Firearms Policy Coalition Extracts ‘Bullet Button Assault Weapon’ Regulations from California Dept. of Justice

As reported at AmmoLand.com, the Firearms Policy Center has managed to pry loose the new “Bullet-Button Assault Weapon” registration regulations that the California Office of Administrative Law (COAL) and CAL-DoJ have been trying to hide (apparently in violation of the California Constitution and their Public Records Act). As the FPC’s lawyers said in their demand letter:

Currently, both DOJ and OAL are infringing the constitutional right of access to the conduct of the people’s government and denying review of the text of these submitted regulations … Access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state.

It’s almost as if the furtive bureaucrats hard-working public servants at CAL-DoJ don’t want people to know what the proposed regulations are in time to comment on them before they are promulgated.

The FPC created a webpage, BulletButtonBan.com, to keep the community up to date with The Golden State’s efforts to turn law-abiding gun owners into criminals, as well as the FPC’s efforts to keep the process transparent and lawful (or at least as lawful as efforts to restrict an enumerated civil right can be).

The fact is, according to FPC’s California lobbyist and spokesperson Craig DeLuz, CAL-DoJ has good reason to try try to conceal the regulations for as long as possible:

“At first glance, the DOJ’s latest package of ‘assault weapons’ regulations are as awful as their first attempt—it’s no wonder they wanted to hide them. The DOJ’s actions to keep the regulations secret were as undemocratic as they are unlawful,” concluded DeLuz.

My question is: why are the antis in the California legislature so bent out of shape that people have been obeying the law? According to the Santa Barbara Coalition Against Gun Violence, the ban forbade:

any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action nor use of a tool being required.

According to Merriam-Webster, the primary definition of a tool is “a handheld device that aids in accomplishing a task” so, literally by definition, requiring a bullet tip or other ‘tool’ to remove a magazine fulfills the law’s requirement. But try telling that to the antis.

We saw the same thing with the Clinton scary black rifle ban; legislators pass a law banning certain cosmetic features or requiring certain design changes. Being good corporate citizens, gun manufacturers adapted; they changes the designs of their products in order to comply with the new law.

You’d think that the antis would be happy, but no. Instead they jump up and down, yelling and screaming that by redesigning their products these companies aren’t obeying the law, that they’re ‘evading’ or ‘getting around’ it. Or (my personal favorite) that by conforming with by selling newly compliant products, these companies are ‘exploiting a loophole.’

That’s because “common-sense” safety regulations were never the goal. The antis won’t be happy until they’ve managed to outlaw all semi-automatic firearms. Whereupon Smith & Wesson, Ruger and others will come out with a pump action AR-15’s and the dance will start all over again.

comments

  1. avatar strych9 says:

    Would the new rules ban old bullet button rifles or simply require registration for them?

    1. avatar Kroglikepie says:

      It requires registration of them. A bullet button magically makes the rifle have a “readily detachable” magazine again, and thus a “Scary Black Hitler-reincarnating Baby-eating Child-molesting Penis-compensating Nuclear Evil Clipazine Death Gun Machine Murderizer” or whatever California calls a firearm these days.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        I’m just waiting until the liberals suggest a constitutional amendment to remove the ban on states passing ex post facto laws so that “gun control” could actually “be meaningful”.

        That will be a hoot.

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          Ex poste facto isn’t the correct legal term, but I know what you mean. You mean the banning (outlawing) of currently legal weapons and requiring that they be taken out of state or turned over to the police. Well, friend, let me tell you, the thought has definitely occurred to them. In fact, they are already trying it out on a smaller scale, Under prior law, if you owned “large capacity AR/AK magazines i.e. greater than 10 rounds) prior to the 2000 assault weapons ban, you were allowed to keep them. Last year, they banned the “grandfathered” magazines, and they become illegal to possess after July 1. If they can get that to pass legal muster (a lawsuit has already been filed by the NRA/CPRA), then there will be no impediment to banning currently legal “assault weapons.”

        2. avatar strych9 says:

          I don’t see how they can possibly hope to get away with that. Article 1, Section 10 is damn clear that it would be unconstitutional to do such a thing at the state level, and like Article 1, Section 9 banning the feds from doing such a thing, the Constitution clearly states that every state in the Union is forbidden from taking such an action.

          Maybe they’re hoping that the 9th Circuit would let them slide, but flat out ignoring the plain text of the body of the Constitution would probably start a groundswell of support or Congress to impeach and remove some judges.

          Also, the correct legal term for retroactive laws, whatever it may be, can FOD. The Constitution plainly says “ex post facto Law”. New terminology is irrelevant and anyone trying to play that kind of game needs a rope and a measured drop.

        3. No Mark N. – he clearly means ex post facto.

          Don’t be the guy that twists things to fit your ideas of what someone “meant” to say.

          I take it that he meant *that* and said *that*.

        4. avatar Alan Esworthy says:

          There’s a real, though possibly subtle, difference between an ex post facto law and the banning of what used to be legal. An ex post facto law is one passed after an act that was legal when performed such that the actor can be found guilty of a crime later. The proposed banning of certain firearms or magazines does not criminalize their acquisition in the past when such an acquisition was legal, but rather criminalizes the possession in the present but after the banning.

