What is MD definition of Flash Hider?

[HokieCasey]

Is there a definition or guidance on what counts as a flash hider for purposes of the Copycat feature test?

Particularly trying to figure out if muzzle devices that are marketed as "compensators/brakes with flash suppression capability" are viewed as such. Examples: Battlecomp, FCS556, etc.

 

[jonnyl]

(G) “FLASH SUPPRESSOR” MEANS A DEVICE THAT FUNCTIONS, OR IS INTENDED TO FUNCTION, TO PERCEPTIBLY REDUCE OR REDIRECT MUZZLE FLASH FROM THE SHOOTER’S FIELD OF VISION.

But just to clarify, that's only one feature and you need two for a copycat. Also a banned long gun can't be a copycat. So if it's already a banned rifle that you had before 10/1 and is grandfathered I think you're fine also.

 

[iH8DemLibz]

If it traps and diverts gasses, it's not a flash hider.

Huge exit hole=Flash Hider.

Bullet sized exit hole=Brake.

 

[Kingjamez]

If it traps and diverts gasses, it's not a flash hider.

Huge exit hole=Flash Hider.

Bullet sized exit hole=Brake.

This holds no weight in law.

According to MD law, anything (whether by design or not) that "perceptibly" reduces flash is a flash suppressor.

-Jim

 

[photoracer]

If you have ever seen a compensator at dusk or night you would not consider it a "flash hider). It needs as much gas and flame as it can existing the ports to work as designed.
Plus the perception of many lawmakers is from watching movies using full flash blanks. Nobody has done any real tests on this. A good nuisance thing would be to force by lawsuit the government to conduct tests to determine what is and is not a flash hider.

 

[swinokur]

From 281:

[FONT=&quot]([/FONT][FONT=&quot]G[/FONT][FONT=&quot]) “F[/FONT][FONT=&quot]L[/FONT][FONT=&quot]AS[/FONT][FONT=&quot]H SUPPRESSOR[/FONT][FONT=&quot]” [/FONT][FONT=&quot]M[/FONT][FONT=&quot]E[/FONT][FONT=&quot]ANS A DEVICE THAT FUNCTIONS[/FONT][FONT=&quot], [/FONT][FONT=&quot]O[/FONT][FONT=&quot]R IS[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1[/FONT][FONT=&quot]3 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]INTENDED TO FUNCTION[/FONT][FONT=&quot], [/FONT][FONT=&quot]T[/FONT][FONT=&quot]O PERCEPTIBLY REDUCE OR REDIRECT MUZZLE[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1[/FONT][FONT=&quot]4 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]F[/FONT][FONT=&quot]L[/FONT][FONT=&quot]AS[/FONT][FONT=&quot]H FROM THE SHOOTER[/FONT][FONT=&quot]’[/FONT][FONT=&quot]S FIELD OF VISION[/FONT][FONT=&quot].[/FONT]

As stated, if it functions to reduce flash, it's a flash hider, no matter what it may be called.

 

[Mark75H]

If you have ever seen a compensator at dusk or night you would not consider it a "flash hider). It needs as much gas and flame as it can existing the ports to work as designed.
Plus the perception of many lawmakers is from watching movies using full flash blanks. Nobody has done any real tests on this. A good nuisance thing would be to force by lawsuit the government to conduct tests to determine what is and is not a flash hider.

Wouldn't matter with "OR IS INTENDED TO FUNCTION" as part of the wording - no functionality test required. Labeled as, sold as, described as - would all meet the intention clause

 

[swinokur]

If less flash comes out with anything installed rather than nothing, it's a flash suppressor according to MD law.. Not much of a test required.

ETA the wording says flash suppressor, not flash hider. doesn't really matter what it's called.

So if a brake or compensator reduces flash, it's a flash suppressor according to MD law.

semantics, I know.

 

[EL1227]

It would seem to me ...

This is definately open to legal challenge, although at this time we've got bigger fish to fry as FSA 2013 has some glaring consitutional issues and flash hider vs brake/compensator isn't one of them.

I'm not sure what the approach to a challenge would be, but if the 'intent' was to ban 'anything' that would "PERCEPTIBLY REDUCE OR REDIRECT MUZZLE FLASH FROM THE SHOOTER’S FIELD OF VISION", legally they would have to prove the physics of a device, regardless of what it was called. Carrying that challenge a step further, if they found that ALL devices "PERCEPTIBLY REDUCE OR REDIRECT MUZZLE FLASH FROM THE SHOOTER’S FIELD OF VISION" then why wouldn't the law have read "NO DEVICES are allowed to be attached, reagrdless of design or intent of use." Answer: they couldn't do that because it would be found 'unconstitutionally broad'. Weasel wording as they did it still has a way of coming back to bite them in the ass.

