‘Bullet Button’ Used To Get Around California Gun Laws

[Johnny Rico]

Bearing in mind that it would be more accurate to replace "get around" with "follow the law to the letter"...

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/05/01/bullet-button-used-to-get-around-california-gun-laws/

SAN FRANCISCO (CBS 5) — California has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation. But one wouldn’t know that going to the firing range these days. AR-15s and AK-47s are the must-have guns of choice. How can that be? Every time California tightens up the assault weapons ban, the gun industry finds a way around it. The latest example involves a tiny device.

John Largaespada loves his AR-15 and goes to the range every week to fire it. And he’s got plenty of company. “There is usually like a 30 minute to an hour wait for rifle lanes,” he said. That’s because the most popular guns at the range these days are semi-automatic rifles. In a state with some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, how is it these military-style guns are legal?

Brian Normandy is an instructor at Jackson Arms. “As long as we don’t have a detachable magazine in it, it’s actually a legal firearm,” Normandy said. Other states allow people to use their finger to pop out the magazine and quickly reload. It is called a detachable magazine, which is illegal in California.

The intent is to slow down the process of reloading the weapon. But many target shooters don’t like the reloading hassle. “For me to use this on the range, I would have to open up the receiver and top load it,” said Normandy. To get around this, gun manufacturers are selling firearms to Californians with what is called a “bullet button.”

(more at link)

The article is a bit misleading in that detachable magazines are perfectly legal in California as long as they're not for a weapon defined under California law as an "assault weapon". Later in the article the term "assault rifle" is misused time after time...no surprise there. In any case, kudos to clever entrepreneurs who are legally satisfying a market demand!

[ManiacJoe]

1. Must be a slow news day in California.

This is certainly not new news. Good stuff none the less.

[Atypical Liberal]

2. LOL the shit they have to put up with in California.

Ridiculous.

All rifles, let alone assault rifles, were responsible for only 59 homicides in 2010. By comparison, there were 103 homicides committed using hands and feet.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl20.xls

Yet they keep throwing all these stupid restrictions on rifles and people just keep coming up with work-arounds to meet the letter of the law.

[GreenStormCloud]

3. Video that explains it here:

California gun owners outsmart Claifornia legislators again.

[krispos42]

18. A magnet

Brilliant!


Oh, that's good! I was thinking of some sort of point on a tether, or a thing you slip over your finger or something.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

29. Maybe...

...it could be tethered to the "thing that goes up" as a permanent means of loss prevention.

[Meiko]

4. So what law makers have done

is turn law abiding gun owners into criminals by forcing them to use special devices so they can operate their weapons the way they were designed to be operated, real smart. What is it with California anyway, are the law makers there really that stupid? Criminals will comply of course.

[Callisto32]

5. Priceless:

So why isn’t law enforcement cracking down on what appears to be a loophole in the state’s gun control laws? CBS 5 put the question to Bay Area police departments. None would comment, same with the California Department of Justice.

Even Senator Dianne Feinstein, one of the strongest gun control advocates in the country, told CBS 5 she was “not able to participate.”

The reason they cannot be reached is because THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A LOOPHOLE. There are only laws that do not function the way some people would like.

[iverglas]

28. prove or retract

You can't prove your false statement, because it is false. So I suggest you just retract, now.

It is a false statement about an elected Democrat, potentially damaging to the Democratic Party, posted at Democratic Underground. Quelle surprise: in the Guns forum.

But take your best shot, if you like.


btw -- I find it amusing that a large majority of regular posters in this forum know as well as I do that your statement is false, but every time it is made (and trust me, that's been a lot of times), I am the one who says so ...

[sarisataka]

37. If I may

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe."
--U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein Associated Press 11/18/93

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out right ban,
picking up every one of them... "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,
"I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."
--U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), CBS-TV's "60 Minutes," 2/5/95

[ToolMaker]

40. you beat me to it... N/T

[iverglas]

43. apparently you can't

The statement was:

Senator Feinstein
Wants a total ban on all firearms, she has said as much.

