FPC Acquires New California DOJ “Bullet-Button Assault Weapons” Regulations

California Bullet Button
California Bullet Button

Firearms Policy CoalitionSACRAMENTO, CA-(Ammoland.com)- In response to numerous legal demands, including one sent today by attorney Jason Davis, the California Office of Administrative Law (OAL) has provided Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) with a copy of previously-secret Department of Justice (DOJ) “assault weapons” regulations. FPC has published the regulations at BulletButtonBan.com, a Web site it established in 2016 for tracking the new California assault weapon laws and regulations.

“FPC’s Regulatory Watch program has once again proved its value in ensuring that the State of California does not advance its gun control agenda behind closed doors,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “Our staff and attorneys are already reviewing these regulations for legal violations.”

“Now that we are able to review these regulations, our attorneys have been instructed to proceed with filing a new federal civil rights lawsuit challenging the State’s ban on ‘assault weapons’,” Combs said. “We’ve already filed a lawsuit challenging the ban on ‘large-capacity magazines’ and it looks like even more litigation will follow these cases.”

Until OAL provided the regulations to FPC today, neither agency permitted them to be viewed by FPC, its policy staff members, and its attorneys, effectively keeping them from public scrutiny and evaluation. In the process of denying access to these public records, FPC believes that both agencies violated the California Constitution and Public Records Act.

“Once again, the DOJ is trying to conduct the people’s business outside of the light of public scrutiny,” said Craig DeLuz, FPC’s California lobbyist and spokesperson. “They are trying to ram through regulations that will affect millions of people without allowing anyone to see them, let alone accept personal and professional comments to ensure they are fair and conform with the statutes.”

Last December, the DOJ submitted its first attempt at “assault weapons” regulations under the OAL’s “File & Print” process, which means that the DOJ believed the regulations were not subject to public notice or comment. However, thousands of FPC members and Second Amendment supporters sent letters opposing the secret process through FPC’s grassroots tools and, without further comment, the DOJ withdrew the regulations near the end of OAL review period. A quarter of a year later, the DOJ has now re-submitted regulations under the same “File & Print” process.

“At first glance, the DOJ’s latest package of ‘assault weapons’ regulations are as awful as their first attempt—it’s no wonder they wanted to hide them. The DOJ’s actions to keep the regulations secret were as undemocratic as they are unlawful,” concluded DeLuz.

About the Firearms Policy Coalition

Firearms Policy Coalition (www.firearmspolicy.org) is a 501(c)4 grassroots nonprofit organization. FPC’s mission is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, especially the fundamental, individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

  • 51 thoughts on “FPC Acquires New California DOJ “Bullet-Button Assault Weapons” Regulations

    1. Illegal Aliens Help Social Security – Not – Freedom Outpost Common Constitutionalist

      Always multiply the numbers that are put out there by 10!

      Okay – so around 2 million illegals (six years ago) are using fake and stolen Social Security numbers? Is this not a felony? If a citizen like you or me were to do that, would we not end up in prison? But it’s okay because illegals are supposed to be a net positive? Isn’t that just fabulous! Of course, we also know this is a lie. The current estimate is that illegals cost us well over $113 billion a year. And why are they even getting one dollar in benefits, much less $1 billion? That was rhetorical – we all know the answer.

    2. Isn’t that SSI (Supplemental Security Income) Rich? Some Hispanic woman keeps putting down my address for various SSI and Social Security Administration benefits (app. 5 times in last year). I keep mailing them back to SSA. Maybe she goes into my mailbox and retrieves her mail when I am not home (but missed those 5). I do know by some open mail she worked part-time for about 2 years in the early 1970’s (that was her complete lifetime work history). Don’t know what she has done for the last 45 years or what social taxpayer funded benefits she may have received over the last 45 years. Now she keeps putting in applications for Social Security Benefits and uses my address; apparently, she refuses to take no for an answer. There is a possibility they may give her SSI. I don’t know why she doesn’t use her own address.

