Shipping Rifles from California to Out-of-State Buyers

[AR15barrels]

As to your point of completely stripping the lower of a BBRAW, I don't see that the governing regulation (11CCR5477(a)) clearly leads to the conclusion that a new firearm has been created from the old one. But this is a close call and I can easily see where a court could resolve the question either way. As a retired LEO, I would not want to see anyone arrested for doing this. The reason for the uncertainty is the use of the language "any alteration" to the release mechanism creates the "new" weapon that is distinct from the old one. It's common to strip weapons down to component parts and then to reassemble them in the same configuration, either for cleaning or service. If that is done, I don't see that any "alteration" has occurred. But if one were to reassemble the lower with a different release mechanism, then a "new" firearm has been created.

So now I ask you how the officer on the street can know that the release mechanism has been altered?
That officer can lookup the make/model/serial and find that the firearm is a registered assault weapon in the CA database.
Under PC 30945, legally transported registered assault weapons are exempted from PC30605 prosecution.
This exemption applies to all registered assault weapons regardless of what reason they became registered.
Neither 30945 or 30605 differentiate between the different eras of assault weapons.
"Named", "Featured" and "Others" all live in the same registration pool.
What does he do now that he finds that the assault weapon is registered and he does not have PC30605 to charge with?

 

[BONECUTR]

The DOJ Reg (11CC5471(hh)) is very explicit that when the upper and lower receivers are separated, the weapon is no longer "semi-automatic." If it's not "semi-automatic" it cannot be an "Assault Weapon."

From someone who is not (clearly) a Lawyer:

5471 seems like it was wrote by the CADOJ to prevent people from registering 50 receivers as AW's like in the 2000 ban and without a complete bug they would not be able to get pictures of the configuration and Bullet Button Style device used.

The opening text is:

Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 11, § 5471 - Registration of Assault Weapons Pursuant to Penal Code Section 30900(b)(1); Explanation of Terms Related to Assault Weapon Designation​

These terms all seem specific to what they register.

Article 2 - Registration Requirement, What Qualifies for Registration, and Definitions​

Separated AW is not AW that can be registered seems different that post registration separating makes non AW instantly since to remove that firearm from the AW database you have to deregister it.

 

[RickD427]

So now I ask you how the officer on the street can know that the release mechanism has been altered?
That officer can lookup the make/model/serial and find that the firearm is a registered assault weapon in the CA database.
Under PC 30945, legally transported registered assault weapons are exempted from PC30605 prosecution.
This exemption applies to all registered assault weapons regardless of what reason they became registered.
Neither 30945 or 30605 differentiate between the different eras of assault weapons.
"Named", "Featured" and "Others" all live in the same registration pool.
What does he do now that he finds that the assault weapon is registered and he does not have PC30605 to charge with?

You were doing real good with the above comments right up to the last sentence. Here's my ex-watch commander's view on that situation:

Suppose that a deputy contacts a knucklehead in the field who is in possession of an AW. The deputy queries the Automated Firearms System (AFS) and learns that the weapon is registered to the possessor. The AFS will also report the "Date of Transaction" when the weapon was registered. The BBRAW registrations went into effect after I retired, so I don't have any knowledge of whether they are highlighted in the AFS as such. You are very correct that the registration statutes make no distinction between RAWs and BBRAWs. Assuming that there is no highlight to the AFS return, the deputy can compare the "Date of Transaction" with the BBRAW registration window period to determine if it was registered as a BBRAW (the BBRAW registration period was limited to BBRAWs, other AWs could not be registered during the period).

Upon making a determination that the weapon was registered as a BBRAW, the deputy then examines the magazine release. If the "Bullet Button" is still in place, the deputy then goes on to determine if the weapon is being kept or transported within the limitations of PC 30945. If not, then PC 30605 goes on the booking slip. If it is, then the deputy wishes the subject a nice day and departs.

If the deputy finds that there is no "Bullet Button", then the deputy has more than Probable Cause to believe that it has been removed, since in had to have been in place when the weapon was registered as a BBRAW. In that case 11CCR5477(a) comes into play. Under that regulation, the weapon that the subject currently possesses, and that the deputy is currently examining, is a different weapon than the one that was registered (even though it's the same piece of metal and has the same serial number and manufacturer's markings as the different weapon that was registered). If the deputy can establish that the subject was the one who removed the "Bullet Button", then PC 30600 goes on the booking slip, otherwise PC 30605 goes on the booking slip. The current weapon (without the Bullet Button) is an unregistered Assault Weapon.

