Good NV scope?

[traveler1952]

He's got a gun and does not know what it is???
Sounds fishy.

[edgerly779]

Illegal to hunt with weapon at night that cast a light upon animal.

[dieselpower]

I completely disagree with the non- NV device educated interpretation of PC 468. You need to understand NV to read it properly. Most peoples opinions are clouded by a view from someone who didnt understand the technology, and that lack of understanding was accepted without debate because the person was normally a good source of legal knowledge... when in fact their opinion was based on ignorance of the technology.

There is currently no such thing as a "active" Night Vision device.

All Night Vision is based on a passive system which is energized to collect light. All of these devices are aided in some way by Infrared Light.

None of the devices emit a light wavelength to then use as its imaging. This is, and would be an Active system.

PC 468 has defined a device which is illegal to own in and by itself. It does not make what a sniperscope does illegal, nor does it attempt to quantify an action of a device. People get caught up in a part of the definition because they want the ability to "loophole" the law.

PC468 in part reads;
A sniperscope is defined as a device made or adapted for use on a firearm, that enables the operator to detect objects during nighttime through the use of a projected infrared light source and an electronic telescope.

I will break this down into its individual parts so you can clearly see why Quiet and many others are wrong.

1- A sniperscope is defined as = This shows the focus of the definition.

2- a device made or adapted for use on a firearm, = This is the first requirement for the DESIGNATION of sniperscope to be applied to ANY DEVICE. A gun is not needed for this to be applied to the DEVICE. Only that the DEVICE has the ability or can be adapted to be mounted on a firearm. The Common sense and good judgement would be needed to address this "adaptation process". If it takes 2 hours of work modifying the device and many items, then the end result would be a sniperscope, but before this is done the device would NOT be a sniperscope. If it takes 2 minutes with commonly available items, then even before the adaptation the device is mountable to a firearm. Simple explanation is, if a part is manufactured for the unit which mounts the unit to a firearm scope rail, then even without said part, or the gun, the device is adaptable to be mounted. If no part is manufactured and the person would have to devise and construct a part to mount the device to a firearm or a firearm rail, the device is not adaptable under this law. Understand anyone with some basic tools can mount anything to a firearm, so in common sense language you need a common sense approach to this part of the law.

3- that enables the operator to detect objects during nighttime The next REQUIREMENT set in the law. This doesnt say dark, it sets a common sense commonly understood term of use. It can be 12 noon, with the sun directly over your head and be completely light-less where you are if you are in a building. While a device that allows you to see in the dark can also be used at nighttime, the requirement in the law is "nighttime".

4-through the use of a projected infrared light source = and here we have where many many people toss common sense, good judgement and common language reading out the window.

I am going to yell this because there will be 11teen million replies saying the same thing because they will not read or even attempt to understand this..NOWHERE IN THIS REQUIREMENT DOES IT SET THE REQUIREMENT UP TO LIMIT THAT THE DEVICE ITSELF AND ALL BY ITSELF PROJECT THE LIGHT SOURCE.... Even a handheld projected IR source of light from your buddy fulfills the REQUIREMENT. Read the law, dont read into the law.

The law is stating the DEVICE utilizes the projected IR light, not that it projects the IR source. No NV projects a IR Light source for imaging... NONE OF THEM. They are ALL aided by it to a degree... and that is the key here.

Some NV have that IR conveniently on the unit, some have places to attach an IR source, but every single NV will use a IR source if given one.

If this requirement in the law is read to mean the unit emit the IR source, then simply blocking that IR source would over-ride the designation. Removing the bulb, not putting batteries in the IR projector side of the device, disabling the part of the circuit that powers the projector... ect. These are all ways to void that requirement if and only if you read it as many here are.

Now lets go back to the requirement of adaptability. Since any NV device can be adapted to mount, but the amount of work would be a determining factor in that designation, so shall the use of a projected IR light source.

I will say it again, there is no NV system made to date which utilizes a light intensifier tube that is not aided by IR light source, NONE. The degree in that aid is key here.