        5. avatar Mark N. says:

          Alan explained the difference quite clearly. Banning a firearm today that was legally purchased before does not constitute an ex post facto law, because it does not criminalize the purchase or possession back then, only possession now. There may be infirmities is such a law, for example It may constitute a confiscation of property for public benefit, thus subjecting the State to pay the reasonable market value of all seized firearms. But as long as no one is prosecuted for possession of a now banned firearm prior to the effective date of the law then there is no invasion of the ex post facto prohibition.

          If you don’t believe us, just google the phrase. You will get the same answer. I gaur-un-tee.

          So don’t even think of threatening me with hanging when you guys have no clue what you are talking about. The definition of the phrase has not changed in hundreds of years. Which is why I so carefully said that I knew what was meant even if the usage of this legal phrase was incorrect. I don’t think I was being rude. What’s your excuse?

        6. avatar strych9 says:

          No one is threatening you with anything stop being a whiny brat.

          Is banning a firearm today and forcing the person to give it up “technically” an ex post facto law, I will admit that I skipped law school because I fucking hate lawyers, so I don’t know the technicality of the phrase. However, in this case I don’t think it matters either way.

          Right off, I would point out a few things here. First of all, you’re drawing a distinction between an action and possession of an object and saying that you can technically ban the possession of an item retroactively because it’s not a behavior or an action.

          I say bullshit. Bouie v. City of Columbia (1964) set a standard that in order to ban a behavior or action retroactively said behavior or action must be something that the accused should have foreseen to be reasonably expected to be banned in the future. In other words, the defendant would have to have had some reason to expect that his actions would reasonably be considered criminal in the future and effectively say to themselves “Hurr durr durr it’s not illegal yet!”. Now, yes, that applies to actions and behaviors. You argue that possession of an item that is banned retroactively is not an action or a behavior and therefore making a law regarding it is acceptable. OK, then what is possession?

          I would argue that those who make the decision to not-comply have, actually by actively making the decision not to comply, committed an action and have been doing so since before it became illegal to make that decision. That is the action of actively deciding to continue to engage in inaction. They weren’t gonna get rid of their 30 round mags last year or five years ago and they continue to hold that position.

          This results in their continued possession of an item that is now banned but which also rather nicely fits under one of the definitions of “behavior” which is “the way in which one acts or conducts oneself”. They’ve chosen to conduct themselves in a manner which was legal before and no longer is, ergo a law that bans them from a behavior who’s legal status has changed when their behavior has not is an ex post facto law. This falls squarely under the interpretation of due process and ex post facto laws seen in in the SCOTUS decision referenced above.

          The case I mention involves the idea of placing a sign outside barring certain people from an eatery after they have entered. I see little difference between entering an eatery legally and refusing to leave once such a sign is in place and acquiring something and refusing to relinquish it after it becomes illegal to have it. In both cases we have a pattern of behavior that is legal and suddenly becomes “illegal” and, since the behavior has not changed or stopped and restarted, the SCOTUS has found it to be unconstitutional to enforce stopping the behavior in midstream by force of law.

        7. avatar Mark N. says:

          Maybe you should have gone to law school. I did, more than thirty years ago. And have been licensed ever since. In California no less.
          You commented that “New terminology is irrelevant and anyone trying to play that kind of game needs a rope and a measured drop”; I had to assume that was directed at me. I guess in your vernacular lynching is not a threat of harm. Whatever. The ad hominem that I am just a “whiny brat” is equally offensive, but I am not worried about it since it will win you no arguments here or in any court of law.
          There is nothing “retroactive” about a ban that acts in the future, nor did I ever so suggest. Your possession in the past was legal; it is only your possession in the future (after the effective date of the law) that becomes illegal. You are not prosecuted for conduct/owning of the firearm or mag prior to the ban, only continued possession of that item after the ban takes effect. So let’s not twist the very simple language I employed in order to attempt to win an argument that is full of fail.
          All of these laws give a grace period to allow owners to come into compliance with the new law, either by modifying the firearm, registering the firearm, transferring it out of state, or turning it into the police for destruction. As an example, I have, in its current configuration, an unregistered “assault weapon” according to a law that took effect January 1 of this year. Prior to January 1 it was not an assault weapon. I have until the end of the year to register it in its current configuration, modify the configuration so that it no longer fits the definition of assault weapon, or dispose of it to the police or out of state. If I do nothing, I can be prosecuted for possession of an unregistered assault weapon after the first of next year, but that charge will not include my ownership of that firearm at any time prior to 1/1/18. My ownership was lawful a those times; it does not become unlawful until next year. Therefore the law is not retroactive in execution and is not unconstitutional on that basis.

          Hate on lawyers all you want, but our understanding of these “technicalities” may mean the difference between a good result or a really really bad one.So whine and kvetch all you want, but your incorrect understanding of the law will not keep you out of jail should you fail or refuse to comply with the new law, assuming you are a California resident, fail or refuse to comply with the new law, and get arrested while in possession of a firearm that is NOW defined as an assault weapon. Odds are you won’t be caught, but the consequences of getting caught are far worse than the cost of complying in one fashion or another. But I am not your attorney, so feel free to ignore what I have said.

        8. avatar strych9 says:

          My comment about a rope was directed at those lawyers who would argue on behalf of the state that they have the authority to regulate and criminalize heretofore behavior that has not, at any point in time ceased to be engaged in by playing word games and any judges that would side with their semantic tomfuckery.

          If that wasn’t clear well, then apologies. However, I suggest that in the future you not take every comment written on the interwebz as being directed personally at you.

