Since it appears to be legal to ream out a Flash suppressor(ala-the group purchase rifle). What if you would port your ar-15 barrel with holes to line up with the slots on the pressed on Flash suppresor and reamed out the first 3/4 inches of your barrel. The flash suppressor would only be there for cosmetics as it is on the group purchase rifle. Legal or not?

btt

None of my business, really, but is there a reason you would want to do that? Is this just a machine shop exercise or is there some benefit to doing that (and at the risk of screwing up your barrel)? Just curious.  

Troy already answere the question.  IF IT REDUCES MUZZLE FLASH, THEN IT IS ILLEGAL!

It doesn't matter if its attached or integral; if it reduced the flash signature, its a no-go on a post ban.  Example - BATF has ruled some flash supressors as sound supressors because they have the insignificant effect of reducing the report by a mere 1-2dB.  Same thing applies with respect to flash supressors; anything that supresses the flash in any measurable degree could be considered a flash supressor.

Also, I'm not sure of what regs you're looking at,but 18 USC 921(a)(30)(B) does not only address threaded on flash supressors.  An integral or permanently attached flash supressor would be covered also.  18 USC 921(a)(30)(B)(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to
accommodate a flash suppressor;

So what you are saying is that if you have a non-threaded ar-15 barrel that is ported then that is illegal? Sorry, but i disagree.

No, he is saying if it reduces muzzle flash it’s illegal no matter how it’s attached.

A ported post ban barrel is legal, unless it reduces flash.

You are free to believe anything you want, but if the porting on the barrel functions to reduce the flash, even as a side effect of its primary muzzle brake function, then yes BATF could determine it is a flash hider and you are screwed.

Thanks RK - beat me to the punch.

What difference does it make why he want to do it?

What you are suggesting sounds legal, but to be sure, you’d want to make sure it
does not reduce the flash signature.

Honestly, I think your best bet would be a Wilson A2 style muzzle brake.

Thankyou righteous kill, what would you suggest to prove that it works as a compensator and not a as a flash suppressor? Taking pictures at night? And no I do not want to write the ATF for aproval, like the other knot-heads. I prefer to let grey remain grey and not force black or white decisions from the ATF.

Lock&load - I didn't notice the difference, but I'll try to keep it in mind from now on.

Locknload -



Keeping your head in the sand won't save you.  If BATF is going to rule your device an illegal flash hider, they won't have any problems enforcing it on you or anyone else whether they have or have not made a prior decision on it.  Its been said before, but ignorance of the law is not a defense.  Similarly, your ignorance in not knowing their position on a particular device is no defense.

**This is not legal advice, just food for thought.**

I have no idea as to what the ATF considers a legal definition of a  flash
suppressor, in fact, I don’t think they have a clue.  Have you heard about the
DSA/Tapco STG muzzle brake situation?  The ATF gave them the OK, the
changed it’s mind.

The whole flash suppressor thing is a mystery to me.
Muzzle flash can change with different ammunition, and other conditions.

I suspect the scientific way would be to take pictures at night, or in a dark room.
The trick would be taking the pictures at the moment the bullet leaves the barrel,
you would need some sort of trip for the camera.  This is to ensure the pictures are
all taken at the same instance.
Take pictures with the muzzle device on, and with out it.
I would also try different factory ammo with the device on and off.
Then compare.

There might be a device that would measure the intensity of the flash.  Some sort
of light detector???

On a less technical approach.  Go out and shoot it at night will some friends.  See
if the device adds muzzle flash, reduces flash or stays about the same.


The real problem with using the A2 flash suppressor as a starting point, and I
don’t know how the LEGP got around this.  The A2 FH is considered a grenade
luncher.  I suppose you could put a bead of weld or a pin to keep the rife grenade
from slipping over the barrel.

Rk

OK sir, please print anything the Batf has on ported barrels and any cases that back up your statements that a ported barrel is a flash hider. I can not find anything like that. I would be glad read anything you have on this. Your statemnt that,"If the ATF rules your ported barrel is a flash-hider", strengthens my argument not to get them involved. "If" is completely different from haveing a ruleing in place. Until there is a ruling against something you should be alright unless you are the test-case. This is why i hate it when someone forces the ATF to make a ruling by writing them a letter, is so and so legal.

As far as I know BATF has said anything on flash hiders, but they don't have to.  They can make that decision and determination anytime they damn well please.  They can even make that determination after they've served you with a search warrant and collected all your stuff.  Even if you get a letter saying its ok, they are free to change their minds at any time and prosecute you for it (and waving your letter around in the air won't help you). BATF and other federal agencies have the power to interpret and regulate under the law.  They determine what constitutes a "flash hider", what parts constitute a "machinegun", what constitutes a "sporting purpose", etc.,  and unless their determination crosses the legal line of "arbitrary and capricious" the courts will uphold their determinations.

So you'd rather walk around in the dark and risk being the test case?  Nifty.  Just remember that you're lawyer is not going to have any easier time of defending you just because you didn't know.  Test case or not, BATF won't have a difficult time.