A Gen 1 system doesnt need an IR source but is greatly aided by it. So this law was and is to this day addressing Gen1 devices. All Gen1 devices, With IR Projectors attached or not. The Gen1 device fulfills all of these requirements up to this point in the law BY ITSELF.

What about Gen2? Here is where you start to lose the projected IR Light source designation. Just as adaptable to mount is subject to interpretation so is thought the use of projected IR light. Most Gen2 system are still greatly aided by a projected IR source, so its my belief Gen 2 system still fit this law up to this point.

Gen2+... Well now we are getting into a NV system that is really not aided by any Projected IR light source...AT NIGHTTIME... go to #1.

Gen3, No way. Most projected IR light source are like pouring a gallon of water into a swimming pool. Sure you can see a slight rise in water, but really come on. Its not making a difference AT NIGHTTIME.

The requirement in the law is not about, "can you see the projected IR source" or does the IR source over illuminate, its a requirement that the device utilize a projected IR source which allows objects to be seen, at nighttime and that comes with common sense and good judgement understanding of the that action.

5- and an electronic telescope. = what it says. Electronic magnification of some kind. It doesnt specify digital or analog, but it does void lens magnification. So an electronic NV unit that is then viewed through a separate scope, either before or after the NV, (like we all do with Aimpoints and 3X magnifiers) doesnt trigger this portion of the law.

If you want to split hairs and say my reading of projected IR source is now the same as electronic telescopic, since a lens is used in self contained magnification NV, we can go down that debate. I see a big difference because that interpretation would void gen 1 devices for which this law was specifically written to address.

So to break it all down;
1- You dont need to own a gun to trigger "mounting to a firearm". You also dont have to own the part that trigger "adaptability".

2- Its specifying nighttime use. Not light-less use.

3- The device needs only be aided by an IR light source, not emit the projected IR light source. "...through the use of" is talking about using, not doing. So the next wording of "projected" applies to the light source, not the devices action.

4- You dont need to own batteries to trigger electronic, it says nothing about turning the unit on, or how the unit is powered, only that it uses electronic telescopic imagery.

Thermal is not IR. PC 468 doesnt address thermal devices. Projected IR light while applying a heat to an object, is not going to aid thermal units in a noticeable way.

CMOS digital NV while not a tubed, is still subjected by grading of IR utilization. High end CMOS digital imagery is well over Gen3 tube designs, but can also be lower than gen 1 imagery. So the determining fact of "does it trigger a sniperscope designation?" would be, "how much is a projected IR light source needed at night?" If you can see a notable difference, then it would be a sniperscope.

This is how I read the law and is how I act on the law. YMMV, its up to you to determine what is best for you.

[Hairball]

Well, I finally added someone to my ignore list...

[dieselpower]

Well, I finally added someone to my ignore list...

thank god, 1 less SWJ snowflake to deal with.

[CouchOperator]

Hope im not stepping on OP's toes, but from a PM discussion with him, id like to add a small fact to this discussion...


Hes from Sweden

[dieselpower]

Hope im not stepping on OP's toes, but from a PM discussion with him, id like to add a small fact to this discussion...


Hes from Sweden

doesnt matter where he is from. is he in ca?

[teetsjones]

I completely disagree with the non- NV device educated interpretation of PC 468. You need to understand NV to read it properly. Most peoples opinions are clouded by a view from someone who didnt understand the technology, and that lack of understanding was accepted without debate because the person was normally a good source of legal knowledge... when in fact their opinion was based on ignorance of the technology.

There is currently no such thing as a "active" Night Vision device.

All Night Vision is based on a passive system which is energized to collect light. All of these devices are aided in some way by Infrared Light.

None of the devices emit a light wavelength to then use as its imaging. This is, and would be an Active system.

PC 468 has defined a device which is illegal to own in and by itself. It does not make what a sniperscope does illegal, nor does it attempt to quantify an action of a device. People get caught up in a part of the definition because they want the ability to "loophole" the law.

PC468 in part reads;
A sniperscope is defined as a device made or adapted for use on a firearm, that enables the operator to detect objects during nighttime through the use of a projected infrared light source and an electronic telescope.

