"Flash Suppressor" Definition

[Otokoyama]

There are muzzle devices that are sold as "flash suppressor" or "flash hider". Then there are others that are sold as "compensator" or "muzzle brake" of which many have some significant flash suppression capabilities.

For purposes of going featureless with respect to California legislation, what defines whether a particular muzzle device is considered by California law to be a flash suppressor?

[edgerly779]

Use search.

[RamonSJC]

^ lmao!

But seriously OP answered your own question.
They are sold as either, follow calguns flow chart.

[seabee1]

There are muzzle devices that are sold as "flash suppressor" or "flash hider". Then there are others that are sold as "compensator" or "muzzle brake" of which many have some significant flash suppression capabilities.

For purposes of going featureless with respect to California legislation, what defines whether a particular muzzle device is considered by California law to be a flash suppressor?

whatever the manufacturer calls it...that's what it is

[Otokoyama]

edgerly779: I did search, but didn't find any threads that were directly relevant. Would you be so good as to direct my attention toward an existing thread that answers my question?

[Otokoyama]

[Cokebottle]

https://sites.google.com/site/featurelessrifleguide/muzzle-devices

This is as good as it gets.
The problem is, if anyone from the DOJ wants to claim that there is any amount of flash suppression, you're screwed.

[Otokoyama]

seabee1: Perfect. Thank you. Guess it's back to a simple thread protector if one is trying to go featureless. They hopefully can't quibble with that.

[seabee1]

yes, muzzle brakes and compensators are designed and intended to reduce recoil

[Cokebottle]

RamonSJC: Thank you. Apparently, all muzzle devices are flash suppressors according to California law:

There are plenty of muzzle devices that do not fall under that definition.

[edgerly779]

^^ Best info I have seen so far.

[seabee1]

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=109945

[Otokoyama]

Cokebottle: Very informative link! Thank you.

There are in fact a number of devices that the author considers "Minimal Risk", but none with "No Risk", obviously due to a law that's not objective.

[Cokebottle]

Cokebottle: Very informative link! Thank you.

There are in fact a number of devices that the author considers "Minimal Risk", but none with "No Risk", obviously due to a law that's not objective.

Also because stating "no risk" could be construed as offering legal advice, and opens the author up to liability.

Same as with most of the smarter advice on Calguns.

[Otokoyama]

I apologize, but there were so many muzzle devices in that document that I only today read to the bottom and found thread protectors as "No Risk". At least they don't yet have to be welded on. Hoping for the day when this nonsense gets overturned by a non-Hillary Supreme Court.