2017 California AW Regulations - DISCUSSION Thread 2.0

[jcwatchdog]

Originally Posted by cockedandglocked

I don't blame you, I have a few rifles that I will definitely be registering one way or another, I just wanted to hold off for the time being until I know that the courts are (or aren't) going to force the DOJ to change the way it's done.

If you get a chance, could you put together a summary of how the registration process went?

There's really no point in waiting to register what you've decided to register. If the court finds that they overreached, you would still be entitled to the same considerations if you already registered or had waited.

[joshB exCorps]

Originally Posted by Junkie

cfars.doj.ca.gov

make that https://cfars.doj.ca.gov

**back to lurking mode**

[CandG]

Originally Posted by jcwatchdog

There's really no point in waiting to register what you've decided to register. If the court finds that they overreached, you would still be entitled to the same considerations if you already registered or had waited.

I'm thinking if the courts decide the photo requirement is an overreach, I don't want to have to trust that DOJ will actually delete any photos I already uploaded, because we all know they wouldn't.

[Junkie]

Originally Posted by joshB exCorps

make that https://cfars.doj.ca.gov

**back to lurking mode**

oops, i copy/pasted and for some reason chrome didn't copy the s part

[joshB exCorps]

Originally Posted by Junkie

oops, i copy/pasted and for some reason chrome didn't copy the s part

no worries. I do IT as a day job, and i know how easily those somewhat less tech-literate can lose their minds when clicking a link and it doesn't work...

[jcwatchdog]

Originally Posted by cockedandglocked

I'm thinking if the courts decide the photo requirement is an overreach, I don't want to have to trust that DOJ will actually delete any photos I already uploaded, because we all know they wouldn't.

Does it matter too much if they keep them? The photo requirements from what I can tell are to document that the gun is not featureless (and completely assembled) and that the bullet button is pictured. Having a picture of a gun which a lot of people post pics online anyways doesn't really help them much otherwise.

Plus, if the picture requirements are struck down, but everything else remains in place, we're still in the same boat as far as requirements go. We just don't take a picture of them.

[CandG]

Originally Posted by jcwatchdog

Does it matter too much if they keep them? The photo requirements from what I can tell are to document that the gun is not featureless (and completely assembled) and that the bullet button is pictured. Having a picture of a gun which a lot of people post pics online anyways doesn't really help them much otherwise.

Plus, if the picture requirements are struck down, but everything else remains in place, we're still in the same boat as far as requirements go. We just don't take a picture of them.

The idea of the DOJ having photos of my guns that are conclusively linked to my name and personal info (unlike the photos I post somewhat anonymously online) makes my tin foil hat go haywire. I'll do it if I have no other choice, but I'm waiting to make sure I have no other choice first.

Especially if they're going to be pushing this "if you change something on your gun then it makes it a different gun" issue. Sure, they only mentioned the bullet button not changing, but how easy would it be for them to apply it to every other aspect of the gun? And it would be that much easier for them to enforce later, after they've got photos of how everyone's guns looked when they registered. It scares me to think that there's a possibility that I'll never be able to change a stock or a handrail or grip or anything else about my registered guns for the rest of my life, even though on the surface DOJ hasn't exactly made that claim (yet... and they haven't exactly said that wouldn't be the case, either. Their intentional vagueness on that subject is startling.)

[Junkie]

Originally Posted by joshB exCorps

no worries. I do IT as a day job, and i know how easily those somewhat less tech-literate can lose their minds when clicking a link and it doesn't work...

oddly enough, if I copy the url (without the http part at all) into the address bar it works... but VB seems to add http, but not https, which breaks it

[1bulletBarney]

Originally Posted by joshB exCorps

make that https://cfars.doj.ca.gov

**back to lurking mode**

Thanks, I saved the link to my favorites...

Originally Posted by swiftone

Quite simple actually. I had already set up a CFARS account.

Followed the link and filled in the spaces provided. Other then the 2 minutes per picture upload I doubt it took me 2 minutes to fill to out the form, review my information and pay.

That's not to bad. The one hurdle in my case is I still use a dumbphone and I don't have a digital camera so I have no way to take a pic to upload. I've been shopping for a budget digital camera. I know I can get a friend with a iPhone to come over and take some pics then he e-mails pics to me as a attachment and go from there but it's time for me to get a real camera other then the useless one on my dumbphone...

