Is this compensator OK to use for featureless builds???

[RuggedJay]

I understand its better safe than sorry as far as a featureless build. Was just curios though.

[franklinarmory]

That's not an official letter. Sgt. Patrick Aherne is the brother of the maker of the BC. Its not even clear where he works

If they have a letter from CA Department of Justice Firearms Bureau Chief Steve Buford they should make it public.
Consulted doesn't mean they have a letter

Okay, I apologize in advance for hijacking the thread, but.....

Why should a Police Lieutenant, while working on a commercial enterprise, be able to secure marketable information from a government agency? I don't blame Alan for getting what he can out of DOJ, but if Alan is telling the truth (and I think he is,) then why should he be able to receive this information while other manufacturers are told that the DOJ BOF does not give "legal advice?"

If this really happened, then this is a double standard that should not be tolerated from the chief law enforcement agency in the state! Think of how different the California firearms market would be if the AG would actually take a leadership role in the domain that they are charged to regulate. It's bad enough that they defer to the "58 County DAs" in derogation of the State Preemption of Firearms Act! Now they want to provide marketable information to some "connected" mfgs, while telling others they don't give legal advice??? Where I come, that's called corruption!

I know, I know, I'll probably get a knock at the door for this post, but this is just wrong!

[bwiese]

Okay, I apologize in advance for hijacking the thread, but.....

Why should a Police Lieutenant, while working on a commercial enterprise, be able to secure marketable information from a government agency? I don't blame Alan for getting what he can out of DOJ, but if Alan is telling the truth (and I think he is,) then why should he be able to receive this information while other manufacturers are told that the DOJ BOF does not give "legal advice?"

If this really happened, then this is a double standard that should not be tolerated from the chief law enforcement agency in the state! Think of how different the California firearms market would be if the AG would actually take a leadership role in the domain that they are charged to regulate. It's bad enough that they defer to the "58 County DAs" in derogation of the State Preemption of Firearms Act! Now they want to provide marketable information to some "connected" mfgs, while telling others they don't give legal advice??? Where I come, that's called corruption!

I know, I know, I'll probably get a knock at the door for this post, but this is just wrong!

Jay,

I recall CA law is that CA DOJ - as opposed to their stance (lack of) coherent, reliable responses to individuals and vendors - *must* render rational responses [not necessarily formal 'opiion letters'] to legislators & sheriffs. (I'm unclear if Sheriffs are categorized differently than police chiefs.)

I'd bet that someone with an LE background is getting the info under that guise.

What we really need to do is get a real friendly pro-gun sheriff and legislator that will pass any questions we have on their official stationery.

[franklinarmory]

It seems to me that a lot of Chiefs and Sheriffs have been stonewalled too.

[bwiese]

It seems to me that a lot of Chiefs and Sheriffs have been stonewalled too.

If I'm reading what I think is correct into what you are saying, a Sheriff that is rebuffed (on paper - NO PHONE CALLS) may have an actionable path should he choose to go down that road. Getting a political animal to do that may be another thing, however.

[BTW I truly mean a "Sheriff", not "deputy".

Should you know of such an animal, you should make life easy for him and give him all sorts of letters and time responses. All he has to do is the mailing. We can then go from there.

[mag360]

how about Scott Jones, he's crpa's leo of the year! After the banquet perhaps some seeds could be watered.