so if a bullet button is good to go and will allow a ar-pistol then you could just   permanently add a beta mag to it....would just be a pain to load. 

this talk of purposefully gimping our firearms just for some range toys is madness. What happens when they decide that all out firearms should have bullet buttons?

I see what you guys mean...but a qtip properly placed in the trigger group can make weapon run full auto (tried and tested in Iraq). Thing is, we know full auto is not allowed so we don't do it. I agree that it is capable of being reloaded in a firefight but not as simple as dropping the mag with a push of a button.
I no longer want to cause an issue with this on your boards so I'll suppress my case when it comes to my pistol. I'll give up my arms to preserve yours.

Hooah!

[attachment deleted by admin]

First a question then I will give my best answer on the point of the button in question.

So if this product did allow people to bypass the magazine detachable from outside the pistol grip what firearms would be allowed now that are not currently allowed? THe ruger 10/22 charger pistol is the only one that comes to mind but I have to admit I am no firearms expert. What other firearms would be allowed?


Here is my answer from someone in the LEO field.
I do not think this button would allow one to bypass the 1st section considering magazines outside of the pistol grip. After all the first rule does not say anything about detachable. Now if we look at the initial definition that says the rules apply to a semi auto with a detachable magazine we can see that if we make the magazine non detachable then we never run into the problem of it being a possible assault pistol.

So the question comes down to whether the button makes the magazine non detachable. I would say that the magazine would still be considered detachable since it is relatively easy to remove the magazine.  Now the law is not explicit so this is kind of a gray area. So I think we would need to look at the intent of the legislature when the law was passed. I don't know the actual discussion on the issue so I will do my best to speculate. They probably wanted to restrict firearms that had some significant capability of shooting people rapidly, essential a pistol meant to assault someone, civilian or police. So if a product like this made you need a "tool" to remove the magazine but it could still be done rapidly then I do not think they would consider it to be allowed. However if the product made the magazine take some time and effort to remove the magazine to the point that the pistol would not be such a danger if used to shoot large numbers of people then perhaps they would consider it to be allowed.
If we look at blackpowder pistols we can see they do not need to be registered. They can still be deadly but the amount of time needed to reload and shoot again in a tactical situation make them obviously a poor choice in a gunfight.

So ultimately I would think that if the product requires a "tool" to detach the magazine but the magazine could still be detached rapidly and replaced rapidly that the firearm would not be exempt from the assault pistol rules.

Feel free to disagree or ask for clarification etc.

The reality is that the magazine is NOT detachable with a bullet button device installed.  The magazine is effectively only "Attachable."  The same magazine used on a differently equipped firearm is both attachable and detachable.  However, if the legislature had written the phrase "Attachable" instead of "Detachable" into the law, then I think there would be absolute ban on the product.  Given that they did not, I would suggest that it should be legal.  Admittedly, I am not an attorney, and I am not intimately familiar with the laws of your state.  (...California's laws are tough enough to keep track of...)

BTW, there are many EBPs out there:  Dracos, PTR 91s, and of course AR pistols and XO-26s.

this talk of purposefully gimping our firearms just for some range toys is madness. What happens when they decide that all out firearms should have bullet buttons?

Well it is possible, but who knows if it is feasible. This is something we are trying to avoid.   This issue is being looked at and ideas have been tossed out to a variety of people involved.  We will have an answer, but I don't know when.

This is why I'm all about it lol

[attachment deleted by admin]

The reality is that the magazine is NOT detachable with a bullet button device installed.  The magazine is effectively only "Attachable."  The same magazine used on a differently equipped firearm is both attachable and detachable.  However, if the legislature had written the phrase "Attachable" instead of "Detachable" into the law, then I think there would be absolute ban on the product.  Given that they did not, I would suggest that it should be legal.  Admittedly, I am not an attorney, and I am not intimately familiar with the laws of your state.  (...California's laws are tough enough to keep track of...)

