|
| | | | |
|
|
Regulatory Action for Large Capacity Magazines
Clyde
H. Spencer
Sonora,
CA 95370-9078
3
February 2000
Debbie
Coffin, Analyst
Department
of Justice, Firearms Division
P.O.
Box 820200
Sacramento,
CA 94203-0200
RE: Written Comments in
Regard to Proposed Regulatory Action for Large Capacity Magazines and Assault
Weapons
The definition of a “flash suppressor,” as included in the proposed
regulations pertaining to legislatively-defined Assault Weapons is inadequate.
Reference is made to reducing or concealing visible light produced by
firing a firearm. It is
inconceivable that any device, even going by the common name of “flash
hider,” could actually conceal the flash. Since the gases are not cooled or catalytically burned,
so-called “flash suppressors” necessarily function solely by dispersing the
radiant energy over a larger volume, and thereby presumably only decreasing the
apparent flash-brightness. However,
the proposed, ambiguous definition provides no objective measure for whether the
apparent flash is reduced by any device, intended for the function or otherwise,
as compared to an identical firearm using the same cartridge without the device.
Nor does the proposed regulation address the issue of whether there is a
decrease or not in apparent flash from any particular viewing position.
It is conceivable that from the position of the target, that when used
with a slow-burning powder, a conventional “flash suppressor” might actually
increase the perceived flash as the large volume of burning powder is dispersed
over a larger than usual area.
All muzzle brakes and compensators act in a manner similar to flash
suppressors that disperse the expelled gases at right angles to the barrel.
(Note that some flash suppressors do not port the gasses at right
angles.) That is, they divert some
of the gases so that they exit the barrel at right angles to the flight path
common to the bullet and the majority of the incandescent gas and burning
powder. So, at what point, or
threshold, does a muzzle brake so disperse the gases as to functionally behave
as a flash suppressor? How would
that be measured? If a device is
intended to act as both a muzzle brake and flash suppressor, which functionality
takes precedence for legal purposes? The proposed regulation is ambiguous on this point since it
says, “This definition..., does not include compensators and muzzle
brakes...” Yet, it applies to
flash suppressors. Is it the
intention of the DOJ that any asymmetrical dispersal of gases that results in a
reduction of vertical barrel movement exempts a device from the legal definition
of a flash suppressor?
Is the DOJ prepared to publish a list by name, and with photographs, of
legal muzzle brakes and compensators so that law enforcement officers don’t
mistakenly engage in false arrest, unnecessarily harass law-abiding gun owners,
and clog the courts with cases without merit?
Sincerely,
Clyde H. Spencer
|
|
|