      1. @Jim, If you send it all back, then she might improve her lies until she gets SS or SSI. You are under no obligation to return or keep any USPS mail that was incorrectly sent to you.

    3. Ammoland moderators cut off comments when it suits them..

      I have an OPM retirement, genius….and it does not come from any tax payer!!

      maybe some of you will not take your social security??

      1. Rich,

        Sounds like you might have a pension then. Perhaps you wouldn’t mind sharing what state you are in. It would be fun to see what their debt situation is. A keyword to watch out for is unfunded liabilities.

        Me, I’d like to eventually start my own business here within the next ten years, so if I have the option of electing to not take social security then no I would not. That does not solve the problem however. You can’t pick and choose what protections for rights you like and then tell other people that their property rights are invalid just because you didn’t plan better for your own retirement. Plus, Retirement is a very young concept anyway.

        There was no need to try and make it personal Rich.

        1. good luck in starting your own business in this climate…weeding your way thru hidden regulations….

          you are asking some personal questions..

          my state has nothing to do with my pension..

          1. You’d be surprised. I live just a little ways south of Detroit. If you were not aware they had to undergo Bankruptcy proceedings. At issue were the unfunded liabilities of public sector pensions, which made up a large portion of the city debt.

            Now, what happens if new money is not being brought in to cover a group of people who are living longer, living in a time when inflation has caused the value of money to be put in to be devalued compared to todays costs, and on top of that, the company folds or gets wiped out. Who gets their pensions cut short? Will it be you, or the next guy down the line? When the money runs out, it runs out. That is the problem with legalized Ponzi schemes that require groups of people/social contribution to work. They only work for a limited amount of time and are only based on the emotional here and now, not the rational long term future.

            There is a difference between real security/safety and the false sense that comes along with emotional decisions. Case in point, Gun Control. “I’m in a gun free zone! Criminals can’t get me here.” It’s common sense to make that point since that is what it comes down to, but normally the emotional argument wins out contrary to reality because people don’t want to look uncaring, or because to make the right choice would affect what they want as well.

            1. I should clarify..

              It does not matter if it is at the Federal, State, Local, or private level. Pensions are just as flawed a setup as social security. Even at the company level, unless that Company grows and grows without fail, without downturns, and without an ever increasing value in its product the pension fails in the long run.

              The reason I brought up states as a question is that California, the subject of the article, currently has a debt approaching half a trillion dollars. I think they are close to $460 Billion in debt right now. How is that going to be paid? Where will the money come from? What happens if they collapse, where will the money to cover it come from then? As the businesses there collapse from it, what will happen then? It’s a trail of dominoes waiting to fall.

      2. Rich, I don’t know about you, but I have paid into SS for almost 40 years. It isn’t an entitlement, since it is based on money that the beneficiary has paid into. That would be akin to calling an insurance claim an entitlement.

        1. I Don’t think Rich was the one referring to it as an entitlement. In fact, to be fair to Rich, I am pretty sure that claim belongs to me. Here is my reasoning.

          A man working from 1935 to 1975 pays into social security and then retires. Because of inflation the $100 a year he was paying into it early in his life is not enough to support the increased costs of living at the time of his retirement. Modern medicine also means that he will live twice as long after retirement compared to his father and grandfather. Does his money from social security get cut off once he uses up everything he put into it by the time inflation hit its high note in the early 80’s before Reagan was able to work it back down and set us up for the prosperity of the early 90’s? Nope, He gets a check pretty much until the day he dies. Now add on money for his surviving wife. Oh, don’t forget dependents. Lets see, there is disability social security too for people who can’t actually go to work and pay into SS……. And where does this extra money come from? From people working and paying into it supposedly for themselves right now! Hey, here comes the friendly Federal Government. Guess what? They need a loan out of that social Security to help pay for another entitlement program that will save humanity. Oh, that’s right… Social security funds were not kept separate from the General fund since its inception. I forgot.

          So the money you actually paid in was already gone by the time you retired. That is why it is OPM. No offense meant Heed the Call-up.

