Quote from Liberty4Ever   on 05/30/07 at 23:19:22:

 
As previously mentioned, this new way around the CA law would be minor modification. It would not be like they are designing, testing, and tooling up for a gun specifically for California. They have already done basically all the designing, testing, and tooling up for the RFB. Now all they need to do is design test and tool for a single replacement part.
Lawsuits aside, i think it is a low risk low investment idea.
 
Your point about lawsuits may have merit, but I believe as a whole that the anti-gun movement is running out of steam.
 
Also precedent shows the lawsuit/ban fear to be minimal.
 
There was talk a couple years ago about banning the SU-16, because it was relatively cheap, folds in half(basically a folding stock loophole), takes AR mags (easy to get high caps for it).
Nothing ever came of it. No frivolous lawsuits.
 
I already posted pics of my Bro's CA legal AR-15, using the "off-list lower receiver" loophole. We just took it to Utah and attached a true pistol grip to it and had some fun there. Of course AR setups like that cost ~$1000 in CA. These types of CA legal AR-15s have been around for years, despite AR-15s being banned specifically by name. This loophole hasn't been closed, and does not look like it will be anytime soon, and no lawsuits have came of it  
 
Then there is Serbu Firearms- using the .510 DTC cartridge- a reformed 50 BMG with the same ballistics/powder capacity. Clearly the 50 ban had huge loopholes, Serbu flooded the market with unfinished receivers... little more than a metal tube and a serial # on it, so they could be registered and completed later, allowing Serbu to keep up with demand, and allowing those without the funds available for a $2k+ rifle to still be able to legally have one at a later time.
 
Expensive M1As were sold continuously, and their muzzle brake specifically exempted from the law, despite having a sort of secondary flash suppression effect.  
 
Compare to a decade ago when the SKS's with detachable magazines were banned. SKS's posses none of the offending characteristics under current law. They were just the rifle version of a "Saturday night special", cheap and widely available at a time when alot of new gun bans were being passed (major ones in '89, '94, and '99). A decade later and nothing is done about the SU-16s, off list ARs, M1A/SOCOMs, serbu's unfinished 50 BMG flooding and reformed 50 BMG/.510 DTC rifles.
 
When the law first came out they went on a ban fest that the SKS got caught in, but now the CA public sits stupidly by and thinks they are safe. They generally know far too little about what guns are even for sale in CA to raise a stink about it.
 
Gun control isnt really discussed anymore, it lost(or contributed to their loosing) Gore and Kerry the election. None of the major political figures will even touch HR 1099 (Clinton and Obama haven't said a word on it).
 
My estimate is that this would slip in "under the Radar" and stay that way. In fact, I think the "radar" is turned off, the dumb public got the AW and 50 ban passed, and then they forgot about them. I know quite a few people here who were surprised a mini-14 was even legal.
 
For an expensive rifle that won't be sold in large numbers, I expect nothing will ever come of these fears
 
----------------------------------
Edit:
You know..... I should patent the "key release"/"magazine release requiring a tool to activate" system.... its way better than those pinned mags. But I'd rather see kel tec apply it to their RFB, and then give me a free RFB after X number of sales in CA.
 
If kel tec took the idea and patented it, not only could they make money selling their rifles in CA, they could license it and get money from modified AR's/Mini-14s/M1A's etc. They could also sell their SU-16 B and C models in CA.

Well.... its funny you bring that up, I am well aware of that law. I tend to only pay attention to Bans on firearms and taxes on ammo.
 
"In California, a previous effort to pass a micro-stamping bill failed."
"The bill now heads to the state Senate."
They also tried to pass some stupid law regulating ammo sales... it never got anywhere, and Arnold probably would have vetoed it anyway.
 
It is incredibly impractical, as replacement firing pins and such require no paperwork, and can be easily obtained.
California also had a bill, AB 449(drafted by a republican) or something, to repeal the AW ban.... as you can expect it got nowhere either.
 
Now the funny part,  Sacramento isn't too far away from me here in Davis. I knew one of the guys doing the studies on the micro stamping. I met him at the archery range nearby. He was a grad student, forensic science or whatever, had to go through alot of red tape to get guns on campus to test or something. He was rooting for it to fail, and had some statistics on what % of the information was readable after X number of rounds.
The results were pretty poor the firing pin will no longer leave enough information on the case after a few hundred rounds if I recall correctly.
Not to mention how easy it would be to just remove the firing pin, tap it against a steel plate (or even lightly tap the end with a hammer), and put the firing pin back in, and it won't leave any readable information.
 
