1pn58 night scope is it legal in CA?

[flak88mm]

Hi all,

Are these legal to buy? They are for svd or ak type rifles. I read that if the night scope has IR then it is illegal but i researched this and there was nothinf solid that said if the 1pn58 had IR or not. Also i have seen threads in here where people owned them. Thanks in advance.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[superhondaz50]

Illegal... PC 468

Any person who knowingly buys, sells, receives, disposes of, conceals, or has in his possession a sniperscope shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) or by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
As used in this section, sniperscope means any attachment, device or similar contrivance designed for or adaptable to use on a firearm which, through the use of a projected infrared light source and electronic telescope, enables the operator thereof to visually determine and locate the presence of objects during the nighttime.
This section shall not prohibit the authorized use or possession of such sniperscope by a member of the armed forces of the United States or by police officers, peace officers, or law enforcement officers authorized by the properly constituted authorities for the enforcement of law or ordinances;  nor shall this section prohibit the use or possession of such sniperscope when used solely for scientific research or educational purposes.

[Hairball]

You need to determine if the optic is active or passive. The part of PC 468 that you need to focus on is the statement of "through the use of a projected infrared light source and electronic telescope." If its active that is a problem, passive systems do not fall under PC 468 as they don't use an alternate light source to illuminate the target. Anyway, thats how I read it but others may see it differently.

[ef9boy88]

Pretty sure that one is passive. Not knowledgeable on the legality part.

[CouchOperator]

It appears that its a completely passive system. That being said, it will still be a gray area for your average foot solder LEO, so i would tread carefully whether the rather lackluster gen 1 amplification technology is even worth the possible trouble. If its dark enough where you need nod's, helmet mounted will always be safer, more convenient, and user friendly. Its just hard to get a good setup within a tight budget

[dieselpower]

please show me in the law where devices that do not emit IR are legal to use as a scope on a firearm..

stop reading what you want to read and read what the law says.

If the device is an electronic telescope and is aided in targeting at by IR, its a sniper scope.

As used in this section, sniperscope means any attachment, device or similar contrivance designed for or adaptable to use on a firearm which, through the use of a projected infrared light source and electronic telescope, enables the operator thereof to visually determine and locate the presence of objects during the nighttime.

nowhere does it say the light source must be emitted by the sniper scope, only that the IR aids the sniper scope in targeting at night.

[Funbaby]

I thought were was a loophole on active IR devices , for experimental or educational purposes..

[CouchOperator]

Originally Posted by dieselpower

please show me in the law where devices that do not emit IR are legal to use as a scope on a firearm..

stop reading what you want to read and read what the law says.

If the device is an electronic telescope and is aided in targeting at by IR, its a sniper scope.

As used in this section, sniperscope means any attachment, device or similar contrivance designed for or adaptable to use on a firearm which, through the use of a projected infrared light source and electronic telescope, enables the operator thereof to visually determine and locate the presence of objects during the nighttime.

nowhere does it say the light source must be emitted by the sniper scope, only that the IR aids the sniper scope in targeting at night.

Can you please tell me where he stated he was going to run an external IR illuminator, as well as where an IR Illuminator is located on his Passive scope?

[ef9boy88]

Originally Posted by CouchOperator

Can you please tell me where he stated he was going to run an external IR illuminator, as well as where the IR Illuminator is located on his Passive scope?

beat me to it

[CouchOperator]

Originally Posted by ef9boy88

beat me to it

[dieselpower]

Can you please show me in the law where IR illumination is REQUIRED to be present for the designation to be applied?

The key loophole is not IR passive or active. Its when its on a gun or can be modified to be on a gun through adaptation. Meaning it has a gun rail attachment.

If you have the ability to attached to a firearm, a device which utilizes electronics, to present an imagine to you, telescopically, and also uses a projected infrared light source, any projected infrared light source which enables you to locate an object at night, it is a sniper scope.

If you can find as lawyer who is willing to tell you they will server out your sentence if they are wrong, and you are found guilty, by all means believe them when they tell you "projected infrared light source" means actively in use at the time of investigation.

