M4 RAW Build

[Plenty_Pack_556]

I think that’s just the website compression. Taken with iPhone 15 pro lol

Not really. Your classified ads show better quality.

 

[Gawernator]

Not really. Your classified ads show better quality.

Looks normal on my phone screen. Idk what to say. It's sick af though! Now I just need NODS

 

[AR15barrels]

It’s an Sig M400

Ah ha, that's not an M4.
Also explains the non-standard gas block instead of a front sight like a proper Colt, FN or Remington M4 Carbine.

 

[treelogger]

Also, I still have a BB on mine, but apparently you don't actually need it for a registered assault weapon?

So you're saying this is a registered AW?

Is it a BBRAW? Meaning it was registered (around 2016 or so) because it has been built with a BB, and the registration window for those opened up? In that case, you can legally not remove the BB, or else it turns into an illegal RAW.

Or was it registered long ago (I think the registration window ended around 2001 or so)? In that case, why would anyone have put a BB on it?

Or what other mechanism for registration did you use? There are some interesting exemptions, but I've never seen them in practice.

 

[Gawernator]

Ah ha, that's not an M4.
Also explains the non-standard gas block instead of a front sight like a proper Colt, FN or Remington M4 Carbine.

Uhhh sure
same , much less beat up than the ones we used in the military.

 

[Gawernator]

So you're saying this is a registered AW?

Is it a BBRAW? Meaning it was registered (around 2016 or so) because it has been built with a BB, and the registration window for those opened up? In that case, you can legally not remove the BB, or else it turns into an illegal RAW.

Or was it registered long ago (I think the registration window ended around 2001 or so)? In that case, why would anyone have put a BB on it?

Or what other mechanism for registration did you use? There are some interesting exemptions, but I've never seen them in practice.

Yeah. Do you have citations for this

 

[treelogger]

Citations? The section of the penal code dealing with AW registration is probably 20 pages long if printed out.

If this is a RAW, you should remember having done the registration, and have the paperwork. As I said, I know three main avenues for RAWs: The registration before ~2000; then the BBRAW registration around 2016, and then various strange exceptions (for things like movie production, police use, gun dealers and smiths) which are usually not available to normal people. To answer your question whether the BB can be removed, we'd have to know how the AW registration was done. Note that once registered, they can not be transferred to others, so the registration would have to be done by you or a co-owner; you can't just buy a RAW and expect it to remain a RAW.

 

[AR15barrels]

Yeah. Do you have citations for this

There are none.
It's all in regulations which are designed to back up PC.
There is NO PC stating that you can not remove a bullet button.
There IS PC saying that you can not be charged with possession of an unregistered assault weapon if the assault weapon is indeed registered to you.
The whole premise that any law enforcement officer can simply charge you with possession of an unregistered assault weapon fails when you hit the PC that exempts you from that charge if the assault weapon is registered.

What has to happen is that the DOJ needs to actually de-register your AW before you can then later be charged.
That means that a DOJ agent needs to seize your rifle and take it to excremento and compare it to your registration pictures and then negate your registration if it appears to be different.
I don't believe this has happened yet.

 

[Gawernator]

Citations? The section of the penal code dealing with AW registration is probably 20 pages long if printed out.

If this is a RAW, you should remember having done the registration, and have the paperwork. As I said, I know three main avenues for RAWs: The registration before ~2000; then the BBRAW registration around 2016, and then various strange exceptions (for things like movie production, police use, gun dealers and smiths) which are usually not available to normal people. To answer your question whether the BB can be removed, we'd have to know how the AW registration was done. Note that once registered, they can not be transferred to others, so the registration would have to be done by you or a co-owner; you can't just buy a RAW and expect it to remain a RAW.

It's a "BBRAW" ofc I was in diapers before 2000. I mean that there doesn't seem to be a penal code for what you're saying or any case law.

 

[treelogger]

If it is indeed registered as a BBRAW, then it is definitely 100% legal as long as the BB remains in place.

If the BB is removed ... then it gets complicated. The DoJ says that this invalidates the original BBRAW registration, as AR15barrels explained. Whether that happens instantaneously or first requires a formal deregistration process is an interesting question, on which there is no judiciary guidance. Meaning, we don't know. I have not heard of anyone getting convicted after removing the bullet button.

