MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

[jrr]

Its fun hashing all these arguments out. But a couple observations are in order.

1. There are people in this thread who a month ago were making earnest arguments that they were 100% sure were correct, to the point of name calling against anyone who disagreed, who are now proven 100% wrong. They are now in this thread making arguments that they are equally sure about. Keep that in mind before you make legal decisions based on anonymous posts on the internet.

2. Its easy to look good if you take the position that the legislature and doj are correct and offer vague assertions about arguments to the contrary. This is freaking California. Assuming we don't lose at the district level, we lose at the appellate court. If by some miracle we win at the 9th in a panel decision, the case somehow manages to be one of the 1-2% of cases that go en banc and we get reversed. So recipe for looking like a legal genius? Step 1."Doj is within their authority. Your argument is wrong and I won't tell you why." Step 2. Profit.

[arrowshooter]

Infinite Warfare delivers three unique game modes Total BS, WTF and GTFO: Campaign returns to the stone age controlled by DOJ franchise, while boldly looking ahead we have taken many steps backwards. Multiplayer delivers the future of warfare..um NOT, with many new gameplay restrictions. And the DOJ Zombies mode takes players on a wild ride through a new restrictive BS with unique gameplay features and mechanics that will make you hate the very thought of owning a LEGAL firearm.

UPDATE AS OF JANUARY 4, 2017: The ability to use an Assault Weapon in this video game pursuant to Assembly Bill 666 and Senate Bill 666, is now available. Pursuant to COD 666 and all other COD releases, Video Game Assault Weapon PS4 registration regulations must be effective before any registrations can take them home. At this time, the regulations are still pending, however they should be effective in the very near future.

Please continue to check the Bureau of Video Game Firearms website for updates. Each COD Case must have a CA Compliant Disk release button. Senate Bill 666. Each COD Disk must be registered with the CA-DOJ as an assault Disk with HD quality photos of the CA Compliant Disk release button. Senate Bill 666.d
All firearms in the COD Video Game must undergo a 10 day waiting period for each firearm used.

All players must have a CA-DOJ approved eye examination before looking through the virtual optics on any assault riffles and all single and multi-players must have all controllers fixed Each COD CA Compliant USB cable release button. Senate Bill 666.

Any military characters used in any of the COD Warfare games must at all time carry their DD214 and military service record on a CA Compliant USB jump drive with a USB release button. Senate Bill 666

LOL, ya never know.

[jelliottness]

Exactly

LOL, ya never know.

Hey man whos to say they haven't already thought of the BS man lol

[Sousuke]

Not saying this changes any major interpretations but technically....

alot of people are saying that their BB firearm became an AW on January 1st 2017. I read the PC saying the BB firearm is and was retroactively a lawful assault weapon all the way back to 2001.

[Redeyedrider]

#1- I don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

#2- This reg does not conform to 30900(b)(1) and 30680 statutory language.

#3- I don't look a gift horse in the mouth.
---------------
As an aside- when the topic of switching to a standard mag release came up in July, I was one of the first to state that I could not imagine DOJ permitting us to go from BB to mag release. And there were those who said. 'An AW is an AW, you can't make it 'assaultier'. Moreover, there were those who stated that we should not even have to register first and make the switch because the new law did not differentiate between BB and mag release.

[Redeyedrider]

Its fun hashing all these arguments out. But a couple observations are in order.

1. There are people in this thread who a month ago were making earnest arguments that they were 100% sure were correct, to the point of name calling against anyone who disagreed, who are now proven 100% wrong. They are now in this thread making arguments that they are equally sure about.

.

Ain't that a fat honking load of TRUTH!

Edit to add............ I won't mention any names because you might get reported if you start being too brutally honest about the stink they caused on, what seems like, every thread regarding RAW and Featureless. What a steaming pile of you know what!

[CandG]

Ain't that a fat honking load of TRUTH!

Edit to add............ I won't mention any names because you might get reported if you start being too brutally honest about the stink they caused on, what seems like, every thread regarding RAW and Featureless. What a steaming pile of you know what!

Those who said the DOJ can't invent new laws to add to the PC after the fact, weren't necessarily wrong. Nobody (that I saw) ever made the claim that the DOJ wouldn't just go ahead and do it anyways. Just that's it's outside of their authority. I still believe that to be the case. Unfortunately, who's going to stop them? Their poker buddies? They are above the law, and we're pretty much sitting ducks for the time being.

Did the PC exempt the DOJ from APA rules with regards to how they handle the registration process? It appears so, but it also says it was limited to the scope of the registration process itself. So they DO NOT have the authority to create new crimes that are completely unrelated to the registration process. The are completely out of their bounds to proclaim what we can and can't do before we submit our registration or after we get our registration confirmation. Period. Their task was to create a registration system, and even disregard the APA if they want with regards to the registration process, but that's it.