BTW, there are many EBPs out there:  Dracos, PTR 91s, and of course AR pistols and XO-26s.

I would still be inclined to think that the firearm would be considered illegal if the modification allowed easy magazine. An initial loading is probably not what the state legislature was thinking about when they implemented the law. They were most likely targeting pistols that had large magazines and were capable of quick reloads. Therefore this button device which would still be relatively quick to change magazines would likely not make the firearm still considered to have a detachable magazine. If you had to undo two screws to take out the magazine then I would think there is a decent chance that it would not be considered a detachable magazine.

There are always gray areas, for example you cannot put a vertical grip on a pistol (at least that is what I have been told is a violation of some federal law) So what if instead of putting a vertical grip I just happen to mount an L shaped flashlight that I could inadvertently hold onto? Am I violating the law, technically it is a flashlight and not a grip but in practical use it acts as a grip.

There are always gray areas, for example you cannot put a vertical grip on a pistol (at least that is what I have been told is a violation of some federal law) So what if instead of putting a vertical grip I just happen to mount an L shaped flashlight that I could inadvertently hold onto? Am I violating the law, technically it is a flashlight and not a grip but in practical use it acts as a grip.

Use a AFG from Magpul. AtF Says its not a v grip!

There are always gray areas, for example you cannot put a vertical grip on a pistol (at least that is what I have been told is a violation of some federal law) So what if instead of putting a vertical grip I just happen to mount an L shaped flashlight that I could inadvertently hold onto? Am I violating the law, technically it is a flashlight and not a grip but in practical use it acts as a grip.

Funny you should happen to use that as an example...  Last year Franklin Armory received permission from ATF-FTB to build AR pistols WITH a forward vertical grip as NON-NFA firearms.  The XO-26 is a non-AOW.  (To prove it, the letter is posted on our website.)  In general you are correct though...  Unless certain criteria are met, it is illegal (not gray) to install a secondary vertical grip on a pistol.  Infantry H2 is correct.  You can also use a Magpul AFG on any AR pistol.  Someone has posted a letter on line for that as well.

Funny you should happen to use that as an example...  Last year Franklin Armory received permission from ATF-FTB to build AR pistols WITH a forward vertical grip as NON-NFA firearms.  The XO-26 is a non-AOW.  (To prove it, the letter is posted on our website.)  In general you are correct though...  Unless certain criteria are met, it is illegal (not gray) to install a secondary vertical grip on a pistol.  Infantry H2 is correct.  You can also use a Magpul AFG on any AR pistol.  Someone has posted a letter on line for that as well.

I see I will have to check that out. I must admit I do not know the details about the vertical grip on a pistol ban, I have only heard about it in firearms stores. That and I do not understand exactly why the x0-26 counts as a pistol when it basically looks like a short barreled rifle with a buffer tube instead of a stock.I pretty much am only familiar with Hawaii laws.
Interestingly HAwaii law says a shotgun has to have an 18 inch barrel but there is no state law defining what a shotgun is. Pistols that shoot the .410 shells are allowed though.

The magpul angled foregrip would not fit on most pistols though.

Interesting to find a rep from your company on a Hawaii forums though!

Got an email from the deputy DA any legal guys want to interpret this nonsense?

Post it up

Got an email from the deputy DA any legal guys want to interpret this nonsense?

Email it to me:

Chris@Thehdf.org


We are working on this project for almost four months now, we just need people to hold out a bit longer before they go turning leaves.  Don't want any forethought into this before we give them what want them to see.

if the law stated that it accepts a 'attachable' magazine or
'attachable/detachable' or even better, stated if it 'accepts a
magazine' it is considered an assault pistol, I wouldn't feel as if I
needed to pursue further. but with a 'bullet button/mag lock' it can
accept a non-detachable magazine unless removed during disassembly.

I really wish you would have waited, or at least contacted some of the gun rights groups here.  This letter most likely just botched an entire project we have been working on since the start of this thread.  Now we have to work on additional methods and information to correct this issue.  Thank you for giving the AG an opportunity to define any magazine that can be removed from a firearm, by whatever means, as a detachable magazine. /facepalm.