          Further, if all you’re going to do is write long ass posts that say nothing and address only those parts of my posts that hurt your feelz then expect that I’m going to make fun of you really, really hard because you must be a really bad attorney to never address an argument at all. And no, basically saying “Well of course they can. I’m a lawyer, I know these things” without even addressing the basics of case law that I’ve presented isn’t an argument. (But it is kinda what I’d expect from a lawyer trying to downtalk to someone while avoiding the issue at hand.)

          Now, again, the actual discussion at hand.

          You say “All of these laws give a grace period to allow owners to come into compliance with the new law, either by modifying the firearm, registering the firearm, transferring it out of state, or turning it into the police for destruction.”

          OK, fair enough, the technical definition of an ex post facto law is punishing someone for something they did in the past when it was legal via passing a new law and then retroactively applying it. I get that… and I don’t much care about it based on the context of what we’re talking about and I have provided case law to support the fact that your contention isn’t relevant and that the SCOTUS has said as much.

          The quote I’ve pulled from your post here makes it quite clear that the State of California seeks to regulate currently legal conduct in a way that places a burden on the owner of the firearm sans any form compensation. That may technically be legal since they include some options but it’s immoral, asinine and flies in the face of the spirit of the Constitution.

          Now, to the real heart of the matter: Please, explain to me how it is that the SCOTUS can find that engaging in a behavior at a point in time when it is legal, and continuing to do so without cessation of the behavior/activity when it’s made illegal via the placement of a legal sign is any different from simply continuing to own an “assault weapon” when the law changes but the owner’s behavior hasn’t changed and possibly has not changed for years or even decades.

          Simply put, I would understand the case I posted and even agree with the owner (even if he was a racist jackass) on the technicality of the law if the defendant had exited and attempted to reenter the eatery. But that’s not what happened. They simply didn’t leave even though a legally binding sign was posted and the SCOTUS effectively said “You can’t just change the rules in midstream and apply them to an unchanged situation.” So, how is that different from changing the rules on a long time “high capacity magazine/assault rifle” owner when their behavior has not changed yet the law has?

          Your previous argument seems to center around the idea that possession is not a behavior. It most certainly is. Walking around clothed is a behavior, walking around nude could get me in trouble. Possession of clothes is, at the very least, part and parcel of the behavior in question and is inseparable from what makes my behavior legal or illegal. I fail to see how, even the most conniving of lawyers, can separate the two given this fact. The same could be said of drug possession. If possession is not a behavior then what does the law seek to punish? Non-behavior? You’ll note that getting caught with drugs doesn’t result in a charge for “buying” drugs (the action of acquiring them), it results in a possession charge (the, for lack of a better term in this case, “state” of having them). Therefore possession logically must be a behavior or a major component of a behavior or the charge is meaningless since we cannot make those things which are not actions or behaviors illegal because sans a behavior or an action it’s outside the control of the person in question.

          Further, from a purely logical standpoint the argument you’re advancing here undercuts the very premise of gun control, which is that controlling who possesses what will limit certain unwanted behaviors such as terrorism and murder. If possession isn’t inextricably linked to behavior and action then gun control has no reason to exist because it will necessarily fail. If, on the other hand possession is related to behavior then we have the situation I describe above.

        9. avatar crypticpurpose says:

          Please, the proper term is “propaganda-fed, misinformed hysteria-driven individuals”.

          Certain democratic party politicians may have abused gun-control media-panic to scare voters unfamiliar with guns into giving them their vote, but there are still plenty left-of-center individuals (like myself) who love their guns, and see their BS for what it is, a ploy to use people’s fear of the unknown to create a panic and use it to get elected.

          Don’t get drawn into their game, where they make out every liberal to be an anti-gun crazy, and every conservative a crazy gun nut; that’s exactly what they want, in order to destroy bi-partisan support for sane gun laws (by which I mean no purely political idiocy like bans on “military-style” “assault weapons”, no bans on “high-capacity” magazines, no locking magazines into their guns, no convoluted laws to effectively ban concealed carry, no BS on purchasing a suppressor, etc, etc).

          I live in Southern Maryland, and essentially everyone I know here would fall under the label of “liberal” (and that’s a lot of people). I could count on one hand with four missing fingers the number that support this crap. The few that originally did support it changed their stance after I gave them the facts hidden behind all the sensationalist reporting: most of them genuinely believed “assault weapons” referred to full-auto, selective-fire weapons, thanks to media distortion, and felt angry and lied to when they heard the truth.

          The politicians behind this have us wrapped around their fingers, playing out their game, and as long as we do that, they will continue to win. It’s not a matter of conservatives vs liberal, right vs left: it’s a matter of citizens vs political propaganda and misinformation.

          They want us fighting each other, because as long as we’re busy fighting amongst ourselves, we’re too divided to effectively fight against the real source of all this. And as long as the infighting continues, they’re free to continue to further their agenda.

          So, the next time you hear someone defending this crap, or blaming gun owners for who-knows-what, take a deep breath, take the high road, and calmly approach them with a friendly attitude (even if they don’t do the same), and clear up their misunderstandings; remember, they are acting this way because they’ve been fed lies and propaganda, and shown carefully selected “evidence” designed to provoke a strong emotional reaction. They thoroughly believe that they are in the right, even though you know better. You can’t win against belief by fighting – but you can by showing them clear facts demonstrating that the basis of their belief is a lie. But you can only do that by taking the high road, remaining non-confrontational, calm and understanding. If they feel like they are being attacked, they’ll get defensive, and nothing you say will get through. Think of it as teaching an obstinate child.