The penal code would be either manufacturing of or possession of an unregistered AW.

 

[Gawernator]

If it is indeed registered as a BBRAW, then it is definitely 100% legal as long as the BB remains in place.

If the BB is removed ... then it gets complicated. The DoJ says that this invalidates the original BBRAW registration, as AR15barrels explained. Whether that happens instantaneously or first requires a formal deregistration process is an interesting question, on which there is no judiciary guidance. Meaning, we don't know. I have not heard of anyone getting convicted after removing the bullet button.

The penal code would be either manufacturing of or possession of an unregistered AW.

Even better, I have a raddlock

 

[couragewolf]

There was a thread on SH wher eall that was posted were pics of rattle can paint jobs - some with stencils and some without.

I have never been that brave -

Are you a SH guy? I'm the same couragewolf from Snipershide . I've rattled canned a few rifles and it works just fine, but I'm going to say as you get a little craftier and have more time and resources available to you there's no reason not to blast and alumahyde your firearms yourself. It's unquestionably a superior finish. If you're truly using your gear rattle can will start wearing and scratching off, and beyond that it doesn't protect surfaces like a more substantial coating like alumahyde will.

 

[CadeH]

Citations? The section of the penal code dealing with AW registration is probably 20 pages long if printed out.

If this is a RAW, you should remember having done the registration, and have the paperwork. As I said, I know three main avenues for RAWs: The registration before ~2000; then the BBRAW registration around 2016, and then various strange exceptions (for things like movie production, police use, gun dealers and smiths) which are usually not available to normal people. To answer your question whether the BB can be removed, we'd have to know how the AW registration was done. Note that once registered, they can not be transferred to others, so the registration would have to be done by you or a co-owner; you can't just buy a RAW and expect it to remain a RAW.

There are also "Other" assault weapons which were registered in 2020- barrel over 16 inches with a pistol brace and VFG. There are not a lot of them out there and the DOJ illegally added in other aspects to the law that aren't in the actual penal code to that as well. One of the requirements for registration was that it can't have a rifle buffer tube, even though that was not a part of the law and is not relevant to whether or not something is an "other".

For BBRAWs, the code of regulations relevant is 5477 (a):

The release mechanism for an ammunition feeding device on an assault weapon registered pursuant to Penal Code section 30900, subdivision (b)(1) shall not be changed after the assault weapon is registered. A weapon’s eligibility for registration pursuant to Penal Code section 30900, subdivision (b)(1) depends, in part, on its release mechanism. Any alteration to the release mechanism converts the assault weapon into a different weapon from the one that was registered.

I am not a lawyer but I don't really understand how the DOJ can have the ability to add more legal requirements than are required under the law

 

[RickD427]

If it is indeed registered as a BBRAW, then it is definitely 100% legal as long as the BB remains in place.

If the BB is removed ... then it gets complicated. The DoJ says that this invalidates the original BBRAW registration, as AR15barrels explained. Whether that happens instantaneously or first requires a formal deregistration process is an interesting question, on which there is no judiciary guidance. Meaning, we don't know. I have not heard of anyone getting convicted after removing the bullet button.

The penal code would be either manufacturing of or possession of an unregistered AW.

Please check out the corresponding regulation contained in 11CCR5477(a). Here is the text:

"The release mechanism for an ammunition feeding device on an assault weapon registered pursuant to Penal Code section 30900, subdivision (b)(1) shall not be changed after the assault weapon is registered. A weapon's eligibility for registration pursuant to Penal Code section 30900, subdivision (b)(1) depends, in part, on its release mechanism. Any alteration to the release mechanism converts the assault weapon into a different weapon from the one that was registered."

As previous posters have correctly pointed out, there is no Penal Code section that directly prohibits the removal of the Bullet Button from a BBRAW. The DOJ has opted to address the issue of Bullet Button removals by regulation rather than statute. The foundation for this treatment is found in the Fourth Circuit's decision in Broughman v Carver. Their argument goes like this:

1) You have a lawful Registered Assault Weapon that is equipped with a bullet button. Let's call it a Colt AR-15 with Serial Number 1234. Because it was registered, you can lawfully possess it.

2) You remove the Bullet Button.

