Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 05-24-2017, 10:37 AM
splithoof splithoof is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 938
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless America View Post
The DOJ is not hostile. The proposed regs explicitly allow an AR broken in 2 parts to not be an AW. They did not have to do that. They could have said the opppsite.

The DOJ is staffed with legal professionals who work on many different subject matters. They are not out to get us. The deluded fanatics in Excremento are the ones hostile to us.

You do not understand how bad it could be if the DOJ really was out to get us.
I have read a lot of bull-malarkey on this forum over the years, and I would have to say that this ranks in the top five; as an individual who knows personally two agents who have worked for that agency for a long time, you have little knowledge of the reality of their workings. Their goal seems to be to push any outlandish "rule" as far as it can go, knowing all along that the 2A community will be forced to spend $$ and time to deal with it, and in the process they may nail some gun owners to the wall while it all gets settled. They are part of a subset of LE culture that abhors the concept of an armed citizenry, and many are eager to please those in Excremento.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 05-24-2017, 6:36 PM
bczrx bczrx is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: South San Joaquin Valley
Posts: 211
iTrader: 22 / 100%
Default

What about the old Levar Linear style?

The most common version is probably the Troy Industries Claymore.

It directs the blast forward- no side holes at all.
__________________
What caliber will it be today? Hmmm...
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 05-24-2017, 11:43 PM
HDShawn HDShawn is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 56
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

So what about DPMS Miculek brake? I'm assuming ok on fixed mag (Franklin Armory DFM, unmodified, not AR Maglock). But I have a thread protector on my featureless AR, was considering the same brake. OK?
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 05-25-2017, 8:40 AM
jimx jimx is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,142
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EBR Works View Post
You have apparently never been inspected by CALDOJ. Ask any dealer about the vibe during said inspection. They are not your buddy.
OK. EBR what is the vibe like?

If you get a chance why don't you start a thread if you don't want to hijack here.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 05-25-2017, 9:35 AM
familyfarm's Avatar
familyfarm familyfarm is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 211
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

For what its worth the DOJ effectively blessed my Miculek Compensator when I VolReged a couple of featureless 80% builds recently. I explicitly noted the muzzle device was a Miculek Comp and that I had a Hammerhead and a Fixed stock. They processed the reg quickly. If this met the AW definition they would have rejected me. YMMV but here is the link to the cheap and effective muzzle break: http://www.miculek.com/index.php?mai...products_id=27

edit: As I started this post with "For what it is worth" I do not suggest you rely my experience as a pronouncement by the DOJ that this comp is OK. I did not mean for anyone to do that. JUst sayin that they accepted on featureless reg with it. And yes this comp, like most - throws huge fireballs and makes you no friends at the range with the big sound blast it produces. But it sure does lower felt recoil as intended.

Last edited by familyfarm; 05-25-2017 at 2:39 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 05-25-2017, 9:46 AM
God Bless America's Avatar
God Bless America God Bless America is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 2,721
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by familyfarm View Post
... They processed the reg quickly. If this met the AW definition they would have rejected me. ...
You cannot rely upon that.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 05-25-2017, 10:35 AM
Chitwood Chitwood is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 21
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Not sure a thread protector changes anything

I see a lot of people here suggesting a thread protector solves all problems - I'm not sure that putting a thread protector on means you don't still have a "threaded barrel capable of accepting a flash hider..." - you're just covering it. This also makes the "is it a flash reducer or not" question moot unless you permanently mount it. Maybe if a thread protector or non-flash-hiding compensator is welded or epoxied on - thoughts?

EDIT: I believe I am mistaken, as pointed out by arrowshooter below this appears to only apply to pistols.

Last edited by Chitwood; 05-25-2017 at 11:35 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 05-25-2017, 11:00 AM
arrowshooter's Avatar
arrowshooter arrowshooter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Modesto
Posts: 516
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chitwood View Post
I see a lot of people here suggesting a thread protector solves all problems - I'm not sure that putting a thread protector on means you don't still have a "threaded barrel capable of accepting a flash hider..." - you're just covering it. This also makes the "is it a flash reducer or not" question moot unless you permanently mount it. Maybe if a thread protector or non-flash-hiding compensator is welded or epoxied on - thoughts?
Having a threaded barrel is only a problem for handguns and the only reason to "permanently mount" a muzzle devise would be to get to the 16" minimum barrel length.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 05-25-2017, 11:34 AM
Chitwood Chitwood is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 21
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by arrowshooter View Post
Having a threaded barrel is only a problem for handguns and the only reason to "permanently mount" a muzzle devise would be to get to the 16" minimum barrel length.
In re-reading the law I believe I was mistaken and you are correct - pistols only. Thanks!
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 05-25-2017, 11:50 AM
JackRydden224's Avatar
JackRydden224 JackRydden224 is offline
Single stack pistol guy
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Irvine
Posts: 7,035
iTrader: 82 / 100%
Default

