MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

[onelonehorseman]

I am assuming since its after 1/1/2017 all my BB guns are now assault rifles. So I can take of the BB and register them with out a BB when I am able to.

Is there a law I am missing?

Ummmmmm . . .Not sure if serious . . . . but the 2400+ posts, in this thread before yours, should convince you that what you're suggesting is not a good idea.

[ifilef]

At least prior to registration. There are *other* penal codes that exempt RAW owners from AW prosecution and which are NOT connected to the recent SB 880.

So, in your view the so-called exemptions are ABSOLUTE without exception?

Can you think of a fact scenario where a defendant would not be able to successfully avail himself of such exemption(s)?

[danez71]

That's pretty much it.

The question for our attorneys is whether/how to challenge DOJ overstepping the authority granted to them in 30900(b)(5), while the question for the rest of us is whether to play along, risk of prosecution and how we would defend against it.

However, there is a more interesting angle brought up by Fiddletown (an attorney) in another thread. His initial though was that violating the DOJ regulation would affect the registration. Now, we know that it cannot be rescinded, but the question is whether the DOJ can create a scheme where they claim registration is valid only as long as the rifle is in configuration they want it to be. This is not supported by PC where they are tasked with implementing "a registration," but stranger things have happened. This is also NOT how the DOJ drafted their regulation, so it's a big stretch at this time.

The point is that there are competing hypotheses even in the "they can ban standard release" camp. Some are based solely on PCs, some are a combination of PCs and Regs.

That is one of the things I brought up days ago as a possibility.

Remember.... this is CA. They will find a way to rationalize their predetermined decision.


I don't feel its a huge stretch at all in light of past rulings. If fact, I feel its an easy out for them to make that ruling and let it get appealed and reaffirmed.

[foxtrotuniformlima]

It's clear that removing the bb on a featured weapon is asking for trouble and in no way worth the risk.

[IVC]

I don't feel its a huge stretch at all in light of past rulings. If fact, I feel its an easy out for them to make that ruling and let it get appealed and reaffirmed.

The problem is that DOJ is executive branch, while the lawmakers are the legislative branch. Rules the DOJ makes are not exactly "an extension" of the law, but "interpretation" of the law - there are some fundamental limits to what rules can do, especially in this case where the authority is explicitly granted to implement rules for *registration* (not what happens afterwards, etc.).

[frontline1985]

MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

Hopefully this will shed some light. Scheduled for Tuesday.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20170104/california-free-webinar-on-the-new-assault-weapon-regulations

[IVC]

So, in your view the so-called exemptions are ABSOLUTE without exception?

Yup, if one satisfies conditions of an exemption than whatever the person is exempt from is, well, what the person is exempt from.

Can you think of a fact scenario where a defendant would not be able to successfully avail himself of such exemption(s)?

Only if the conditions of the exemption are not satisfied. Otherwise the lawmakers should modify the exemption such that it doesn't apply in cases the legislators want to exclude.

[Ldo]

If I'm converting my complete AR that I bought in 2016 to a featureless rifle, do I still need to take pictures and submit to DOJ as deregistering an AW? Or do I have to keep it as is, register and then deregister?

[FirstTimer]

Not only do you have the great privelege of "handling a BB rifle at home" but now DOJ can raid you anything time they want (compliance check)

Regarding a requirement to waive your 4th amendment rights as a condition of registering, I read the regs carefully looking for exactly that because that would be a deal-breaker and effectively my eviction notice from the People's Republic of California. Was wallabing overstating or speculating, or is there a no-warrant search provision that I missed?

[kelvin232]

EdiT: obviously there's a year "grace" period or whatever we're calling it. but by the letter of the law, we all have Cat-3 AWs (features ban) right now.

For the 200th time. There are no AW categories. Just AWs that qualify for the 3rd open registration. Stop using stupid vocabulary that doesn't exist anywhere in the law.

[IVC]

There is compliance check, but for different entities. Not applicable in this case.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

At least prior to registration. There are *other* penal codes that exempt RAW owners from AW prosecution and which are NOT connected to the recent SB 880.

I'd be really concerned if I had an unregistered AW with bullet button right now, it's an assault weapon, I'm possessing it, and it hasn't been registered!

[JackRydden224]

Right now everyone is in limbo, including LE, because the DOJ can't get their stuff together. The way I see it is:

=>BB'ed rifle is an AW
==>With no registration possible I have an unregistered AW
===>Possession of unregistered AW is a felony

That is true.

You will have to decide for yourself.

Perhaps one may be the type of person to wait and see if LE is directed via a Bulletin from DOJ advising not to enforce during 2017 with certain specified exceptions.

I don't think that's necessary because there are no grounds to enforce until 2018, in my opinion, and it would wreak absolute havoc on law-abiding gun owners and would result in a plethora of civil rights lawsuits against LE.

Sign up for the webinar (scheduled for next Tuesday at noon) to find out what M&A have to say about it.

[kelvin232]

Right now everyone is in limbo, including LE, because the DOJ can't get their stuff together. The way I see it is:

=>BB'ed rifle is an AW
==>With no registration possible I have an unregistered AW
===>Possession of unregistered AW is a felony

The ACTUAL law provided a 1 year grace period. No felony.

[Adobe]

Right now everyone is in limbo, including LE, because the DOJ can't get their stuff together. The way I see it is:

=>BB'ed rifle is an AW
==>With no registration possible I have an unregistered AW
===>Possession of unregistered AW is a felony

This is what I was referring to in my post earlier.

All BB rifles are now an AW. Since the only AW law written and interpretation AW without BB's. Shouldn't we be able to take off BB's?