Featureless Confiscation

[4GLOCK30]

I had asked a ? in another thread about putting a "flash suppressor" on a 9 mm carbine (Ruger PCC). It would make it illegal were the responses

In looking at "muzzle brakes" many looked exactly like a "flash suppressor". One popular one even had on its site "can't ship to CA" because it worked both as a muzzle brake and flash suppressor. Many were advertised as muzzle brakes and were cheap but looked exactly like a flash suppressor.

My Takeaway is 10 LEO's would have 10 different opinions on WTF a "flash suppressor" is vs a "muzzle brake" and I did not want to be the "beta" case on what is and is not legal.

The fact plain clothes whoever (DOJ, ATF, Sherriff, whoever) show up at ranges to confiscate or issue citation, or both, is disturbing. The outdoor range I go to did say "make sure your stuff is right"...there have been plain clothes showing up. They were looking for specific people in this case who posted on SM showing themselves with AR's in what look like 30 round mags who apparently are on Parole or Probation. The owner of the range said he is not there to police wtf uses the range. Just that they comply with range rules. They don't care if you have higher than 10 round Mags but do say there can be at any given time plain clothes or uniformed LEO show up for various reasons.

Other than this forum I have not heard or seen anyone having issues at a range let alone having a gun confiscated.

[Tango_Down]

I call B.S. i don't believe anything unless it was heard during a poker game.

[sbo80]

During the Fed Ban BATF was said to have tested muzzle devices with a Light Meter when fired, to see if it reduced flash and verify as "not a flash hider"

even that is not a valid test. Too many variables. Barrel length, ammo/powder type, even relative humidity can affect how much flash there is, measured by light. And an effective flash suppressor doesn't even necessarily change the quantity of light, that's a typical misunderstanding. It mostly changes where the light goes, so that the shooter holding the rifle doesn't have their vision obscured. I have no idea how you can prove a device does or does not have a "flash suppressing" characteristics. I honestly think it's not possible.