A lot of folks (including yourself IIRC) have correctly observed that the statutes make no distinction between RAWs and BBRAWs. A weapon does not become any more "Assaultier" (I also recall that quote as being one of yours) simply because the Bullet Button was removed. All of the criminal liability attached to the removal of a Bullet Button flows from regulation alone. That's not how regulations are supposed to work. This is a situation that is appropriate for review by an objective court, but someone has to bring the test case.

 

[1911-CV]

Silly follow-up question from the cheap seats:

"If the deputy finds that there is no "Bullet Button", then the deputy has more than Probable Cause to believe that it has been removed, since in had to have been in place when the weapon was registered as a BBRAW. In that case 11CCR5477(a) comes into play. Under that regulation, the weapon that the subject currently possesses, and that the deputy is currently examining, is a different weapon than the one that was registered (even though it's the same piece of metal and has the same serial number and manufacturer's markings as the different weapon that was registered). If the deputy can establish that the subject was the one who removed the "Bullet Button", then PC 30600 goes on the booking slip, otherwise PC 30605 goes on the booking slip. The current weapon (without the Bullet Button) in an unregistered Assault Weapon."

If the upper and lower are separated when the officer determines the bullet button was removed, can PC 30605 and PC 30600 apply as the firearm is no longer semi-automatic? Assuming it was not 'evil by name'; the metal was registered with a Bullet Button so it was and always would be a Registered Assault Weapon (separated or not). But now the BB has been removed, making this a "different weapon" than the one that was registered (even though it's the same piece of metal and has the same serial number and manufacturer's markings as the different weapon that was registered)". So if that "different weapon" is separated and therefore no longer a semi-automatic weapon, does it entirely escape the finding of being an assault weapon?

 

[BONECUTR]

If the upper and lower are separated when the officer determines the bullet button was removed, can PC 30605 and PC 30600 apply as the firearm is no longer semi-automatic? Assuming it was not 'evil by name'; the metal was registered with a Bullet Button so it was and always would be a Registered Assault Weapon (separated or not). But now the BB has been removed, making this a "different weapon" than the one that was registered (even though it's the same piece of metal and has the same serial number and manufacturer's markings as the different weapon that was registered)". So if that "different weapon" is separated and therefore no longer a semi-automatic weapon, does it entirely escape the finding of being an assault weapon?

The hard part in the logic I see is:
CADOJ has already made it clear that a stripped receiver can be registered as an AW back in 2000.
Even non banned by name AR-15 and other receivers could of been registered.
Would this logic mean a banned by name stripped receiver is still and AW but a non banned by name on is not?

My personal opinion is that serial # needs to be treated as a registered AW until you de-register it.

 

[RickD427]

Silly follow-up question from the cheap seats:

"If the deputy finds that there is no "Bullet Button", then the deputy has more than Probable Cause to believe that it has been removed, since in had to have been in place when the weapon was registered as a BBRAW. In that case 11CCR5477(a) comes into play. Under that regulation, the weapon that the subject currently possesses, and that the deputy is currently examining, is a different weapon than the one that was registered (even though it's the same piece of metal and has the same serial number and manufacturer's markings as the different weapon that was registered). If the deputy can establish that the subject was the one who removed the "Bullet Button", then PC 30600 goes on the booking slip, otherwise PC 30605 goes on the booking slip. The current weapon (without the Bullet Button) in an unregistered Assault Weapon."

If the upper and lower are separated when the officer determines the bullet button was removed, can PC 30605 and PC 30600 apply as the firearm is no longer semi-automatic? Assuming it was not 'evil by name'; the metal was registered with a Bullet Button so it was and always would be a Registered Assault Weapon (separated or not). But now the BB has been removed, making this a "different weapon" than the one that was registered (even though it's the same piece of metal and has the same serial number and manufacturer's markings as the different weapon that was registered)". So if that "different weapon" is separated and therefore no longer a semi-automatic weapon, does it entirely escape the finding of being an assault weapon?

