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