[russ69]

Just BS off the top of my head...I don't think there is going to be a requirement to not change anything. I think the pictures are just for the registration process to make sure the correct guns are being registered and not guns that are on the verboten list. Once registered, your gun is an AW and you have done your job. They have specifically stated you can not remove your bullet button so that is an item you can't change but I'm not sure what the legal charge would be if you change anything else. Double secret AW?

[jcwatchdog]

So I guess there isn't going to be a public service announcement like the last time? If you haven't heard about it from calguns you're just screwed and the old "ignorance of the law is no excuse" will be used to prosecute the people who said they were never told their legal things were becoming illegal?

[ajb78]

Originally Posted by 1bulletBarney

Thanks, I saved the link to my favorites...



That's not to bad. The one hurdle in my case is I still use a dumbphone and I don't have a digital camera so I have no way to take a pic to upload. I've been shopping for a budget digital camera. I know I can get a friend with a iPhone to come over and take some pics then he e-mails pics to me as a attachment and go from there but it's time for me to get a real camera other then the useless one on my dumbphone...

I think Walmart will create a CD from film, just get a disposable camera, if you don't have a film camera already.

[Sousuke]

Can we start talking about proper workarounds now for those who want to register with BBs?

[Pharcydeabc]

So what's the final decision on overall length of the rifle and barrel length. Can either of these be changed to less than 30" or less than 16" after being registered?

[Junkie]

Less than 16" is federal SBR issue

[CandG]

Originally Posted by Sousuke

Can we start talking about proper workarounds now for those who want to register with BBs?

I don't really know, hopefully someone with legal background will answer that.

[ojisan]

Originally Posted by Pharcydeabc

So what's the final decision on overall length of the rifle and barrel length. Can either of these be changed to less than 30" or less than 16" after being registered?

What is your understanding of this?
How do you read it?
Share your thoughts.

[HiND-SIGHT]

Originally Posted by Sousuke

Can we start talking about proper workarounds now for those who want to register with BBs?

I don't know if we should talk about the large glaring singular loophole yet.

[Sousuke]

I guess the question is, at this point can the regulations be amended.

[sevendayweekend]

Is there a mechanism in place that checks Dros against against the new round of registered firearms?
How do they catch it if some dummy tries to sell a rifle that they have registered?

[numpty]

Originally Posted by sevendayweekend

Is there a mechanism in place that checks Dros against against the new round of registered firearms?
How do they catch it if some dummy tries to sell a rifle that they have registered?

Apparently you can de-register. I would assume that means it's legal to convert your RAW to featureless. So selling it would seem to be okay. Not sure if you'd have to have it de-registered prior to that or not, but it would seem like a good idea, assuming it would show up as a RAW on some database.

[mutejosh]

Originally Posted by swiftone

Ok - I bit the bullet and registered one carbine today.

Before I catch grief from the "Don't register crowd" this is a cheap stripped lower I bought specifically to build up and register.

I wanted to have options and I am not super worried about providing the CFARS my personal information - if they don't know who I am by now, and that I own firearms...this was not a decision I took lightly and I do have reasons for doing what I did. I gave it a lot of thought since last July when Brown signed it into law.

BTW - the photos took forever to upload...

Please keep us posted on how the process goes!

[Brown Rock]

Since my lower is a Spikes Tactical, for caliber it says Multi cal. On the option of caliber what do I select? It says 5.56 NATO on my barrel. Should I just put 5.56 NATO?

[Pharcydeabc]

Originally Posted by ojisan

What is your understanding of this?
How do you read it?
Share your thoughts.

From the first round of regulations, I thought that the barrel had to be 16", but that the overall length could be less than 30". I was looking forward to this because I have a Steyr AUG, so the 16" barrel still brings the rifle well below the 30" overall length.

After reading the updated regulations (round 2/3) it was unclear and other people in the thread were saying that you could not modify the rifle after it was registered. But from my understanding, it was that you could not remove the bullet button and didn't pertain to other parts of the rifle. Honestly, I'm a decently intelligent individual, but this whole thing is a complete cluster****, so I'm struggling to understand.

[Junkie]

Originally Posted by Brown Rock

Since my lower is a Spikes Tactical, for caliber it says Multi cal. On the option of caliber what do I select? It says 5.56 NATO on my barrel. Should I just put 5.56 NATO?

I see an option for interchangable barrel

[Brown Rock]

Originally Posted by swiftone

No option for 5.56 NATO - only 223

It is on there. 5.56x45mm NATO.

[Brown Rock]

Originally Posted by Junkie

I see an option for interchangable barrel

I saw that too. I'm confused on what to put.