OK, I knew that I needed more coffee..........

My comments made to Mr. AR15Barrels in the referenced posting were made regarding an intact weapon, and they remain correctly stated for an intact weapon.

Here's what would change if the deputy were to encounter the same knucklehead, but with the upper and lower receivers of the BBRAW separated. In that case the weapon is clearly not a semi-automatic per operation of 11CCR5471(hh). If the deputy were able to establish that the weapon was registered as a BBRAW and the Bullet Button subsequently removed, the fact that the weapon is now not a "Semi-Automatic" would prevent the deputy from charging either PC 30600 or 30605 based on the circumstances of the immediate possession. Both sections require that the weapon be a "semi-automatic" and the weapon is not.

But a good deputy covers all investigative bases. If the Bullet Button were removed at some prior time, the person who removed it would have criminal liability for the manufacture of an Assault Weapon due to the operation of 11CCR5477(a). If the deputy were able to show, to a probable cause standard, that the person possessing the separated upper and lower was the same person who removed the Bullet Button, then they would be able to put PC 30600 on the booking slip.

It's not a silly question. California's AW statutes are so screwed up that you can easily get to some very tortured arguments when you consider their application. If you wanted to be really mean, you could ask "what if the person who removed the Bullet Button did so while the upper and lowers were already separated.

I don't got a big enough coffee pot to tackle that one.

 

[AR15barrels]

If the upper and lower are separated when the officer determines the bullet button was removed, can PC 30605 and PC 30600 apply as the firearm is no longer semi-automatic? Assuming it was not 'evil by name'; the metal was registered with a Bullet Button so it was and always would be a Registered Assault Weapon (separated or not). But now the BB has been removed, making this a "different weapon" than the one that was registered (even though it's the same piece of metal and has the same serial number and manufacturer's markings as the different weapon that was registered)". So if that "different weapon" is separated and therefore no longer a semi-automatic weapon, does it entirely escape the finding of being an assault weapon?

It sure would seem to because the non-semi-automatic RAW does not meet the PC30515 AW definitions to actually BE an unregistered assault weapon due to removal of the bullet button so they can't charge 30605 for it.

 

[kemasa]

Kemasa,

You're not reading the statutes.

I doesn't matter what you think, it doesn't matter what I think, it doesn't matter what a bunch of lawyers think (if you're one who worships the statements of lawyers, please note that whenever one lawyer says something, there's a line of other lawyers waiting to disagree. Lawyers are very skilled at argument, and that makes them well worth listening to, but no lawyer has a perfect record of argument) It does matter what DOJ says since they have prosecution power, but DOJ has said very little about the issue we're discussing here. Their publishing the regulation under 5471(hh) is probably the strongest position that DOJ has taken.

DOJ hasn't disagreed with anything that I have written. If you believe that they have, then please cite the statute, regulation, or document where they have done so.

You appear to be firmly wedded to the belief that the act of registering an Assault Weapon defines the weapon so registered as an Assault Weapon. That's simply not the case. If you believe that a weapon becomes an Assault Weapon simply by virtue of being registered as such, then please cite the statute so providing. Don't engage in name calling, don't line up folks who may, or may not support your view, simply cite the statute. If it exists, you'll find it in Part Six of the Penal Code. All you got to do is give us a number. It will have five digits and will start with a "3". Begin your search with section 30510 and 30515 they're the only two sections that define what an "Assault Weapon" is, and neither of them define an Assault Weapon according to your belief.

As to your point about "why" there is a process to de-register an RAW, and also to your discussion about my example of the transportation/destination requirements of PC 30945, you need to recognize that there are limitations that apply to specifically to RAWs and there are limitations that apply to AWs. They're not the same. You need to look to the statutes to determine which is which. PC 30945 applies to RAWs. The de-registration process permanently removes a weapon from both the AW and RAW provisions, and cannot be undone. Removing a weapon from being a semi-auto (and having the collateral effect of removing it from being an AW) does nothing to relieve the RAW restrictions, and it can be easily undone. In other words - Apples and Oranges.

What a liar, I don't worship the statements of lawyers. You choose it ignore reality. The RAW is REGISTERED by SERIAL NUMBER, taking it apart doesn't change that. They do disagree, but don't demand to be spoon fed. There is a reason why there is a process to de-register a RAW, but you keep ignoring that reality.