3) Under the reasoning of Broughman, you have now manufactured a new Assault Weapon (from the old Registered Assault Weapon). Because the new weapon was manufactured from the old weapon, it is still marked as a Colt AR-15 and still bears Serial Number 1234.

4) The new Assault Weapon is not registered and possession is illegal. The person who manufactured the new Assault Weapon can be prosecuted under PC 30600 and a person possessing it can be prosecuted under PC 30605.

There is no "invalidation" of the old weapon's registration. It remains an RAW just as before. But the new weapon is unregistered (even though both weapons have the same markings). If this doesn't make sense, just remember that this is California.

I'm not aware of any PC 30600/30605 prosecutions occurring as a result of 11CCR5477(a). So far as I know the regulation remains untested.

 

[AR15barrels]

As previous posters have correctly pointed out, there is no Penal Code section that directly prohibits the removal of the Bullet Button from a BBRAW. The DOJ has opted to address the issue of Bullet Button removals by regulation rather than statute. The foundation for this treatment is found in the Fourth Circuit's decision in Broughman v Carver. Their argument goes like this:

1) You have a lawful Registered Assault Weapon that is equipped with a bullet button. Let's call it a Colt AR-15 with Serial Number 1234. Because it was registered, you can lawfully possess it.

2) You remove the Bullet Button.

3) Under the reasoning of Broughman, you have now manufactured a new Assault Weapon (from the old Registered Assault Weapon). Because the new weapon was manufactured from the old weapon, it is still marked as a Colt AR-15 and still bears Serial Number 1234.

4) The new Assault Weapon is not registered and possession is illegal. The person who manufactured the new Assault Weapon can be prosecuted under PC 30600 and a person possessing it can be prosecuted under PC 30605.

There is no "invalidation" of the old weapon's registration. It remains an RAW just as before. But the new weapon is unregistered (even though both weapons have the same markings). If this doesn't make sense, just remember that this is California.

I'm not aware of any PC 30600/30605 prosecutions occurring as a result of 11CCR5477(a). So far as I know the regulation remains untested.

The reality is that it's extremely difficult to enforce 11CCR5477(a) at the Police-Officer/Sheriff -Deputy level because the NEW assault weapon has the exact same markings as the registered assault weapon and average police officers are not going to be able to differentiate the NEW assault weapon from the registered one because they only can confirm that the assault weapon they are holding in their hands is indeed a registered assault weapon and therefore exempt of the features ban when they check the make/model/serial in CLETS.

Also, a side note to correct your chosen example: all "Colt AR-15" had to be registered under Roberti Roos before March 31st 1992 and bullet buttons didn't exist at the time so all AW registered Colt AR-15's can be expected to be found with standard mag release mechanisms. PSA would be a better example as they only started selling AR-15 receivers/guns around 2011 so none of them would have been registered under the 1990 or 2001 registration periods where standard mag release mechanisms were used.

Then we have these registration statistics:
Roberti-Roos AW Act of 1989 registered 145,253 assault weapons under the 1990 and 2001 registry openings.
Calif DOJ registered 13,519 bullet button assault weapons in 2018 under AB1135/SB880.
I can't find numbers published for SB118 but I suspect that's because it's 3x-10x less than AB1135/SB880.

 

[RickD427]

The reality is that it's extremely difficult to enforce 11CCR5477(a) at the Police-Officer/Sheriff -Deputy level because the NEW assault weapon has the exact same markings as the registered assault weapon and average police officers are not going to be able to differentiate the NEW assault weapon from the registered one because they only can confirm that the assault weapon they are holding in their hands is indeed a registered assault weapon and therefore exempt of the features ban when they check the make/model/serial in CLETS.

Also, a side note to correct your chosen example: all "Colt AR-15" had to be registered under Roberti Roos before March 31st 1992 and bullet buttons didn't exist at the time so all AW registered Colt AR-15's can be expected to be found with standard mag release mechanisms. PSA would be a better example as they only started selling AR-15 receivers/guns around 2011 so none of them would have been registered under the 1990 or 2001 registration periods where standard mag release mechanisms were used.

Then we have these registration statistics:
Roberti-Roos AW Act of 1989 registered 145,253 assault weapons under the 1990 and 2001 registry openings.
Calif DOJ registered 13,519 bullet button assault weapons in 2018 under AB1135/SB880.
I can't find numbers published for SB118 but I suspect that's because it's 3x-10x less than AB1135/SB880.