Once the major constitutional issues are resolved maybe, just maybe FSA 2013 will be struck down or at least crippled enough that we can go after other aspects that are of no consequence in reducing murder and gun related crime.

 

[Streetgang]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say even though a muzzle brake isn't a flash hider, it does redirect the flash, which the law covers.

 

[erwos]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say even though a muzzle brake isn't a flash hider, it does redirect the flash, which the law covers.

Brakes and comps don't redirect it out of your field of vision. Remember, your field of vision is HUGE. It would take a heck of a device to accomplish that.

 

[ObsceneJesster]

Just get a break that breaths more fire than a bare barrel. They aren't hard to find.

Just to name a few:

Rainier XTC
Dynacomp
Battlecomp
Surefire Break

All of these devices create a flash that is brighter than a bare muzzle. The area in which the flash covers is slightly less however due to the gasses being directed in different routes.

If you need proof, I can post the chart that shows their flash brightness is substantially brighter than a bare muzzle. Although, the law might get you on the fact that the they are redirecting the flash out of your field of view. I'm sure that can be easily fought though.

 

[erwos]

They aren't redirecting it _out_ of your field of view. They are redirecting it to a different place in your field of view. I guess the ultra paranoid amongst us would want a brake/comp with an enclosed bottom (and, interestingly enough, most of them are, I think), just in case your field of view is somehow super limited. (I mean, I assume FOV in this case means "hold rifle to shoulder and fire".)

For what it's worth, this is basically the CA definition of a flash suppressor, and to my understanding, they also have no idea what that even means.

 

[rayg5102]

or it could be a rain coat!

 

[AlpineDude67]

I had no idea the law was written this incoherently. What a great big pile of B.S.

As somebody who likes folding stocks, this is more than a little bit scary. I am not sure something this vague would hold up if you bought a brake in good faith believing that it didn't do anything to the flash and then you get prosecuted because the brake is found to reduce muzzle flash by some imperceptible amount.

 

[ObsceneJesster]

I had no idea the law was written this incoherently. What a great big pile of B.S.

As somebody who likes folding stocks, this is more than a little bit scary. I am not sure something this vague would hold up if you bought a brake in good faith believing that it didn't do anything to the flash and then you get prosecuted because the brake is found to reduce muzzle flash by some imperceptible amount.

Honestly man, as long as the manufacture doesn't state anywhere in the description of the device that it reduces flash then you should be good to go in MD. That's all MD is going to go by just like what other states like New York are doing.

If you buy a Break/Comp that isn't a Hybrid device then your fine. Devices like the M4SDII Flash Comp wouldn't be legal because right in the description it says it reduces flash.

Its not like MD is going to run multiple tests on your rifle to see exactly what the flash looks. Their test would have to be pretty thorough and they would need to look for flash duration, flash brightness and area covered by the flash. Its to complicated and would cost to much money only to maybe find you in violation. Then they have to fight it in court. A public defender could pick that case apart and get the law reworded. All he would need to do would be to show the court a video of an AAC Blackout and then a Surefire Break right behind it. Then ask if they really thought the Surefire was reducing flash and or removing it from the shooters field of view.

Bottom line. Make sure the Break/Comp says nothing about flash suppression in the description and you will be good to go.

Sent with a Gen 2 Nexus 7

 

[Bolts Rock]

You guys are trying to make sense of a Maryland law written by retarded progressives and enforced by the political puppets. As mentioned just get one that does not name it or advertise it as flash suppressing and that's about as close as you're going to get.

 

[Mooseman]

Brakes and comps don't redirect it out of your field of vision. Remember, your field of vision is HUGE. It would take a heck of a device to accomplish that.

Your clear field of vision is 3 degrees, directly in front of you. Your peripheral vision is 90 degrees to your left and 90 degrees to your right.

 

[Magnumite]

Years back, during the Clinton AWB, a company, I don't recall who, did a pragmatic test. They took darkened room pictures or video of a barrel with and without their muzzle device on it. They fired and recorded video both ways. The flash was not reduced by the muzzle device when the with and without photos/videos were examined for comparison. The BATFE said that qualified the muzzle device as a brake and legal for sale and installation.

 

[byf43]

Get the barrel Magnaported and call it a day.

You DEFINITELY will not be 'hiding any flash' from the operator's eyes, with that.


Now, if you put the muzzle into your jacket pocket, that's illegal. You will be HIDING the flash.


(Well, until someone sees that your pocket is on fire.)