General Discussion

pnwmom

(108,978 posts) Fri Dec 4, 2015, 11:22 PM Dec 2015

Only a legal loophole allowed the sale of the CA shooters weapons.

Someone other than the shooters legally purchased the weapons (after which they were illegally transferred to the shooters) but the weapons shouldn't have been able to be purchased by anyone in CA -- except for a legal loophole.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/san-bernardino-shooters-assault-rifles-california_5661f892e4b079b2818ea0ac

The two assault-style rifles that the attackers used to carry out a shooting massacre in San Bernardino on Wednesday were legally purchased in California due to a technical loophole in the state's assault weapons ban.
Meredith Davis, a spokeswoman for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), confirmed to The Huffington Post that the two long guns were bought legally in the state, but declined to identify the dealer who sold the weapons or the person who purchased them. Davis said that law enforcement is still investigating how the shooters, Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, acquired the rifles, since someone else purchased them.
The Smith & Wesson M&P15 that Farook wielded and Malik's DPMS A-15 were both legal in California despite the state's tough assault weapons ban because they had button mechanisms to release their ammunition magazines. An exception known as the "bullet button loophole" allows rifles that would ordinarily be prohibited to be manufactured and sold if they have the button-release feature, since their magazines are then considered fixed rather than detachable.
The loophole has spawned a cottage industry for gun makers in California, some of whom specialize in specially manufacturing assault-style rifles to comply with state law.

21 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Only a legal loophole allowed the sale of the CA shooters weapons. (Original Post) pnwmom Dec 2015 OP

So the weapons complied with state law dumbcat Dec 2015 #1

They are is going to revist the law. As of today. n/t jaysunb Dec 2015 #13

That's not a loophole. linuxman Dec 2015 #2

The exception is "known as the 'bullet button loophole'" so the author clearly isn't the only one pnwmom Dec 2015 #3

I don't think you understand. linuxman Dec 2015 #4

Silly reason, since it functions the same. Rex Dec 2015 #6

It literally does not function the same. linuxman Dec 2015 #9

A law mandating fixed magazines is a "loophole"? Kang Colby Dec 2015 #8

Post removed Post removed Dec 2015 #15

Well then if they are specialized the FBI probably has a short list. Rex Dec 2015 #5

That's not a loophole, that's the law in CA. MGMT Dec 2015 #7

It is a loophole in the law. uppityperson Dec 2015 #14

Message auto-removed Name removed Dec 2015 #18

Who is saying it is not the law? Laws can have loopholes. uppityperson Dec 2015 #19

Message auto-removed Name removed Dec 2015 #20

This is what happens when the ignorant try to write technical laws. ManiacJoe Dec 2015 #10

I think it was the popular intent, which is why this is viewed by most as a "loophole." pnwmom Dec 2015 #11

We will have to agree to disagree on the popularity of the intent. ManiacJoe Dec 2015 #12

The gun industry and their moronic dupes of followers alcibiades_mystery Dec 2015 #16

I'm tired of calling everything a loophole Travis_0004 Dec 2015 #17

"The shooters' weapons were fully compliant with CA law and were purchased legally" Nye Bevan Dec 2015 #21

dumbcat

(2,120 posts)

1. So the weapons complied with state law

Reply to pnwmom (Original post)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 11:30 PM

Dec 2015

So the question has to be, why did the legislature write the law with that loop hole in it? And why don't they (or didn't they) fix it?

jaysunb

(11,856 posts)

13. They are is going to revist the law. As of today. n/t

Reply to dumbcat (Reply #1)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:31 AM

Dec 2015

linuxman

(2,337 posts)

2. That's not a loophole.

Reply to pnwmom (Original post)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 11:32 PM

Dec 2015

The magazine cannot be removed without a tool. If they used a tool to remove the mag, no loophole. The law functioned exactly as intended. If they modified the weapon to eject mags without the use of a tool, they broke the fucking law.

Not sure this author quite knows what a legal loophole is.

pnwmom

(108,978 posts)

3. The exception is "known as the 'bullet button loophole'" so the author clearly isn't the only one

Reply to linuxman (Reply #2)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 11:36 PM

Dec 2015

who views it as such.

