PDA

View Full Version : Battlecomp legality on featureless


Moonshine
03-06-2012, 12:42 PM
Obviously there seems to be some questions about the fsc556 legality but what about the battlecomp?

vintagearms
03-06-2012, 12:44 PM
I run a BC1.5 on my featureless. Its not a FH.

MrPlink
03-06-2012, 12:45 PM
Obviously there seems to be some questions about the fsc556 legality but what about the battlecomp?

legal, so is the FSC, despite the name

ChaneRZ
03-06-2012, 12:55 PM
All of the FSC Series muzzle devices have been classified as a non-flash suppressing device by the BATFE, thus removing any restriction from assault weapon ban states or provinces.

Dhena81
03-06-2012, 12:58 PM
Seems to me you could do the research yourself maybe you should go to the manufactures website a featureless is featureless if you don't have a flash suppressor ect. simple as that.

From PWS

All of the FSC Series muzzle devices have been classified as a non-flash suppressing device by the BATFE, thus removing any restriction from assault weapon ban states or provinces. See the BATFE document here.

From Battlecomp

California Legal Compensator and Muzzle Brake

Fate
03-06-2012, 2:47 PM
So much fail by some who should know better.

Battlecomp 1.5 is most definitely a flash suppressor due to the open area past the muzzle break end. Battlecomp 1.0 is advertised as having flash suppressing capacity by the manufacturer. Both run awry of case law as to what is a flash suppressor in CA and open yourself up to prosecution.

PWS's FSC BATFE classification meaningless with regard to CA law. So is Battlecomp's disclaimer about it being "CA legal." Sure, it's legal on a legally configured rifle. Putting one on a featureless doesn't meet that criteria.

There's other threads that go into further detail, do a search. The above posters are leading you to believe it's black and white legal. It's not.

It's your butt on the line.

odysseus
03-06-2012, 2:55 PM
Be careful on a featureless. I am wary of any device which has any hint of ambiguity about having flash hiding ability, especially by the manufacturer. Not that I am aware of anyone being prosecuted for it, I just personally run a very conservative selection on a featureless rifle.

spdrcr
03-06-2012, 3:52 PM
Fate is correct.

CA law is unique and BATFE ruling and letters are not legal standing against prosecution by the CA DOJ. You could likely use them in your defense, but it won't keep an over-zealous DA from filing charges if they feel like it.

In CA, if it perceptibly reduces the flash, which both the FSC556 and Battlecomp do, it qualifies as a flash hider - which would be illegal on a featureless build.

L4D
03-06-2012, 4:12 PM
I took mine off my featureless build because Battlecomp has video's comparing its flash reduction to other muzzle devices.

That's enough perception for me and i think it would be enough for a prosecutor as well.

chead
03-06-2012, 4:52 PM
I took mine off my featureless build because Battlecomp has video's comparing its flash reduction to other muzzle devices.

That's enough perception for me and i think it would be enough for a prosecutor as well.

Yep. And definitely stay away from anything called a "flash suppressor" or "flash hider" regardless of what it is. If it's a potato with a hole in it called the "Flash Suppressing Potato" you still shouldn't put it on your featureless rifle.

stix213
03-06-2012, 5:55 PM
Expect any product marketing discussing flash reduction to be used against you in court, regardless of any BATFE classification. I would stay away from any muzzle device that even mentions a reduction in flash in their advertising. Expect the prosecutor to say, "XXX company advertises their product to reduce flash, which makes it a flash suppressor by definition," and expect any anti-gun judge to fully agree with them.

The judge and jury will not be on your side, and BATFE opinions are in no way binding on CA law.

YMMV IANAL

BRANDON7766
03-06-2012, 9:49 PM
For the same reason pot is cal legal yet the feds will raid the shops....its the same sort of thing except its cali illegal and fed approved...the batfe considers it ok but its illegal on a featureless because it does reduce flash aka hides flash aka a flash hider. Put it on your rifle at your own risk...a DA surely could prosecute and it would be an easy conviction IMO.

