CAse law and regulary rulings on "Flash hider"

[TDL]

Friends,
I live in jurisdiction that specifies rifle barrels be 16" and semi auto mag fed rifles cannot include a "flash suppressor."

I was wondering if there is case law, and/or federal or state regulatory rulings on muzzle brakes? or threading? Is it a interpretation of any flash suppression, no matter the manufacturers description? anything an person can cite in a state that has made a determination.

I'm shopping a barrel for a self build but want to be fully compliant with the law. I am inclined to err on the side of caution but if there has been case law either way than I would like to maximize my rights.

From what I can read a threading is ok if >16, but if less than 16, has to have device that aggregates to 16 on and permanently fixed on -- and that device can not be a flash suppressor.

So that brings me back to the question of case law or regulatory findings on flash suppression attributes by muzzle brakes. And on who is the burden of proof?

Thanks in advance

[TDL]

Perhaps I can ask this another way:

Are there any brand or model muzzle breaks/compensators that have been classified as such, and found not to be prohibited flash hiders or "silencers" by any state or federal authority (regulatory, court etc)?

[m&p45acp10+1]

I would just skip a brake, or compensator. I would use a varmint barrel with a target crown, and have it ported if muzzle lift reductoin is what you are trying for rather than just the cosmetics of a flash hider.

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by TDL

I live in jurisdiction that specifies rifle barrels be 16" and semi auto mag fed rifles cannot include a "flash suppressor."

I think you'll get more answers if you specify the jurisdiction and post or link to their definition of the term "flash suppressor".

One problem with such questions is that state laws often define firearm components in ways that differ from the generally accepted definition.

[gargodude]

This may help:
https://sites.google.com/site/featur...muzzle-devices

[44 AMP]

A little big of little known historical background about the "reasoning" behind banning the flash suppressor...

Back in the early 90s, when a lot of discussion was going on amongst themselves, even the anti's needed some kind of justification for their decisions.

The "logic" for banning the flash suppressor was that the "standard" type/size found on the AR and others fit a NATO rifle grenade, and since such grenades are commonly available everywhere, it was a dangerous feature that HAD to be eliminated. Sort of like the logic banning the bayonet lug, due to the mass of drive-by bayonettings...

Personally, I think it was done to remove as many of the "military features" and so "emasculate" the gun, reducing its appeal to the consumer.

Either way, or for some other reason, once added to the list of "evil" features, it was there to stay.

Many muzzle brakes DO NOT have the dimensions that will accept a rifle grenade, and so, should be "safe" for civilians to own BUT the laws are generally written without exceptions. IF the device fits their legal description, then it is what the law says it is.

Whatever else it might be, the law doesn't address.

SO, what is critical to the OP's question is what is his location's legal description of what the banned item (flash suppressor) is?
And does his planned muzzle brake fit this legal definition?

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

The "logic" for banning the flash suppressor was that the "standard" type/size found on the AR and others fit a NATO rifle grenade... Personally, I think it was done to remove as many of the "military features" and so "emasculate" the gun, reducing its appeal to the consumer.

Agreed, but don't forget the silencer aspect, fueled by countless films and TV shows featuring the ridiculous "pew" or "pft" sound.

But, but, but... suppressors themselves are highly regulated and subject to draconian penalties for criminal misuse... never mind, cause if it saves JUST ONE LIFE...

[Armorer-at-Law]

Krinkov-type brakes, like the Spike's Tactical Barking Spider, inherently reduce flash and redirect sound forward without being considered a flash hider or a silencer.

[TDL]

Thanks guys. I have decided to go with no functional device anyway since muzzle break has other negatives.

This leads to a question on threads. My jurisdiction is very specific on threads on pistol barrels. They are prohibited specifically in both code and in the firearms registration section handouts and website on what is and is not acceptable.

But there is no mention of threads whatsoever when it comes to prohibited features on semi-auto mag fed rifles. Just has to be 16" or greater, and flash suppression.

I am pretty sure there would be a good affirmative defense using a non permanent thread protector, since the jurisdiction in both code and published prohibitions does specifically address threads for pistols, yet leaves that absent on rifle prohibitions.

What do you think? If a jurisdiction makes a point of addressing threads on pistols, than the total absence of that in the same code section when it coms to rifles would argue that a non permanent device (thread protector) is ok?

I likely will have threading permanently disabled at some point but in the meantime I would like thoughts on this.

[44 AMP]

For VALID information (hopefully) go to a lawyer (one that specializes in firearms law would probably be best), PAY them, and get a written legal opinion of what the law covers, and what it does not.

Then, at least, if you wind up in court, you have something to show you intended to follow the law.

Good Luck.

(personally, I think if the law does not address it, specifically, it should be legal, but sometimes DA's have a different opinion)

[barnbwt]

Didn't the ATF/SIG MPX Monocore thing shake out that there was an arbitrary and non-statutory length limit invented that's around 4" or so? Not firm precedent, yet, but that was how they decided to proceed in reviewing 'ridiculous' looking brakes/hiders. I believe that's how they got around the parallel determination that there should at least be some kind of auditory criteria for an object to be considered a silencer.

TCB

[TDL]

For VALID information (hopefully) go to a lawyer (one that specializes in firearms law would probably be best), PAY them, and get a written legal opinion of what the law covers, and what it does not.

Agreed. I've decided to have it permanently pinned or cut and crowned before even assembling it.

[TMD]

Four post in this thread by the op yet he still won't say what jurisdiction he's in and expects a correct answer. SMH