How funny, you admit that there are limits on a firearm which is registered per 30945, then ignore that when you want to.

No, not apples and oranges. Why do you think that the fact is it REGISTERED means nothing? Because you choose to ignore reality to refuse to admit that you are wrong.

 

[kemasa]

OK, its sounding like we've got a couple of parallel discussions going on. I may need more than the two cups of coffee I've had so far to adequately respond.

But you do a good job here of pointing out the lunacy of California's firearms statutes and regs. They're not intuitive, and they don't often make a lot of sense. Judge Lawrence Van Dyke of the Ninth Circuit has been more eloquent in his observations of the quality of California's statutes.

My point was that if a person separates the upper and lower receivers of an "evil-by-name" Assault Weapon, the resulting weapon is no longer an "Assault Weapon." The reason being that "Assault Weapon" is defined as a semi-automatic that has one or more prohibiting features (PC 30515). The DOJ Reg (11CC5471(hh)) is very explicit that when the upper and lower receivers are separated, the weapon is no longer "semi-automatic." If it's not "semi-automatic" it cannot be an "Assault Weapon." If the weapon were registered as an "Assault Weapon", it still remains a "Registered Assault Weapon", even if it is not presently an "Assault Weapon." Mr. Kemasa and I are currently debating this point in our discussion in this thread. He appears to hold the belief that if a weapon is an RAW, then it must also be an AW. I've challenged him to provide the statutory references.

My point only considered the separation of the upper and lower.

As to your point of completely stripping the lower of a BBRAW, I don't see that the governing regulation (11CCR5477(a)) clearly leads to the conclusion that a new firearm has been created from the old one. But this is a close call and I can easily see where a court could resolve the question either way. As a retired LEO, I would not want to see anyone arrested for doing this. The reason for the uncertainty is the use of the language "any alteration" to the release mechanism creates the "new" weapon that is distinct from the old one. It's common to strip weapons down to component parts and then to reassemble them in the same configuration, either for cleaning or service. If that is done, I don't see that any "alteration" has occurred. But if one were to reassemble the lower with a different release mechanism, then a "new" firearm has been created.

Quite lying. In order to be a RAW, it would need to have been an AW, otherwise it doesn't make sense to register it. But because it is registered it doesn't matter if it is taken apart so that it is no longer considered an AW under the definition of the law as it remains a RAW. So your claim that "then it must also be an AW" is completely false as I have never that, which makes it only your delusion.

Simple question, is if you take a RAW completely apart, is it still considered a RAW? The answer is YES. What exactly does that mean? You are completely clueless. You want to ignore that fact that it is a RAW and try to claim that because it is apart and no longer would fall under how an AW is defined somehow matters and eliminates the reality that it is a RAW.

 

[RickD427]

Quite lying. In order to be a RAW, it would need to have been an AW, otherwise it doesn't make sense to register it. But because it is registered it doesn't matter if it is taken apart so that it is no longer considered an AW under the definition of the law as it remains a RAW. So your claim that "then it must also be an AW" is completely false as I have never that, which makes it only your delusion.

Simple question, is if you take a RAW completely apart, is it still considered a RAW? The answer is YES. What exactly does that mean? You are completely clueless. You want to ignore that fact that it is a RAW and try to claim that because it is apart and no longer would fall under how an AW is defined somehow matters and eliminates the reality that it is a RAW.

Mr. Kemasa, Let's keep this discussion respectful. Your childish insults really detract from your stature. I don't want our conversation to cause the moderators to close the thread.

Nobody is "lying". I've simply pointed out that there is a difference in the statutory meaning of "Assault Weapon" and "Registered Assault Weapon" and I've been specific in my citation to the law that makes it so.

You keep referring to the law, but the law doesn't state what you seem to think that it does. I've previously challenged you to cite the law that you think exists, and you've failed to do so. I have to conclude, as a result, that you can't back up what you say.