The law is explaining what the definition is, not what the scope is doing.

If you can find an Night Vision tube, that is not electronically telescopic and doesnt or isnt aided by projected infrared light source, mount it to a firearm.

Thermal imaging is the only electronic telescopic sight which will aid in locating an object at night which is not defined under this law, but I am sure you will still be arrested for it if you cross the wrong LEO.

[CouchOperator]

Originally Posted by dieselpower

Can you please show me in the law where IR illumination is REQUIRED to be present for the designation to be applied?

The key loophole is not IR passive or active. Its when its on a gun or can be modified to be on a gun through adaptation. Meaning it has a gun rail attachment.

If you have the ability to attached to a firearm, a device which utilizes electronics, to present an imagine to you, telescopically, and also uses a projected infrared light source[/B], any projected infrared light source which enables you to locate an object at night, it is a sniper scope.

If you can find as lawyer who is willing to tell you they will server out your sentence if they are wrong, and you are found guilty, by all means believe them when they tell you "projected infrared light source" means actively in use at the time of investigation.

The law is explaining what the definition is, not what the scope is doing.

If you can find an Night Vision tube, that is not electronically telescopic and doesnt or isnt aided by projected infrared light source, mount it to a firearm.

Thermal imaging is the only electronic telescopic sight which will aid in locating an object at night which is not defined under this law, but I am sure you will still be arrested for it if you cross the wrong LEO.

Please tell me what part of the scope is PROJECTING AN INFRARED LIGHT SOURCE as it pertains to his specific optic.

So we are all in the clear, what night vision devices do you own and have experience with?

[dieselpower]

Originally Posted by CouchOperator

Please tell me what part of the scope is PROJECTING AN INFRARED LIGHT SOURCE as it pertains to his specific optic.

So we are all in the clear, what night vision devices do you own and have experience with?

Where in the law does it say to be a sniper scope the device must project an IR light?

I am blind since birth and I am reading the law via Braille text. I have never used nor have I even seen night vision, please tell me why I would need to have used night vision to understand what a law is saying is defined as a sniper scope?

Do you need to be a murderer to understand the legal definition of murder? How far are you going to take this?

The definition is clear as mud, I will give you that, but its pretty darn clear to me the law doesnt say the light must be in use nor does it say the light must be emitted from the device itself.

The law simply says a device which can be (not is) mounted to a firearm, utilizes both electronic telescopic imagery as well as an IR light source in order to allow the targeting at night is a sniper scope.

1- It doesnt say it is mounted the ability to mount is just as good as mounted.

2- It doesnt say simple electronic imagery, it specifies, electronic telescopic, which by legal definition is magnification of an image.

3- It doesnt say IR light source emitting from the device itself, only that IR light source will be utilized by the device.

[CouchOperator]

Originally Posted by dieselpower

Where in the law does it say to be a sniper scope the device must project an IR light?

I am blind since birth and I am reading the law via Braille text. I have never used nor have I even seen night vision, please tell me why I would need to have used night vision to understand what a law is saying is defined as a sniper scope?

Do you need to be a murderer to understand the legal definition of murder? How far are you going to take this?

The definition is clear as mud, I will give you that, but its pretty darn clear to me the law doesnt say the light must be in use nor does it say the light must be emitted from the device itself.

The law simply says a device which can be (not is) mounted to a firearm, utilizes both electronic telescopic imagery as well as an IR light source in order to allow the targeting at night is a sniper scope.

1- It doesnt say it is mounted the ability to mount is just as good as mounted.

2- It doesnt say simple electronic imagery, it specifies, electronic telescopic, which by legal definition is magnification of an image.

3- It doesnt say IR light source emitting from the device itself, only that IR light source will be utilized by the device.

Im specifically addressing #3.

Where in OP's post did he state he was using an external IR illumination device?

[dieselpower]

Originally Posted by CouchOperator

Im specifically addressing #3.