          If that sounds like a pain in the butt, that’s because it is. But if you persevere, you’ll have done more than simply bring one person around to the truth: you’ll have spread the truth to someone whose social circle likely believes the same lies, and they will likely have a far easier time convincing them than you did. And from there it can spread.

          I’m not saying you’ll end up agreeing on everything; my own political beliefs more than likely differ significantly from your own. But people don’t have to agree on everything to come together and fight for a just cause. Especially in cases involving lies and propaganda like this, it’s a big step just to realize that the “other side” is not a monolithic enemy to fight, but rather composed mainly of everyday people just like you, a number of whom have simply fallen victim to the lies of politicians. By saving them from the falsehoods they’ve been fed, you can stand together united and accomplish actual change.

        10. avatar El Duderino says:

          Right now I’m reading a book on MDMA (Ecstasy) and the rave culture.

          MDMA was legal in the US until 1985. Some people made a TON of money selling it before the ban. They kept their money — after all, at the time they were selling a legal product. The users weren’t retroactively prosecuted as illegal drug users. But beyond that hard date, it didn’t matter if you had a warehouse full of pills as a full on distributor or just one ready to pop in your mouth…illegal to possess, distribute, ingest, et cetera.

          Seems to me CA will simply use the same legal reasoning, however unconstitutional under the 2nd Amendment it may be. It’s not ex post facto.

        11. avatar Mark N. says:

          The only thing I EVER said was that this is not an example of an ex post facto law–a conclusion you
          FINALLY concede is correct. Where you get all this other stuff that you think I said but didn’t is a complete mystery to me. [Ad hominem deleted.] In my subsequent posts I explained WHY it is not an ex post facto law–no more. I did not once address any other issue that you say I did. Whether or not these laws are immoral or subject to attack on other grounds–such as I suggested in my first post the taking of property without just compensation, and as you yourself suggested later –was beyond the scope of my commentary. People constantly misunderstand an misuse the ex post facto doctrine, as you admittedly did, and my commentary was directed at that. So give it a rest.

          So please, rant all you want on those other subjects, but don’t suggest that you are responding to my post, and don’t put words in my mouth. If there is any basis for overturning these regulations, it will be a legal one, whether you call them technicalities or not. And those cases will be brought by lawyers. Although there are always exceptions, lawyers have been trained to understand and apply court decisions and “technicalities,” which is important since the judge will be doing the same thing. (They are, after all, lawyers.) Trying to apply an incorrect legal doctrine or decision will get you tossed out on your ear, and that won’t do anybody any good.

          Believe me, I have seen litigants who are just like you, who think they know better than the lawyers. It is truly sad when someone with a decent case manages to slit his own throat by making frivolous arguments and pissing of the judge. And in this realm, most of the judges hate us and our guns anyway, so it really doesn’t help when you start off on the wrong foot. A bad argument can undermine a legitimate one. Maybe, just maybe, when one of the (at least several) attorneys who frequent this forum suggest that you are making a legal error, you should carefully consider what we have to say before hating on each and everyone of us.

          And that is the end of that. I have nothing more to say.

        12. avatar Renner says:

          Ban Latin

      2. avatar Jim says:

        Where can I get some High Capacity Clipazines, anyway. Google doesn’t turn up much;-)

  2. avatar Kroglikepie says:

    Are you trying to tell me statists do *not* want me to be able to effectively defend myself? Whatever dude. Next you’ll tell me that a disarmed populace is just a bunch of victims in waiting…

  3. avatar MikeJH121 says:

    Let’s see a good design on a mag fed pump action scary black rifle. Make it slam fire able also just to add a little ding.

    Pols gotta divert and hide their intentions. I believe in the 2nd, but……. I agree with the 1st, but……..

    They wanna control and the willing control freaks in the MSM such as the Ted Koppels who want “Journalists to be licensed, which may not be a bad idea you first have to have a license then one of the rules is you lie you lose that license. Control freaks gotta control.

    1. avatar DaveW says:

      As in other states, gun owners here in CA will commit themselves to civil disobedience. They already have with regard to so-called “high capacity” magazines.

      Meanwhile, there are companies already producing means to bypass the new rules. For example, one is a means of refilling a fixed magazine through the ejection port. Instead of having 100 magazines loaded up, you buy 100 of these and every time the mag goes empty and the bolt locks back, you reload the magazine from this tool and toss it into your bag and keep on shooting. It actually is quicker then swapping out magazines. And that is just one means. Another one is a quicker opening of the upper and lower and from there it’s about the same as the first one.

      1. avatar Kyle says:

        Hell, nobody complies with the gun laws in California, and the LEO’s make no attempt to enforce them on any otherwise law abiding citizen that I’ve ever seen. Once, the LEO I had to deal with openly laughed at the gun laws in California. He flat said the gun laws are just there when we need um to stack charges on someone we already have.

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          I guess you never ran into that Forest Service cop who’d been deputized by the local sheriff and was inspecting every AR/AK at the shooting ranges in his territory, seizing non-compliant ones, and who was dead set on enforcing California law. After an avalanche of complaints, the Sheriff withdrew the deputization, so the Forest Service transferred him to another forest where he started the same game all over again. Just sayin’ that it happens, and I would not be surprised to see LASO go gung-ho, since that agency is fond of seizing firearms on any excuse and refusing to return them. Up here in the far north, I doubt it will be much of an issue without some other violation. but why risk it? The best outdoor range here is on BLM land, and I don’t need a felony charge.