[Sousuke]

I would think all AR 15s are interchangeable barrels.

Interesting note on the muzzle brake.

[Sousuke]

What resolution are people using?

I'm tempted to start at 640x480 to start.

[jwtiger69]

Originally Posted by Sousuke

I would think all AR 15s are interchangeable barrels.

Interesting note on the muzzle brake.

I am curious about this too. I also have 2 uppers and do not want to send pictures of my nice one to them. Is it safe to assume that we change change those out?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[OmegaTrader]

Originally Posted by joshB exCorps

make that https://cfars.doj.ca.gov

**back to lurking mode**

Tagged

[Discogodfather]

Originally Posted by swiftone

Ok. Minor issue.

On the form it asks you to identify what assault weapon characteristics your gun has I.E. pistol grip, flash hider, thumb hole stock etc.

Mine only has a pistol grip so that was all I checked.

About an hour after submitting my application I received an email asking to describe make and model of my muzzle brake.

Guess that shows two things -

1) a human looks at these as submitted, or since I was one of the first I got special attention.

2) they are serious about keeping it in the same configuration as registered.

Interesting...

Make and model of a muzzle brake? What does that have to do with anything?

[Discogodfather]

Originally Posted by numpty

Apparently you can de-register. I would assume that means it's legal to convert your RAW to featureless. So selling it would seem to be okay. Not sure if you'd have to have it de-registered prior to that or not, but it would seem like a good idea, assuming it would show up as a RAW on some database.

There are two ways to go about selling a RAW.

1) Go to a special RAW dealer (don't know where or how many or who these are) and they can directly sell your RAW out of state. I imagine there are very few of these types of dealers and I see some $$$ involved as they would be asking for extra to process a transaction.

2) De-Register your RAW through the form they provided, convert to featureless and sell. No idea how long this takes.

[Sousuke]

Originally Posted by Discogodfather

Make and model of a muzzle brake? What does that have to do with anything?

My thought was that since a brake isn't an evil feature, they want to make sure it doesn't have any "evil properties" to it. I think they have labeled some brakes as flash hiders in the past.

[Discogodfather]

Originally Posted by Sousuke

My thought was that since a brake isn't an evil feature, they want to make sure it doesn't have any "evil properties" to it. I think they have labeled some brakes as flash hiders in the past.

Why, who cares? You can register an AW with a flash hider or brake or combo, it dosen't matter. Why would they be asking for information on it, what difference does it make?

[Sousuke]

Originally Posted by Discogodfather

Why, who cares? You can register an AW with a flash hider or brake or combo, it dosen't matter. Why would they be asking for information on it, what difference does it make?

My only guess would be for posterity (They are a bureaucracy at the end of the day). They want to make the boxes are checked accurately.

If you had a collapsable stock but you said it was fixed, I bet you would get the same query.

[CandG]

I'm really surprised how many people are jumping on registering everything on literally Day 1 of the registration period, while nobody still has any real idea what's going on.

There's a LOT to learn in the coming weeks, guys. A LOT! You can't withdraw your registration form after you submit it, so why risk realizing a month or 6 months from now that "Oh crap, I should have ______ when I registered!" (fill in the blank with whatever information we have yet to uncover).

I'm urging everyone to exercise caution, and realize that there is no benefit to registering today, versus next June!

You guys really have zero interest in measuring the water depth before you dive into it head first?

[OmegaTrader]

(e) The Department will not register a firearm as an assault weapon unless the
firearm is fully assembled and fully functional.

Can I assume that if you separate the lower and upper, you're not required to register as far as "fully assembled" go? What exactly is NON-FUNCTIONAL? In other words, what must be done to render the rifle as "non functional?" I'm thinking about removing the trigger mechanism, stocks and turning the lower into a blank one would probably be good enough.

[Sousuke]

Originally Posted by cockedandglocked

I'm really surprised how many people are jumping on registering everything on literally Day 1 of the registration period, while nobody still has any real idea what's going on.

There's a LOT to learn in the coming weeks, guys. A LOT! You can't withdraw your registration form after you submit it, so why risk realizing a month or 6 months from now that "Oh crap, I should have ______ when I registered!" (fill in the blank with whatever information we have yet to uncover).

I'm urging everyone to exercise caution, and relaize that there is no benefit to registering today, versus next June! You guys really have zero interest in finding out what the best strategies might be?

I agree. I may not wait until next year, but I will at least wait until October.

Still its interesting to see the requests already coming from CADOJ.

[Instajc556]

Bunch of sheep