Its another stupid law that may or may not pass, but ultimately won't make a bit of difference to me.
 
Reminds me of the ballistic finger printing they almost passed back in 2003 (which has the same issues with replacement barrels, and ease of modification to the barrel, and changes due to wear)
 
I'm not gonna say the anti-movement is dead, or that these laws aren't on a dangerous slope. Its just that compared to what they have done in the past and the "loopholes" they are letting slip by, what they are doing seems rather pathetic.... out of steam.

do you have any examples of a bullet button system already?
 
The pistol grip is not a problem if such a "bullet button" system were used.

Most people won't want to register at CalGuns to see the links. Is there some short info you can exerpt to give us an idea?
 

From the Bullet Button website:
 
Quote:

The emphasis is theirs, not mine. In other words, this may or may not create a California legal magazine solution, depending on the interpretation. It doesn't sound like the sort of thing that a manufacturer would care to implement. It looks like some hobbyists saying, "We think this meets the letter of the California law. Prove us wrong."
 
If it does meet the letter of the law, it certainly circumvents the intent of the law, and as such the law will probably be interpreted not to allow this device and there's a good chance the letter of the law will be revised AGAIN to specifically exclude such interpretations. Similarly, the .50 DTC caliber was invented to circumvent the .50 BMG ban, and it will soon be specifically outlawed, and the law will be revised to add some general specifications to avoid future circumventing, probably limiting muzzle energy or momentum to some value substantially below the .50 BMG.
 
These little loopholes are temporary, and in the long run only serve to antagonize the anti-gun crowd, and once energized, when the loophole is closed it's often closed in such a way that adds a ot more restrictions. For example, having people who don't know squat about firearms setting a limit on kinetic energy may result in several other large caliber rifles suddenly being declared as having the same status as the .50 BMG. closing the loophole on magazines may force owners to disfigure their firearms, or lose them altogether.
 
Even if the Bullet Button was California legal, you'd still need to use it with a 10 round magazine. It's odd how something like a 30 round magazine in an AR (or PLR-16) is completely legal in my state, but it's a FELONY in California.
 
I probably sound like I'm arguing with you and taking California's side, but I'm not. I can understand revolting against a stupid and unconstitutional law by finding and exploiting loopholes. I'm simply pointing out the fact that such tactics have historically resulted in even tighter restrictions as legislators react to being mocked, as the intent of their laws is openly flouted.
 
I wish that energy was instead directed toward legal challenges to the unconstitutional laws that would have lasting benefits for California gun owners, as well as gun owners in copy cat states that tend to adopt whatever nonsensical gun laws are enacted by California, and even gun owners in free states who are subjected to the economic tyranny of California as gun manufacturers are forced by market considerations to adopt California's 10 round magazine limit and that unconstitutional state legislation is forced on all of us who purchase a new gun with a 10 round mag when we could have had a 17 round mag for the same price. It's a small insult compared to what California gun owners must suffer under every day, but the difference is, my state legislators didn't vote for it, and I shouldn't have to be forced to live with ANY of California's state laws.

The PDF posted above does seem to explain that a tool operated style mag release would be legal.
 
I have no doubt that If it trully is legal in CA, A california model RFB probably will be made that way.  Kel-Tec has no problems selling rifles to CA, as long as they are legal in CA. It looks like the tool operated mag release is legal, and something similar could be done with the RFB (and probably ALL other rifles).

I'm certainly no expert on California gun laws - I mostly try to ignore them for the sake of my blood pressure and mental health - but I think the .22 LR is exempted from the scary looking gun bans?
 
Stevil knows for sure.
 
Big difference between a .22 and a .308.
 
I read that a threaded barrel version of the G22 was recalled in CA because that was still enough to make it an "assault weapon"?  

Does that mean that an AR-15 that is converted permanently to .22LR is legal in California, since it's rimfire?
....Like the Bushmaster carbon 15 http://www.bushmaster.com/catalog_carbon15_AZ-C1522LR.asp