        2. avatar crypticpurpose says:

          The problem is that the rules start applying if you end up ever having to use your firearm in self-defense. Instead of just normal self-defense proceedings, you could end up being charged with use of an illegal/illegally-modified weapon, and wind up with criminal charges. And while I’m not sure on the exact legal constituencies, there’s a good chance your attacker (or their next of kin) could then also end up suing you. All of which would be bad.

        3. avatar Accur81 says:

          There are cops that laugh (and also cry) about CA gun laws. And there are also douchebags who take statist laws quite seriously. There are anti-gun cops at my station, as well as some criminals and frauds.

          I’d continue to recommend that anyone on the wrong side of unconstitutional laws be cautious and continue to support pro gun causes.

  4. avatar Norincojay says:

    There are pump action rifles that look like AR15’s. As once making an AR pump action it is no longer an AR. Just as an AR15 is not an M4 because the operation mechanisms are different. They only look alike.

    https://worldoftroy.com/product-category/sporting-rifles/

    1. avatar Bruce W. Krafft says:

      SWEET! Thank-you Norincojay! I have always wanted something like this so I can (metaphorically) explode some antis’ heads by presenting them with a high[sic] capacity, fast shooting Eee-vil Black Rifle that *isn’t* a semi-auto!

      1. avatar Bob Jones says:

        Australian Style Gun Control lumps pumps in with semi-autos, ie – banned.
        Anti’s (including Hillary) here will do the same thing eventually.

  5. avatar Klause Von Schmitto says:

    I’ve run away from a fight.

    Everyone else ran with me and we were shooting back over our shoulders as best we could. If we stayed there we would die. We didn’t leave anyone. I’m am not any ashamed to admit it.

    Run – Leave California and take your tax revenues with you. It might be hard. The house might be a problem but you can work through it. Explain to your mom or your grandmother. It will be an adventure for them. You or your wife can find a job elsewhere. You can.

    California is a lost cause.

    1. avatar California Richard says:

      Ya, I’ve been hearing this for decades. Remember when nevada, arizona, virginia, vermont, colorado, etc were the lands of freedom? You can run, but California will find you and impose its gun laws on you. Stay and fight. Have children and spread YOUR idology in THEIR backyard.

  6. avatar Isaac says:

    Too late they’ve already invented pump action AR’s.

  7. avatar Geoff PR says:

    “You’d think that the antis would be happy, but no. Instead they jump up and down, yelling and screaming that by redesigning their products these companies aren’t obeying the law, that they’re ‘evading’ or ‘getting around’ it.”

    In the early 90’s, I worked at a company that decided it wanted my department to have new management.

    OK, fine, bring in the new manager.

    Manager arrives, doesn’t like what she she sees. (Before you start with the misogamy cracks, the very finest boss I ever had was female. And no, I didn’t… er… anyways.)

    She makes changes, sets out new rules and regs in the lab notebook, which all employees must read before starting their shift. (I can neither confirm or deny that notebook came to be called ‘The Daily Threat’ because I called it that. Purely coincidental, I tell you. *cough*).

    She makes her rules, we abide by them by the *letter*. She gets her nose out of joint and makes *new* rules. We abide, and she complains to the plant that *we* are the problem *she* can’t produce the results she promised *them*.

    It was entertaining, in an ulcer-producing way.Obviously, her true calling was unfulfilled in politics…

  8. avatar Mark N. says:

    We do have the option of converting our bullet button rifles to “featureless” rifles by removing specified “features.” These features are a flame suppressor (but strangely not muzzle brakes), collapsing stocks, vertical forward grips (but slanted are OK) and pistol grips. If you do that, then you can also take off the bullet button. A featureless rifle is not subject to registration.

    However, even though the “assault weapons” banned in 2000 do not have “bullet buttons,” the DOJ has declared that you may NOT remove the bullet button from a rifle or pistol registered under the new law. The legal basis for this regulation is uncertain, and a suit will likely be filed. The regulations also require numerous digital photos be submitted (CLEAR ONES), showing the configuration of the rifle and the BB, and if one tries to “de-regulate” the rifle, it seems that it has to be in the same configuration as when it was registered, a regulation that also has no legal basis, and seems to be an attempt to ban swapping uppers or all of the other component parts that people like to change.

    1. avatar California Richard says:

      Ya that part about not being able to change your bullet button is the state admitting that guns with bullet buttons aren’t “assault weapons”. Its such a strange legal thing to put on paper. Its like you have assault weapon (A) and assault weapon (B). They are both assault weapons and both carry the same penalty for illegal possession but if you make a legal assault weapon in to a ….er…. legal assault weapon, then you manufactured an assault weapon I guess?.. there is no statutory authority to enforce it. Its something that the DOJ invented whole cloth and called a felony. Its the basis for the CRPA and NRA challenge to the regulations.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        Logic has nothing to do with it. The laws were passed by an anti-gun legislature, the regs were written by an anti-gun DOJ under Kamala Harris, and rewritten by another anti-gun politician Becerra. After the Fourth Circuit in Maryland affirmed that black rifles can lawfully be banned, and the Seventh Circuit in Illinois concluded (rather surprisingly) that black rifles can be banned because banning makes people “feel safer,” every effort has been and will continue to be taken to make it as difficult as possible to own an “assault weapon” in the State, and the Ninth Circuit will likely back them up, citing the two other circuits that think these rifles are a threat to “public safety” and not fully within the protection of the Second Amendment. So brace yourself, the worst is yet to come.