I will break this down into its individual parts so you can clearly see why Quiet and many others are wrong.

1- A sniperscope is defined as = This shows the focus of the definition.

2- a device made or adapted for use on a firearm, = This is the first requirement for the DESIGNATION of sniperscope to be applied to ANY DEVICE. A gun is not needed for this to be applied to the DEVICE. Only that the DEVICE has the ability or can be adapted to be mounted on a firearm. The Common sense and good judgement would be needed to address this "adaptation process". If it takes 2 hours of work modifying the device and many items, then the end result would be a sniperscope, but before this is done the device would NOT be a sniperscope. If it takes 2 minutes with commonly available items, then even before the adaptation the device is mountable to a firearm. Simple explanation is, if a part is manufactured for the unit which mounts the unit to a firearm scope rail, then even without said part, or the gun, the device is adaptable to be mounted. If no part is manufactured and the person would have to devise and construct a part to mount the device to a firearm or a firearm rail, the device is not adaptable under this law. Understand anyone with some basic tools can mount anything to a firearm, so in common sense language you need a common sense approach to this part of the law.

3- that enables the operator to detect objects during nighttime The next REQUIREMENT set in the law. This doesnt say dark, it sets a common sense commonly understood term of use. It can be 12 noon, with the sun directly over your head and be completely light-less where you are if you are in a building. While a device that allows you to see in the dark can also be used at nighttime, the requirement in the law is "nighttime".

4-through the use of a projected infrared light source = and here we have where many many people toss common sense, good judgement and common language reading out the window.

I am going to yell this because there will be 11teen million replies saying the same thing because they will not read or even attempt to understand this..NOWHERE IN THIS REQUIREMENT DOES IT SET THE REQUIREMENT UP TO LIMIT THAT THE DEVICE ITSELF AND ALL BY ITSELF PROJECT THE LIGHT SOURCE.... Even a handheld projected IR source of light from your buddy fulfills the REQUIREMENT. Read the law, dont read into the law.

The law is stating the DEVICE utilizes the projected IR light, not that it projects the IR source. No NV projects a IR Light source for imaging... NONE OF THEM. They are ALL aided by it to a degree... and that is the key here.

Some NV have that IR conveniently on the unit, some have places to attach an IR source, but every single NV will use a IR source if given one.

If this requirement in the law is read to mean the unit emit the IR source, then simply blocking that IR source would over-ride the designation. Removing the bulb, not putting batteries in the IR projector side of the device, disabling the part of the circuit that powers the projector... ect. These are all ways to void that requirement if and only if you read it as many here are.

Now lets go back to the requirement of adaptability. Since any NV device can be adapted to mount, but the amount of work would be a determining factor in that designation, so shall the use of a projected IR light source.

I will say it again, there is no NV system made to date which utilizes a light intensifier tube that is not aided by IR light source, NONE. The degree in that aid is key here.

A Gen 1 system doesnt need an IR source but is greatly aided by it. So this law was and is to this day addressing Gen1 devices. All Gen1 devices, With IR Projectors attached or not. The Gen1 device fulfills all of these requirements up to this point in the law BY ITSELF.

What about Gen2? Here is where you start to lose the projected IR Light source designation. Just as adaptable to mount is subject to interpretation so is thought the use of projected IR light. Most Gen2 system are still greatly aided by a projected IR source, so its my belief Gen 2 system still fit this law up to this point.

Gen2+... Well now we are getting into a NV system that is really not aided by any Projected IR light source...AT NIGHTTIME... go to #1.

Gen3, No way. Most projected IR light source are like pouring a gallon of water into a swimming pool. Sure you can see a slight rise in water, but really come on. Its not making a difference AT NIGHTTIME.

The requirement in the law is not about, "can you see the projected IR source" or does the IR source over illuminate, its a requirement that the device utilize a projected IR source which allows objects to be seen, at nighttime and that comes with common sense and good judgement understanding of the that action.

