So there is a potential problem if the manufacturer points out that their brake also reduces flash. One is that the device was designed/intended to be a flash suppressor, etc., and/or is so named, designated, etc., even if it doesn't reduce/redirect flash. One would need to dig through CalGuns and perhaps more effectively, get a real legal opinion from a competent qualified lawyer practicing in the area. Adding to the confusion when it comes to a muzzle device, it's my understanding that there was a case involving muzzle devices that somehow took the matter off the table. I'm not sure if there is anything more recent than this discussion of the reasoning that went on back in 2000 or so. This may make your brain explode - heavy bullet with low flash powder fired in a long barrel. Then the "reasonable person" criteria comes into play.īy the way, what if I use a low flash powder? What if I use a high flash powder? Are heavy bullets now illegal because they reduce muzzle flash? Are long barreled rifles now illegal because they reduce muzzle flash (my AR has a 28" barrel versus your 16" barrel)? If the arms makers call the device a "muzzle brake", especially if it is a functional brake, that hypothetical DA of yours is going to have a tough argument to make redefining it is a flash hider. The military and the arms makers call that device on the M-14 and M-16 a "flash hider". They removed the military-defined "flash hider" and installed a "muzzle brake". Has Springfield Armory been illegally selling "CA-compliant" rifles with muzzle brakes for the last 20 years? I think not. By themselves, the side plumes are not small. Think of the two plasma jets coming out of the cylinder gap of a 357 or 44 magnum revolver. This would tend to increase total luminosity. One from each port in addition to the plume that is directed forward. If nothing else, a brakes creates two or more plumes. View QuoteTotal luminosity and maybe even total irradiance would be the relevant characteristics, not "brightness", not color temperature, none of that. Forget about suppressors: any device intended to reduce noise is legally a no-go zone. Suppressors are nearly impossible to haver in California (dealers, manufacturers and law enforcement excepted). On the registered ARs, I use whatever I feel like (which happens to be a device that mostly redirects the noise forward, without affecting recoil, since I'm mostly interested in a pleasant shooting environment for myself and my friends on the line).
On my personal guns, the non-registered featureless guns (which are not allowed to have any evil feature) have only thread protectors or just straight unthreaded barrels. What I'm saying is: even a device that's intended to and sold to primarily control the exhaust gases might reduce the visible flash enough for it to be legally problematic. Because nothing prevents a local DA from getting an expert witness to measure the brightness of the flash, and if the exhaust gases are dispersed enough to dissipate the muzzle rise or kick, then they are also likely to emit less light. That's probably true, but I would not rely on it.
Now conversely, one would think that a device that is called a muzzle break is not a flash hider in the legal sense. View QuoteThe test the state DoJ seems to us is: If the device is sold or advertised as a flash hider, then it is definitely a flash hider.
0 kommentar(er)
