Can I have a flash hider!?!?!

[vladtepes 1,060]

how come I see so many people in this section talking about using muzzle devices that state directly in the description that they reduce flash... I see things like the pinky test talked about.. but yet when I look at the context of the NJ AWB there is no mention of such a test...

 

IMO in NJ you can have a muzzle brake.. that's what the law allows... not anything else..

 

NJ also does not define flash hider... so one would assume that they could argue that ANY device that mitigates flash on any level is a flash hider...

 

unless of course I am missing something?

[n4p226r 105]

there is no definition of a muzzle brake either.  its all grey area.  the FSC556 is commonly used and thats a "flash suppressing compensator".  its the only one that got approval from the ATF that i am aware of so even though NJ doesn't have to follow that we try to go by that.  so i guess the pinky test is as good of a test as any.  since really its whatever you can convince a judge and jury if the prosecutor decides to call you out on it.  

[M1152 713]

the only thing we know for sure is NJ is a joke,  not just because of the stupid firearms laws... as far as brake vs comp who knows I asked a few time if this Saiga 308 Muzzle Brake was NJ complaint?  it even says "Brake" but is that good enough?

[AverageJoe 95]

Hey Ant, I know we've had this discussion before...when a manufacturer of a muzzle brake claims stuff like it'll reduce flash, etc etc...is that more of marketing tactics? To me, if the manufacturer lists device X is a "muzzle brake," it should be G2G...especially when they make multiple devices and list others as a flash hider and/or compensator.

[Silence Dogood 468]

The arbiter of this discussion should be the State Police Firarms Unit. In theory an 'unsure' LEO would consult them on this technicality. After all, they publish a secret 'LEO eyes-only' directive on issuing FPIDs.

 

My understanding is that they have a two-point test for distinguishing between compensators and muzzle brakes (legal) on the one hand and true flash suppressors on the other hand (illegal). This assumes that they are permanently attached.

 

1. What is the stated intent of the device from the manufacturer?

 

and

 

2. Is the terminal opening in the device small (slightly larger than the caliber). Thus the 'pinky test.'

 

It is certainly a gray area and all you can say is that it would be unwise to purchase a device advertised as a 'flash suppressor' (like A2) or push the envelope with a large terminal opening on any muzzle device.

[silverado427 10,681]

On your camera.

[MartyZ 692]

The worst part is that flash suppressors are not illegal, they make a semi-auto rifle with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip illegal.

[mipafox 438]

The worst part is that flash suppressors are not illegal, they make a semi-auto rifle with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip illegal.

Exactly. Flash hiders are not illegal. "Assault Weapons" are illegal. Why would the NJSP or any NJ judge do any hand wringing over the configuration of your flash hider? Guilty!

 

I would personally be comfortable with something that was obviously just a brake, or had an ATF letter. But I don't think either is a guarantee. NJSC has all but said firearms laws are strict liability - no due diligence can protect you 100% (including letters from ATF, NJAG, the entire NJSC, and God), and you would be guilty if somebody driving down the street threw a gun on your property and you didn't know it was there under SL. Now we can't realistically live by those rules but we have to keep in mind they have them in their back pocket.

 

Not legal advice, I don't even live there.

[mipafox 438]

 

The arbiter of this discussion should be the State Police Firarms Unit. In theory an 'unsure' LEO would consult them on this technicality. After all, they publish a secret 'LEO eyes-only' directive on issuing FPIDs.

 

My understanding is that they have a two-point test for distinguishing between compensators and muzzle brakes (legal) on the one hand and true flash suppressors on the other hand (illegal). This assumes that they are permanently attached.

 

1. What is the stated intent of the device from the manufacturer?

 

and

 

2. Is the terminal opening in the device small (slightly larger than the caliber). Thus the 'pinky test.'

 

It is certainly a gray area and all you can say is that it would be unwise to purchase a device advertised as a 'flash suppressor' (like A2) or push the envelope with a large terminal opening on anything.

 

 

Interesting on both points.

 

Anybody get this FPID directive under OPRA?

[Old Glock guy 1,127]

In my few years as a firearms owner, I am constantly amazed by how much time and energy we forced to waste in this state having to concern ourselves with seemingly trivial features like flash suppressors, bayonet lugs and collapsible stocks.

[Silence Dogood 468]

 

   

 

Interesting on both points.

 

Anybody get this FPID directive under OPRA?

 

NJ2AS sued (or is suing) the State Police, who will not release the manual.

[mipafox 438]

 

In my few years as a firearms owner, I am constantly amazed by how much time and energy we forced to waste in this state having to concern ourselves with seemingly trivial features like flash suppressors, bayonet lugs and collapsible stocks.

 

 

They passed the law because they don't want you to own guns like that. You are exploiting loopholes in the law and trying to beat the system, that's the only reason you are concerning yourself with "trivial" features.

 

If they knew at the time you were going to spend so much time fretting over such things they would have made all mag-fed semi-autos illegal.

[JC_68Westy 1,024]

I believe that the muzzle device in an M16A2 is defined as a muzzle compensator. It has an open end, but is designed to reduce muzzle climb. The primary purpose is not to reduce flash. Who decided on the "pinky test"?