Copying and pasting doesn't do it.

Make your argument if you wish.

[sarisataka]

45. Ok, I'll type it

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe." Dianne Feinstein as quoted by AP 11/18/93

There I did not cut and paste... happy?

Now maybe I am a little slow. Can you explain to me, given that statement how Dianne Feinstein does not want to ban all firearms?
I see a blanket statement with 'banning' being the operative verb.

She may not have introduced legislation as such, given the other quote where she acknowledged she lacked the votes yet her desire is a total ban...

[iverglas]

46. sure I can

Now maybe I am a little slow. Can you explain to me, given that statement how Dianne Feinstein does not want to ban all firearms?

Because I, you, and every Democrat in the US knows that she doesn't. How's that?

Can you explain to me how what you quoted, and your question, substantiates the claim made?

Dianne Feinstein as quoted by AP 11/18/93

You didn't copy and paste? Really? You read the AP report for yourself, and saw the context in which the statement was made, and what it was about? Please explain it for us, or give us a link to the news item.


I really was hoping you'd address the other misrepresented quotation. Won't you do that?

[sarisataka]

47. I know

that a total ban cannot happen given the opposition. But that does not mean she would not like to do so.

My point is merely replying to the statement that she favors banning all guns.

Do you deny that she said that? If you can show it is false I will happily apologize. If you can show it is taken out of context I will grudgingly apologize.

[iverglas]

50. spit those mealies out of your mouth and stand up straight

You are claiming to have substantiated this statement:

Senator Feinstein
Wants a total ban on all firearms, she has said as much.

made in a post that a jury voted 6-0 to hide, before you posted, because it is a LIE, a lie told about an elected Democrat, at Democratic Underground.

I have no onus here. You are claiming that the statement is true. You prove that.

Do you deny that she said that? If you can show it is false I will happily apologize. If you can show it is taken out of context I will grudgingly apologize.

I don't give a flying fuck what you will do, and I have no job to do here. Prove your claim. Or not, and let it stand as the false claim it is. Whatever.

[Glaug-Eldare]

51. You keep repeating this,

but the two quotes in #37 make it plain as white bread. If those two don't satisfy you, and you refuse to explain why they don't, what do you really want us to do? If you've already determined that no evidence can possibly exist, why are you asking for evidence?

[iverglas]

52. yeah, I've repeated it about 200 times at Democratic Underground

Why in the fuck should I have to do it again?

Why should anyone be able to come to this site and lie about elected Democrats and think they can get away with it?

NEITHER ONE of the quotations of things said by Dianne Feinstein prove that she WANTS TO BAN ALL GUNS.

Not on the fucking face of them alone. That is NOT WHAT THEY SAY. Not even without anybody patiently explaining (to a bunch of people who quite possibly already know) what they DO say.

What do I want you to do? As I said, I don't give a flying fuck what any of you do.

Except when somebody comes to Democratic Underground and posts a lie about an elected Democrat. I expect people not to do that. I like to think that everybody at Democratic Underground finds that unacceptable. I'm wrong, of course, but sometimes I like to think these things anyway.

[ToolMaker]

39. are her own words proof enough?

Feinstein said on CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."[22]

[link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Dianne_Feinstein#Gun_politics|]

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe."
--U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein Associated Press 11/18/93

I'm sure there are more if a person wanted to dig through every speech she has made with regard to guns, but I have other things to do right now.

[iverglas]

44. well, there goes another one

Let's be clear here, shall you?

Senator Feinstein
Wants a total ban on all firearms, she has said as much.

That is the claim.

Are you stating that it is a true claim, and that what you have offered is proof of that claim?

In your own words, if you would.

[Ashgrey77]

54. Wow, just wow,

sounds like something a republican would say. Don't badmouth the party, rabble, rabble, rabble. And by the way she did say that in the past as several posters down a little farther have pointed out.

[iverglas]

65. yeah?

She said she wants "a total ban on all firearms"?

Prove it.