Where in OP's post did he state he was using an external IR illumination device?

and again... the law doesnt care if he is or is not using an IR, just as the law doesnt care if the device is mounted or not.

The only conditional statements in the law are;
1- can be mounted (not is, not was, not specifically made to, only that it can be)
2- electronic magnification, not lens magnification, not 1x1 electronic, it must be telescopic via electronics.

and

3- an IR light will aid the device. any IR source, even if that IR source is NOT PRESENT ...

If your definition of IR source be from the device, simply covering the emitter, breaking the emitter or even turning off the emitter would stop the definition.

They specifically didnt specify where and when the IR source is coming from, only that the device, (please keep in mind this is a definition of a device, not how the device works) can utilize that source.

The OP doesnt have to have an IR source, if the device magnifies an image via electronics and can be mounted to a firearm and can use an IR source, the definition is triggered.

[dieselpower]

Just to be clear here... the device in the OP is illegal to own in CA.

You dont need to even own a gun to be charged with a crime, because the sniper scope in itself is illegal to own.

That scope, 1pn58, is a device which has;
1- The ability to be mounted to a gun.
2- Electronic telescopic image.
3- IR light will aid the user in targeting at night.

the device is illegal to;
1- buy,
2- sells,
3- receives,
4- disposes of,
5- conceals,
6- or have in possession

[flak88mm]

In another gun forum they said the scope uses "starlight" technology which has no IR.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[dieselpower]

Originally Posted by flak88mm

In another gun forum they said the scope uses "starlight" technology which has no IR.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

again, it doesnt matter what you dont do, as long as it meets 3 requirements, its illegal. The law is against it, not your actions.

1-Can it be mounted to a firearm? Yes or No.

2- Does it magnify and present an image using electronics? Yes or No.

3- Will projected IR light aid in its use at night? Yes or No.

If you get 3 Yes answers, its illegal.

You dont have to own a gun for this to be illegal.
You dont have to insert batteries for it to be illegal.
You dont have to own or use an IR light source for this to be illegal.

If it can, it does, therefore its is.

[flak88mm]

Well then that means any scope (day or night) that can attach to a firearm that has a lit up reticle thru batteries would then be illegal also

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[dieselpower]

Originally Posted by flak88mm

Well then that means any scope (day or night) that can attach to a firearm that has a lit up reticle thru batteries would then be illegal also

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

If IR light source aids it, yes, but only scopes with IR intensifier tubes can utilize IR light, so no they are not.

That scope you are looking at is the primary scope this law was written against as well as the other US variant used during Nam.

buy a headset or thermal scope. Neither of those fit this definition.

[flak88mm]

I visited dragunov.net look at the night vision it generates.

http://www.dragunov.net/optic_1pn58.html

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[dieselpower]

I just went on Youtube to check this thing out. Its crap.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJabe4DyMYg

buy a cheap bb gun scope and a cheap night vision monocular and mount the scope in front of the monocular, bam!!!, you got this scope, and it will be just as illegal as this scope is. How do I know this? Because iFixit who is banned here has a cheap $100 night vision monocular for sale and we have put a cheap BB gun scope in front of it to see if that would work and it does work. You just need to fit a piece of PVC tubing between the two devices. Go download "LetGo" to your phone, change your zip code to 91901 and look at his monocular. That Bushnell night watch monocular uses the same Russian tube your scope uses... it will show you any image at night in front of it, even a magnified image from a scope.

[dieselpower]

I will find Dan and ask to borrow his Monocular. I will try and get a pic through my iPhone of it showing you an image through a scope. Give me like 30 minutes.

[dieselpower]

Originally Posted by dieselpower

I will find Dan and ask to borrow his Monocular. I will try and get a pic through my iPhone of it showing you an image through a scope. Give me like 30 minutes.

EDIT--that sucked. It would take a few hours to get the PVC lined up, and the risk of burning out the intensifier tube is too great. The pics I got, frankly sucked, even though it proves it would work.