  9. avatar Mocking Jay says:

    Does anybody have any good estimates on compliance or non-compliance with the California gun control laws? Especially on registration of so called “assault rifles”, or general non compliance on so called “assault weapons”.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Because the registration regulations have been proposed but not adopted, it is currently not possible to register any rifle. Further, since the State did not require anything beyond a generic description of “long gun” with no recordation of the serial numbers until 1/1/14, with an unknown number of home-built “80%” rifles in the state, and with the option of converting described “assault weapons” into featureless rifles that are not subject to registration–and indeed cannot be registered–there will be no way to accurately measure compliance. The one and only figure the Sate will be able to report is the total number registered by years’ end, when the registration period ends. Anything else is utter speculation, but pundits believe it may number int he millions. My view is simply this: register or convert so you don’t have to register. There is no point in risking a felony for the $15 it takes to register all of your subject firearms all at one time, or $150 or less per rifle/pistol to convert (depending on what route you take).

      1. avatar Mocking Jay says:

        Thanks for your reply.

        I wonder how many Californians are going to draw a line in the sand, and say f*** you, come come and take them. If California goes the registration route, you can make the historical argument that the next step is confiscation. Confiscation does not need to mean door to door confiscation, but letters to registered owner to modify or move the weapon out of state.

        If I recall, there was massive non-compliance with the NY SAFE act and laws passed in CO.

        Does the state of California understand the possible push (violent) back to unconstitutional laws? Or is that part of the plan?

        1. avatar California Richard says:

          There won’t be violent pushback in california outside of individual incidents. Non-compliance will be darn near 100%, and enforcement is nearly impossible. The state WILL make high profile examples of individuals who drift in to the state’s cross hairs, but mass prosecutions of peaceable citizens will overload an already overloaded system.

    2. avatar Dr. D says:

      I’m not going to register mine and I don’t know anyone who will. If we all stick together on this it will not be enforceable.

  10. avatar Mark N. says:

    I am going featureless. All I need is to pin the stock and put on a “finned” pistol grip (which prevents the thumb from wrapping around the grip) or get a Thordsen stock which solves both issues. And then I can install the regular mag release that came with the lower kit. Yes it costs more that registration, but registration means you can’t have it in your car unless you are going to/from the range and you can’t leave it to your kids or sell it to anyone in state. No such restrictions apply to featureless rifles.

    Unfortunately, if, as I suspect, a few hundred thousand owners go this route (undermining the cash flow needed to sustain the registration process), featureless rifles will be next.

    1. avatar Ph.D. Razorback says:

      Does the fin have to be rigid or can it be a rubber flap?

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        I don’t know if there is a spec, and I’ve not seen a single product. However, the ads I’ve seen are generally for kydex flaps. All the law requires is that the flap prevent your thumb from wrapping around the grip, such that it is no longer a “pistol grip.”

        There are specs for removing the pistol grip and bolting on some kind of a replacement that is “nbot” a pistol grip; the one product that appears to comply with the intent of the law is the Thordsen stock.

        1. avatar Ph.D. Razorback says:

          These kinds of laws are so stupid – I feel for you. I often wonder if the politicos that pass this BS are so stupid that they think it actually changes the functionality of the firearm or if they are so crafty that they have devised a seventeen step plan to eliminate them altogether.

        2. avatar Mark N. says:

          According to Senator “Ghost gun” De Leon, the intent of the 2000 law was to completely ban evil black rifles, but sneaky (and inventive) manufacturers were able to find “loopholes” to do an “end-run” around the intent of the la, namely the Bullet Button. Immediately after the law was passed, the only device that made a rifle exempt from registration was the Prince device that “permanently” fixed the mag release. reloading was accomplished by popping the rear pin and loading from above. Internal mags at the time, so I understand, only held 8 rounds. The law was written to require a “tool” to remove the magazine–and along came the Bullet button that requires a “tool” (bullet tip instead of a finger) to operate the release. The intent of the current law is an attempt to return to the circumstances existing right after the 2000 law went into effect, meaning all rifles with “unfixed magazines” had to be registered and thus restricted as “assault weapons,” or owners have the option to lock the mag release an load from above as before. Or go featureless, as has always been an option under the law, an exception intended to preserve the right to own Garands, M1 Carbines, and the like (including Ruger Minis).

  11. avatar Jim says:

    Another part of this new law is getting an FFL to stamp a CA serial number on the lower once an owner has registered. Then send picture with new serial number. I talked to a FFL yesterday and he laughed. “I’m not offering that service.”

    1. avatar Kurt says:

      As I understand it, the serialization requirement only applies to homemade / 80% lowers that don’t already have a S/N (and weren’t DROSed).

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      Better check the regs again, Jim. The serial number must be stamped or engraved PRIOR to registration, and the number MUST be obtained from the DOJ. You CANNOT register a firearm that does not have a serial number on it, and the required photos must clearly show that number. There is other information required under the proposed regulations, which appear to use the same marking required under federal regulations for manufacturers, which include your name and location (unless the 80% manufacturer’s information appears on the lower) as well as the serial number on the receiver, and the caliber engraved or stamped on the barrel. specified depth of markings, etc. (There is really no purpose to some of these regs since you cannot sell the gun or even give it away once it has been registered.) I haven’t read the most recent versions, but past versions required the embedment of a specified weight of steel into the lower receiver on polymer lowers.