[mipafox 438]

 

I believe that the muzzle device in an M16A2 is defined as a muzzle compensator. It has an open end, but is designed to reduce muzzle climb. The primary purpose is not to reduce flash. Who decided on the "pinky test"?

 

 

It is designated as a compensator, that is correct. But I believe the primary purpose IS to reduce flash. I think the military designated it as a comp to distinguish it from the A1. The only thing "compish" about it, and it does make a difference, is the removal of slots from the bottom of it. Otherwise it is nearly identical to A1. This was actually reportedly done to prevent the rifle from kicking up dust clouds, not to make it a comp. So now it is a flash and dust hider called a comp by the military

 

I know one of the ATF letters says they use the A2 flash hider to judge other flash hiders. I think this was the case with the PWS FSC 556. As much flash hidin' as the A2 and it's a flash hider. Less and it's not. But they change their minds all the time, so who knows.

[Old Glock guy 1,127]

   

 

They passed the law because they don't want you to own guns like that. You are exploiting loopholes in the law and trying to beat the system, that's the only reason you are concerning yourself with "trivial" features.

 

If they knew at the time you were going to spend so much time fretting over such things they would have made all mag-fed semi-autos illegal.

 

Yes, I totally understand that.  But I still think it's absurd.  And I have no doubt that they would love to do as you suggest in your last sentence.

[vladtepes 1,060]

as far as I am aware... in NJ there is no standard in writing..  so unfortunately if that is the case the following is true..

 

if it is a muzzle device that reduces flash signature.. its no good..

if it is a muzzle device that does not reduce flash signature.. than it is good to go...

 

NJ does not have to define a brake for a brake to be legal.. because they are not stating "only a brake is legal" they are instead stating than a "flash hider" is an "evil feature" and my point is since "flash hider" is not defined.. does that not allow them the most vague interpretation of "flash hider" and allow them to say 

 

"this muzzle device states that it reduces flash... we have tested this device since making the arrest and it does in fact reduce flash, and therefore it is illegal" how do you fight that.. by saying that the ATF does not classify it as one? the ATF classification is moot because you are not breaking a federal law.. you are being charged in NJ.. for breaking NJ law.. and for the usefulness of a flash hider I would not personally roll the dice..

 

thats more my point.. 

[Johnny 0]

Anyone been charged for having a flash hider before?

[vladtepes 1,060]

Anyone been charged for having a flash hider before?

 

 

no but people have been charged with having illegal assault weapons.. and some have even gotten out of it.. but those individuals likely have large wallets.. 

[M1152 713]

Anyone been charged for having a flash hider before?

 

no but people have been charged with having illegal assault weapons.. and some have even gotten out of it.. but those individuals likely have large wallets...

.....or they're plugged-in politically

[kman 56]

Can anyone suggest a muzzle brake that is the LEAST likely to be considered a flash suppressor?  I mean something that has zero effect on flash or, if it had any effect, actually made the flash brighter?

[acaixguard 37]

How would the BCM Gunfighter comp stand up to NJ laws then?

 

http://www.bravocompanyusa.com/BCMGUNFIGHTER-Compensator-MOD-0-5-56-p/bcm-gfc-mod-0-556.htm

[checko 180]

How would the BCM Gunfighter comp stand up to NJ laws then?

 

http://www.bravocompanyusa.com/BCMGUNFIGHTER-Compensator-MOD-0-5-56-p/bcm-gfc-mod-0-556.htm

We've talked about this in several threads. Consensus seems to be it would probably be gtg but the bit about flash reduction gives me the willies if I'd ever have to defend it or myself.

[Displaced Texan 11,731]

Can anyone suggest a muzzle brake that is the LEAST likely to be considered a flash suppressor? I mean something that has zero effect on flash or, if it had any effect, actually made the flash brighter?

As compared to what?? An A2 flash suppressor??

 

I use both the Battle Comp and the EGW A2 comp on my rifles. Both of them put out more flash than a standard A2 flash suppressor.

Pretty much any TRUE brake or comp is going to have more flash than an A2.

 

Don't know for sure what metrics (if any) NJ uses to decide what is a flash hider and what isn't.

I don't think ANYONE truly knows.

[GRIZ 3,369]

Anyone been charged for having a flash hider before?

A flash hider or surpressor by itself is not illegal. If you have a Ruger GB model Mini 14 in a full stock with the bayonet lug removed in a full stock that would be legal in NJ. It's just one evil feature that if you have two of make it illegal in NJ.

 

AFAIK there is no criteria in NJ law defining what is a surpressor. The safest bet is using a comp or brake that ATF says is one if you have to have something on the end of the barrel or your AR or AK IMO.

[SmartAss 11]

I'll bet that they probably had no idea (and still don't) what a brake or comp was when the legislators wrote the law. They just knew that black rifles have a thing at the end of the barrel that someone referred to it as a flash hider. Plus "Flash Hider" could have sinister connotation to it so that fit into their demonizing agenda.