MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

[unclerandy]

Disagree with portion in bold. There are more than enough facts to determine the outcome. Regs are law and are amply supported by the Penal Code. Govern yourself accordingly.

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, unless there's a court order in our favor. That court order is HIGHLY unlikely, unless regulations are stricken as exceeding the authority granted in 30900(b).

Felony arrest now for 30600 and/or 30605 if you are captured with a standard magazine release in your SACF featured rifle.

Right or wrong I disagree with your opinion in bold. It wouldn't be a felony if the gun was a RAW. 30600 and 30605 also don't apply to RAW's.

[Fox Mulder]

Speaking of real lawyers, this might be of interest to a few folks around here:

New Assault Weapon Regulations Webinar

And I trust the opinion of one of the preeminent firearms lawyers in the state over some random dude in the interweb. I'll take Chuck Michel's word as gospel on these questions.

[ifilef]

Right or wrong I disagree with your opinion in bold. It wouldn't be a felony if the gun was a RAW. 30600 and 30605 also don't apply to RAW's.

I was addressing now, before registration, but now that you mention it, RAW does not give a free pass for committing a felony, It will likely void the registration, and even if it does not, it is materially and deliberately changing the firearm into an unlawful configuration for which it could not be registered as an AW.

If it was unlawful to possess in that configuration prior to 1/1/2017, it is not eligible for registration in the first place.

If it would not have been eligible to be registered as AW, it will not and can not be possessed in that configuration. That is reflected in the AWCA prior history limiting possession after registration to only lawfully possessed firearms prior to designation as AW.

It's flawed reasoning and logic to believe that a weapon not lawfully possessed and not eligible for registration can now be possessed after registration merely because one registered as an AW. Felony does not give one a free pass.

Said flawed logic would entitle one to possess with a grenade and launcher, switch over to select fire, SBR, or std. magazine release after registering as an AW. It's an absurd notion, sorry.

Authority for 5477- PC 30900, and numerous statutes referenced.

[CreamyFettucini]

I was addressing now, before registration, but now that you mention it, RAW does not give a free pass for committing a felony, It will likely void the registration, and even if it does not, it is materially and deliberately changing the firearm into an unlawful configuration for which it could not be registered as an AW.

If it was unlawful to possess in that configuration prior to 1/1/2017, it is not eligible for registration in the first place.

If it would not have been eligible to be registered as AW, it will not and can not be possessed in that configuration. That is reflected in the AWCA prior history limiting possession after registration to only lawfully possessed firearms prior to designation as AW.

It's flawed reasoning and logic to believe that a weapon not lawfully possessed and not eligible for registration can now be possessed after registration merely because one registered as an AW. Felony does not give one a free pass.

Said flawed logic would entitle one to possess with a grenade and launcher, switch over to select fire, SBR, or std. magazine release after registering as an AW. It's an absurd notion, sorry.

Authority for 5477- PC 30900, and numerous statutes referenced.

Nope because those are specifically banned by other penal code sections which don't have AW exemptions.

[edwardm]

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.

I understand your point. The problem I see with rejection Raddlock-equipped rifles is that the definition in the previous set of regulations was clear about using a tool. The Raddlock only works in a compliant configuration with a tool.

I know the distinction about the Raddlock being "adjustable" vs the BB being a "set it and forget it" option. However, both will accept a magnetic button (aka the 'felony button'). A distinguishing characteristic of the BB is that you can put a 'BB wrench' on and leave it there as well, whereas I've never seen such a tool for the Raddlock.

In both cases, you have the ability to transform either into a configuration that would have been illegal pre-1/1/17 and pre-SB880/AB1135. So I think any distinction CalDOJ might try to make between the two is false.

Either way, the regulations have been submitted, and given the relative ease with which a BB and a Raddlock can be made into a functional release, for most registrants it won't matter.

The regulations, for those who want to take them as gospel, say you cannot change the release type. They say nothing about leaving a BB wrench installed. They also say nothing about backing out the Raddlock screw.

Legal in 2016 gets you the ticket to register in 2017. In 2017, post-registration, the rifle is registered and grandfathered in. If you adhere to the regulations, they say "The release mechanism...shall not be changed." Everyone is taking that to mean you can't remove the BB and swap in a USGI release. Even if I give them that point (which I don't), that regulation is stating you can't change the "type" of mechanism, save for a "like-kind replacement".

Because stupid people write laws and regulations, this is what you get. Crazy like a fox? No, crazy like a groundhog with a traumatic brain injury.

[WeStayClean]

I was addressing now, before registration, but now that you mention it, RAW does not give a free pass for committing a felony, It will likely void the registration, and even if it does not, it is materially and deliberately changing the firearm into an unlawful configuration for which it could not be registered as an AW.

If it was unlawful to possess in that configuration prior to 1/1/2017, it is not eligible for registration in the first place.

If it would not have been eligible to be registered as AW, it will not and can not be possessed in that configuration. That is reflected in the AWCA prior history limiting possession after registration to only lawfully possessed firearms prior to designation as AW.

It's flawed reasoning and logic to believe that a weapon not lawfully possessed and not eligible for registration can now be possessed after registration merely because one registered as an AW. Felony does not give one a free pass.