          1. The Revelator, no offense taken, I fully understand the issues with SS. The fact that the government underfunded it has no bearing on that. Most systems fail when too much is taken from it. My only point was that SS is not an entitlement in the same sense that other government programs are, such as EIC, WIC, etc. It is a Ponzi scheme, and it was worsen when the government long ago began using the previously collected funds and paying claims with current contributions.

            Look at what happened to insurance companies after huge losses due to a hurricane in Florida many years ago, many declared bankruptcy because the current claims exceeded their ability to pay. As far a pensions are concerned the federal government has tried to force companies to “fully fund” their pensions; so as to not default like SS will eventually have to do.

            I work for state government now, and the state is always wanting to pay less into the pension fund than the pension fund states is their obligation under the state’s own rule to fully fund its pension plans. Even if they are “fully funded”, it doesn’t mean if enough stressors are put on the system that it won’t “break”. There is no “fool-proof” plan.

            1. A big part of that problem is that not all states are equal. Some states are more willing to vote on how they can best spend your money than others are. After all, look at how many wonderful things there are out there to waste money…. I mean buy for the benefit of the state……

              I agree there is no fool proof plan, but the ingenious part about individually based plans compared to social plans is that a person’s stupidity will only come back to bite them instead of everybody else. Right now we have too many people who can’t wisely plan out financially what they are doing, and I am not just talking about the House and Senate. The housing bubble and collapse is a perfect example. The government came in and tried to force things to be “Fair”, but it let too many people get into homes they could never afford, and did not have the knowledge of how to budget in the first place so that they could. In the end, it caused a major crash that affected the entire country.

              It all comes down to common sense. Like Hurricanes. You pointed out Florida, I like to point out Louisiana. In a Coastal state, you don’t build a city below sea level when you are right on the coast and hurricanes are a routinely occurring event annually. Eventually, it’s going to come back to bite you.

        2. @HeedTheCall-up said: “I have paid into SS for almost 40 years. It isn’t an entitlement, since it is based on money that the beneficiary has paid into”

          No, that is exactly where your logic went astray. Soc Sec is not, and has *never* been, any kind of personal retirement account where the $$ *you* put in are used to fund *your* retirement (as we all here seem to agree that it *should* be). It has always been a scheme where those who are currently working pay the costs for current retirees. That worked OK initially, but really started breaking down when:
          (1) unforeseen population bubble came along (Baby Boomers)
          (2) everyone starting living longer, due to better diets and more advanced medicine
          (3) people started having fewer children, so the ratio of retirees per current worker rose

          To help avoid (or at least delay) bankruptcy of the whole Soc Sec system around “now” (when Baby Boomers were moving into retirement en masse), Soc Sec tax increased in approx the 1970s. But it’s still not a “pay your own retirement” system like IRAs, 401(k)’s, or 403(b)’s. If we retire today, the taxes paid today by current workers will be funding our Soc Sec checks.

          Me, I plan to work until I’m 70. Thankfully I’m healthy and hopefully my job will remain viable for that long, but I see no other options. I have kids’ college bills to pay, retirement to save for, a mortgage to pay off … and want to wait until 70 for Soc Sec anyway, to maximize my benefits. (even so, meager Soc Sec payments won’t come close to providing enough to fun retirement, but they will help)

          1. Obama amnesty granted 500,000 Social Security numbers to illegal immigrants – Washington Times
            Illegal Aliens Whine They Need to Falsify Social Security Cards to Illegally Steal Jobs – California Political Review
            BIENVENIDO: Cubans handed cash, Social Security card, food stamps, Medicaid at U.S. border | Washington Examiner
            Obama Claims Power to Make Illegal Immigrants Eligible for Social Security, Disability
            IRS chief: It’s OK for illegal aliens to use fraudulent Social Security numbers | Fellowship of the Minds
            $1 Billion Was Paid to People without a Social Security Number, and SSA Defends it!
            According to a new audit, the Social Security Administration paid $1 billion in benefits to people who don’t even possess a Social Security Number (SSN).
            Freedom outpost

          2. LarSV, yes, I know how the program works (see above reply to The Revelator), and I plan on retiring at 60. I will probably defer collecting until 70, also, or at least 67. I agree, SS is *not* a benefit plan one should rely on, nor expect to retire on. I have a defined benefit pension plan and fully fund my deferred savings plan. According to the stats, as long as the stock market doesn’t implode, I will have a very comfortable retirement.

