Tweet
Its not written by the DOJ anywhere that I can think of at the moment. (Maybe its in the "Final Statement of Reasons") Its been on the CGN flowchart so people take it for fact. That and other characteristics are best guesses of things to stay away from because they might cause a device to function as a "FS" (FH). So while they might not be based on DOJ word they are still valid things to consider because those features might cause a device to actually “function to perceptibly reduce or redirect muzzle flash from the shooter's field of vision”
In the above Librarian so going by memory and does a good job of relaying what the process is.
This is a distilling of information from Hunt v. Lockyer Declaration of DOJ Special Agent Ignatius Chinn
Quote from Ignatuis Chinn’s Declaration: (Bolding done by me)
So in short the CA DOJ’s system for determining a Flash Suppressor is:
1. Examine the device and the claims made by the manufacturer.
If at step 1 the device is found to be a Flash Suppressor there is no need to progress to later steps and the device is determined to be a Flash Suppressor.
2. Test if the device does nonetheless function as a Flash Suppressor
If at step 2 the device is determined “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
3. If unable to determine, consult with ATF
But yes Wombats Are Dangerous, we do not have an insight on the actual physical and scientific parameters that would happen in an actual test. As Iggy states " 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" So rarely they have ever had to progress farther to an actual test. And IMO this is probably because back in the day there where fewer device choices and most of them where advertised with flash hiding abilities.
And yes people should be wary of internet advice. My posts and anyone else on this subject are not legal advice. Its educated best guesses so that you have information that you should err on the side of caution with.
In the above Librarian so going by memory and does a good job of relaying what the process is.
This is a distilling of information from Hunt v. Lockyer Declaration of DOJ Special Agent Ignatius Chinn
Quote from Ignatuis Chinn’s Declaration: (Bolding done by me)
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 appropriate, Firearms Division personnel directly contact the manufacturer to determine its intended purpose for the device. Industry publications are also reviewed to obtain information as to the signed or intended uses for the device. 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. Depending on the device, inspection of the device may establish that it does not function to perceptibly reduce 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.
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 appropriate, Firearms Division personnel directly contact the manufacturer to determine its intended purpose for the device. Industry publications are also reviewed to obtain information as to the signed or intended uses for the device. 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. Depending on the device, inspection of the device may establish that it does not function to perceptibly reduce 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.
1. Examine the device and the claims made by the manufacturer.
If at step 1 the device is found to be a Flash Suppressor there is no need to progress to later steps and the device is determined to be a Flash Suppressor.
2. Test if the device does nonetheless function as a Flash Suppressor
If at step 2 the device is determined “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
3. If unable to determine, consult with ATF
But yes Wombats Are Dangerous, we do not have an insight on the actual physical and scientific parameters that would happen in an actual test. As Iggy states " 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" So rarely they have ever had to progress farther to an actual test. And IMO this is probably because back in the day there where fewer device choices and most of them where advertised with flash hiding abilities.
And yes people should be wary of internet advice. My posts and anyone else on this subject are not legal advice. Its educated best guesses so that you have information that you should err on the side of caution with.
Comment