Said flawed logic would entitle one to possess with a grenade and launcher, switch over to select fire, SBR, or std. magazine release after registering as an AW. It's an absurd notion, sorry.

Authority for 5477- PC 30900, and numerous statutes referenced.

flawed logic is saying a bb raw is a raw. a=b

by the very same token they dont want you to make your Bb RAW more RAW. so a does NOT equal b. Weird.

No one is arguing that the BB Ar was eligible to become a Raw in its configuration prior to 2017. But the weapon was lawfully possessed prior to this law. If you want to call a weapon a RAW, then it per their own definition, the Bb should be able to come off. Funny, how its my logic that is flawed.

Lets not argue about a judge invalidating registrations. funny how the DOJ could have put in their that removing the BB would invalidate the registration, but then again, they can't pass laws lol

[dieselpower]

flawed logic is saying a bb raw is a raw. a=b

by the very same token they dont want you to make your Bb RAW more RAW. so a does NOT equal b. Weird.

No one is arguing that the BB Ar was eligible to become a Raw in its configuration prior to 2017. But the weapon was lawfully possessed prior to this law. If you want to call a weapon a RAW, then it per their own definition, the Bb should be able to come off. Funny, how its my logic that is flawed.

Lets not argue about a judge invalidating registrations. funny how the DOJ could have put in their that removing the BB would invalidate the registration, but then again, they can't pass laws lol

what they (some guys here) are saying is that;
1- Regulations about registration apply to firearm not registered. They are wrong.
Regulations that were intended to govern actions on the registration of an AW cant create a new law nor can it be applied to a non-registered legally owned firearm.

2- Laws repealed / changed by current laws are still in valid. They are wrong. Once upon a time it was assumed certain actions turned your detachable magazine into a fixed magazine and certain actions to that assumed fixed magazine turned it back into a detachable magazine. All those assumptions have been invalidated.

If you read ifilef's legal trail and keep those things in mind, you see his mistakes.

[mikevipe]

Receipts for online sales? If they do that they are effectively banning registration.

The DROS date should be enough, but we will have to wait until the registration begins and people start getting rejected.

Correct me if I am wrong but I fail to see anywhere in the document any requirements of receipts of purchase, only asking of a date of purchase.

[Drew Eckhardt]

OK, I'll bite. Where can I find the "30605 would not apply since you owned that AW legally prior to the ban and you registered your AW" exception in the penal code?

PC 30680

30680. Section 30605 does not apply to the possession of an assault weapon by a person who has possessed the assault weapon prior to January 1, 2017, if all of the following are applicable:
(a) Prior to January 1, 2017, the person was eligible to register that assault weapon pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 30900.
(b) The person lawfully possessed that assault weapon prior to January 1, 2017.
(c) The person registers the assault weapon by January 1, 2018, in accordance with subdivision (b) of Section 30900.

[bob.dakeelstripe]

Oh, this is absolutely ridiculous.

What code section will you be charged with?
What code section will you be charged with?What code section will you be charged with?What code section will you be charged with?What code section will you be charged with?What code section will you be charged with?What code section will you be charged with?What code section will you be charged with?What code section will you be charged with?

Out of here.

Won't you be charge with altering a RAW making the registration Void thus making you in possession of an AW which is a felony wich will put you in your the poke you in the butt clink ?

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[Drew Eckhardt]

I'm curious as to why people suddenly question the legality of the raddlock or prince 50?

DOJ could believe that a Raddlock doesn't require a tool when not installed with red thread lock, the same way they decided that California compliant Tavors measuring 30.5" are only 26.1" long because their muzzle brakes weren't welded in place.

In both cases tools are required to go between configurations which were compliant and non compliant interpreting law according to its plain English meaning.

If DOJ always held that belief but had yet to assert it in court, such guns were not lawfully possessed, could not be registered, PC 30680 would not apply, and the registration process would provide photographic evidence of a PC 30605 violation which can be prosecuted as a felony.

Since DOJ never approves anything like BATF's technical branch we have no way of knowing.

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?

DOJ isn't requiring photographic evidence of potential felonies committed by featureless rifle owners who believe they're doing nothing illegal.

With compliance parts in the field you only have a problem in the unlikely event law enforcement decides to look at you, believes there's an issue, and the government agrees there's a problem. The registration process means there's a 100% chance of government scrutiny.

[WeStayClean]

Won't you be charge with altering a RAW making the registration Void thus making you in possession of an AW which is a felony wich will put you in your the poke you in the butt clink ?

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

What PC section is making a RAW more RAW?

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

my argument is that the penal code 30605 would not apply since you owned that AW legally prior to the ban and you registered your AW.

What shields you from PC 30605 in 2017 before you register? Are you saying you are unprotected until you register?

[bob.dakeelstripe]

What PC section is making a RAW more RAW?

Back on the hamster wheel we go ...



Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[WeStayClean]

Back on the hamster wheel we go ...



Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

You just said you'd be charged for altering a RAW. You can't be charged with something that doesn't exist smart guy.

The intent of the bill was to register BB ARs as RAWs. Thats it.