      Finally, a FFL can only offer this service if that FFL is licensed to handle “assault weapons.” However, a non-FFL can do the engraving IF but ONLY if you remain present in his shop during the engraving process. If you don’t stay, you have transferred an unregistered “assault weapon” to an unlicensed person, and you both get in trouble if something goes sideways. Cute, huh?

      1. avatar Jim says:

        Now I am even more confused. I reread Beth Bauman’s TTAG post from May 19th. Step 5 calls for the CA issued serial number to be sent to the owner and then engraved by an FFL. I took this step to be after the required paperwork and photos were sent in. Am I reading this wrong? Thanks.

        1. avatar Jim says:

          I got that info from Bearing Arms not TTAG. Sorry for any confusion.

        2. avatar Mark N. says:

          I understand your confusion. The prior regs (that were only in effect last year, I think but not sure) required you to get a number before starting your build. Before that there was no serialization requirement unless you decided to sell the firearm, same as the federal laws. The new law allows the registration only of rifles completed prior to 1/1/17. The regulations just issued (in draft) are quite clear that you must have a number in order to be able to register the completed rifle. Follow a link. The regs themselves start on page 7 after 6 pages of definitions.
          However, since the regulation requiring obtaining a serial number prior to beginning a build are new, the prohibition on ex post fact laws precludes a prosecution for having an unserialized lower. Thus, you can apply for a number even for a completed rifle, and then engrave or stamp that number, along with your name and city of residence, on the receiver prior to filing your registration materials.
          By the way, the new law does not allow you to do an 80% build unless it is a featureless build. You cannot now build a BB rifle, since that would constitute the manufacture of an assault weapon.

  12. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    I am so glad I don’t live there anymore.
    Sadly, Oregon is trying its best to be Northern California.

    1. avatar SteveO says:

      Careful with the NorCal…pretty sure your were describing coastal – bay area – sac vs Norther California Jefferson population. The Jefferson types could easily keep up with Eastern Oregon & Washington types so much that I think they are from the same tribes.

    2. avatar jwm says:

      As long as we accept that our rights are based on our zip codes this will continue to happen. I’m an American. It doesn’t matter where I am at the moment so long as I am in the united states or its territories.

      The individual has rights, not the state.

    3. avatar Gunr says:

      Me too, I’m glad I got the hell out of that poor excuse for a state. Maybe we can start a collection to give to Trump, so when he starts his wall, they can make a slight detour all the way around Californicate and then it will truly be “Mexifornia”

  13. avatar DaveM says:

    (b) The Department will not register a firearm that was required to be registered under prior assault weapon registration laws in effect before January 1 2017 These weapons include but are not limited to firearms known as “named assault weapons” and are listed in Penal Code section 30510 and sections 5495 and 5499 of Chapter 40
    If someone had registered a “named assault weapon” in the early 90’s I’m guessing that no further action necessary?

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Give that man a cigar. This registration period is solely for “bullet buttoned” firearms. If you have an unregistered pre-2000 “assault weapon,” you cannot register it under this law, and if you did register, you remain so.

      1. avatar DaveM says:

        Arturo Fuente Maduro.

  14. avatar Matthew the Oilman says:

    The solution seems to be, clad all your semi automatic rifles in wood! Then they are no longer scary black rifles! (sarc)

    1. avatar codenamedave says:

      Not entirely untrue. Y’all heard how this all got started? It sounds like a joke from a gun-owner, but supposedly came from an inside source who was at the table with the folks writing the law.

      This was before widespread internet usage, so they sat down with copies of Shotgun News, looked at pictures of guns, and decided which ones to ban based solely on appearance. The noble & exalted public servant’s discussion went like: “Oooo, that one looks scary, what’s it called? An Uzi? Put that one on the list. Oh my gosh, look at this one, what’s it called? A Streetsweeper? Wow, that’s like extra-double scary, put that one on the list.” Which is why functionally equivalent guns like the Mini-14 were spared.

      After they had their Official List of Scaries, they then had to come up with descriptors that they could ban and still pretend to be rational adults.

  15. avatar anarchyst says:

    “Equal justice under law” would require that cops and politicians adhere to the same “standards”…lawsuit, anyone??

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      NRA/CRPA are already planning such suits, as is, perhaps, the Firearm Policy Coalition. The first step will be demand letters, as there were the first time regulations were issued. Lawsuits will follow in short order, given the narrow window of time between now and the end of the year. (I mean short in terms of litigation time. Lawsuits as many here are aware take years. And unless there is a stay order in effect, people will be required to comply with the new law by the end of the year should they wish to register.)

  16. California, New York, and New Jersey are always competing to be the state with the stupidest gun laws.
    My home state of New Jersey was in the lead until NY state passed it’s “SAFE” Act and took the lead for dumbest gun laws in the country. Now California , with its new “gunmageddon” laws, is trying to reclaim the lead again as the state with the most moronic gun laws.
    New Jersey is still the leader in stupidest gun laws in some areas, such as treating 17th century flintlocks and toy BB guns as deadly “firearms” that require buyers to jump through all the same hoops as gun buyers, including an FPID card, fingerprints, references, background checks, a second permit to purchase a handgun, etc.
    And if you have an .177 pellet-firing airgun with a built-in “silencer” (the way many airgun makers manufacture them), New Jersey treats it as a felony, the same way they’d treat a silenced Glock! There are many other ways NJ gun laws are even stupider than California gun laws, but California is doing their best to catch up.