You're quite correct that I should have chosen a different Make/Model for use in my example. My purpose in using the example was to clearly show that "new" and the "old" firearm, as considered by the DOJ, are actually the same firearm. My example does serve that purpose, but, as you have correctly pointed out, the "Colt AR-15 could not have actually been used as in the example. Touche

It is not possible to "enforce" 11CCR5477(a). It is not a punitive statute. It's only a regulation that defines concepts for employment in the enforcement of Penal Code sections 30600 and 30605. The manner of enforcement is really quite simple. If a nice LEO makes contact with subject possessing an Assault Weapon, all the officer has to do is run the weapon through the Automated Firearms System. If that check returns a 1990 or 2001 registration, all is good. If the check returns a 2018 registration, then the nice officer looks for the Bullet Button. If the Bullet Button is there, then all is good. If the Bullet Button is not there, then the officer puts "PC 30605 - Possession of an Assault Weapon" in the "Charge" box of the booking slip.

I retired in 2013, so I haven't seen the AFS nomenclature used to identify BBRAW weapons in the AFS, but based on the practices of DOJ, coupled with their strong view on BBRAW modification, I would expect that the 2018 registrations would include commentary about the Bullet Button.

But as a practical matter, general duty LEOs are not going expend great effort tracking down modified BBRAWs. There's more crime out there than we can currently respond to. The "Triage" practice is to go after the criminal element, using the criminal law as a tool. We don't take the tool, and then go out looking for places to use it. I would expect that enforcement of the BBRAW Modification provisions of 11CCR5477(a) would be limited to LE units dedicated to firearms enforcement, and in cases where such prosecution is collateral to other criminal activity. In both of those cases, the involved officers are going to have access to the information needed to apply 11CCR5477(a).

 

[AR15barrels]

I retired in 2013, so I haven't seen the AFS nomenclature used to identify BBRAW weapons in the AFS, but based on the practices of DOJ, coupled with their strong view on BBRAW modification, I would expect that the 2018 registrations would include commentary about the Bullet Button.

My personal 2022 AFS report does not differentiate my "features" AW registrations from my "bbraw" AW registrations or my "other" AW registrations.
It simply lists them all as "*registration".

I fully realize that different levels of detail are available to different levels of database users, but the raw data that they output to citizens requesting a report does not have a clear differentiation.

 

[Gawernator]

I know some people's 2018 BBRAW registration in the CADOJ online system still says pending years later. That is pretty weird...

This guy says that's normal

https://www.reddit.com/r/CAguns/comments/1ad7etb/cfars_wants_pictures_of_my_guns_for_registration

 

[RickD427]

My personal 2022 AFS report does not differentiate my "features" AW registrations from my "bbraw" AW registrations or my "other" AW registrations.
It simply lists them all as "*registration".

I fully realize that different levels of detail are available to different levels of database users, but the raw data that they output to citizens requesting a report does not have a clear differentiation.

There are differing levels of detail based on the level of user. But even the Print-Out that you posted contains sufficient detail to distinguish a BBRAW registration from conventional RAW registrations. The AFS returns contain a lot of cryptic and abbreviated information. But look at the exemplar that you posted and note the "DOT" field. That reflects the "Date of Transaction." With the exception of Assault Weapons privately purchased by LEOs with agency head authorization and subsequently registered with DOJ, a registration year corresponding to the 1990 and 2001 registration periods would indicate a conventional RAW. A registration year corresponding to the 2018 BBRAW registration period would indicate a BBRAW (the 2018 registration period did not allow registration of conventional AWs).

 

[Gawernator]

There are differing levels of detail based on the level of user. But even the Print-Out that you posted contains sufficient detail to distinguish a BBRAW registration from conventional RAW registrations. The AFS returns contain a lot of cryptic and abbreviated information. But look at the exemplar that you posted and note the "DOT" field. That reflects the "Date of Transaction." With the exception of Assault Weapons privately purchased by LEOs with agency head authorization and subsequently registered with DOJ, a registration year corresponding to the 1990 and 2001 registration periods would indicate a conventional RAW. A registration year corresponding to the 2018 BBRAW registration period would indicate a BBRAW (the 2018 registration period did not allow registration of conventional AWs).

Why would CFARS say in process years and years later?