[CouchOperator]

Gen 1 is generally an easy way to throw money down the drain

[dieselpower]

Originally Posted by CouchOperator

Gen 1 is generally an easy way to throw money down the drain

for guns and "tactical" reasons yeah I agree. If you just want to see at night its fine. You can clearly see out to about 75 feet with Gen1. If you give it a "zoomed" image you will see farther.

[flak88mm]

Originally Posted by dieselpower

3- Will projected IR light aid in its use at night? Yes or No.

With your logic a separate IR source aiding the scope with its use at night can basically make any scope illegal and mimic an nv scope as long as the other 2 are true. A daytime scope can have an electronic image all u need is a separate IR source for night.





Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[dieselpower]

Originally Posted by flak88mm

With your logic a separate IR source aiding the scope with its use at night can basically make any scope illegal and mimic an nv scope as long as the other 2 are true. A daytime scope can have an electronic image all u need is a separate IR source for night.





Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

I'm sorry if you dont like logic, but yes, if any device has all 3 characteristics, its a sniperscope as per the law.

please show me a scope that
1- has electronic magnification,
2- Mounts to a FIREARM
3- Utilizes IR to see at night and ISNT A NIGHT VISION RIFLE SCOPE ALREADY??????????????????

YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IR IS OR WHAT IT DOES, NOR WHAT A INTENSIFIER TUBE IS AND WHAT IT DOES IN A SCOPE...

[George W]

Not all IR night vision scopes emit IR they collect it. Hence you can use a IR collecting scope on a gun in Calif. as long as it doesn't emit IR light.
pretty simple even I blind guy can see what everybody is trying to tell you. well almost every blind guy.

[FiveSeven]

Originally Posted by George W

Not all IR night vision scopes emit IR they collect it. Hence you can use a IR collecting scope on a gun in Calif. as long as it doesn't emit IR light.
pretty simple even I blind guy can see what everybody is trying to tell you. well almost every blind guy.

X1
The law was written by idiots who were specific in "emitting' as in illuminating IR, mainly to make Gen 1 scope affective.

Name one person who was ever prosecuted for possessing a starlight scope in CA.

[dieselpower]

Originally Posted by George W

Not all IR night vision scopes emit IR they collect it. Hence you can use a IR collecting scope on a gun in Calif. as long as it doesn't emit IR light.
pretty simple even I blind guy can see what everybody is trying to tell you. well almost every blind guy.

Originally Posted by FiveSeven

X1
The law was written by idiots who were specific in "emitting' as in illuminating IR, mainly to make Gen 1 scope affective.

Name one person who was ever prosecuted for possessing a starlight scope in CA.

wrong and wrong... the law specifically says if the scope can USE IR to aid at night. It says nothing about emitting a source of IR.

where are you guys reading this? This is the actual law...
As used in this section, sniperscope means any attachment, device or similar contrivance designed for or adaptable to use on a firearm which, through the use of a projected infrared light source and electronic telescope, enables the operator thereof to visually determine and locate the presence of objects during the nighttime.

nowhere does this law say emitt...it says...USE

therefore any scope that mounts to a gun, has electronic magnification and can use IR to see at night is a sniperscope..the device itself doesnt have to emit a freaking thing..use...use...use...please go look up the word...USE...

yes I know some lawyer said somewhere that this means emitt, but that lawyer isnt gonna spend a day in jail or lose sleep over YOU being found guilty.

use does not = emit.

both passive and active night visions scopes ...can use...IR to aid them in use at night.

[Hairball]

Not sure why you keep arguing this point as you are the only one that agrees with your position. We understand the word "use"; however, we also understand the word projected as used in conjunction with a light source:

pro·ject·ed - to thrust outward, to throw forward, to send out...

I have seen several people use passive systems over the years and even see them sold in CA gun shops and I have never seen or heard of anyone having issues with a passive optic system in CA. If you can show a single documented court case where someone purchased a passive system in CA but was prosecuted for it, please post it up and that may help your argument.