    4. Hope dont compare OPM to Welfare? What would you do to them?
      How about people on Social Security?

      1. Well, Rich. Welfare at its basic form is giving people just enough to keep them complacent enough to not better their situation to the point where they would lose that handout.

        In addition, to have welfare you must have other people working so you can confiscate their money. Yes, I used the correct word. Now imagine if one day everyone got tired of it and decided to break the system. Everyone quit their jobs and applied for welfare, no one would be willing to work, what would happen? Would the government then be able to come in and force certain people to work, or would it be ok to let the people who were on welfare starve because the people that were paying for them no longer are. Under what conditions does it become acceptable to force other people to work not for their own benefit but to benefit somebody else? When does it become ok to rationalize what is tantamount to slavery? That is the question you have to ask on welfare. Jesus had a pretty good solution. Give a man a fish, or show a man how to fish. Fishing back then was dangerous, hard labor. If you are too lazy to work, you go hungry.

        As far as social security goes, that is the largest Ponzi Scheme ever created. Think about it. You pay in money that is given to someone else. When you retire, you needed to have kids so that they would be working and the money they would be paying in would be given to you, and this continues down the chain. Now, you do not collect what you paid in during the years you worked. Instead, you collect from a certain age until the day you die. That may be only ten percent of what you paid in, or it may be four hundred times what you paid in. Either way, it is the people currently working paying for you. If the birthrate drops, future workers drop, so payments in drop. This means Social Security is running on a deficit as all the Baby Boomers have been retiring. The question is not how do we save and keep social security, but How do we get to the point where social security is no longer needed.

        The answer is the Constitution and the Declaration of independence.

        By the by, Here is a really easy way of explaining social security. Plus, It is funny as all get out.

        1. when was the last time these politicians followed the Constitution? years? decades?

          many understand what social security is but tell that to the people who paid into it for 40 or 50 years..

          last time i looked up to 100 million US citizens were out of work…

          how many premature/unconstitutional trade deals were enacted over those decades!
          trade deals that shipped how many US jobs!

          you only want people to get back what was invested during the 60s and 70s?
          when the US was the US, how much did corporations, govt. make on money the people invested into pensions during the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s

          i would post Barnhardt here but i doubt the moderators post her links???

          1. Notice, I am not saying to cut them off entirely. In fact, the people who are retired or retiring within the next few years should be the only ones to get it. The fix is to come up with a solution that puts individuals in charge of their retirements and to teach them what the dangers of mismanagement are. If you put a hole in your own boat, fine. You pay the penalty and you still work in a factory at age 67 doing assembly. If you mess up your own life, your neighbor should not be the one getting robbed to cover the hit.

            The downfall of the constitution really began in the early 1800’s when the government started “interpreting” new ways to stick their fingers into private business through the “Commerce clause.” It did not start back in just the 60’s and 70’s, or even the 30’s. It has been a two hundred year slide. That is what needs to be understood. The acceleration caused in the late stages of the nineteenth century rolling into the twentieth because of progressive/socialistic teachings making their way here from Europe may not have been able to get up enough steam to lead into the 1930’s if our Government had not already wedged its foot in the door.

            You also seem to think I agree with pensions for some reason. I don’t agree with any type of retirement system that hinges upon the work of anyone else, even if it is limited only to the level of individual companies. The answer is a truly private/individual retirement setup.

      2. @Rich, I am reliably informed that OPM is also an abbreviation for other peoples money. I also thought he meant Office of Personnel Management. I was quite wrong.