Your butt. Your choice.

MrPlink
03-07-2012, 3:43 AM
Battlecomp 1.5 is most definitely a flash suppressor due to the open area past the muzzle break end.

please cite the statute that indicates this a CA standard that indicates the device being a flash hider ?

colossians323
03-07-2012, 5:20 AM
please cite the statute that indicates this a CA standard that indicates the device being a flash hider ?

DOJ itself cannot cite which is a flash hider and which is not. If they won't give the guidance the ambiguity will continue to fester until there are enough law suits that they have to define and categorize.

Merc1138
03-07-2012, 6:41 AM
DOJ itself cannot cite which is a flash hider and which is not. If they won't give the guidance the ambiguity will continue to fester until there are enough law suits that they have to define and categorize.

And that's the problem.

The manufacturer calls it a flash supressor.

The ATF says it's not.

The CA DOJ doesn't care what the ATF says.

The CA DOJ won't make an actual definition.

The end result is that while you might win a court case, you'll have still run the risk of being arrested, having your gun seized, and then having to defend yourself in court. The DOJ relies on most people's natural aversion to jailtime and maintains the ambiguity because they themselves couldn't make a definition without the risk of a court case(but if someone else screws up and the DOJ wins, the person goes to jail, and then they have the case law in their favor).

It's the same reason the CA DOJ didn't "approve" grips with fins on them as not being a pistol grip, the same reason they haven't "approved" a magazine lock or defined that you can't tether a tool to your gun, etc. and the same reason they won't make a statement about the slidefire stock. It probably wouldn't do us any good to have such things defined either(look up the penal code definitions of a sniper scope or tracer) since according to idiotic CA political logic if you were to make chocolate chip filled bullets(not sure how that would work with hot lead and all) and put "tracer" on the box, you've just made tracer rounds even if they don't emit any sort of light.

Fate
03-07-2012, 10:12 AM
please cite the statute that indicates this a CA standard that indicates the device being a flash hider ?

I have. Many times.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/search.php?searchid=18723046

soopafly
03-07-2012, 10:46 AM
And that's the problem.

The manufacturer calls it a flash supressor.
...
:confused:
I'm confused as to where you are getting this information. Their web site says this:

•100% American made
•U.S. Patent Pending #63/343,941
•Registered U.S. Trademark #3,903,660
•California Legal Compensator and Muzzle Brake
...

L4D
03-07-2012, 10:53 AM
Kr433ma17a0

ff to the 1:00 minute mark. This is a promo video directly posted by Battlecomp.

SuperSet
03-07-2012, 10:58 AM
This thread reminds me of the previous thread, with the same content and posters. I predict Patrick with come into this thread to disagree with Fate, once again. Stupid, ambiguous laws.

Merc1138
03-07-2012, 11:03 AM
:confused:
I'm confused as to where you are getting this information. Their web site says this:

But it doesn't matter what the website says. What matters is the ambiguous laws, the CA DOJ refusing to set standards, and their "58 DAs" that can make up their own mind. The battlecomp people putting that "CA legal" text on their website will not stop you from ending up in court.

soopafly
03-07-2012, 11:13 AM
ff to the 1:00 minute mark. This is a promo video directly posted by Battlecomp.
I see where that bit can cause worry, however, they never explicitly call it a "flash suppressor." Is there any other official media(electronic or print) from Battlecomp where they explicitly call the device a "flash suppressor?" I would like to know, because I'm debating wether or not to get this for a featureless build.


But it doesn't matter what the website says. What matters is the ambiguous laws, the CA DOJ refusing to set standards, and their "58 DAs" that can make up their own mind. The battlecomp people putting that "CA legal" text on their website will not stop you from ending up in court.
I get what you are saying about the law...I was referring to your statement saying that the manufacturer calls it a "flash suppressor" when the web site clearly says "compensator" and "muzzle brake."