An exception known as the "bullet button loophole" allows rifles that would ordinarily be prohibited to be manufactured and sold if they have the button-release feature, since their magazines are then considered fixed rather than detachable.

linuxman

(2,337 posts)

4. I don't think you understand.

Reply to pnwmom (Reply #3)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 11:46 PM

Dec 2015

Its like saying "We ban rifles with short stocks", then somebody manufactures one with a long stock. They didn't find a loophole. They followed the law to the letter. If somebody banned all guns called AR-15s and you manufactured something called the AR 16 identical in all aspects, THAT would be a loophole. The law is to prevent people from quickly detaching and reinserting magazines. To be a functional magazine, it must still be removable, albeit with a tool in order to still function. Theirs had them, they used them, the end. I'm not sure what you think the point of this law was, but it wasn't to make magazines permanently fixed into the gun.

Rex

(65,616 posts)

6. Silly reason, since it functions the same.

Reply to linuxman (Reply #4)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 11:49 PM

Dec 2015

I believe it. That is the law for you.

linuxman

(2,337 posts)

9. It literally does not function the same.

Reply to Rex (Reply #6)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 11:58 PM

Dec 2015

That's just stone cold fact.

If you can't accept that, I really have nothing left to tell you.

Sorry.

Kang Colby

(1,941 posts)

8. A law mandating fixed magazines is a "loophole"?

Reply to linuxman (Reply #4)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 11:57 PM

Dec 2015

I agree, they should not require bullet buttons in California. If they'd like to ban AR-15's, Californians can just purchase the CT and NY compliant rifles which look like this and are nearly impossible to ban without banning all semi-automatic rifles.

Response to Kang Colby (Reply #8)

Post removed

Rex

(65,616 posts)

5. Well then if they are specialized the FBI probably has a short list.

Reply to pnwmom (Original post)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 11:48 PM

Dec 2015

That is a silly difference to change the status, but I believe it.

MGMT

(24 posts)

7. That's not a loophole, that's the law in CA.

Reply to pnwmom (Original post)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 11:56 PM

Dec 2015

uppityperson

(115,677 posts)

14. It is a loophole in the law.

Reply to MGMT (Reply #7)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:37 AM

Dec 2015

Response to uppityperson (Reply #14)

Name removed Message auto-removed

uppityperson

(115,677 posts)

19. Who is saying it is not the law? Laws can have loopholes.

Reply to Name removed (Reply #18)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 03:51 PM

Dec 2015

This is one.

Response to uppityperson (Reply #19)

Name removed Message auto-removed

ManiacJoe

(10,136 posts)

10. This is what happens when the ignorant try to write technical laws.

Reply to pnwmom (Original post)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:04 AM

Dec 2015

You end up with laws that can easily be complied with while bypassing the unpopular intent.
See the previous federal "assault weapons" ban as another example.

pnwmom

(108,978 posts)

11. I think it was the popular intent, which is why this is viewed by most as a "loophole."

Reply to ManiacJoe (Reply #10)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:08 AM

Dec 2015

ManiacJoe

(10,136 posts)

12. We will have to agree to disagree on the popularity of the intent.

Reply to pnwmom (Reply #11)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:24 AM

Dec 2015

However, you are right in that those who like the intent do often incorrectly call it a loophole.

alcibiades_mystery

(36,437 posts)

16. The gun industry and their moronic dupes of followers

Reply to pnwmom (Original post)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:47 AM

Dec 2015

Are so fucking disgusting.

Travis_0004

(5,417 posts)

17. I'm tired of calling everything a loophole

Reply to pnwmom (Original post)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:49 AM

Dec 2015

Only people above 5' can ride this roller coaster.

When yao ming gets on it, I guess its a tall person loophole.

No, the law on bullet buttons says the magazine can not be released without a tool. So they design a button that follows the law.

I bought a mazda 3.

THe law says it must have seatbelts and air bags. By installing seatbelts and airbags, mazda found a loophole that allowed them to sell the car. Good thing. If that loophole didn't exist, they would go out of business.

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)

21. "The shooters' weapons were fully compliant with CA law and were purchased legally"