The STOP SB 249 (Yee) Campaign: Moves fwd to Appropriations Cmte - Back to Work!!

[hoffmang]

So fixed magazines aren't non-detachable any more?

That a fixed magazine is non-detachable doesn't necessarily mean the reverse is true.

Peter.Steele - Let's assume your interpretation is correct. Tell me why the only viable interpretation of this law is not that the only device this law bans is the Pederson Device as it doesn't even ban the mag magnent?

Now, riddle me this. Assume I own only two rifles - one fully featured with a bullet button and one featureless with a monsterman grip. Why isn't the featureless rifle a conversion kit that would turn my BB rifle into an SB-23 AW? It is a combination of parts that would take my fixed magazine rifle (if we assume that issue) and turn it into an AW. Don't get me started about the SKS "detachable" magazine kits that no one who owns is aware are about to become felonies...

Otherwise, when you've put a mag magnent on there is no time when there exists a fixed magazine rifle that can be converted because it becomes unfixed the moment the mag magnent is attached. I mean, at this level of technicality a BB equipped rifle is not fixed or non-detachable while the bullet is depressing it...

-Gene

[hornswaggled]

All signed up. Thanks!

[wildhawker]

Are you sure they do? I'm not saying they don't, but it's early and I believe we have an opportunity to stop the bill.

Note that the process so far (post May 22 amend) has been a function of rules, not moving parties.

And this is all from the team that developed the AW Flowchart yet claims that the California AWB is facially vague...

No, a team of volunteers developed the flowchart. And, frankly, given the state of the laws and DOJ's refusal to train or produce accurate information (or remove old/inaccurate information from the public domain), I think the flowchart has done a fine job of minimizing California gun owners' exposure to criminal liability. Don't you?

-Brandon

[Peter.Steele]

That a fixed magazine is non-detachable doesn't necessarily mean the reverse is true.

Peter.Steele - Let's assume your interpretation is correct. Tell me why the only viable interpretation of this law is not that the only device this law bans is the Pederson Device as it doesn't even ban the mag magnent?

My familiarity with the Pedersen is somewhat limited, but so far as I can tell, a 1903 with a Pedersen is still featureless. No AW has been created. You still might have issues with the 40-round magazine, but that's not an AW issue - the magazine isn't fixed.

[EDIT FOR AMPLIFICATION: Rethought this a little. The 1903 is a "fixed magazine" weapon, to which you are adding a 40 round magazine, via the Pedersen. HOWEVER, since a magazine is an "ammunition feeding device," and the 1903's fixed magazine is incapable of feeding ammunition while the Pedersen device is installed, it shouldn't be an issue any more than a disassembled 30-round Pmag in your closet is. The 40-round magazine for the Pedersen becomes the only functional "ammunition feeding device," and since it's detachable there is no issue about <10 rounds in a fixed-mag weapon. Aside from that, the weapon is still featureless. Therefore, the Pedersen device is not banned by SB249 as is currently written.]

Now, riddle me this. Assume I own only two rifles - one fully featured with a bullet button and one featureless with a monsterman grip. Why isn't the featureless rifle a conversion kit that would turn my BB rifle into an SB-23 AW? It is a combination of parts that would take my fixed magazine rifle (if we assume that issue) and turn it into an AW.

Stipulating the "fixed" issue, your featureless rifle - with its associated parts - does not meet the test to be considered a conversion kit. A fully assembled rifle is not a collection of parts "designed and intended" to make another rifle an AW, and it's certainly not "solely and exclusively" intended to do so.

You might as well argue that someone who had a 1965 Mustang in their garage is intending to use it as a conversion kit to make their 1988 5.0 violate emissions standards.

Don't get me started about the SKS "detachable" magazine kits that no one who owns is aware are about to become felonies...

Yep. Already thought about that one.

Otherwise, when you've put a mag magnent on there is no time when there exists a fixed magazine rifle that can be converted because it becomes unfixed the moment the mag magnent is attached.

But it was a fixed magazine until you "affixed" a "part or combination of parts" to it. Ergo, conversion kit.

I mean, at this level of technicality a BB equipped rifle is not fixed or non-detachable while the bullet is depressing it...

-Gene

This is true. BUT you're detaching it in a way explicitly consistent with the law, ridiculous as it is.

[SilverTauron]

I wish you guys could see this thread with an out-of-state perspective. It is a travesty that legal citizens spanning all walks of life are reduced to bickering over part attachements to a rifle!

[hoffmang]

Stipulating the "fixed" issue, your featureless rifle - with its associated parts - does not meet the test to be considered a conversion kit. A fully assembled rifle is not a collection of parts "designed and intended" to make another rifle an AW, and it's certainly not "solely and exclusively" intended to do so.

