natedog
Member
What is the CA DOJ definition of a flash hider for rifles?
CA flash hiders
- Thread starter natedog
- Start date
- Status
ARperson
Member
Illegal?
natedog
Member
No, I mean what constitutes a flash hider? What is the legal definition between a muzzle brake and a flash hider?
ARperson
Member
I was being sarcastic. Sorry. A poor reference to their completely anti-gun mentality I guess.
To answer your question, I don't know for sure, but I would imagine that whatever it is manufactured, marketed, and distributed as would be its classification. Of course, that's a logical answer and CA is anything but logical.
To answer your question, I don't know for sure, but I would imagine that whatever it is manufactured, marketed, and distributed as would be its classification. Of course, that's a logical answer and CA is anything but logical.
artherd
member
No, it's horrible, and technically ANY muzzle brake could fall under the classification used.
natedog
Member
This is exactly what I have (except that mine is for a Mini-14). http://www.midwayusa.com/rewriteaproduct/157034
It seems that it is marketed as a muzzle brake, but I checked the manufactuers website and it says "Cannot ship to CA"
It is not installed on the rifle, as I lost the mounting pin. Am I in any legal danger? Should I dump it?
It seems that it is marketed as a muzzle brake, but I checked the manufactuers website and it says "Cannot ship to CA"
It is not installed on the rifle, as I lost the mounting pin. Am I in any legal danger? Should I dump it?
ARperson
Member
So I was right in my first post, yes?
In any other state I'd say you were okay because it's not installed. But it's CA we're talking about and they'd do their best to nail ya.
My suggestions:
1. Taking it fishing with you and make sure it "falls overboard."
2. Ship it out of state to a buddy or family member you trust. Retrieve it when you move from that hellhole. *
3. Keep it and keep your mouth shut. The political climate in CA might get better.
*Requires a move in the future to retrieve your property. In other words, stop feeding the beast.
natedog
Member
Dear Mr. Sultze:
Our legal counsel suggests contacting the Federal Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco & Firearms (ATF), Firearms Technology office in Washington DC,
(202) 927-7910, for their interpretation, as a flash suppressor is a
characteristic of an assault weapon under federal law, also. We defer
to their decision.
Sincerely,
Kathy Quinn, Field Representative
Firearms Division
Under the BATF definition, I believe the John Masen muzzle brakes are legal.
Our legal counsel suggests contacting the Federal Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco & Firearms (ATF), Firearms Technology office in Washington DC,
(202) 927-7910, for their interpretation, as a flash suppressor is a
characteristic of an assault weapon under federal law, also. We defer
to their decision.
Sincerely,
Kathy Quinn, Field Representative
Firearms Division
Under the BATF definition, I believe the John Masen muzzle brakes are legal.
artherd
member
That is the way of it in CA, get a letter from the Attorney General (and if nessicary, also the BATF) on any issue that may be even marginal.
You'll want to keep it with the rifle to avoid spending the night in jail because some local cop dosen't know all 30,000 laws on the books.
Burden of proof is now basically on the innocent.
You'll want to keep it with the rifle to avoid spending the night in jail because some local cop dosen't know all 30,000 laws on the books.
Burden of proof is now basically on the innocent.
BerettaNut92
Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2002
- Messages
- 9,723
My observations that circular holes = muzzlebrake, long-ish line-ish holes = flashsuppressor?
artherd
member
Skunky- I love this brake!
natedog
Member
Something like that, Skunk. The antis are afraid of slots, they are not afraid of holes as of yet. However, with the John Masen brake, it had holes and then slots. The holes prevent the slots from having any "flash hiding" capability. This is still a delicate issue, and I'd be careful with hanging anything on the muzzle of a semi-automatic rifle in California. All it takes is one ignorant cop and a prosecuter that wants to nail you.
It should be the semiauto action that is causing this headache as "assault weapon" criteria, up till now atleast, have been applied to semiauto firearms with a detachable magazine in combination with other features.
If this was a bolt action like a Remington 700 putting a flash suppressor on it shouldn't make it an "assault weapon" even under California's rediculous laws.
But putting one on a mini-14 could be considered manufacture of an illegal assault weapon in the eyes of California. Not neccesarily in the eyes of the ATF because a Mini-14 is essentially the same thing as a M1A, keep your nose clean while maintaining the correct number of evil parts without going over and you should be fine. But California, if I remember correctly, does allows for fewer provisions where if it's a detachable magazine plus just 1 evil feature it counts as an "assault weapon" in the opinion of the Ca. DOJ.
M1A rifles for sale in Ca. have to have Ca. approved muzzle brakes installed and ditch the flash suppressors. A Mini-14 should be no different, problem is whether the device you have in mind is considered a flash suppressor. Perhaps the ATF legal dept. could help to establish a ruling on the specific device you are interested in but who knows if that will fly here in this rediculous retarded state.
If the device truely is a muzzle brake and not a flash suppressor, I do not see why it wouldn't be legal for installing on a Mini-14.
If this was a bolt action like a Remington 700 putting a flash suppressor on it shouldn't make it an "assault weapon" even under California's rediculous laws.
But putting one on a mini-14 could be considered manufacture of an illegal assault weapon in the eyes of California. Not neccesarily in the eyes of the ATF because a Mini-14 is essentially the same thing as a M1A, keep your nose clean while maintaining the correct number of evil parts without going over and you should be fine. But California, if I remember correctly, does allows for fewer provisions where if it's a detachable magazine plus just 1 evil feature it counts as an "assault weapon" in the opinion of the Ca. DOJ.
M1A rifles for sale in Ca. have to have Ca. approved muzzle brakes installed and ditch the flash suppressors. A Mini-14 should be no different, problem is whether the device you have in mind is considered a flash suppressor. Perhaps the ATF legal dept. could help to establish a ruling on the specific device you are interested in but who knows if that will fly here in this rediculous retarded state.
If the device truely is a muzzle brake and not a flash suppressor, I do not see why it wouldn't be legal for installing on a Mini-14.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Yeah, even then the letter won't help you much - anyone remember the M96 rifles that were just confiscated in November 2003 (and only recently returned) despite the fact that in May 2003, the Attorney General had already declared them California legal?
- Status
