PDA

View Full Version : Flash hider on M2HB?


EBR Works
04-28-2010, 10:22 PM
Since an M2HB is not a rifle by definition, being "crew served" and exempt from the 50 BMG ban, is a cone type milsurp flash hider legal on the weapon in California? The flowchart only addresses the configuration of AW features on centerfire rifles. Thanks.

http://www.nfasales.com/Parts%20Pics%20For%20Sale/50%20Caliber%20Parts%20003.JPG

EBR Works
04-29-2010, 7:32 AM
I have seen discussion of other belt fed weapons here like the MG42 and 1919A6, but both have stocks and can be shoulder fired. Obviously, they would need a mag lock device for the top cover with a flash hider installed. The M2HB is not and cannot be configured as a rifle. Is the Calguns collective mind baffled on this subject?

Anyone, anyone.....Bueller? :confused:

:gene:

GrizzlyGuy
04-29-2010, 7:57 AM
I don't know the answer, but would that flash hider also meet CA's definition of a silencer? Here is the definition from 12500 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/12500.html):

The term "silencer" as used in this chapter means any device
or attachment of any kind designed, used, or intended for use in
silencing, diminishing, or muffling the report of a firearm. The term
"silencer" also includes any combination of parts, designed or
redesigned, and intended for use in assembling a silencer or
fabricating a silencer and any part intended only for use in such
assembly or fabrication.

If so, it's a no-go as possession of a silencer is a felony (12520 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/12520.html)):

Any person, firm, or corporation who within this state
possesses a silencer is guilty of a felony and upon conviction
thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison or by a
fine not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or by both.

EBR Works
04-29-2010, 8:02 AM
I don't think this could be construed to be a silencer as it is just a hollow, cone type device.

OCArmory
04-29-2010, 8:47 AM
In my unprofessional (not a lawyer) opinion I would think it would be ok. The flash suppressor is an assault weapon feature on a rifle. Since you are possessing the M2 on the basis that it is not a rifle by definition and therefore not banned by the .50bmg ban I would assume that the logic would follow. Although you are dealing with the DOJ and logic is definitely not their strong suit.
Mike

CHS
04-29-2010, 10:35 AM
Please don't get mixed up with the "crew served" terminology, since it has ZERO basis in law and is not legally defined anywhere whatsoever.

Now, with that said, any and all "features" are ok on an M2 since they ARE NOT rifles. They are Title 1 firearms. The BATFE would describe them as a "Pistol-grip only firearm".

EBR Works
04-29-2010, 11:58 AM
As I thought. Thanks for the confirmation!

OlderThanDirt
04-29-2010, 12:02 PM
I have seen discussion of other belt fed weapons here like the MG42 and 1919A6, but both have stocks and can be shoulder fired. Obviously, they would need a mag lock device for the top cover with a flash hider installed. The M2HB is not and cannot be configured as a rifle. Is the Calguns collective mind baffled on this subject?

Anyone, anyone.....Bueller? :confused:

:gene:

Don't forget, they would also be limited to little 10-round linked segments, which feels so wrong.

CSACANNONEER
04-29-2010, 12:08 PM
Cool, so the cones would be legal on 1919A4s too!

timdps
04-29-2010, 12:27 PM
Spade grips count as pistol grips? Or are you thinking about a 1919?


Now, with that said, any and all "features" are ok on an M2 since they ARE NOT rifles. They are Title 1 firearms. The BATFE would describe them as a "Pistol-grip only firearm".

CSACANNONEER
04-29-2010, 12:37 PM
Spade grips count as pistol grips? Or are you thinking about a 1919?

ATF&E would classify them as PG only guns since, they are niether rifles nor handguns.

383green
04-29-2010, 12:50 PM
The grip on a normal M1919A4 or M1919A6 would not be considered a pistol grip for purposes of the California assault weapon ban, however.

CHS
04-29-2010, 1:05 PM
Spade grips count as pistol grips? Or are you thinking about a 1919?

Doesn't matter since pistol grips are only a prohibited feature on rifles.

1919's aren't rifles so they can have multiple pistol grips if you want.

Be careful though since 1919A6's ARE rifles. The pistol grip on those is ok since it doesn't sit conspicuously below the action, but a flash hider would not be allowed.

Manic Moran
04-29-2010, 5:54 PM
I would be careful to look up what CA's definition of a rifle is. I would describe the weapon being discharged below as a 120mm rifle.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/challenger2/images/chal16.jpg

406mm rifles...

http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/us_navy_pages/us_navy_battleship_photos/uss_iowa_bb61/12_iowa_class_firing.jpg

NTM

CSACANNONEER
04-29-2010, 6:08 PM
Part of California's definition of a rifle is that it is designed to be fired from the shoulder".

nemisis1400
04-29-2010, 6:13 PM
I'm guessing if you tried to fire a 120mm while placed on your shoulder, you wouldn't have a shoulder anymore.

CHS
04-29-2010, 8:41 PM
I would be careful to look up what CA's definition of a rifle is. I would describe the weapon being discharged below as a 120mm rifle.

The military might consider those "rifles", but the State of California and the Federal government DO NOT consider those rifles.

cmth
04-29-2010, 9:22 PM
I'm guessing if you tried to fire a 120mm while placed on your shoulder, you wouldn't have a shoulder anymore.

Not necessarily.

9nOkO8Sh2xs

EBR Works
04-29-2010, 10:36 PM
Not necessarily.

9nOkO8Sh2xs

GET OFF MY LAWN....NOW! :eek:;)