5- and an electronic telescope. = what it says. Electronic magnification of some kind. It doesnt specify digital or analog, but it does void lens magnification. So an electronic NV unit that is then viewed through a separate scope, either before or after the NV, (like we all do with Aimpoints and 3X magnifiers) doesnt trigger this portion of the law.

If you want to split hairs and say my reading of projected IR source is now the same as electronic telescopic, since a lens is used in self contained magnification NV, we can go down that debate. I see a big difference because that interpretation would void gen 1 devices for which this law was specifically written to address.

So to break it all down;
1- You dont need to own a gun to trigger "mounting to a firearm". You also dont have to own the part that trigger "adaptability".

2- Its specifying nighttime use. Not light-less use.

3- The device needs only be aided by an IR light source, not emit the projected IR light source. "...through the use of" is talking about using, not doing. So the next wording of "projected" applies to the light source, not the devices action.

4- You dont need to own batteries to trigger electronic, it says nothing about turning the unit on, or how the unit is powered, only that it uses electronic telescopic imagery.

Thermal is not IR. PC 468 doesnt address thermal devices. Projected IR light while applying a heat to an object, is not going to aid thermal units in a noticeable way.

CMOS digital NV while not a tubed, is still subjected by grading of IR utilization. High end CMOS digital imagery is well over Gen3 tube designs, but can also be lower than gen 1 imagery. So the determining fact of "does it trigger a sniperscope designation?" would be, "how much is a projected IR light source needed at night?" If you can see a notable difference, then it would be a sniperscope.

This is how I read the law and is how I act on the law. YMMV, its up to you to determine what is best for you.

Gen 0 used projected IR. Gen 1, 2, and 3 do not. They use intensifiers (s-20 and S-25 for example) and those only intensify near IR light. They do not project IR light. Gen 0 was used in WWII and it did project IR light.
Stop spreading FUD and misinformation please.

[dieselpower]

Gen 0 used projected IR. Gen 1, 2, and 3 do not. They use intensifiers (s-20 and S-25 for example) and those only intensify near IR light. They do not project IR light. Gen 0 was used in WWII and it did project IR light.
Stop spreading FUD and misinformation please.

wow, you are a rocket scientist... got to be the smartest man here.

I am the one saying the law is referencing night vision that uses IR is a sniperscope.

The rest of calguns is saying the law is saying active NV is illegal while passive NV is not.

how about you use some common f-ing sense and figure out which side you are on before you start running with the herd just to be with the cool guys.

So you think this law is only about Gen 0. No one here will agree with you.

Because everyone else says Gen0 through Gen3 is all illegal if you attach an IR source to it. Because the law says if the device projects IR, then its illegal. I disagree.

Do you agree that this law says if a device projects IR its illegal or not?

That is the question.

Here is the law...read the god dam law and tell me what you think it says...
A sniperscope is defined as a device made or adapted for use on a firearm, that enables the operator to detect objects during nighttime through the use of a projected infrared light source and an electronic telescope.

I am reading the law as its says any device which CAN USE a projected IR source can be classified as a sniperscope...

Now if you can't back up your bull**** with some dam facts on how to read ENGLISH, then dont bother.


I really dont care about your knowledge on NV...it means nothing, because No one here including you has offered any rebuttal to my claim other than stupid hive mind BS.

[JMP]

Are we trying to fool people into believing that NV is illegal? Otherwise, someone is spreading BIG LEAGUE FAKE NEWS. There's plenty of ways to do it right, and people can act accordingly. Provocateurs, as demonstrated here, are exactly why CA closed the so-called bullet button "loophole" on people's precious little AR-15s.

[teetsjones]

wow, you are a rocket scientist... got to be the smartest man here.
Flattery will get you no where.

I am the one saying the law is referencing night vision that uses IR is a sniperscope.
And very ignorantly. Because Gen 1-3 don't use IR. At best they convert near IR light to visible light. That has nothing to do with projected IR light.

The rest of calguns is saying the law is saying active NV is illegal while passive NV is not.
I agree with that.

how about you use some common f-ing sense and figure out which side you are on before you start running with the herd just to be with the cool guys.
What side I'm on? All I know is you're talking out of your neck on this subject.

