View Single Post
  #3  
Old 10-10-2012, 2:32 AM
Chaos47's Avatar
Chaos47 Chaos47 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Inland Empire
Posts: 6,352
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Gonna say no.

If you look at the process the CADOJ would use to test for flash suppression you will see that they use the statement "particular feature or deviced". They don't say muzzle brake, flash hider etc. It could be argued that a can is just a different type of device that is screwed onto a barrel. But in this case I see yours is internal so it may fall under a "particular feature".

In SB23 Final Statement of Reasons (FSOR) you can see earlier writings of the law. At a point they made it clear its not what the device is called but if it actually does suppress flash, if so then it is a flash suppressor. (Notice FSOR is not the law, but it is a good reference)

Is a can a feature or device that suppresses flash? The CADOJ might say yes.
But who really knows. On a featureless its always best to err on the side of caution...

Quote:
Hunt v. Lockyer Declaration of DOJ Special Agent Ignatius Chinn

7. Accordingly, DOJ determines whether a particular feature or device is a flash suppressor as defined in section 978.20(b) by inspecting the device, reviewing material regarding the device provided by the manufacturer or otherwise, and/or consulting with ATF. In particular, DOJ determines whether a particular device is a flash suppressor under the regulatory definition by following a step-by-step analysis. In nearly all instances to date, DOJ has been able to determine that the device in question is a flash suppressor in the initial stage of the analysis, without needing to proceed further in the determination process.

8. The first step is determination of whether the device in question is designed or intended to perceptibly reduce or redirect muzzle flash from the shooter's field of vision. The assigned Firearms Division personnel examine the device and review material produced by the manufacturer of the device to see what the manufacturer has said publicly about its designed or intended uses for the device. Manufacturer materials reviewed can include brochures and packaging provided with the device, advertising materials, websites, and point-of-sale or other marketing materials. If it is determined that the device in question was designed or intended to perceptibly reduce or redirect muzzle flash from the shooter's field of vision, then the device is determined to be a flash suppressor, and the inquiry is at an end.

9. If however, it is determined that the device in question was not designed or intended to perceptibly reduce or redirect muzzle flash from the shooter's field of vision, then the analysis proceeds to a determination of whether the device nonetheless functions to perceptibly reduce or redirect muzzle flash from the shooter's field of vision. If it is determined that the device in question does not function to perceptibly reduce or redirect muzzle flash from the shooter's field of vision, then the device is determined not to be a flash suppressor, and the inquiry is at an end.

10. If, however, at this stage, Firearms Division personnel were unable to determine whether a particular device functions to perceptibly reduce or redirect muzzle flash from the shooter's field of vision based on inspection of the device, they would consult with ATF.
__________________
The above is not legal advice. It is just something you read from some dude on the internet. It does not reflect the opinion of Calguns.net. If it seems rude it was probably meant to read sarcastically.

Marlin 795 MEGATHREAD Part Deuce
Featureless Rifle Build Guide - Now over 100 Muzzle Devices!
Reply With Quote