(edited to include exact quotation)

[Ashgrey77]

75. sigh,

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe."
--U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein Associated Press 11/18/93

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out right ban,
picking up every one of them... "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,
"I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."
--U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), CBS-TV's "60 Minutes," 2/5/95

[iverglas]

76. I'm surrounded by parrots

Those quotations DO NOT SAY "I want to ban all guns".

If you wish to allege that they must be interpreted to mean this, show your work.

I strongly recommend that you do your research first before you pursue this attempt to vilify a Democratic senator based on a total misrepresentation of her words.

[Clames]

78. LOL

And looks who's talking about misrepresentation. Strongly recommend you stop calling kettles black, pot.

[ManiacJoe]

79. At least the parrots can read.

How does "ban all" not match "an out right ban"?

Canadian English cannot be that much different from American English.

[Callisto32]

80. I'm a pretty bird!

*RAWWWWWK*

[sarisataka]

7. It is funny

how these 'gun control' laws get passed directed at features of the guns ala AWB. Then when people make modifications to comply with the law e.g. non-detachable magazines, remove bayonet lugs etc. it is gun owners 'getting around' or 'finding loopholes' in the law.

Seems to be lots of loopholes out there to the people who wrote the laws

[Glaug-Eldare]

8. Bingo.

It's the legislature's job to make sound, rational laws. It is not the people's job to second-guess the law and say, "well, they probably meant to do this.

[Remmah2]

12. Point well taken.

[img][/img]

[Hoyt]

59. Would you really want that guy with a concealed weapon standing next to a little girl.

Or, walking toward you at the dark end of the street

Another poster boy.... .

[Glaug-Eldare]

61. What do you know about him besides the fact he has an AK stock made out of a toilet seat?

Is there anything about that picture that indicates murderous intent, paranoia, or recklessness to you? (Besides the fact that he appears to own a gun, anyway.)

[Hoyt]

63. Well, he appears challenged and someone who would like Ted Nugent, Zimmy,

But, he's happy with his guns..... and probably clings to a few. Or, he could be a model on Stotmfront or similar websites in their ads.

[Glaug-Eldare]

64. Really? All that from one goofy picture?

You're really reading waaay too far into it. He's not shooting anybody, he's not aiming at anybody, his finger isn't on the trigger, no law is being broken or challenged, there's nothing incriminating in the background, and the rifle hasn't been converted for any purpose but comedy. Do you accuse everybody of being a danger to society if they aren't photogenic, or just people who find toilet seats on their rifles amusing?

[friendly_iconoclast]

69. Didn't you know our Hoyt's a practicing telepsychologist?

He knows what people think, what their political views are, and how many guns they have simply by reading about them or seeing
pictures of them on the intertubes.

[Hoyt]

70. Well it ain't difficult when some yahoo is standing there with a toilet seat modified rifle.

If one of you guys will give me the url, or whatever you call it, where that photo came from, we can probably tell a little bit more about him. Then, we'll see who is right.

[gejohnston]

71. what can you tell us about the owner of this gun?

[Glaug-Eldare]

72. Unfortunately, WYSIWYG

All I could find was this page, which reveals nothing about the owner. Whether you think he should be able to own it or not, there's really no evidence that he's anything worse than goofy. Perfectly good people enjoy making silly modifications to their homes, cars, or even their bodies. Since gun owners typically don't consider firearms to be inherently menacing, there's very little we can read into his character except perhaps that he enjoys absurdity. Nothing so bad about that, is there?

[ManiacJoe]

74. I need to buy my crystal ball where Hoyt gets his.

This Wallmart version is not working apparently.

[gejohnston]

62. depends

A CCW, no problem. A drug dealer or gangster not so much.

[friendly_iconoclast]

67. Better him than *this* person with a concealed standing next to a little girl:

At least the guy in the picture had enough sense to keep his finger off the trigger...

