Flash Hider Legality

[SfGiants_fan1]

So….looks like I caused some disagreements in my last post. So I decided to come ask this section, are flash hiders legal in California if you have a mag locked rifle? ex. Surefire flash hiders/warcomps. Companies seem to ship them here but hard to tell if they are legal.

 

[W.H.O.]

Legal on mag locked rifles. Not legal on featureless. Featureless are allowed to use muzzle brakes that do not lower the flash signature. If a muzzle device is described as reducing sound signature, it isn't legal(in our state, as it would be considered a sound suppression device(NFA) and require a tax stamp.)

 

[Dvrjon]

As noted on your other post, flash hiders are legal to buy, import and possess. However, as W.H.O pointed out, their use is controlled. If you use one on an “evil-featured” AR platform, you will create an illegal AW. The gun, not the flash hider, is illegal. If you use it on a featureless or a fixed magazine gun, that gun is legal.

However, the “flash signature” isn’t the identifying characteristic. The regulation defines a flash hider as, “designed, intended, or functions to perceptibly reduce or redirect muzzle flash from the shooter's field of vision.” That’s a pretty broad scope.

Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 11, § 5471 - Registration of Assault Weapons Pursuant to Penal Code Section 30900(b)(1); Explanation of Terms Related to Assault Weapon Designation​

(r) "Flash suppressor" means any device attached to the end of the barrel, that is designed, intended, or functions to perceptibly reduce or redirect muzzle flash from the shooter's field of vision. A hybrid device that has either advertised flash suppressing properties or functionally has flash suppressing properties would be deemed a flash suppressor. A device labeled or identified by its manufacturer as a flash hider would be deemed a flash suppressor.

 

[Malibu]

One can only hope (and pray) that The Eunuchs of SCOTUS pick up one of the cases that may do away with all this nonsense, and save us further hassles. We will see (or not) depending on how much longer we live.
Roberti-Roos has been with us for close to 35 years, and yet we are still under this. Shameful.

 

[Dvrjon]

One can only hope (and pray) that The Eunuchs of SCOTUS pick up one of the cases that may do away with all this nonsense, and save us further hassles. We will see (or not) depending on how much longer we live.
Roberti-Roos has been with us for close to 35 years, and yet we are still under this. Shameful.

Awww, c’mon. Roberti-Roos was in 1989 and just banned AWs by name. The evil features restrictions have only been around since 2000, so it’s only been 24 years of this nonsense.

(If anyone missed it, the above is sarcasm, and not meant to dismiss the infringement established by these laws.)