MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

[FatalKitty]

Article 3 5472(c)

"The department will not register a firearm as an Assault Weapon if the firearm is featureless."

The Department will not register a featureless rifle.

oh

damn, missed that

[Wiz-of-Awd]

oh

damn, missed that

Kinda' obvious really, that one could not register an AW, that is not an AW.

A.W.D.

[IVC]

Kinda' obvious really, that one could not register an AW, that is not an AW.

Careful with the "obvious" - here we are pushing 3K posts to discuss what should have been obvious.

[meno377]

The bill would also define “fixed magazine” to mean 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.

This may have been mentioned before, but I don't have the time to go through 64 pages as of this post LOL.

I am confused how they can redefine the definition of a fixed magazine, but not add a new category. If they do add a new category, then my understanding is that you can’t remove your bullet button after you register. But if they don’t, how do they differentiate a bullet button AR to a regular magazine release AR under the law? Technically they are different, but I don’t see a bullet button as an added feature under the new law.

[lrdchivalry]

So you think you can swap out BB for standard release after registration because your rifle is already a AW, and that there are no "categories" of AW?

By that reason of thinking, you should be able to buy a .50 BMG upper for that AW of yours. See how well that goes over.

First off .50 BMG is a different weapon covered under different laws, just as full auto weapons are covered under different laws, therefore, is a very poor example.

30515 is the law that BB rifles now fall under, they are AW's by feature, no where in that PC does it prohibit the post registration modification of AW's.

The bone of contention centers around the issue of regulation 5477 that states you cannot remove your "release mechanism" post registration. A lot of people here, myself included, believe that the DOJ submitting that regulation has overstepped their authority and created law, something they do not have the authority to do.

DOJ was granted the authority in the PC (30900(b)(1)) to create regulations to facilitate the registration of now banned rifles nothing more. To add in 5477 over steps their authority granted to them in the PC.

[ojisan]

Do you realize a 6 shot revolver with more than 1 bullet in it is a High Capacity magazine under the definitions set in law?

Can you explain / expand on this?

[edwardm]

First off .50 BMG is a different weapon covered under different laws, just as full auto weapons are covered under different laws, therefore, is a very poor example.

30515 is the law that BB rifles now fall under, they are AW's by feature, no where in that PC does it prohibit the post registration modification of AW's.

The bone of contention centers around the issue of regulation 5477 that states you cannot remove your "release mechanism" post registration. A lot of people here, myself included, believe that the DOJ submitting that regulation has overstepped their authority and created law, something they do not have the authority to do.

DOJ was granted the authority in the PC (30900(b)(1)) to create regulations to facilitate the registration of now banned rifles nothing more. To add in 5477 over steps their authority granted to them in the PC.

There are two questions we need to be asking. One is being asked here in various ways, but the other I haven't seen yet.

The first is whether the statute now allows CalDOJ to register an AW subject to conditions, i.e. the non-removal of the BB.

The second is corollary to the first, that is whether CalDOJ maintains regulatory power over RAWs, other than the de-registration of RAWs, after a registration is received and processed.

I'm not arguing that a state agency cannot continually regulate something, but in all the legislation I have seen where ongoing regulatory authority is granted, certain language is used indicating so. I saw no such language in SB-880/AB-1135.

It is apparent that what CalDOJ is 'worried' about is thousands of rifles and pistols suddenly having the exact same capabilities as an SB-23 RAW, by way of owners having exploited a flaw in SB-23 and the Harrot decision to get around the initial limitations. They don't want to lose that battle, so their solution is to say the release mechanism must remain unchanged.

The problem is that you then face an arbitrary and capricious act on the part of CalDOJ (due process issue), which is one litigation avenue. You also have the underground regulation approach as well.

Where CalDOJ's only argument is going to center, in so many words, on "lethality", competent counsel should show the court the whole list of SB-23 features, indicating a judgement call by the legislature that any *one* of those features increases the "lethality" of the firearm. To pick one feature out of so many is arbitrary and without basis. There are many hypotheticals that can explore this apples-to-oranges false distinction, but that comes later.

Also, for those that remember the days before the BB existed, going to a DFM-configured firearm (where possible), basically puts you back in the same situation many endured with the Prince50 maglock. It was suboptimal, but it could be grudgingly managed.

[Wiz-of-Awd]

Careful with the "obvious" - here we are pushing 3K posts to discuss what should have been obvious.

Yes, there is that.

A.W.D.

[lrdchivalry]

There are two questions we need to be asking. One is being asked here in various ways, but the other I haven't seen yet.

The first is whether the statute now allows CalDOJ to register an AW subject to conditions, i.e. the non-removal of the BB.

The second is corollary to the first, that is whether CalDOJ maintains regulatory power over RAWs, other than the de-registration of RAWs, after a registration is received and processed.

