Your local LEO was, and still is, right. It's not an interpretation, it's a fact.
If you have a BB, then it does not matter if there is a magazine inserted or not.
If this were not true, then every time someone changed mags while shooting at the range in the last 18 years, they'd have been momentarily committing felonies. And any time someone drove their rifle to or from the range with the magwell empty, or stored it in their safe with no mag inserted - all felonies too.
Above all, if it was already illegal to remove the mag from your BB'd rifle, there would have been no need for this new AW law and registration period.
The Bakersfield weapon you are referring to did not have a bullet button (despite having been registered as having one), it had some other type of fixed-mag device (hence the agents' confusion about it), AND it was not ultimately charged as an AW anyways.
One final note, thousands of weapons have been successfully registered with empty magwells. DOJ has not once raised any issue with this, to my knowledge.
If you have a BB, then it does not matter if there is a magazine inserted or not.
If this were not true, then every time someone changed mags while shooting at the range in the last 18 years, they'd have been momentarily committing felonies. And any time someone drove their rifle to or from the range with the magwell empty, or stored it in their safe with no mag inserted - all felonies too.
Above all, if it was already illegal to remove the mag from your BB'd rifle, there would have been no need for this new AW law and registration period.
The Bakersfield weapon you are referring to did not have a bullet button (despite having been registered as having one), it had some other type of fixed-mag device (hence the agents' confusion about it), AND it was not ultimately charged as an AW anyways.
One final note, thousands of weapons have been successfully registered with empty magwells. DOJ has not once raised any issue with this, to my knowledge.
Comment