bullet Button with a mag-button on it.
8- A Bullet Button with a screwdriver hanging from a cord tied to the handguard.
9- All magazine release parts removed from the rifle.
10- A Bullet Button with a 30rd magazine installed.

when you can tell me why all of these are the exact same thing, you might figure out why you are wrong about the law.

Sure, whatever you say or might think. You are deluding yourself.

Ignored because you are a pest and have little to no understanding of law, and don't want to learn.

[dieselpower]

Sure, whatever you say or might think. You are deluding yourself.

Ignored because you are a pest and have little to no understanding of law, and don't want to learn.

back at ya, because you have yet to give a clear defined logical reasoniong for your beliefs.

1- A fixed magazine is needed to not have an AW.

2- My BB SACF rifle is an AW right now.

3- Your regs are for registered BB-AWs

why would your regs have anything to do with my AW prior to registration?

after registration of my BB, its a BB-AW covered by BB-AW regulations. Show me the regulation that says its prohibited to use a mag-button or a screwdriver on my BB?

yes I know you can show me a definition, but not a law
yes I know you can show me for registration I cant have a detachable magazine prior to 2017, but all pre-2016 laws are not chargeable when committed post 1/1/2017

[danez71]

Really? So all lawyers in America should hang up their ties because a couple people who claim to be lawyers and they are the only ones who are right?

<snip>

.

Never said they should.

I know that one is a lawyer by personally verifying his CA BAR#.

<unsnip>

I think I'll wait for a real attorney that specializes in gun laws to make a statement.

.

Good because that means if you keep your word you'll quit spewing misinformation.

[-aK-]