So you think this law is only about Gen 0. No one here will agree with you.
Really? Gen 0 relies solely on projected IR. So yes the law really only restricts Gen 0 scopes in their natural configuration or without the IR. Where as the addition of an IR projection source creates an illegal situation for Ge 1, 2, 3. Otherwise they are legal.

Because everyone else says Gen0 through Gen3 is all illegal if you attach an IR source to it. Because the law says if the device projects IR, then its illegal. I disagree.
You are right, but only on the Gen 0. Gen 1-3 are only illegal if used with an device that projects IR.

Do you agree that this law says if a device projects IR its illegal or not?
If you are trying to get me to say yes, then argue that Gen 1-3 project IR light internally, you know even less how these NV scopes work. They only intensify near IR. They do not project IR light they convert NESR IR light into visible light.

That is the question.

Here is the law...read the god dam law and tell me what you think it says...
A sniperscope is defined as a device made or adapted for use on a firearm, that enables the operator to detect objects during nighttime through the use of a projected infrared light source and an electronic telescope.
The problem here is your ignorance as to how you are defining "through the use of projected IR light source."

I am reading the law as its says any device which CAN USE a projected IR source can be classified as a sniperscope...
Please copy and paste where the law says "can use". Those are your words and you are reading into the law words and meanings that just do not exist

Now if you can't back up your bull**** with some dam facts on how to read ENGLISH, then dont bother.

[COLOR="red "]No need to get snotty Jr. There's no bull on this end. Just you talking out of your neck on the subject. For instance bloviating on how lawmakers based the law on Gen 1 NV when Gen 1 does not need a directed IR light source to work. That is clearly BS and something you made up as you went along.[/COLOR]

I really dont care about your knowledge on NV...it means nothing, because No one here including you has offered any rebuttal to my claim other than stupid hive mind BS.
Well when guys like you ignore facts and knowledge over their own BS, then it is impossible to convince the deluded.

You should read my other posts on the subject, before making a fool out of yourself.


I have written, it is the use of a projected IR source that makes any NV scope illegal. I have brought up the active and passive point before.

[dieselpower]

You should read my other posts on the subject, before making a fool out of yourself.


I have written, it is the use of a projected IR source that makes any NV scope illegal. I have brought up the active and passive point before.

this is laughable... and if you think I am scared of your pm threat at me...that is even more laughable.

and you are basis this on a argument from authority fallacy, all I hear from you is..."I am right so others are wrong."

that is all you got.

you have not presented 1 fact at all, yet I have addressed several key problems in your opinion.

THE LAW DOESNT SAY WHAT YOU SAYS IT DOES.

I HAVE SHOWN THIS TO A PERSON WHO KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT NV, BUT HAS A MASTERS IN LANGUAGE ARTS. SHE IS AN EDITOR FOR A MAGAZINE.

THE LAW SAYS ANY...ANY...ANY DEVICE THAT USES...USES...USES A PROJECTED IR LIGHT SOURCE...

edit- Just to be clear here I was with you guys on this up to about 4 weeks ago. At that time I got to take several high end units apart, repair them, upgrade them and play with them. I then read the law and showed it to others who laughed at me for how I was reading it. They explained the English language to me and it hit me like a ton of bricks. You see, I am not dogmatic. I can gather information and change my mind.

THE LAW DOESNT...DOES NOT SAY A DEVICE THAT PROJECTS...

open a freaking English book for god sacks...LOL

the gun, the light source nor the batteries need to present for a device to be designated under this law as a sniperscope.

it doesnt matter that no one has been arrested in the past, you have all been working under a false set of assumptions on what the law says.

we are done here.
unless one of you can challenge me on the wording of the law and show me a regulation or law (in CA code) that says to designate under pc468 the device must project an IR source, you are dead wrong on how you have been reading the law.

second edit...cuz I am bored.
Can I be arrested if I dont have a gun with a sniperscope?... Yes. Its still a sniperscope.
Can I be arrested if I dont have batteries for the sniperscope? Yes. Its still a sniperscope.
Can I be arrested if it doesnt have an IR illumintaor... No.
Really why not? Because the law says the sniperscope projects the IR and that is active NV.
Really can you point me to that in the law. Sure right here... through the use of a projected IR light source.
Wait, the whole sentence is, "that enables the operator to detect objects during nighttime through the use of a projected infrared light source"... that means the person is using a projected IR source, not that the device projects it...
Well we all want it to say what we say it does, so we will ignore common sense and common english to get our way.
Oh ok. Thanks.
LOL...