You asked me the question "If a person completely takes an RAW apart, is it still considered an RAW." The answer is "Yes, it is still an RAW." But if it is taken completely apart, then it is likely no longer an AW (look at the definition of an AW and also the corresponding regulation in 11CCR5471(hh)). The net result is that you have an RAW that is not presently an AW. Now, go look at the Assault Weapon statutes that carry a penalty provision (PC 30600 and 30605). Note that they apply to AWs and have no provision applying them to RAWs. I note that you have previously referenced the DOJ procedure for de-registering an RAW, but there is no requirement that the procedure be used. It exists to remove the RAW restrictions attendant to RAW's. It's also a permanent process that has no application to temporary changes.

We're going in circles here, and until you can cite the law that you believe holds that an RAW must remain as an AW, the discussion cannot go forward. If you can't provide any factual (specifically the citations to statute) basis for for your arguments, you're certainly free to hold your opinions, but it's a waste of my time to engage in further discussion with you.

Just so that we're clear, here what the law actually provides:

Penal Code section 30510 - Defines "Evil-By-Name" and "Evil-Cuz-A-Court-Said-So" Assault Weapons

Penal Code section 30515 - Defines "Evil-by-Feature" Assault Weapons (please note that there is nothing in PC 30510 or 30515 that makes a firearm an "Assault Weapon" solely because it is registered as an Assault Weapon)

Penal Code section 30900 - Establishes the process by which "Assault Weapons" may be registered, having the net effect of making their possession lawful when PC 30945's conditions are met. Please note that there is no requirement that a weapon so registered be maintained in an "Assault Weapon" configuration. Also note that PC 30900 carries no penalty provision.

Penal Code section 30945 - Defines the conditions under which a "Registered Assault Weapon" may be lawfully possessed. Please note that PC 30945 contains no penalty provision. A person cannot be arrested or charged with violating PC 30945. If a person possess a Registered Assault Weapon outside of the permitted uses under PC 30945, they would have to be charged under PC 30605. But (and make sure that you read 30605) the weapon has to be an "Assault Weapon" at the time of the violation for there to be a crime.

Notice how I specifically linked all of my claims to the corresponding Penal Code sections. Please do the same.

POSTSCRIPT - It's also worthwhile to review California Criminal Jury Instruction 2560 on the subject of Assault Weapon charges. Jury Instructions are often useful to help understand what the law actually says because they summarize a lot of statutory law and case law into a concise form. The Jury Instruction makes clear that a prosecutor has to show that an "Assault Weapon" meets the criteria contained in PC sections 30510 or 30515 before a person can be convicted. There is nothing in either section that makes a weapon an "Assault Weapon" simply because it was, at some prior time, registered as an "Assault Weapon." The law treats the weapon as it currently exists, not as it was registered.

 

[JBomBer]

this thread has run its course, you guys look way to into this stuff, like anything else, what the law says, and what actually happens in the real world are two different things.

 

[ikeo1]

Please keep it on point vs attacking the person these threads are meant to provide opinions and discuss the topic, not character judgement because you don’t agree.

Everyone thinks their right for their own reasons. Provide your reasoning and leave room for people review and join in and ask questions.

 

[kemasa]

Mr. Kemasa, Let's keep this discussion respectful. Your childish insults really detract from your stature. I don't want our conversation to cause the moderators to close the thread.

Nobody is "lying". I've simply pointed out that there is a difference in the statutory meaning of "Assault Weapon" and "Registered Assault Weapon" and I've been specific in my citation to the law that makes it so.

You keep referring to the law, but the law doesn't state what you seem to think that it does. I've previously challenged you to cite the law that you think exists, and you've failed to do so. I have to conclude, as a result, that you can't back up what you say.

You asked me the question "If a person completely takes an RAW apart, is it still considered an RAW." The answer is "Yes, it is still an RAW." But if it is taken completely apart, then it is likely no longer an AW (look at the definition of an AW and also the corresponding regulation in 11CCR5471(hh)). The net result is that you have an RAW that is not presently an AW. Now, go look at the Assault Weapon statutes that carry a penalty provision (PC 30600 and 30605). Note that they apply to AWs and have no provision applying them to RAWs. I note that you have previously referenced the DOJ procedure for de-registering an RAW, but there is no requirement that the procedure be used. It exists to remove the RAW restrictions attendant to RAW's. It's also a permanent process that has no application to temporary changes.