[ileus]

73. I stand next to my little girl all the time.

[appal_jack]

15. The authors of those laws are just loopy. N/T

[Hoyt]

16. Gun crowd is not much different from Wall Streeters, banks and other such groups in that respect.

They all call themselves "law-abiding," but they are morally, if not legally, wrong.

[Johnny Rico]

19. Changing a magazine is "immoral"?

[Hoyt]

22. Trying to get around laws is. That's what banks, the rich, etc., do.

You have to specify every dang thing in a law or some fool wanting to carry a slightly more "lethal" weapon than the next guy will find some friggin way around it. Gun lovers and bankers will never adhere to the spirit of the law, they'll always try to find some way around it. Same for manufacturers, marketers, gun shops, etc.

[Glaug-Eldare]

25. What do you consider the intent of the bill to be?

It appears to have been written to make it inconvenient for Californians to use the standard detachable magazines ubiquitous in every other state. Using a bullet button, magnet, or tool to exchange specialty CA-spec magazines is still inconvenient and compliant with the law. What do you want us to read into the law, besides "don't buy guns that look scaaary?"

If their intent was that everybody must sit down and use two allen wrenches to remove their 10rd mags, they should have written a law making that the only acceptable means of detaching magazines. As written, the law allows for creative people to come up with various means of obeying while maximizing convenience. All the law is written to do is create a ceiling for that level of convenience.

[Johnny Rico]

26. It's not "getting around" the law. Using a bullet button is following the law.

As another poster (Petronius) pointed out, the California Code of Regulations specifically says that a bullet is a tool in the context of removing a magazine, so a design that makes use of a bullet is exactly in keeping with the law.

[sarisataka]

42. No, compliance...

if the law says you need a tool then go out and discover a better tool you have not gone around the law.

This is the fruit of the willful ignorance of the controllers. By whipping off some half assed law that has no real effect then complaining "that wasn't what we meant'.
If the purpose of this law is to make the guns even less appealing to criminals it will probably work. Criminals don't often carry magnets, at least that I am aware of, so would not be able to remove the magazine...

If I was a paranoid person I would say it is not willful ignorance but a tactic. Draft laws that will not reach the desired level of control, complain about evil gun owners finding loopholes and then argue for stricter gun control. Repeat until everything is banned.

Good thing no controls have ever claimed they want to ban guns

[Hoyt]

60. I'm sorry, we ain't talking tools here. Except for tools of the NRA and other right wing groups.

[PavePusher]

82. Mirror, mirror, on the wall...

[friendly_iconoclast]

48. Do you take *any* optional lawful deductions when you fill out tax forms?

[friendly_iconoclast]

81. No answer. Can't say I'm surprised

[NewMoonTherian]

58. The law is unjust in spirit.

We're bound to follow the letter of the law, and the bullet button does that. I don't find anything immoral about thwarting the intent of unjust laws.

[sarisataka]

38. It is law abiding

if you follow the law, I believe morals fall under ethics and/or religion.

[petronius]

9. It's not "getting around" the law - the California Code of Regulations

specifically says that a bullet is a tool in the context of removing a magazine. So a design that makes use of a bullet is exactly in keeping with the law:

The following definitions apply to terms used in the identification of assault weapons pursuant to Penal Code section 30515:

(a) “Detachable magazine” means 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. A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool. Ammunition feeding device includes any belted or linked ammunition, but does not include clips, en bloc clips, or stripper clips that load cartridges into the magazine.

http://weblinks.westlaw.com/result/default.aspx?cite=11CAADCS5469&db=1000937&findtype=L&fn=_top&pbc=DA010192&rlt=CLID_FQRLT28547541515&rp=%2FSearch%2Fdefault.wl&rs=WEBL12.04&service=Find&spa=CCR-1000&sr=TC&vr=2.0

[Simo 1939_1940]

10. Too bad the magazine capacity issue is still with us. NT

[Johnny Rico]

11. One of many reasons I'm glad I don't live in California.

[Hoyt]

23. So how many bullets do you think you need for self-defense, if that is what you will use gun for?

[Johnny Rico]

24. I don't know in advance, which is why it's better to have more rather than less.

If I'm using my AR-57 for self-defense, I'll have it fully loaded with a normal capacity magazine which holds 50 rounds of 5.7x28. The companion pistol to it, the FN Five Seven, holds 20 rounds.