    5. SPLC:
      Spreading Propaganda,
      Ling about
      The SPLC, traffickers in blood libel and incitement to murder, is a hate group that the left counts on to smear, defame and destroy those brave enough to oppose their totalitarian agenda. This is the hardcore leftist group whose members have targeted family group leaders for assassination.
      SPLC uses its hate group listings to demonize conservatives and anyone who dissents from its statist, authoritarian agenda. Its hate group list is so tendentious and politically motivated that they were recently removed from a government website’s listing of resources on hate groups.. Pamela Geller
      Sovereign Citizens Movement | Southern Poverty Law Center

    6. Rich! Well said! Rights given to we the people by our creator. Not by the government. If all Americans would read the founding documents and understand them what a difference it could make. Awesome stuff!

    7. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
      Misconception #2: Governments may alter or abolish a right.
      Answer: Rights are “unalienable” (Declaration of Independence), which means they cannot be taken or even given away. They are not derived from government, so they cannot be taken away by government. All anyone can do is punish someone for exercising a right, or impede its exercise by force or persuasion. Nevertheless, individuals still have the right.
      Misconception #3: The right to keep and bear arms derives from the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
      Keeping in mind that our rights come from the Declaration of Independence, written BEFORE the Constitution, stating that our rights are unalienable and are endowed from our CREATOR – not our legislators, not our government and certainly not from the United Nations and their attempt at gaining control of our children through the United Nations .

      1. Rich, you and I are of like mind. Absolutely 100% correct right down to the very last keystroke.

        Acta Non Verba, and Semper Fidelis.

    8. Actually these laws don’t apply to most of you people regardless of where you live. You see these laws only apply to Citizens of the United States. I dought that you are one. Please read Judge Anna Von Reitz blog at: http://annavonreitz.com/ you will discover what a Citizen is. Who is a Citizen. Prepair to be amazed. All your life you have been lied to. Check it out and stop crying about laws that don’t affect you.

      1. That woman(?) is not a judge, and, based on the writings I just reviewed attributed to her(?), appears to be insane. It seems she(?) is just another person that claims to be “above the law” and tries to instruct others on how to be in violation of our laws.

        I remember from about 30 years ago, when I worked at the IRS, the beginnings of the “natural” citizen movement. It was all a ruse to avoid taxation. It had nothing to do with being a “natural” citizen or whatever terminology they wanted to use it was all just to avoid taxation. It is rare to see these claims being made today.

        I had to read through reams of their garbage and cite codes, etc., to show the fallacy of their “arguments”, such as wages not being taxable as income, and “natural born citizens” free of the encumbrances of government. Once a number of the “big” players lost in court, those were the ones selling their fraudulent scheme to others that foolishly paid them, the scheme pretty much folded, having no personality to continue the movement.

        1. Do you mean the “Sovereign Citizen” movement which has provided such wonderful youtube footage worthy of America’s Funniest Home Videos? They base their beliefs off of Article four of the Articles of Confederation which ceased to be recognized as law on March 4th, 1789, the day the Government of the United States of America took over under the Constitution ratified the year before.

          And I quote:
          “I’m a Sovereign Citizen! You cannot arrest me! Stop it, YOU’RE RAPING ME!”
          Said by a young, very dumb woman to a police officer.

            1. Few in numbers, and few in brain cells. But the video graphic evidence to prove their existence keeps on growing. Perhaps they are the next “Bigfoot”, with people traveling all over trying to capture footage of a Sovereign Citizen in their natural habitat…. See also, spaced out in handcuffs..

            2. There were few that promoted the scheme, but there were many that tried it. Most of the followers would relent quickly when it first was explained “the error of their ways”. Some of those also fought – and lost – in court.

              There are much better – and easier – ways to avoid taxation, most of those ways are only cost effective and worthwhile to more wealthy people. One good way to reduce tax burden is trusts.

    9. media labeled assault weapons

      New Yorks 1,000,000 new illegal gun owners..


