MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

[kelvin232]

Yeah, not sure where the idea that you cannot change "features" came from

Boot lickers and sheep.

[bigstick61]

California does not allow the possession of SBR/SBS/Suppressors without also having a Dangerous Weapons permit.

As a private, civilian, non-FFL, you are not going to get a DWP.
Yes, SBR is a separate category that falls separately from AW laws.

<30" is an AW, <26" (or less than 16" barrel) is SBR.
All SBRs would be California AW, but not all California AW are SBR.

Not entirely true. C&R SBRs don't require a DWP. There do exist semi-auto SBRs that use detachable mags that don't run afoul of the AWB, but they are collector's items that cost a lot of money (like the Gustloff Volkssturmgewehr). But as older semi-autos start to qualify for C&R status, there may be instances where something more can be SBRed without making an AW. It would, I'm sure, depend on the design. It's possible with some designs and not others.

Regarding NFA stuff, there are also exceptions to the need for a DWP for C&R SBSs and DDs under .60-calibre. I think there is also one for AOWs.

[ifilef]

I mean, if we are going by that then the release mechanism is not a feature either. So why can one change out the hand guard or the rear sights but not the magazine release? How are these materially different? If you said you cannot change the pistol grip after you register it, well that is a "feature". That still makes no sense though, because what if at some point I want to de-register it? I have to change it, specifically the "features" to do that.

Magazine 'release mechanism' goes to the core of restrictions in the AWCA.

[dieselpower]

Expressly stated as a detachable magazine (prohibited) pursuant to 5471(m), second paragraph.

and again, you are reading things not in the regulation so striked out the error for you. yes that is defined as a detachable magazine in 5471 definitions number (m).

in 5477 prohibited acts after registration is changing the release mechanism.

So I couldnt go from a BB to a regular release or completely remove the release itself.

No where does it say a BB is not a detachable magazine, only that it is a release device which requires a tool and its not a fixed magazine.

[ifilef]

and again, you are reading things not in the regulation so striked out the error for you. yes that is defined as a detachable magazine in 5471 definitions number (m).

in 5477 prohibited acts after registration is changing the release mechanism.

So I couldnt go from a BB to a regular release or completely remove the release itself.

No where does it say a BB is not a detachable magazine, only that it is a release device which requires a tool and its not a fixed magazine.

You need to seriously check your reading comprehension of 5471(m) and if you understood the rationale by designating a BB as NOT a detachable magazine, it might be helpful to you, because if it were a detachable magazine it could not be registered as an AW.

Better stated, a BB DOES NOT FIT within the definition of a detachable magazine as stated in 5471(m), nor in its predecessor regulation 5469.

SACF featured weapons with detachable magazines were last lawfully possessed prior to 2000 and the registration period for those expired in that year, or 2001, don't recall. Authority: SB23.

Felony to possess now or after you register your BB'd rifle. Authority: SB23, see: https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/genchar2. Reference: PC 30900, 30505, 30600, 30605, perhaps more.

[ceedubG]

Ok, so after reading thru about 1500 posts (I skipped pages 30 - 55. Was too much, couldn't handle one million circular arguments), this is the conclusion I've come to:

1. It's unclear if we can remove BB before registering.
I've read arguments from both sides, and to me personally, an AW is an AW. Since Jan 1, 2017, your BB'ed AR became an AW just like any other AW. And assuming that you kept the BB on until end of 2016, you lawfully possessed your AR. I have yet to see a PC that says you have to keep the same "configuration". It's the same rifle with the same SN, and you lawfully owned it in 2016. But I understand if the prosecutor thinks different configuration = different rifle, you may be in for a long wild ride. So it's risky in the end

2. DOJ says we cant remove BB after registering, but no one knows what happens if you remove it anyway.
Maybe your registration will become void. Maybe nothing can happen and DOJ is just bluffing here. Who knows. But I dont want to be the first one to find out what happens.

3. Registering with a Radlock and turning the screw after registration seems like it should be OK, but also unsure.
The exact wording from DOJ is:
The release mechanism for an ammunition feeding device on an assault weapon registered pursuant to Penal Code section 30900, subdivision (b)(1) shall not be changed after the assault weapon is registered.
It's arguable if turning a screw constitutes a "change". To me, as it's the same parts and nothing is being swapped out, it's not considering "changing". But then again, just my opinion so who knows what DOJ/DAs will do in such cases. Also don't want to be the first one to find out.

DOJ created a s***storm. I'm just going to have to sit on the sidelines for a while and watch what happens next. At least we have a whole year to decide.

Seems well distilled to me....

I still don't know, if they argued a screw twist was a "change," how the hell they would know. Seems an impossible metric to measure.

[umd]

But to take it a little further then, in order to prove a "change" would they not have to know how far ive cranked down the Radlock screw?

Other than the position of the screw head (viewed with their stupid photo requirement) how would they EVER know or be able to prove that there was a change in the Radlock screw position?

I still don't know, if they argued a screw twist was a "change," how the hell they would know. Seems an impossible metric to measure.

