Have question about the "action open" BB's

[Tyke8319]

The / your focus need to be on the legal meaning of the word "disassemble"[/QUOTE]

If you have the "legal" definition of disassemble I'd be curious to see it.

[Elite Armory]

So by this methodology, you would also believe that the old Bushmaster Carbon 15 with the sealed magwell will now be an AW as well?

[Tyke8319]

So by this methodology, you would also believe that the old Bushmaster Carbon 15 with the sealed magwell will now be an AW as well?

"I" don't think so. The Carbon 15 required 'disassembly', albeit partially, to top load the mag.

[CSACANNONEER]

This confuses me:


Are you asking if a Featured AR15 has the "NEW" BB is it subject to registration? I don't believe so, since it no longer has a "detachable magazine".

The new law has nothing to do with "the capacity to accept detachable magazines". That was the old law. The new law says it has to be a "fixed magazine". While many can't grasp the difference, it is potentially huge. I'll say more after DOJ releases the "regulations".

[ojisan]

^ This. Have to have all the info first.
Then we will see what happens next.

[Elite Armory]

"I" don't think so. The Carbon 15 required 'disassembly', albeit partially, to top load the mag.

Isn't that exactly what we are talking about here? The whole argument is that opening the action may not qualify as "disassembly" so why would it work for the Carbon 15?

I do however think the Carbon 15 would be exempt from this whole thing because it is definitely a fixed magazine rifle so none of this applies but what does that mean for Franklin Armory's DFM Magazine. Is that Kosher? Would that fall under a fixed magazine rifle with it installed using a regular bolt catch?

[ugimports]

The new law has nothing to do with "the capacity to accept detachable magazines". That was the old law. The new law says it has to be a "fixed magazine". While many can't grasp the difference, it is potentially huge. I'll say more after DOJ releases the "regulations".

Thanks I'll go re-read..i thought the wording was mostly the same with the difference being how detachable magazine was defined..

[suitcase]

This would probably get better attention in the "How CA Laws Affect Me" forum.

If the features are removed, a fixed magazine "action open" device is not necessary under the new laws.

[kemasa]

My understanding is that if it does not meet the requirements of the new law (bullet button) come 2017, then it would not be considered a so-called a-salt weapon and have to be registered. Either a new version of the bullet button or featureless.