We're going in circles here, and until you can cite the law that you believe holds that an RAW must remain as an AW, the discussion cannot go forward. If you can't provide any factual (specifically the citations to statute) basis for for your arguments, you're certainly free to hold your opinions, but it's a waste of my time to engage in further discussion with you.

Just so that we're clear, here what the law actually provides:

Penal Code section 30510 - Defines "Evil-By-Name" and "Evil-Cuz-A-Court-Said-So" Assault Weapons

Penal Code section 30515 - Defines "Evil-by-Feature" Assault Weapons (please note that there is nothing in PC 30510 or 30515 that makes a firearm an "Assault Weapon" solely because it is registered as an Assault Weapon)

Penal Code section 30900 - Establishes the process by which "Assault Weapons" may be registered, having the net effect of making their possession lawful when PC 30945's conditions are met. Please note that there is no requirement that a weapon so registered be maintained in an "Assault Weapon" configuration. Also note that PC 30900 carries no penalty provision.

Penal Code section 30945 - Defines the conditions under which a "Registered Assault Weapon" may be lawfully possessed. Please note that PC 30945 contains no penalty provision. A person cannot be arrested or charged with violating PC 30945. If a person possess a Registered Assault Weapon outside of the permitted uses under PC 30945, they would have to be charged under PC 30605. But (and make sure that you read 30605) the weapon has to be an "Assault Weapon" at the time of the violation for there to be a crime.

Notice how I specifically linked all of my claims to the corresponding Penal Code sections. Please do the same.

POSTSCRIPT - It's also worthwhile to review California Criminal Jury Instruction 2560 on the subject of Assault Weapon charges. Jury Instructions are often useful to help understand what the law actually says because they summarize a lot of statutory law and case law into a concise form. The Jury Instruction makes clear that a prosecutor has to show that an "Assault Weapon" meets the criteria contained in PC sections 30510 or 30515 before a person can be convicted. There is nothing in either section that makes a weapon an "Assault Weapon" simply because it was, at some prior time, registered as an "Assault Weapon." The law treats the weapon as it currently exists, not as it was registered.

Again, quite lying. No childish insults by me. I pointed out your lies where you falsely claim what I claimed. I suspect you do want the moderators to close the thread so as to not have to admit that you are wrong. You keep making up claims as to what I believe, which is a flat out lie.

There you go again making false conclusions, which is a lie.

You keep ignoring that a RAW taken apart is still a RAW, even though you admit it, but what you fail to admit is that there are still restrictions which apply due to it being a RAW. The fact that it is REGISTERED means that other aspects don't apply as it isn't illegal due to it being registered.

What you don't get is that an illegal AW when taken apart is no longer illegal as it doesn't meet the definition of an AW anymore, but a RAW, even when taken apart is still a RAW, even if it isn't an AW.

There you go again with your lies, "until you can cite the law that you believe holds that an RAW must remain as an AW", this is completely false as I never said that and it isn't what I believe nor what I have EVER said, you are just unable to understand that. I said it remains as a RAW even when taken apart and restrictions still apply because it is a RAW.

You are confusing and not understanding the laws. Your postscript proves that beyond any doubt as a person can not be charged with having an AW if it has been REGISTERED, so none of that applies. No, the law doesn't treat the weapon as it currently exists, meaning the physical state, but it does treat it as it currently exists in terms of whether it is still registered or not. The restrictions still apply to a RAW as long as it is registered.

 

[kemasa]

Please keep it on point vs attacking the person these threads are meant to provide opinions and discuss the topic, not character judgement because you don’t agree.

Everyone thinks their right for their own reasons. Provide your reasoning and leave room for people review and join in and ask questions.

It is exactly on point when he makes FALSE claims as to what I believe. It does go to show his character as it shows his tactics.

You should address his false claims towards others. It is impossible to have a reasonable, rational discussion when the other person makes up false claims as then you have to address that aspect as well, right?

 

[RickD427]

What you don't get is that an illegal AW when taken apart is no longer illegal as it doesn't meet the definition of an AW anymore, but a RAW, even when taken apart is still a RAW, even if it isn't an AW.