The Raddlock makes it pretty obvious. You don't need to see the position of the screw, only the effect on the button as a whole, and whether or not it has room to travel in order to release. If the tabs (or the overhang for my lancer) are bottomed out on the receiver (or the O-rings), then it's in the locked position.

[ifilef]

Seems well distilled to me....

I still don't know, if they argued a screw twist was a "change," how the hell they would know. Seems an impossible metric to measure.

I think there may be a foundational issue with the Radlock as to whether it is indeed a BB (non-detachable magazine) or a magazine release (detachable magazine). I hope that outfit has good lawyers. I think it would have to be deemed one or the other. JMO.

[ceedubG]

The Raddlock makes it pretty obvious. You don't need to see the position of the screw, only the effect on the button as a whole, and whether or not it has room to travel in order to release. If the tabs (or the overhang for my lancer) are bottomed out on the receiver (or the O-rings), then it's in the locked position.

Good point, I guess I was assuming a photo would be taken from a straight down angle on the rifle.

So in order to see that extra room, one of the photos has to be at an angle or shot in a way as to see the depth of the radlock?

So many issues with this whole thing! aghhhhhhhhhhh!!!

-Cee

[ceedubG]

I think there may be a foundational issue with the Radlock as to whether it is indeed a BB (non-detachable magazine) or a magazine release (detachable magazine). I hope that outfit has good lawyers. I think it would have to be deemed one or the other. JMO.

I agree, but would have thought that the Radlock would have been addressed in the new proposed regulations already as "not compliant"

Seems a little late after all these years of use, to now say it's specifically not compliant.

[ifilef]

I agree, but would have thought that the Radlock would have been addressed in the new proposed regulations already as "not compliant"

Seems a little late after all these years of use, to now say it's specifically not compliant.

Depends upon how DOJ interpets 5471(m). I don't think the regs would specifically refer to a brand as 'non-compliant' for various legal reasons that do not merit any real discussion here.

BB'd rifles last year were not considered AW. Four days ago they were deemed to be AW. Things have changed a bit.

I think that Radlock will be facing some challenges, and those who try to register with them might have a problem. JMO.

I have nothing further to say about the matter.

[danez71]

Ok, so after reading thru about 1500 posts (I skipped pages 30 - 55. Was too much, couldn't handle one million circular arguments), this is the conclusion I've come to:

1. It's unclear if we can remove BB before registering.
I've read arguments from both sides, and to me personally, an AW is an AW. Since Jan 1, 2017, your BB'ed AR became an AW just like any other AW. And assuming that you kept the BB on until end of 2016, you lawfully possessed your AR. I have yet to see a PC that says you have to keep the same "configuration". It's the same rifle with the same SN, and you lawfully owned it in 2016. But I understand if the prosecutor thinks different configuration = different rifle, you may be in for a long wild ride. So it's risky in the end

2. DOJ says we cant remove BB after registering, but no one knows what happens if you remove it anyway.
Maybe your registration will become void. Maybe nothing can happen and DOJ is just bluffing here. Who knows. But I dont want to be the first one to find out what happens.

3. Registering with a Radlock and turning the screw after registration seems like it should be OK, but also unsure.
The exact wording from DOJ is:
The release mechanism for an ammunition feeding device on an assault weapon registered pursuant to Penal Code section 30900, subdivision (b)(1) shall not be changed after the assault weapon is registered.
It's arguable if turning a screw constitutes a "change". To me, as it's the same parts and nothing is being swapped out, it's not considering "changing". But then again, just my opinion so who knows what DOJ/DAs will do in such cases. Also don't want to be the first one to find out.

DOJ created a s***storm. I'm just going to have to sit on the sidelines for a while and watch what happens next. At least we have a whole year to decide.

In regard to #1, while you think an AW Iis an AW, imo, the BB rifle wasn't considered an AW back then.... they allowed it and AB 23 shows that in the history docs. We shall see at some point I guess.

#2 I largely agree with.

#3 I don't have enough of an opinion to saybeither way but it seems a little dicey on the surface given CA.

[-aK-]

...snip...
I have nothing further to say about the matter.

In before he's back.

[ifilef]

In before he's back.

Stop trolling. It's unbecoming.

[djhall]

So that's how it is during the grace period, you get arrested for AW possession (AW with bullet button), then they drop the charges if you register on time? No protection until you register? Everyone who hasn't registered yet is violating PC 30605?

Not sure if it's relevant to the point you are trying to make, but my closest literal interpretation of the text of 30680 is that you are protected from charges for 2017 possession of a BB AW only if you actually do register.

If you have possession of a 2017 definition AW in 2017, convert to featureless prior to 1/1/18, and don't register then I don't see how the text of 30680 protects you from being charged for your unregistered possession in 2017. Condition C clearly says "registers by 1/1/18", and you didn't register. Admittedly, we wouldn't be able know if you are guilty or not until 1/1/18, but that is well within the statute of limitations for filing charges.