Fate
03-07-2012, 11:18 AM
I see where that bit can cause worry, however, they never explicitly call it a "flash suppressor." Is there any other official media(electronic or print) from Battlecomp where they explicitly call the device a "flash suppressor?" I would like to know, because I'm debating wether or not to get this for a featureless build.

Hunt v. Lockyer stated (as part of the determinating checklist) if a manufacturer touts flash suppressing capability, it's a flash suppressor in CA. They don't have to call it a flash suppressor, just list that capability as a feature.

As an aside, I've been posting about this topic for a couple years now. Not once have I been told by any of the "right people" that I'm wrong and that the BC is legal on a featureless and that I should STFU and get a life. (Believe me, I wish they would! LOL).

As for those looking for proof of a "perceptible reduction/redirection of flash" see exhibit A, bottom 2 panels. Bare muzzle and the Battlecomp.

http://i43.tinypic.com/345cvvt.jpg

Merc1138
03-07-2012, 11:21 AM
I see where that bit can cause worry, however, they never explicitly call it a "flash suppressor." Is there any other official media(electronic or print) from Battlecomp where they explicitly call the device a "flash suppressor?" I would like to know, because I'm debating wether or not to get this for a featureless build.



I get what you are saying about the law...I was referring to your statement saying that the manufacturer calls it a "flash suppressor" when the web site clearly says "compensator" and "muzzle brake."

But it's marketed as suppressing flash.
http://battlecomp.com/?page_id=2
The BattleComp gives the tactical operator excellent control WITHOUT the excessive concussion and crushing blast produced by most compensators on the market with flash comparable to an A2 and all in an A2-sized package.

It's real easy to assume that they're talking about an A2 flash suppressor, and no matter how many times they say it's a compensator instead or CA legal all it takes is a DA to point at that line of text and you're going to be defending yourself in court after you've possibly spent a night in jail and had your gun seized.

soopafly
03-07-2012, 11:23 AM
I agree it would muddy the waters less if Battlecomp just did not talk about flash suppression at all...

ETA: just saw your edit, Fate. If Hunt v. Lockyer indeed says that, I would shy away from the Battlecomp....bummer.

***hint to Battlecomp: make a "CA legal" version where flash suppression is not mentioned as a feature ;)

Merc1138
03-07-2012, 11:24 AM
I agree it would muddy the waters less if Battlecomp just did not talk about flash suppression at all...

Yes, but for the sake of their marketing(you know, the other 40+ free states) it makes sense to market the flash suppression.

SURVIVOR619
03-07-2012, 12:36 PM
The CA DOJ doesn't care what the ATF says.

The CA DOJ won't make an actual definition.

The end result is that while you might win a court case, you'll have still run the risk of being arrested, having your gun seized, and then having to defend yourself in court. The DOJ relies on most people's natural aversion to jailtime and maintains the ambiguity because they themselves couldn't make a definition without the risk of a court case(but if someone else screws up and the DOJ wins, the person goes to jail, and then they have the case law in their favor).

Just like blocked mags: to epoxy or not?

You're right on Merc.

Respect,

Survivor

lawaia
03-07-2012, 3:20 PM
I hate pointing out the obvious, but..................

BattleComp claims that their brake is a "California Legal Compensator and Muzzle Brake".

News flash: Any brake or compensator is California legal if it is installed on a BB'd rifle.:)

Notice that they do not claim that the BattleComp is CA legal on a featureless rifle.

Hmmmmmm.

L4D
03-07-2012, 3:29 PM
I hate pointing out the obvious, but..................

BattleComp claims that their brake is a "California Legal Compensator and Muzzle Brake".

News flash: Any brake or compensator is California legal if it is installed on a BB'd rifle.:)

Notice that they do not claim that the BattleComp is CA legal on a featureless rifle.

Hmmmmmm.


Very good point.