Just agree to disagree and move on. If you feel they are illegal and don't want one that's fine, if others conclude that they are legal and want one, that's up to them. You are on a site where the majority of people have issues with spending 500-1000 dollars for a regular rifle optic (I want the best for the least amount of money threads) so dropping 5-10k on a quality passive optic is so remote that it's not even worth arguing about as the number of folks that have them are so limited. The overwhelming consensus on this argument throughout the years on this site is that passive systems are legal and I don't recall, from those that did make a purchase, that anyone has ever returned to the forums to discuss their legal issues with their purchase to warn others of their misinterpretation of the law.

While there are very few areas in CA where hunting is allowed at night with the use of a light, none of these areas allow any type (passive or active) of IR optic so owning these in CA is more of a novelty more than anything else so unless you are shooting at targets on private land at night or you think you need one in case the world comes to an end and you need to hold off the night raiders coming to take your stuff, there is not much use for these in CA.

[goodlookin1]

I disagree with you Diesel. This has been mapped out really well over the years by lawyers.

Back when the law was written, the tech wasn't good enough to use ambient light so they wrote the "projected light" text to signify a device that sends IR light out from a singular source (not starlight). And your reading telescopic to mean any scope instead of "magnified". Is a red dot (1x) telescopic in nature? No, it is not.

Clearly due to writing the law they say they did, they are saying that the device must be telescopic AND project IR light (active) to meet the definition. Otherwise a legal passive device would immediately be rendered illegal as soon as someone/anyone turns on an IR flashlight! That doesn't make any sense. Or does it make any sense to not be able to own a passive device if you also own an illuminator. But using them together is the problem.

Here's a summary from Quiet that summarizes legality of NV devices:

Active IR scope with magnification = illegal
Active IR scope with no magnification = legal
Passive IR scope with magnification = legal
Passive IR scope with magnification and an IR illuminator = illegal
Passive IR scope with no magnifcation = legal
Passive IR scope with no magnification and an IR illuminator = legal
Active IR goggles with magnification = legal
Active IR goggles with no magnification = legal
Passive IR goggles with magnification = legal
Passive IR goggles with magnification and an IR illuminator = legal
Passive IR googles with no magnification = legal
Passive IR goggles with no magnification and an IR illuminator = legal

[flak88mm]

Does no magnification = 1x because the 1pn58 is 3.5x default

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[CouchOperator]

Originally Posted by flak88mm

Does no magnification = 1x because the 1pn58 is 3.5x default

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Its a completely passive system. The law has more to do with a projected IR illuminator

Heres an example of an onboard IR illuminator. This is my gen 3 Pinnacle PVS-14, note the IR illuminator. This would technically be illegal to mount on a rifle. It is legal to run on a helmet

[dieselpower]

Originally Posted by Hairball

Not sure why you keep arguing this point as you are the only one that agrees with your position. We understand the word "use"; however, we also understand the word projected as used in conjunction with a light source:

pro·ject·ed - to thrust outward, to throw forward, to send out...

I have seen several people use passive systems over the years and even see them sold in CA gun shops and I have never seen or heard of anyone having issues with a passive optic system in CA. If you can show a single documented court case where someone purchased a passive system in CA but was prosecuted for it, please post it up and that may help your argument.

Just agree to disagree and move on. If you feel they are illegal and don't want one that's fine, if others conclude that they are legal and want one, that's up to them. You are on a site where the majority of people have issues with spending 500-1000 dollars for a regular rifle optic (I want the best for the least amount of money threads) so dropping 5-10k on a quality passive optic is so remote that it's not even worth arguing about as the number of folks that have them are so limited. The overwhelming consensus on this argument throughout the years on this site is that passive systems are legal and I don't recall, from those that did make a purchase, that anyone has ever returned to the forums to discuss their legal issues with their purchase to warn others of their misinterpretation of the law.

While there are very few areas in CA where hunting is allowed at night with the use of a light, none of these areas allow any type (passive or active) of IR optic so owning these in CA is more of a novelty more than anything else so unless you are shooting at targets on private land at night or you think you need one in case the world comes to an end and you need to hold off the night raiders coming to take your stuff, there is not much use for these in CA.

