ARE THERMAL RIFLESCOPES LEGAL TO POSSESS IN CA?

[BC9696]

[Librarian]

Ordinarily, no law tells you what is allowed; it's almost always 'you must not' or 'you must'.

Does the device in question meet the definition: "As used in this section, sniperscope means

any attachment, device or similar contrivance designed for or adaptable to use on a firearm which,

through the use of a projected infrared light source and electronic telescope,

enables the operator thereof to visually determine and locate the presence of objects during the nighttime." ?

[Mute]

I don't know of any thermal scope that uses a projected IR light source.

[SharedShots]

I don't know of any thermal scope that uses a projected IR light source.

The evil advocate would cite that "projected IR light source" does not mean projected from the scope or shooter only. Thermal scope are electronic so that part is satisfied. Next comes the projected IR source and I could see some creative mind saying that the IR light source could be the target instead since thermal scope detect the heat and thus IR emanating from the source (the animal for example) and thus a thermal riflescope meets the definition of a "sniperscope"

So it comes down to the word "projected" and since its not clear from where the IR source must be projected from it could be from anywhere; your shooting buddy, a tripod not actually touched by you, a campfire strategically placed, a bic lighter, a candle or the IR emanating from whatever it is you intend to shoot.

With ambiguity comes the ability to say one thing and have it construed to mean anything you want.

Then it's being the one willing to be the test case. In most other states it's not much of a question but in California, the one time it pays to be conservative is in how your firearms are configured. In a place where the difference between legal and illegal is where your thumb rests you play the odds.

[Quiet]

AFAIK...

CA DOJ BOF and CDFG considers "projected IR source" to include:
1. an IR emitter incorporated in the scope.
2. an IR emitter (light or laser) attached to the scope.
3. an IR emitter (light or laser) attached to the firearm.
4. an IR emitter, that is handheld by the person with the scope, being utilized in conjunction with the scope.
5. an IR emitter being operated by a third party for the benefit of the person with the scope.

[SharedShots]

AFAIK...

CA DOJ BOF and CDFG considers "projected IR source" to include:
1. an IR emitter incorporated in the scope.
2. an IR emitter (light or laser) attached to the scope.
3. an IR emitter (light or laser) attached to the firearm.
4. an IR emitter, that is handheld by the person with the scope, being utilized in conjunction with the scope.
5. an IR emitter being operated by a third party for the benefit of the person with the scope.

Would a head mounted IR emitter be consider "handheld"? This is where I was going with the ambiguity part. I'm pretty sure that they would argue the IR emitter held in place on the head would mean "handheld". These are readily available.

There are glasses fitted with IR lasers which are not handheld although if someone used them in conjunction with a thermal scope I doubt it would pass the test and the system declared to be a sniperscope.

To the OP though, it would seem just having it wouldn't any different that having one of those Amazon IR monoculars since some of them come with threaded inserts that can accept all kinds of mounts including Pic rail mounts - no issue until you mount them on a gun.

Maybe I'm way off base on the above,

[Thoughts]

I'm pretty sure that they would argue the IR emitter held in place on the head would mean "handheld".

I am not a lawyer, but I surely wouldn't want to try that technicality in court. Even if you win, you are out a lot of money, and I'm skeptical about winning. You could contact a good lawyer. I'd certainly recommend doing that before using an emitter.

[SharedShots]

I am not a lawyer, but I surely wouldn't want to try that technicality in court. Even if you win, you are out a lot of money, and I'm skeptical about winning. You could contact a good lawyer. I'd certainly recommend doing that before using an emitter.

Methinks you got this backwards. I was saying that those prosecuting would consider a headlamp emitting IR the same as one that was handheld and thus the scope would be considered a "sniperscope" and thus illegal.

From your comment it appears you thought I was advocating it as some defense which is contrary to what I meant.

The lawyer in this case would be a DA and prosecuting, not defending. I don't see a good defense if someone used a headlamp IR and trying to say it wasn't handheld. No doubt one argument could be it could be handheld and plop, there goes any hopes of persuading a judge you had it one your head for some other reason than to illuminate target for the scope.

My point was that considering the language, most anything could be viewed as being an IR emitter and as such going down the path of using one in CA would expose you to legal jeopardy.

When the posted speed limit is 55 mph everyone knows what that means. When the sign says the speed limit is 55 - 55 what?

[Thoughts]

Methinks you got this backwards.

Sorry, I managed to over-compress my response. I think I was agreeing with you that it's not legal. I was commenting more on the idea of claiming it's not "handheld" rather than your exact statement.

[Quiet]

I believe "handheld" also includes items that are mounted on a body part and items that are mounted on a wearable item.

[Gundiver]

Ok forget about IR emitters. What about just a thermal scope. Specifically for hunting non-big game animals.

[Quiet]

Ok forget about IR emitters. What about just a thermal scope. Specifically for hunting non-big game animals.

Not legal for hunting in CA. [FGC 2005(c)]



Fish and Game Code 2005

[Mute]

Apart from the legal arguments, if you're using a thermal scope why would you use an IR illuminator? That is unnecessary for a thermal optic. In fact, most of the newest NV optics don't need an additional IR source either.

[Gundiver]

So in “light amplifying circuits” do they mean heat is a form of light? Otherwise thermal is ok.

[Quiet]

According to physics...
Thermal infrared energy, commonly known as heat, is a form a light energy that is not visible to the naked eye.