      One million plus new felons, all armed with scary, high capacity, media labeled assault weapons!
      The deadline for New York residents to register their so called “Assault Weapons” and “High” (read standard) Capacity Magazines came and went.
      An estimated million plus, formerly law abiding, gun owners have refused to comply with Cuomo and down state Democrat’s naive belief that the NY Safe Act, passed in a so called emergency session of the New York legislature, could force free people to register their hard earned property.
      And who can blame these once lawful gun owners, with a president that picks and chooses which laws he will follow or enforce, as well as an Federal Attorney General that operates daily with a Contempt of Congress charge and gun running scandal, “Fast & Furious”, hanging over his head. Why should the average New York joe, bother to follow the law, especially when it is in direct conflict with the Constitution of the United States, the one true law of the land.

    10. It is so very obvious that none of these “lawmakers” passed The Constitution Test” that we all were required to pass 100% in order to get out of Junior High, and into High School in days gone by.

    11. Criminals need not worry. Because of the Haynes vs US SCOTUS decision in 1968 they are exempt from registration. This only applies to law-abiding citizens who have committed no crimes

    12. Well hell isnt that how the gubment does 98% of its business, in the dark? Behind closed doors? Away from public scrutiny? In secret? Everybody knows, thats where/ how the best deals are made, if youre looking to benefit yourselves or screw somebody over.
      I can still hear nancy pelosi saying that we would have to read the bill ( after it had already become law) to know what was in it. Makes me sick.

    13. These crazy things happen at all levels of governing. Our HOA was so busy trying to protect us from ourselves by making decisions in the dark that they did not see the backbreaking lawsuit coming; now the homeowners are all suffering.

      Stay alert, stay awake, and stay armed.

    14. It’s very sad… Fact being these bans were supposed to help bring down violent crimes when in fact they do nothing but demonize law abiding citizens… Check the stats, in all the bans that are in effect crime is getting worse every day. Oh wait criminals don’t register their firearms… They can’t legally own firearms. So they make up these laws cause why? Sadly we here in California put these people in charge…. Why? Well maybe it’s time to start over… Vote them all out… Because they’ve forgotten who they work for….
      That’s just my opinion in the matter…

      1. Vote them out..? Probably never happen. I left in 1978, and it’s been high time for some serious Tar and Feathering in the Golden state since before even then.

        Rise up Californians!

        1. Unfortunately, the Californians who are willing to rise up are a tiny minority. They are vastly outnumbered by the far-left folks who think they know better than everyone else, and by those who will vote for whomever will give them the biggest OPM-funded gov’t handouts, so the far-left folks remain in power, continue to drive the state toward bankruptcy, and blissfully trample all over our 1A and 2A rights.

            1. @TheRevelator called it: OPM = Other People’s Money. Sorry, thought that was a very common acronym.

              Senator Everett Dirksen knew all about OPM, way back in the 1950s and 60s … remember his famous quote?: “A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon we’re talking about *real* money”.

              Current politicians on the left side of the aisle believe that the MORE revenues the gov’t can bring in and the MORE $$ than the gov’t can spend, the BETTER, because then the gov’t (translation: THEY) control more of the economy and the country. …As if that is a GOOD thing??? They just don’t get it.

            2. @Wild Bill
              No problem. It dates back to a Margaret Thatcher quote originally, but was also a title for a movie in the early 90’s.

              “Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money. It’s quite a characteristic of them. They then start to nationalize everything, and people just do not like more and more nationalization, and they’re now trying to control everything by other means. They’re progressively reducing the choice available to ordinary people.”

              This was later simplified to
              “The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money”

            3. @LarSV

              I like his other quote much better.

              “When a member of the House moves over to the senate, they have officially raised the IQ of both bodies.”

              The Government has long been known to look at complicated problems and always come up with the same solution. It does not matter if it is a problem they created, or the rarity of a naturally arising one, the solution is always to throw money at it. When that fails, they throw more money at it to fix it.

    15. Yes DBM. We have it in New York State already…the SAFE ACT (Designed by Chairman Cuomo, and the other “two men in the room” who are now in jail).

    16. For all of you NOT in California, this is what the anti-gun democrats have planned for you too. ALl you have to do to have YOUR guns banned is stop fighting for your rights.

    Comments are closed.