OK, We can finally agree on something. An RAW remains an RAW even when completely disassembled. But there is no way that one can go to jail for possessing a RAW that is not presently also an AW. If my brother takes my disassembled RAW and carries it in his trunk "just to have it in case I need it", he has not committed the crime of possessing an illegal Assault Weapon. If I carry my disassembled RAW in the same manner, I have acted outside the provisions of PC30945, but there remains no criminal violation that I can be charged with (the corresponding criminal violation for one who carried THEIR RAW outside of PC 30945's limitations is PC 30605, and that section cannot be charged when the weapon is disassembled).

You are confusing and not understanding the laws. Your postscript proves that beyond any doubt as a person can not be charged with having an AW if it has been REGISTERED, so none of that applies. No, the law doesn't treat the weapon as it currently exists, meaning the physical state, but it does treat it as it currently exists in terms of whether it is still registered or not. The restrictions still apply to a RAW as long as it is registered.

Hogwash. My Postscript says nothing of the sort. The effect of registering an AW is that the person so registering cannot be charged with PC 30605 providing they use the AW in accordance with the restrictions imposed by PC 30605. A person can be criminally charged with the possession of an RAW that is registered to them if they use it outside of the restrictions of PC 30605 (and if it is configured as an AW at the time). A person can also be criminally charged with the possession of an Assault Weapon that is registered to someone else (and also if it is configured as an AW at the time).

 

[BONECUTR]

I'm just saying you can all have your opinion without going at it.

Seeing all sides I get all sides:
The AW Registrant's (trying to see what they CAN do with their firearms)
The FFL's (trying to keep customers out of trouble.)
The LEO input (explaining from that side how he doesn't see a path to actually charge with said crime)

I just ignore people who are rude. I like differing opinions. If it wasn't for a few we would of never had OLL's, Prince50's, SSE, SAO, ect.

 

[kemasa]

OK, We can finally agree on something. An RAW remains an RAW even when completely disassembled. But there is no way that one can go to jail for possessing a RAW that is not presently also an AW. If my brother takes my disassembled RAW and carries it in his trunk "just to have it in case I need it", he has not committed the crime of possessing an illegal Assault Weapon. If I carry my disassembled RAW in the same manner, I have acted outside the provisions of PC30945, but there remains no criminal violation that I can be charged with (the corresponding criminal violation for one who carried THEIR RAW outside of PC 30945's limitations is PC 30605, and that section cannot be charged when the weapon is disassembled).



Hogwash. My Postscript says nothing of the sort. The effect of registering an AW is that the person so registering cannot be charged with PC 30605 providing they use the AW in accordance with the restrictions imposed by PC 30605. A person can be criminally charged with the possession of an RAW that is registered to them if they use it outside of the restrictions of PC 30605 (and if it is configured as an AW at the time). A person can also be criminally charged with the possession of an Assault Weapon that is registered to someone else (and also if it is configured as an AW at the time).

You love to make things up. If your brother takes YOUR RAW, he has in fact violated the law. It is registered by serial number and you are falsely claiming that taking it apart magically changes that. While it MIGHT reduce the chance that an officer runs it, if they do, then he can be charged.

So you are completely WRONG that you can't go to jail for possessing a RAW that isn't an AW. It is an illegal transfer of a firearm AND an illegal transfer of a RAW. The law regarding an illegal AW doesn't apply when it is taken apart, but that doesn't make it legal, there are other laws which apply and which applies to a RAW. If you have acted outside of 30945, then that is a violation of the law and you can in fact be charged. It is STILL a RAW.

As a RAW, transporting it outside of the law, regardless of whether it is taken apart, is STILL a violation of the law. 30605 doesn't apply to a RAW. CA PC 30945 applies regardless as to whether it is apart or not as it is STILL a RAW.

Quite clearly it is IMPOSSIBLE to get you to understand that a RAW is registered by serial number, which doesn't change when it is taken apart. You really need to talk to an attorney and I would strongly suggest that you STOP giving FALSE information.

Yes, your PS says exactly what I said it did. It is registered and that changes things.

 

[ikeo1]

Say what? You don't understand? Really? Yes, I am saying that he is lying because he is. Go look at what he claimed and then try to find what that false claim is based on. You won't find it because it is FALSE, aka LIE.

NO, I am not speaking to you as if you are an idiot, instead I am pointing out that you REFUSE to address the issue of his FALSE claims about me.

