Hunt vs Lockyear, Lets have the ruling Already

[hoffmang]

(or I am getting blind as a bat).

So when you're holding the firearm, does that make you a flash suppressor?

-Gene

[C.G.]

So when you're holding the firearm, does that make you a flash suppressor?

-Gene

Only if I have my sunglasses on.

[SteveH]

BATF never had a hard time with telling a flash suppresor for a flash hider from a fmuzzle brake during the federal ban.

[bwiese]

BATF never had a hard time with telling a flash suppresor for a flash hider from a muzzle brake during the federal ban.

But the CA regulations attempting to define FHs are already in place and are well-nigh useless. The nonfunctional definition lead to this.

A redefinition of FH (just like what they attempted with 'detachable magazine' could change the nature of some part of the fleet of California semiauto rifles into or out of AW status - which is why Hunt was litigated.

[artherd]

So when you're holding the firearm, does that make you a flash suppressor?

-Gene

Yes

[chris]

after reading on calgunlaws.com this part grabbed my attention and think it is interesting none the less.

If, as the pundits predict, the right to bear arms is deemed a fundamental right by the United States Supreme Court (and later incorporated to apply to state actions through subsequent litigation ), then the standard of review for Hunt should be heightened and be easier to establish in court. The regulations may be void simply because the vagueness permeates the text of a law that reaches a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct

i sure would love to see SB23 struck down on the purpose above. it would be a huge victory. but i doubt it will happen. but after reading the article it just goes to show how inept the lawmakers here are. they should be banned from passing crap like SB23 ever again. it has done nothing but confuse the public in general and DA's alike. i hope Heller deals a killer blow to this states practice regarding gun laws.