[jason el magnifico]

The contemptuousness of these people.... "Neutered rifles are now considered the same as fully-functioning ones under the law (itself an offensive concept), but don't you dare convert them to fully-functioning state because well duhh obviously neutered rifles aren't the same as fully functioning. Suckaz"

They made damn sure not to let all us peasants who actually care about following the law "get away" with restoring full functionality, and in the process left us with or created questions such as (some redundant with previous posters, I know):

1.) Did I miss it or are we without clarity on whether or not transporting a 2016-legal 2017 "bullet buttoned assault weapon" to the range is covered by the same exemption that possession is? Can I go shooting tomorrow without committing a crime?

2.) If I change out every component of a bullet-buttoned AR *except* the magazine catch/bullet button mag release, have a I created a different assault weapon?

2a.)If for whatever reason I have contact with an LEO will I be risk for legal trouble if the configuration of my rifle, other than the method of magazine release, does not match that which I provided when registering?

2b.) I forget, other than loaded-status checks when found to be transporting in an automobile, am I at any other time legally required to let a LEO inspect or handle my firearms (assuming I'm not already being investigated for a crime)? If observed possessing a BB-AW at a range or perhaps BLM land, am I obligated to let a LEO run my rifle's S/N to check if it's registered?

4.) If a person with a registered pre-2000 AW replaces the standard magazine release with a bullet button, has he/she created a different AW? How would you interpret this under the current law?

5.) My bullet-buttoned Tavor X-95 (bought in 2016) has a 30.5" OAL with a factory pinned muzzle device on its 18.5" barrel. If I register it, then have the barrel cut down and replace the muzzle device so that it's not an SBR but is below 30.5" OAL, is the registration at risk? Did I create a new/different assault weapon?

Finally, the enigma of Fabio Gets Goosed! :

- I believe/recall has admitted to being an attorney?, but would not seem to be one of the pro-gun rights attorneys active in this state

- obvious interest in and knowledge of CA firearms law

- astute legal mind, has been validated by being proven correct in numerous predictions and debates

- apparent only interest on this forum is to mock and rip apart the legal arguments of the pro-gun rights side, but in doing so serves as an adversarial "red team" which is a net-positive

-does so with a demeanor that suggests he/she enjoys the thrill of the taunt more than actually effecting success for our side

- I am sure he/she knows that knocking down weak reasoning helps our cause overall, but to my knowledge does not assist otherwise

- to my knowledge, is not active on any of the other sub-forums, is actively interested only in CA firearms law.

- to my knowledge is not an admitted gun owner

Overall an interesting cat. I wish I knew what his/her true motivations are and I wish that those motivations were the success of the pro-gun rights cause.

So anyways, can I take my bullet button off? haha

[tninety]

And what's the penalty for that?

A guilty conscience that you violated some liberals' feelings

[nicky c]

5.) My bullet-buttoned Tavor X-95 (bought in 2016) has a 30.5" OAL with a factory pinned muzzle device on its 18.5" barrel. If I register it, then have the barrel cut down and replace the muzzle device so that it's not an SBR but is below 30.5" OAL, is the registration at risk? Did I create a new/different assault weapon?

Your X95 came with an 18.5" barrel? With the muzzle device pinned from the factory?

[jason el magnifico]

Your X95 came with an 18.5" barrel? With the muzzle device pinned from the factory?

Yeah it's the "Restricted State" model.

[CandG]

The pictures are to

• Provide evidence to convict you of violating 11 CFR 5477

And what's the penalty for that?

A guilty conscience that you violated some liberals' feelings

No but seriously... the way I see it, it would be a violation of a regulation which wouldn't carry any penalty in this case because there is no PC text associated with it to back it up. So honestly, from my IANAL perspective, I don't see how violating this would be any worse than just hurting someone's feelings.

[nicky c]

Yeah it's the "Restricted State" model.

Huh.. Didn't realize the IWI had an available X95 with 18" barrel. Good to know that this barrel option should be around down the line.

[walmart_ar15]

Not sure already discussed (not going to scan 63 pages) was not there a statue after Harrott v. County of Kings (2001) that DOJ is no longer in the business of defining what is considered an AW?

This time around the regulation "patched" what is considered "fixed" but it did not spec out a new cataglory of AW. So there is still only 3. DOJ cannot add a new one. Thus, the so called BBAW does not exist, it's just AW.

So if there is no BBAW then there cannot be a BBRAW. So after register, there is only RAW. There is no restriction on how one detach a mag from a RAW. What am I missing here?

[one9kilo]

Too much to read and not enough time to read it. This thread is moving too fast.

Summary(?)
11 CFR 5477 says you CAN NOT change magazine release (remove BB for std).

At this point in the thread, it's not about removing the BB, but more about whether they can mandate that.

Can someone better summarize the thread (minus the bickering)?