If a law said the use of an AR15 through a projected light source is illegal ONLY identify AR15s with lights mounted on them? No. That law would be interpreted to mean any projected light source makes the use of the AR15 at night illegal.

1- You dont need to own a gun to break this law.
2- You dont need to own batteries or a power source to break this law.
3- You dont need to own an IR light source to break this law.

The law is defining the device and how the device works, NOT what you can or cant do with the device.

I see slidefire stocks sold in CA, I see Tannerite sold in CA, I see hooker headers sold in CA, I see fireworks sold in CA, I see magnet buttons sold in CA, I have seen people use all of this stuff without any black helicopters landing and shooting pet dogs, that doesnt mean its legal 100% of the time.

I'm, sorry if plain English doesn't fit into your narrative of what you want, but ask any person who doesn't have a stake in this game, what that sentence means and it will be clear as day to them... "through the use of a projected IR light source" means ANY projected IR light source.

If I didnt own a gun, can I own A SNIPERSCOPE?

What about of I didnt own batteries can I own A SNIPERSCOPE?

WHY NOT?

That same logic is extended to the projected IR light source. You just want it to say the sniperscope itself projects the IR...the law doesn't say that.

Just as people say its legal to own if they dont own a gun to mount it on or own the specific batteries the device uses. They would be just as wrong as you are.

I agreed with you up to the other day when I was given several to play with. There is no such thing as "active or passive" Night Vision. They are all 100% Passive because none of them are sending out light to use, they all just use light that is out there and are all aided by any projected source you give them.

Some have this added feature to also project a light source as a convenience feature. Its not the same thing as active and passive in the real would.

An Active system sends out a signal or an energy that it then uses in some way. Radar is active, It measures a Doppler effect from a source energy it sends out. Sound and Light based detectors or collectors are Passive because they only use information that is sent into them.

I own an AR15 with a 200 lum Inforce light. Would you say my AR15 has a active illumination system? No you would not. Do people who own AR15s without a mounted light call their firearms "passive" illumination? No they do not. Will all AR15s with a light source aid the user with shooting at night? YES. Will any light from any source aid the shooter at night? Yes.

IR light is a specific light. It can only be seen by specific filters. All night vision scopes that utilize IR light are covered under this law.

Nowhere in this law does it say the unit itself has to emit the light.

again, why am I breaking this law if I dont own batteries?

Its freaking plain english.

[CouchOperator]

So you played with a couple units and suddenly you are an expert? Lol. See my above photo of a PVS-14 with a built in IR Illuminator. Huge difference.

Diesel, have you always dreamed of being a prosecutor but failed the BAR exam?

[flak88mm]

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[dieselpower]

so this is completely legal as long as I dont turn on the IR source... is that what you are saying..
http://www.opticsplanet.com/sightmar...iflescope.html

Because you are saying, "through the use of a projected IR light source" means the device cannot be used without it, and since this device doesnt require it, then its ok.

Nowhere in that law does it say what you think it does.

[dieselpower]

Originally Posted by CouchOperator

So you played with a couple units and suddenly you are an expert? Lol. See my above photo of a PVS-14 with a built in IR Illuminator. Huge difference.

Diesel, have you always dreamed of being a prosecutor but failed the BAR exam?

Yes I am an expert now because I now understand how the units work. I can also build one now too and have everything in my electronics shop to do just that if I want.

I am not like you. I have an advanced understanding of electronic and have worked in the field for decades now. I used RADARs, I used Doppler units. I used and repaired them all and have a FCC licenses to prove it.

Do you have an FCC license? A GROL endorsement? No probably not, because if you did you would understand the technology here.

Just as I would be laughed at by a lawyer for not understanding a legal document, I am now laughing at you for not understanding a piece of technology.

The law doesnt care or give a freaking sideways crap about where the IR is projected from, it ONLY cares if the device can use that IR source to aid the User at night.

READ THE LAW, do not READ INTO the law.