The point of writing to BATF is to ascertain their current position on an issue to try and avoid being the test case.  

The LEGP FFH is 23mm in diameter and is not a grenade launcher.

What you do not seem to grasp is that they are government workers and do not generally go out looking for issues to rule on. But once someone brings something to their attention in any way that could be public knowledge, they have to act on it or risk looking like they are not doing their job. You can call it lurking in the dark if you want to, but i call it not giving the enemy ammunition to fire back at you. Oh, by the way ignorance can be an excuse if the jury or judge or prosecuter feels that way. There was a local case here that never made it to trial where a man shot & killed his aquaintence. "I didn't know it was loaded" and a good lawyer took care of that.

What YOU don't seem to understand is that you're not setting any law or precedent by getting a letter.  BATF is free to change their minds at any time, even after giving someone a letter.  It only gives you an insight into their current interpretation and enforcement of the statute.  You're in no better position with a letter than without, except that with a letter you're less likely to get blindsided because you have some slight idea of what they're thinking. Whats the benefit to NOT knowing what's going on in the heads of those making the regs and rulings?



BZZZZZT!  Wrong.  Thats whats known in legal circles as a lack of the requisite [i]mens rea[/i].  The defendant knew the taking of another person's life was proscribed by law. Ignorance of the law is not a defense.  The lack of an element of the offense is.  Good lawyer?  Maybe, but a first year law student would have figured that one out.  I'm not a criminal attorney, but there's other reasons things like that don't make it to trial.  Steve in VA would be the one to ask about that though.  I think he's does crim def; I don't.

Shaggy you make a good point about knowing what is going on in their heads. I do not have a problem with companies or corporations getting thing in writing from the ATF for stuff that they plan to do in quantity. I do still have a problem with individuals who here someone talking on this board and right away start yelling "CALL THE ATF WE NEED A RULING ON THIS!!!!", you obviously have some legal background and I bow to your experience. As far as lurking in the dark, that has always been the best way of getting into your enemies heads. I would rather be silent and thought a fool,than open my mouth and remove all doubt. I may have broken my own rule here, but I myself never miss a chance for a good argument. Have a nice day Shaggy.

Clear as mud.....
[url]http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/atf_letter51.txt[/url]

                  DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
            BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS
                     WASHINGTON, DC 20226

                        MAR 25 1999                   903050:CHB
                                                      3311


Dear Mr. Bardwell:

This refers to your letter of January 13, 1999, in which you ask
about flash suppressors.  As you are aware, the term flash
suppressor appears in the definition of a semiautomatic assault
weapon in section 921(a)(30) of Title 18, United States Code.  The
term flash suppressor is not specifically defined in the statute.

A flash suppressor is a device which diminishes the visible flash
which occurs at the muzzle of a firearm as the bullet leaves the
barrel.  While certain devices are exclusively designed as flash
suppressors, many other muzzle attachments are designed to perform
multiple functions such as a combination flash suppressor and
grenade launcher, or a combination flash suppressor and muzzle
break.  Any such combination devices which function as a flash
suppressor would qualify as a flash suppressor for purposes of
section 921(a)(30)(B)(iv).

A firearm silencer or muffler would also function as an effective
flash suppressor; therefore, a semiautomatic rifle, such as an AR-
15, having a silencer or muffler and a pistol grip would qualify as
a semiautomatic assault weapon as that term is defined in section
921(a)(30)(B).

We trust that the foregoing has been responsive to your inquiry.
If you have further questions concerning this matter, please
contact us.

                       Sincerely yours,


                      Edward M. Owen, Jr.
               Chief, Firearms Technology Branch

This is a tough question. I don't think any of us really know(including the ATF). I kind of like the idea locknload has, so here is a suggestion get yourself or barrow a PRE-Ban and try it out. Problem solved. But im going to throw a log on the fire, the way the law reads it sounds to me is a suppressor(sound) would be a big NO-NO on a POST-ban because it would be a flash hider, making it an AW.

Zman - you're absolutely correct.  BATF has issued a ruling wherein they determined that sound supressors also reduce flash, so therefore you can't have one on a postban.  

The following is [size=3]NOT[/size=3] to flame or dis anyone:

What a STUPID stupid thing we have to debate.  Muzzle flash.  I have NO idea why the muzzle flash of a rifle makes any difference to public safety.  It's just stupid that we have to wonder if we can do something out of fear that it is illogically considered "illegal".  Just chipping away at rights.  

I have wondered the same thing, but more from a "do-ability" point of view than a legal one.  Seems to me that ported barrels are not illegal.  The pseudo-flash hider that is on the LEGP is not illegal...but porting a barrel that also has the LEGP FH IS illegal???  Classic case of two rights making a wrong I suppose - who else but BATF?

luvmyAR:  Porting a barrel on a postban AR-15 is illegal, if the porting also reduces flash measurably.