I also disagree, I am pointing out two things, both that he is WRONG and that he is LYING about me. That doesn't hurt my reputation, his LYING about me does.

NO, you are wrong, I don't think I am the only person who can determine facts. That is just so absurd and it seems like you are making that false claim because you don't want to address his FALSE claims about me, aka lying.

I am not getting personal, not at all, he is, I am defending against false claims, sorry that you are unable to understand that.

I am not telling, I am suggesting. You choose to go after me and you choose to IGNORE his FALSE claims which are LIES. It is FAIR to point that out. It is fair to say that you are ignoring that as that is the case. You don't seem to like that, so the question is why. You claim that people make false claims about you, so you SHOULD understand, yet it seems that you don't.

I think you're convoluting two things. As a consumer of the information and no skin in this game, you're taking his disagreement as a personal attack on you. It isn't, it's just an interpretation of what you're saying and now you're thinking I'm attacking you. I'm not.

I think you're missing the birds from the trees. The delivery is what I'm commenting on. I don't know either of you, you're both 2 out of 50,000 people.

I'm saying focus on the content and not trying to tell people what is the truth and what's not. Please discuss what is incorrect without the personal comments.

Would you feel better if I just removed the specific comments about you? Please report the comment that makes a claim about you. I really don't see a claim of anything?

 

[RickD427]

If you have acted outside of 30945, then that is a violation of the law and you can in fact be charged. It is STILL a RAW.

So, in the case of a RAW where the upper and lowers are separated such that it is no longer an AW, just what would you charge? You can't charge PC 30945, it carries no penalty (and it's also not listed by the Attorney General as a chargeable section: https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/law-enforcement/code-tables/macrcode.txt?081620261741). You can't charge PC 30605 because the weapon is not an AW (also see the summary of law in the Jury Instruction relative to PC 30605 that I previously cited). What's left to charge?

Quite clearly it is IMPOSSIBLE to get you to understand that a RAW is registered by serial number, which doesn't change when it is taken apart.

We're in violent agreement here. Twice now, I have agreed with you that a disassembled RAW remains a RAW. I'm just pointing out that there is no criminal violation attached to the possession of an RAW that is not also an AW. The legal penalties attach to an AW. They do not attach to an RAW.

30605 doesn't apply to a RAW

Penal Code section 30605 most certainly does attach to an RAW that is is also an AW. Please note that PC 30945 only exempts the registrant of an RAW from PC 30605 only under the conditions enumerated in PC 30945. If the registered possessor of an RAW that is also an AW acts outside of the provisions of PC 30945, they're subject to prosecution under PC 30605.

 

[kemasa]

I think you're convoluting two things. As a consumer of the information and no skin in this game, you're taking his disagreement as a personal attack on you. It isn't, it's just an interpretation of what you're saying and now you're thinking I'm attacking you. I'm not.

I think you're missing the birds from the trees. The delivery is what I'm commenting on. I don't know either of you, you're both 2 out of 50,000 people.

I'm saying focus on the content and not trying to tell people what is the truth and what's not. Please discuss what is incorrect without the personal comments.

Would you feel better if I just removed the specific comments about you? Please report the comment that makes a claim about you. I really don't see a claim of anything?

Nope. You are thinking incorrectly. Nope. I am not taking his disagreement as a personal attack. Nope. It isn't an interpretation of what I am said, it it a made up delusional lie.

You are attacking me because you object to my stating the fact that he is lying, you don't like that and instead of looking at the reality, you clearly want me to not mention the fact that he is lying about me.

This aspect is different than a difference of opinion, or even other facts.

Please discuss what is incorrect without the personal comments? Ok, enforce that on BOTH sides. Tell him to STOP making false claims about me, such as what I have documented.

Do you really think that I should have to go back and report everything? If that is what you want, so be it. Any claim that he falsely made about me I will report, and you will delete it, right? That is the deal, right?

What I would prefer is that he not resort to such dishonest tactics and for you to not say anything about me pointing out that he is lying when he is in fact lying. But if you want to play the delete game, that is your choice. Look at the post quoted when I said he is lying and that will guide you to seeing it.

How special, you or one of your minions decided to delete a post of mind. Quite telling.