You might as well argue that someone who had a 1965 Mustang in their garage is intending to use it as a conversion kit to make their 1988 5.0 violate emissions standards.

So skip the whole rifle. Is a standard mag release button and a spare pistol grip parts "designed and intended" to make another "once fixed" rifle an AW? A standard magazine release button is "solely and exclusively" intended to make a rifle or pistol a detachable magazine semiautomatic centerfire pistol or rifle.

-Gene

[MontClaire]

So skip the whole rifle. Is a standard mag release button and a spare pistol grip parts "designed and intended" to make another "once fixed" rifle an AW? A standard magazine release button is "solely and exclusively" intended to make a rifle or pistol a detachable magazine semiautomatic centerfire pistol or rifle.

-Gene

Gene, this is so complicated for many of us here to understand. please sue them all already. please.

[Peter.Steele]

So skip the whole rifle. Is a standard mag release button and a spare pistol grip parts "designed and intended" to make another "once fixed" rifle an AW? A standard magazine release button is "solely and exclusively" intended to make a rifle or pistol a detachable magazine semiautomatic centerfire pistol or rifle.

-Gene

Yes, but that's not the point. A standard magazine release button is NOT able to be affixed to a FIXED MAGAZINE firearm. "Once fixed" or "used to be fixed" isn't what the plain - and very clear - language of SB249 says.

You know how it's always been said that we should attach the BB before we put the PG on our OLL builds? Same thing applies here. Once you've removed the BB (or other device) you no longer have a fixed magazine weapon, and if you affix your standard magazine release button to it and create an AW you're violating some other laws, but you're not running afoul of SB249.

[MontClaire]

I wish you guys could see this thread with an out-of-state perspective. It is a travesty that legal citizens spanning all walks of life are reduced to bickering over part attachements to a rifle!

This is not a laughing matter. Whatever state your in other than CA- if we fall, you guys are next.

[rbetts]

I see this campaign as a great way to generate revenue for Calguns Foundation. (Not a bad thing) I have read the law and don't begin to want to argue the vagueness of the proposed language. BUT, now that Ya'll have laid it out there for YEE and HIS TROLLS again. . . . . . Look for another change in the wording. . . . . . . .which may help or hurt our ultimate goal of removing the AW ban all together.

HERE IS THE GREATER TRUTH:

This is one huge chess game with the legal minds of the pro 2A movement in CA 3 steps ahead of us using our frenzied efforts for our ultimate benefit (here in I trust). This campaign is a bold attack on the enemies offensive. Yee is just a pawn in the bigger play. Pain may be ahead, but might be worth it in the long run.

You guys better know what your are doing, and I certainly hope that Michel, Davis AND GURA are bought and paid for for this hunt.

That being said, Anybody need lowers and bullet buttons? We are flush and ready to feed your addictions!

Warmly and with a vested interest,

[BIGDOG805]

Sorry if this is a stupid question.....
I signed the petition, but what's the purpose of getting all the signatures? do we have to get a certain amount?

[Nicoman]

Signed and shared

[fourtraxmc]

Signed, shared, liked!

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

I apologize, you are right. I should have said that not all non-detachable magazines are fixed. I'll post up a venn diagram for you if you would like.

Actually the more I think about it, no, "fixed magazines" as defined by the courts (accepting the AWIG definition) are not "non-detachable magazines" as defined by the DoJ in the letter to Chuck that was previously posted. You are making the error of using the term "non-detachable" in its common definition and not as a term of art as it is being used in the document I question and the letter.

The correspondence doesn't speak to fixed magazines. The question posed to DOJ was, do you need both criteria in the regulatory definition (use of a tool to remove mag and disassembly of the action) to have a non-detachable magazine, i.e., a magazine that does not meet the regulatory definition of "detachable magazine"? The answer was no, it's either/or, and in the specific fact pattern a firearm with magazine screwed into the receiver would require a tool to remove and is therefore non-detachable. Uses the same analysis intended by the regulatory definition to be applied to fixed magazine firearms to keep them in the "fixed" category; in the correspondence the "term of art" is not a third category of firearm, it is only the exclusion of a magazine from the regulatory definition of detachable magazine. That's as far as the correspondence goes.

Was there a court case that specifically adopted the AWIG definition of fixed magazine? I wasn't aware that there was one, but if you know of one can you provide info?

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

That a fixed magazine is non-detachable doesn't necessarily mean the reverse is true.

That's what is being assumed. So under what Penal Code section would a semiautomatic centerfire rifle with a large cap mag and a bullet button be an AW?