  17. avatar Jeff Warner says:

    From what I read, the Pols, want people to break their laws, take them to court, get a conviction that will disallow those convicted from owning firearms, and send in the troops to confiscate the weapons! A way of banning weapons in California!
    The new Rules, of which I have a printed copy, already leave me with a question!
    As I have stated frequently, the laws passed by the legislature and signed by Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown, state no weapon can be transferred or shared by anyone but the registered purchased! Under established law, my money and my wife’s money, makes our marriage a 50/50 partnership, whereby each is half owner in everything, and half purchaser in everything! How can they say my wife, who is half owner of everything, not use any gun I purchase, or vice versa?
    The new rules contradict that by stating registration of family members who are at least 19 years old, living under the same rooftop, is required if they are part owner in the weapon. This contradicts the law stating this is not now legal, which contradicts standing law that states we own everything equally!
    From my reading of all of the laws, there are many contradictions, that can cause problems within the gun owners and the judicial system, while the system drags out the issues in court for years!
    I do not want to be on a gun roster, which is exactly what registration is going to create, and I do not want to be a convicted criminal, thereby giving up my right to own a gun.
    The California politicians seem to be so gun grabbing hungry, they do not read the laws they pass, thereby setting up court cases for years, costing the gun owners millions of dollars, to fight the Laws, which are defended by the taxpayers money!
    I suggest a bill be passed that states the politicians pay out of their own pockets, for all suits they lose which are found to be illegal laws! This would cause the pols to take greater care in passing stupid laws, which could cost them to only pass laws that are proven to be legal, not anti-2A.
    Another question I have, is not answered in the new rules, being what if a child of mine, who is 18, not 19, legal to purchase rifles and shotguns, registers, or co-registers? Her age is legal, but the rules state 19! Another potential suit! What is she co-registers, and six months later, moves out? What does this do to the co-registration?
    These new rules are so poorly written, they seem to only be another step in causing lawsuits and money spent, while the politicians feel they can override the 2A by or spending the pro-gun people!
    I have read every new gun law, and see them all strife with illegal statements, contradictory words, and illegal attempts to infringe on our rights to keep and bear arms!
    I am seeking legal counsel to file several lawsuits in my name on issues that should easily be ruled illegal, in any decent court of law!

  18. avatar Warlocc says:

    Makes me think of Maura Healy here in Massachusetts. The law has said for years what features rifles can and can’t have, so for years they’ve been designed around that list.

    Suddenly, out of the blue, those rifles are all illegal because they’re “getting around the law” by not having the features they’re not supposed to have.

  19. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

    au·thor·i·tar·i·an·ism
    ôˌTHäriˈterēənizəm/Submit
    noun
    noun: authoritarianism
    the enforcement or advocacy of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom.
    lack of concern for the wishes or opinions of others.

  20. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

    po·lice state
    pəˈlēs ˈstāt/Submit
    noun
    a totalitarian state controlled by a political police force that secretly supervises the citizens’ activities.

  21. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

    Wikipedia’s own definition:

    Wikipedia Search
    EditWatch this pageRead in another language
    Police state
    For the 1989 film, see Police State (1989 film). For the upcoming film, see Police State (2016 film).
    Not to be confused with State police.
    Police state is a term denoting a government that exercises power arbitrarily through the power of the police force. Originally the term designated a state regulated by a civil administration, but since the beginning of the 20th century, the term has “taken on an emotional and derogatory meaning” by describing an undesirable state of living characterized by the overbearing presence of the civil authorities.[1]

    The inhabitants of a police state may experience restrictions on their mobility, or on their freedom to express or communicate political or other views, which are subject to police monitoring or enforcement. Political control may be exerted by means of a secret police force that operates outside the boundaries normally imposed by a constitutional state.[2] Robert von Mohl, who first introduced the rule of law to German jurisprudence, contrasted the Rechtsstaat (“legal” or “constitutional” state) with the anti-aristocratic Polizeistaat (“police state”).[3

  22. avatar kap says:

    Lets make a law, that any person, politician, that proposes a modification to the Constitution that is clearly illegal on its face vale be terminated, from their job, declared a non citizen and Deported to Iran. especially if they are Demon-crat!

  23. avatar Chiefton says:

    SCOTUS needs to end this craziness once and for all. States and local governments cannot make laws changing the constitution and the bill of rights. If a store is open to the public or serves the public in any way, they cannot discriminate against an individual who is exercising their right to keep and bear arms. Sorry, your sign in the window cannot intrude on my rights to bear a firearm. That is no different than a bakery refusing to make cakes for gay weddings. We need to go on the offensive against these businesses and governments that are doing these things instead of being on the defensive all the time. Let them be the ones trying to keep up with the lawsuits.

  24. avatar codenamedave says:

    “According to Merriam-Webster, the primary definition of a tool is ‘a handheld device that aids in accomplishing a task’ so, literally by definition, requiring a bullet tip or other ‘tool’ to remove a magazine fulfills the law’s requirement. But try telling that to the antis.”

    The antis understand that perfectly, which is why they’re now moving to ban/register the Bullet Button, thereby acknowledging that it was previously legal.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email