[iverglas]

30. you really just never do know, do you?

[Johnny Rico]

31. No one ever knows in advance how many shots they'll need to fire in self-defense.

Why handicap one's self? You'll notice that the police never use restricted-capacity magazines...

[Glaug-Eldare]

32. After all, the situation can't be predicted ahead of time

There could be multiple threats, there could be malfunctions, and even police miss most of their shots

[Johnny Rico]

33. Exactly so. Given the choice, why would I defend myself with anything less than the most effective

tool for the job?

[Kaleva]

34. That's why I have a rifle, shotgun and handgun with me at all times.

Since I can't predict when the bad guy(s) may show up, I have to be armed 24/7 when at home. Since no one gun is best for all situations, I carry a rifle, shotgun, and handgun with me 24/7 when at home. Since I can't predict as to how many bad guys may show up at any given time, I am loaded down with ammo 24/7 when at home.

Actually, everyone predicts what may happen and they arm themselves accordingly.

[Glaug-Eldare]

35. Fair 'nuf. Everybody finds their own balance

and most people don't find it necessary to own a firearm at all, while I carry a knife and flashlight at all times

[Kaleva]

36. Yes. There is no one size fits all.

You could have one guy armed to the teeth for home defense and his next door neighbor does nothing more then lock the doors at night.

[Johnny Rico]

41. And as long as we all have the freedom to choose which path to go down, I don't have the slightest

quarrel with either one of them.

[slackmaster]

13. This is what usually happens when non-technical people attempt to craft a technical fix...

...to an ill-defined situation that they have decided must be a technical problem but really isn't a problem at all.

The availability of bullet button magazine releases, which have been around for almost 10 years BTW, has NOT resulted in a spike in unlawful shootings done with semi-automatic rifles.

I wish the Legislature would apply logic and reason instead of emotion and prejudice once in a while.

[ileus]

14. emotion is all they have....

Guns kill people
Guns are impolite
Guns are sexist
guns intimidate people.....

The list goes on and on

[Hoyt]

17. Actually it is what happens when you try to appease a bunch of morally bankrupt people.

[krispos42]

20. So we share a view on the gun-control lobby. n/t

[HALO141]

21. Yes, Hoyt, that's exactly what the pro-control crowd is. Thanks for saying it.

[slackmaster]

27. Looks like a Freudian slip to me, but I do agree

A cursory look at the motivation for many of my state's gun laws reveals a lack of a moral or even rational foundation.

[friendly_iconoclast]

49. I'm bookmarking this thread for that post alone.

It fits right in with your posts advocating the use of quarterstaffs, bicycle wheels, helmets, and cans of beans for self-defense.
And let us not forget your advocacy of vigilantism when one perceives another person is armed...

[Hoyt]

53. Damn, surely you have better stuff to do than that and playing with your guns.

[friendly_iconoclast]

55. ...and once again, you've forgotten that I don't own any guns.

Last edited Wed May 2, 2012, 11:56 PM - Edit history (1)

At least I treat your suggestions seriously. Were I just a bit more cynical, I'd be inclined to think are a put-on that would make Andy Kaufman proud....

[Glaug-Eldare]

56. In Hoyt's defense, this board would be a lot duller without him!

Here's to Hoyt!

[Atypical Liberal]

77. Also what happens when you get people like Hoyt calling up and yammering for gun control...

...asking for more help stopping the shoulder things that go up.

[Clames]

57. Oh noes...

...the spirit of another law was violated again... Maybe if those that wrote these laws weren't so technically incompetent they'd have less to complain about...

[jpak]

66. Extender devices with buttons?

Who knew?

[friendly_iconoclast]

68. Wow, haven't seen a pseudo-Freudian reference from you lot in a while.

Good to know at least one of you is still kickin' it old-school.