I'm not arguing that a state agency cannot continually regulate something, but in all the legislation I have seen where ongoing regulatory authority is granted, certain language is used indicating so. I saw no such language in SB-880/AB-1135.

It is apparent that what CalDOJ is 'worried' about is thousands of rifles and pistols suddenly having the exact same capabilities as an SB-23 RAW, by way of owners having exploited a flaw in SB-23 and the Harrot decision to get around the initial limitations. They don't want to lose that battle, so their solution is to say the release mechanism must remain unchanged.

The problem is that you then face an arbitrary and capricious act on the part of CalDOJ (due process issue), which is one litigation avenue. You also have the underground regulation approach as well.

Where CalDOJ's only argument is going to center, in so many words, on "lethality", competent counsel should show the court the whole list of SB-23 features, indicating a judgement call by the legislature that any *one* of those features increases the "lethality" of the firearm. To pick one feature out of so many is arbitrary and without basis. There are many hypotheticals that can explore this apples-to-oranges false distinction, but that comes later.

Also, for those that remember the days before the BB existed, going to a DFM-configured firearm (where possible), basically puts you back in the same situation many endured with the Prince50 maglock. It was suboptimal, but it could be grudgingly managed.

Well said!

[FatalKitty]

Careful with the "obvious" - here we are pushing 3K posts to discuss what should have been obvious.

i didn't think it was - you could voluntarily register long guns before the requirement if you so chose - given that they probably want as many of these "dangerous" guns in their books as possible with as many restrictions as possible - you could register a seamingly "safe" mini 14 ranch as an assault rifle

[Clif]

The bone of contention centers around the issue of regulation 5477 that states you cannot remove your "release mechanism" post registration. A lot of people here, myself included, believe that the DOJ submitting that regulation has overstepped their authority and created law, something they do not have the authority to do.

That is your opinion, as well as mine, but do you think the DOJ just likes wasting paper? Do you believe the wrote those regs and have absolutely no intention of doing anything about it? You might ask "what can they do?" Look at pages 20-35, and there are many avenues of prosecution.

DOJ was granted the authority in the PC (30900(b)(1)) to create regulations to facilitate the registration of now banned rifles nothing more. To add in 5477 over steps their authority granted to them in the PC.

That is of YOUR OPINION. Your opinion is not what will keep people out of prison. It is of MY OPINION that the Judicial System will see 5477 as an interpretation of the intent of SB 880, thus upheld. My opinion will keep law abinging citizens out of prison fighting for the 2A rights. You want people to disregard 5477 and blatently go against the regs, possibly commit felonies, which then gets all 2A rights stripped away, plus prison time.

[IVC]

i didn't think it was - you could voluntarily register long guns before the requirement if you so chose - given that they probably want as many of these "dangerous" guns in their books as possible with as many restrictions as possible - you could register a seamingly "safe" mini 14 ranch as an assault rifle

You can always duct-tape an empty toilet paper role to the bottom of the stock and voila, you have an AW.

In their "infinite wisdom" they forgot to think about people actually wanting to add an artificial pistol grip. Most of the time it's a device that is designed *not to be* a pistol grip.

[lrdchivalry]

You want people to disregard 5477 and blatently go against the regs, possibly commit felonies, which then gets all 2A rights stripped away, plus prison time.

I never said that, so don't put words into my mouth.

[Clif]

Do you realize a 6 shot revolver with more than 1 bullet in it is a High Capacity magazine under the definitions set in law?

Either you are joking, or you do not understand the new laws, or how a revolver works.

[IVC]

That is your opinion, as well as mine, but do you think the DOJ just likes wasting paper? Do you believe the wrote thoes regs and have absolutely no intention of doing anything about it?

Interpretation is an opinion, but stating that DOJ doesn't have authority to create law is a fact. To the extent they created a law, as needs to be determined by a court, it's unenforceable.

Your opinion is not what will keep people out of prison. It is of MY OPINION that the Judicial System will see 5477 as an interpretation of the intent of SB 880, thus upheld. My opinion will keep law abinging citizens out of prison fighting for the 2A rights. You want people to disregard 5477 and blatently go against the regs, possibly commit felonies, which then gets all 2A rights stripped away, plus prison time.

Well, you can say that your opinion is that people shouldn't have any semi-auto rifles that we would call EBRs since the legislative intent is to prevent us from possessing them. Even featureless rifles are a workaround - they look as evil as any other rifle. The same goes for BB - it was a workaround too.

The question is how far should we push in light of regulation that doesn't pass the smell test. Stay completely clear? Explore gray areas? Push the limit and if prosecuted, go for the overturn of the likely illegal regulation? Wait and see for our attorneys come up with in the next week or two?

Would you be surprised if our side got an injunction against "post registration regulation," which in turn would enable us to remove BBs immediately?