All your 6th grade English teachers are turning over in the graves...

[teetsjones]

this is laughable... and if you think I am scared of your pm threat at me...that is even more laughable.

and you are basis this on a argument from authority fallacy, all I hear from you is..."I am right so others are wrong."

that is all you got.

you have not presented 1 fact at all, yet I have addressed several key problems in your opinion.

THE LAW DOESNT SAY WHAT YOU SAYS IT DOES.

I HAVE SHOWN THIS TO A PERSON WHO KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT NV, BUT HAS A MASTERS IN LANGUAGE ARTS. SHE IS AN EDITOR FOR A MAGAZINE.

So what?

THE LAW SAYS ANY...ANY...ANY DEVICE THAT USES...USES...USES A PROJECTED IR LIGHT SOURCE...

THE DEVICE IN QUESTION DOES NOT USE A PROJECTED IR LIGHT SOURCE

edit- Just to be clear here I was with you guys on this up to about 4 weeks ago. At that time I got to take several high end units apart, repair them, upgrade them and play with them. I then read the law and showed it to others who laughed at me for how I was reading it. They explained the English language to me and it hit me like a ton of bricks. You see, I am not dogmatic. I can gather information and change my mind.

BS

THE LAW DOESNT...DOES NOT SAY A DEVICE THAT PROJECTS...
YOU JUST QUOTED ABOVE WHERE THE LAW SAYS EXACTLY THAT
open a freaking English book for god sacks...LOL

the gun, the light source nor the batteries need to present for a device to be designated under this law as a sniperscope.

it doesnt matter that no one has been arrested in the past, you have all been working under a false set of assumptions on what the law says.

we are done here.
unless one of you can challenge me on the wording of the law and show me a regulation or law (in CA code) that says to designate under pc468 the device must project an IR source, you are dead wrong on how you have been reading the law.

All your 6th grade English teachers are turning over in the graves...

The scope in question DOES NOT USE A PROJECTED IR LIGHT SOURCE It doesn't it just does not.

PM Threat!? Now you're just lying. Or maybe just exposing a deficit in reading comprehension. That would explain you're interpretation of the law.

Originally Posted by teetsjones

Please walk away, you're digging such a deep hole your credibility is seriously in question.

You are so wrong your mother and father are sobbing uncontrollably.

Where is the threat in that?

As I had asked please quote where the law reads "can use", and yet you haven't.

I know it's not because you won't, it's because you can't.

[teetsjones]

"second edit...cuz I am bored.
Can I be arrested if I dont have a gun with a sniperscope?... Yes. Its still a sniperscope.
Can I be arrested if I dont have batteries for the sniperscope? Yes. Its still a sniperscope.
Can I be arrested if it doesnt have an IR illumintaor... No.
Really why not? Because the law says the sniperscope projects the IR and that is active NV.
Really can you point me to that in the law. Sure right here... through the use of a projected IR light source.
Wait, the whole sentence is, "that enables the operator to detect objects during nighttime through the use of a projected infrared light source"... that means the person is using a projected IR source, not that the device projects it...
Well we all want it to say what we say it does, so we will ignore common sense and common english to get our way.
Oh ok. Thanks.
LOL..."

The scope in question does not use a projected IR light nor does it need an IR light source to work.

You won't even believe a LEO who is considered by the courts of the State of California as an expert witness.

All because you think you understand English better than anyone else.

Truthfully, is English your first language? I ask because you alluded in a previous post it isn't.

[CouchOperator]