Seeing how most effective muzzle brakes /comps throw gigantic fireballs I don't think it'll be a problem....
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 05-25-2017, 11:52 AM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,523
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JackRydden224 View Post
Seeing how most effective muzzle brakes /comps throw gigantic fireballs I don't think it'll be a problem....
Until the Legislature decides that compensators make rifles more "dangerous".
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 05-25-2017, 12:14 PM
seanbo's Avatar
seanbo seanbo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: monterey co.
Posts: 977
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Don't worry about it. If you have a flash suppressor it'll make it easier to fight the Californian government at night time.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 05-25-2017, 12:18 PM
seanbo's Avatar
seanbo seanbo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: monterey co.
Posts: 977
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Is anyone else sick of the government allowing us things. We allow for them, it's not the other way around. We don't have to put up with a government we don't want. They can only exist if we allow for it.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 05-25-2017, 12:27 PM
MoabFJ MoabFJ is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 34
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I had to swap my original 14.5" barrel because of a pinned/welded flash hider on my "featureless" M4gery.
I took advantage of the PSA CHF 16" barrel sale, and added a Surefire ProComp muzzle brake just to be safe.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 05-25-2017, 12:44 PM
Wiz-of-Awd's Avatar
Wiz-of-Awd Wiz-of-Awd is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Where I'm at ;)
Posts: 3,558
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by seanbo View Post
Is anyone else sick of the government allowing us things. We allow for them, it's not the other way around. We don't have to put up with a government we don't want. They can only exist if we allow for it.
You might be forgetting that there is a much larger "we" (ie: them) that support what is going on in regards to our government and firearms laws.

Otherwise, by all means - lead the charge, and storm the castle.

A.W.D.
__________________
Quote:
Seven. The answer is always seven.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 05-25-2017, 12:53 PM
M1NM's Avatar
M1NM M1NM is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: West Covina
Posts: 5,450
iTrader: 44 / 100%
Default

Muzle brake is intended to reduce felt recoil. Not specifically intended/designed to divert the flash. Therefore I would say legal. BTW I avoided this by putting thread protectors on and leaving the brakes and flash hiders in the parts bin.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 05-25-2017, 2:25 PM
NuGunner NuGunner is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: SGV/LA
Posts: 1,105
iTrader: 38 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blade Gunner View Post
Which really pisses me off because I have a Lantac Dragon (which works fantastic in a 308AR) and I've been advised by many that when the device was first advertised it mentioned flash reduction, which it doesn't anymore.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
email the company and get it in writing.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 05-25-2017, 3:45 PM
Blade Gunner's Avatar
Blade Gunner Blade Gunner is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 3,021
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NuGunner View Post
email the company and get it in writing.


Good Idea


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
If you find yourself in a fair fight, you're doing it all wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 05-25-2017, 5:43 PM
Murmur Murmur is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: SD North County
Posts: 587
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

I like how the V Seven Furion brake states "Not a Flash Hider" right in the product description.

https://www.vsevenweaponsystems.com/products/furion

Recently ordered a Furion, but haven't tested it out yet.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 06-17-2017, 12:07 AM
scottyb's Avatar
scottyb scottyb is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Redding
Posts: 96
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by familyfarm
the DOJ effectively blessed my Miculek Compensator
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless America View Post
You cannot rely upon that.
This is part of my reservation with my Miculek Comp. Their site states: "direct muzzle gases to the side, away from the shooter." Brownells sells it and says, "Three large baffles with six side ports and no top vents direct muzzle gases to the side, away from the shooter. "

I am concerned that this can be interpreted as redirected flash as well. The DOJ is not our friend in this, I believe. Anything that looks or talks like a duck is going to be called a duck and this redirection statement in their description can be disconcerting.
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 06-17-2017, 12:16 AM
jcwatchdog jcwatchdog is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,928
iTrader: 81 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scottyb View Post
This is part of my reservation with my Miculek Comp. Their site states: "direct muzzle gases to the side, away from the shooter." Brownells sells it and says, "Three large baffles with six side ports and no top vents direct muzzle gases to the side, away from the shooter. "

I am concerned that this can be interpreted as redirected flash as well. The DOJ is not our friend in this, I believe. Anything that looks or talks like a duck is going to be called a duck and this redirection statement in their description can be disconcerting.
"To the side" is still in the shooters field of view. And you will still see a fireball. It's not preventing or hiding flash.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 06-17-2017, 10:19 AM
scottyb's Avatar
scottyb scottyb is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Redding
Posts: 96
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcwatchdog View Post
"To the side" is still in the shooters field of view. And you will still see a fireball. It's not preventing or hiding flash.
I understand. But I don't trust the DOJ to interpret the same way. I guess I am just assuming the DOJ will continue to screw us over in any way they can in the enforcement of the law. If the view is interpreted as site picture in the future, to the side could definitely be understood to move the blast out of it the view. Like I said, I have no faith in the DOJ to do right by us.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 6:35 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.