MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

[IVC]

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.

Exactly.

Now pay attention to the details: A person is charged for violating *PC*, not for violating *Regs.* Regs are there only to clarify how the PC violation occurs.

In case of SB 880, you have to create a chain of violations all the way to the illegal possession of AWs (PC 30605) which is what you'd get charged with AND prevent claiming ANY exemption anywhere else in the PC.

[danez71]

Exactly.

Now pay attention to the details: A person is charged for violating *PC*, not for violating *Regs.* Regs are there only to clarify how the PC violation occurs.

In case of SB 880, you have to create a chain of violations all the way to the illegal possession of AWs (PC 30605) which is what you'd get charged with AND prevent claiming ANY exemption anywhere else in the PC.

Not sure what your point is.

[UP2MTNS]

f

Originally Posted by Sousuke 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).

I'm having a hard time following this as well.

30515 says,

30515. (a) Notwithstanding Section 30510, “assault weapon” also means any of the following:
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that does not have a fixed magazine but has any one of the following:

So my AR from pre-2017 didn't have a "detachable magazine" because it required a tool to remove the magazine. The magazine was technically detachable, but the 'tool' was the loophole around that Penal Code violation. Now, in 2017 my AR does not have a fixed magazine (and has features)....

A 'fixed magazine' is

an ammunition feeding device contained in, or permanently attached to, a firearm in such a manner that the device cannot be removed without disassembly of the firearm action

OK...so nowhere in 30515 is the word 'bullet button' ever mentioned, required, discussed, given as an option (or non-optional), etc.



Now, 30900 simply defines who CAN and who SHALL register....

(b) (1) Any person who, from January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2016, inclusive, lawfully possessed an assault weapon that does not have a fixed magazine, as defined in Section 30515, including those weapons with an ammunition feeding device that can be readily removed from the firearm with the use of a tool, shall register the firearm before January 1, 2018

If you bought between 2001 through 2016 you can and you shall register it, if you bought before 2001 or after 2016, you can not and you shall not.


Note again, the BB is not mentioned. Maybe I had some homemade device that served the same purposed and required a 'tool' which made me legal pre-2017...but again, this doesn't mention a BB is required, nor does it say I have to have keep the same configuration to register.

So now the REGS have come out....they don't say anything about 'requiring' the BB' to register, but they do ask for a picture of it (hardly a requirement). But the simple fact is that if I do put a regular mag release on my AR in 2017, I now have an 'AW' per 30515, mainly because I do not have a fixed magazine. 'HOW' it is 'not fixed' isn't mentioned in anywhere in SB880 at all.


I'm not saying I'm right, or someone else is wrong, but following this flowchart in my head I can't get around why the BB needs to stay on after Jan 1.

[UP2MTNS]

And, yes, plan for the worst because that is the reality. Don't remove the BB and replace with a magazine release, which is a detachable magazine and also a felony,

But 'detachable magazine' is verbiage from the original ban, yes? IMHO, the 2017 definition of a 'detachable magazine' is changed...its now

an ammunition feeding device contained in, or permanently attached to, a firearm in such a manner that the device cannot be removed without disassembly of the firearm action

30515 says nothing of a 'detachable magazine' anymore. This is how they permanently get around any more possible work arounds, which is the real intent of this law change.

This definition makes the 'release method', whatever that may be, irrelevant. But keep in mind, this new definition still encompasses any pre-2001 AWs. So they're finally getting the REAL AW registration/ban they wanted 16 years ago.

At least that's how I see it. That may not be reality, and I do think the DOJ is trying to go several steps further (farther?), so hopefully this gets challenged.

[baekacaek]

The CA politicians are getting more bold.
Ultimately, it's a matter of having a BB RAW, or featureless RAW.
Featureless are safe today, but at this rate, it's going to be banned in the next few years.
This kind of stuff just sickens me. As a CA National Guard member, I cant believe I'm risking my life to protect these politicians just so they can strip away our rights.

[umd]

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

It's my opinion that if you forward any photos to DOJ that even resemble a standard mag release

The raddlock has a very distinctive look and could not be mistaken for a standard release.

[Smedkcuf]

The raddlock has a very distinctive look and could not be mistaken for a standard release.

What if you were to modify it to make it look exactly like a bullet button? There's no law against that is there?

[WeStayClean]

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





PC 28050




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.

“Crime” and “public offense” defined.  A crime or public offense is an act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it, AND to which is annexed, upon conviction, either of the following punishments:

1. Death;

2. Imprisonment;

3. Fine;

4. Removal from office;  or,

5. Disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit in this State.


If you lawfully registered your bb ar, then remove the Bb what crime has taken place? The regulation does not provide any of the above punishments. I also was unaware the DOJ creates laws. You keep arguing the registration would be invalid, but how can it if at the time it was registered, it was (valid).

[BobinMalone3]

Bullet Button removal

If we register a rifle as an "assault weapon" can we remove the bullet button?

[CreamyFettucini]

If we register a rifle as an "assault weapon" can we remove the bullet button?

Read pages 1-59 and you'll see 2000+ posts of people arguing about this...

the DOJ regulations say you can't, so unless you want to risk prison time/loosing your gun rights to be the test case, don't do it.

[ifilef]

But 'detachable magazine' is verbiage from the original ban, yes? IMHO, the 2017 definition of a 'detachable magazine' is changed...its now

30515 says nothing of a 'detachable magazine' anymore. This is how they permanently get around any more possible work arounds, which is the real intent of this law change.

This definition makes the 'release method', whatever that may be, irrelevant. But keep in mind, this new definition still encompasses any pre-2001 AWs. So they're finally getting the REAL AW registration/ban they wanted 16 years ago.

At least that's how I see it. That may not be reality, and I do think the DOJ is trying to go several steps further (farther?), so hopefully this gets challenged.

I've had all sorts of problems with calguns website last 1-2 hours. Extremely slow and also was notified they apparently had an Internal Server Error.

Detachable magazine is still apparently the law either under 11 CCR 5469 or the more recent regulation 11 CCR 5471(m). But now I do note that 5469 has been amended (actually replaced) and apparently it's now 5471(m)?.

So, you are contending there's no statutory support for 5471(m)? 5471 arose I would guess because 30515 was amended. The authority 5471 cites is 30900, and references many others.

30900 encompasses pre-2001 AW registration that were lawfully possessed with a mag release prior to designation as AW. I don't see how 5471 affects pre-2001 except as an acknowledgment. Please elaborate.

As I interpret it, 5477 would only apply to newly registered AW, not the ones previously registered. In fact, it is so stated in 5477(a).

[FelixEstrella]

If we register a rifle as an "assault weapon" can we remove the bullet button?

Where the white women at?

[naught]

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?

PC 30605.

30605. (a) Any person who, within this state, possesses any assault weapon, except as provided in this chapter, shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for a period not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170.

If you want to claim that it's legal, then you need to find an exemption that says 30605 doesn't apply to that particular assault weapon.

What exemption under Chapter 2 (Assault Weapons and .50 BMG Rifles [30500 - 31115]) do you think it would qualify for? I haven't been able to find an exemption based solely on registration -- if one exists, it would be a good find.

[ColdDeadHands1]

If we register a rifle as an "assault weapon" can we remove the bullet button?

The DOJ plant is here to test how far we've come in our debate.

[lrdchivalry]

The DOJ plant is here to test how far we've come in our debate.

LOL... Perhaps M1AFrankie32 signed up under a new screen name.