PDA

View Full Version : Does a "compensator" equate to flash hider or muzzle brake?


Bobula
04-12-2011, 6:11 AM
I'm looking at running one of these
http://www.alumaliteusa.com/servlet/the-64/14x1mm-LH-%28-HALO/Detail
on a featureless set up. I just want to make sure it's not considered a "flash hider"

hawk1
04-12-2011, 6:30 AM
Found this perspective:

http://www.perfectunion.com/vb/ruger-mini-14-mini-30/35818-ca-flash-suppressor-laws.html

978.20 (B) Flash Suppressor
This term was originally defined as "any device that reduces or conceals the visible light or flash created when a firearm is fired. This definition includes flash hiders, but does not include compensators and muzzle brakes (devices attached to or integral with the muzzle barrel to utilize propelling gasses for counter-recoil)." There were two primary problems with the definition when it was originally noticed to the public (December 31, 1999 through February 28, 2000). The most significant problem with the original definition was that it included and/or excluded particular devices by name (flash hider, muzzle brake, compensator) without consideration of whether the devices actually suppress flash. After further consideration prompted by public comments, the Department concluded that the absence of statutorily defined specific measurement standards or a statutory requirement to establish those standards demonstrates a legislative intent to identify any device that reduces or redirects flash from the shooter's field of vision as a flash suppressor regardless of its name and intended/additional purpose. Thus, "flash hiders" are flash suppressors only if they reduce or redirect flash from the shooter's field of vision. Conversely, "compensators" and "muzzle brakes" are not flash suppressors only if they do not reduce or redirect flash from the shooter's field of vision. The revised definition is clearly consistent with the legislative intent of the statute as it neither includes nor excludes any particular device on the basis of its name only. Additionally, "conceals" in the original definition presented the possibility of an overly broad interpretation which could have included any device positioned between the shooter's eye and the muzzle flash, such as the sights on a gun. To avoid such unintended interpretation, the word "conceals" was replaced with "redirects." Accordingly, the original definition was changed to: "flash suppressor means any device that reduces or redirects muzzle flash from the shooter's field of vision." This revised definition was noticed to the public during the first 15-day comment period (May 10 through May 30, 2000). Comments addressing this version of the definition prompted further reconsideration and revision. As such, the definition was revised a second time by replacing " . . . that reduces or redirects muzzle flash . . . " with " . . . designed, intended, or that functions to reduce or redirect muzzle flash . . . " This change was necessary because it became clear that flash suppressors are typically attached by twisting or screwing the device onto the threaded barrel of a firearm. Therefore, by simply making a half turn (180 degrees), an otherwise fully operational flash suppressor would not function as prescribed in the prior definition. The revised definition eliminates this potential loophole. Accordingly, this final revision "flash suppressor means any device designed, intended, or that functions to reduce or redirect muzzle flash from the shooter's field of vision," was noticed during the second 15-day comment period (July 12 through July 31, 2000). Although additional comments were received, no comments were received during the second 15-day comment period that resulted in substantial revision to the definition. However, the Department made a non-substantial revision by adding "perceptibly" to the phrase "reduce or redirect" to confirm that if a reduction or redirection of flash is so minuscule that it is imperceptible to the human eye, it could not reasonably be considered a reduction.

Bobula
04-12-2011, 6:37 AM
I'm not really sure if that helps me.... lol
I think I'm more confused then originally

hawk1
04-12-2011, 7:14 AM
I think thats going to be the way it is when you mix a bit of DOJ in with it.
Be damn sure they don't market or advertise it as a flash. I'd take a minute and call them to see if they have had a ruling from ATF on what it is. I know ATF is feds, but that would go along way towards validating that it is a brake and not a flash.