Hey, I came here asking questions and the responses I've gotten were remarks about the use of an AR Pistol and it's novelty status as well as the fact that no one knows if the theory of the Bullet Button is good to go because no one has tested it. If one question as vague as mine (which I'm sure has been asked before) really botched up your project, I am sorry. It just seemed no one is testing or asking the question, I was going to contact the AG prior to finding 2AHawaii but I thought I would inquire here first. We're on the same team, sorry I informed you. I did contact the legal side of my question and got a solid 'we don't know but it's being looked at' as a response but never told to stay away. Utilize the 'interpretation' in writing against them since the terminology doesn't validate the written law.

Is there anything written describing a detachable magazine? Is the screen your looking at detachable from its housing (tools and time)? Can you detach your cell phone from the charger (push of a button)?

If the law was written to prevent fast reloads then how do you evaluate the questions above.

Detachable: designed to be unfastened or disconnected without damage

With that screen in the housing, it's not detachable, because the only way to get it out it undamaged is to use tools which takes time.

And with the whole 14.5 in barrel thing, the law states you must have 16" oal barrel, but if you 'permanently attach' by means of pin and weld a muzzle device meeting the 16" oal, you're good to go.

They knew what they were doing when writing the laws, it's just the perception of those who are interpreting. Just like that whole 'Martha' character in other threads.

Hey, I came here asking questions and the responses I've gotten were remarks about the use of an AR Pistol and it's novelty status as well as the fact that no one knows if the theory of the Bullet Button is good to go because no one has tested it. If one question as vague as mine (which I'm sure has been asked before) really botched up your project, I am sorry. It just seemed no one is testing or asking the question, I was going to contact the AG prior to finding 2AHawaii but I thought I would inquire here first. We're on the same team, sorry I informed you. I did contact the legal side of my question and got a solid 'we don't know but it's being looked at' as a response but never told to stay away. Utilize the 'interpretation' in writing against them since the terminology doesn't validate the written law.

If you read the whole thread you would have seen. 

We have some stuff in works on this already. ... I can say that it is be worked on through some avenues.  [And,] I would be willing to try and register one though if some sort of arrangement could be worked out as a test case.

And then there was:

  This issue is being looked at and ideas have been tossed out to a variety of people involved. We will have an answer, but I don't know when.

So first, in your own words you "jumped the gun and called" the Honolulu Police Department, whom we are trying to avoid at all costs, because they are not supposed to give legal advice or interpretations of the law to people. And received a crap definition, which should be expected.  You then backed off when we thought you were getting crazy, and said "I no longer want to cause an issue with this on your boards so I'll suppress my case when it comes to my pistol. I'll give up my arms to preserve yours."  Which, to me, would not really suggest you were about to fire off letter to the AG office.   The real problem is that you didn't accompany that letter with any of the legal assistance they would need to even provide you the definition you wanted.  If you think that they would just respond with what you wanted, without it being spoon fed to them, you are horribly mistaken.  So now they have this idea of what a detachable magazine 'should' be, and we have to totally reconfigure that.  Essentially, the slate is not completely fresh, which hurts us.

For us, it is always easier to convince someone of something when they have no knowledge of it, than to try and convince them that what they thought initially is just completely wrong. 

Also, I'm sorry we were not able to answer your question fast enough; we can't really just disclose everything we are working on.  As an organization, moves like that just are not very feasible. Loose lips sinks ships.

And with the whole 14.5 in barrel thing, the law states you must have 16" oal barrel, but if you 'permanently attach' by means of pin and weld a muzzle device meeting the 16" oal, you're good to go.

They knew what they were doing when writing the laws, it's just the perception of those who are interpreting. Just like that whole 'Martha' character in other threads.

They copy other states.  Reading the constitutional convention and the enactment sessions of these laws, these guys have no clue wtf they were doing.