Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 5/1/2001 10:07:04 AM EST
This little tale will make you more angry than afraid. This is directly from a convo with Jeff from DSA. Apparently, DSA got verbal approval from the "Owens" staff at ATF Technology Branch, prior to beginning production of the STG 58A kit rifles. The brake was 23mm in diameter, a closed in front, and pairs of ports at 90 degree intervals around the nose of the brake. A muzzle brake by all accounts, having none of the characteristics of a flash hider or grenade launcher. Apparently, the new head of Technology branch likes to compare apples to oranges. They have been comparing the flash signatures of the new DSA brake with the flash signature of the Belgian multi function device (22mm, 2" long, triplets of 40degree slanted forward holes at 90 degree intervals). The MFD was given a flash reduction value of FIVE and the new DSA brake when compared to it was given a value of 2. Apparently, it was ignored that the STG58 came with a four-tine flash hider that surpasses the vaunted "vortex" in it's flash suppression capability. So now the ATF says that the new brake "may" reduce flash enough to be considered a "flash hider". DSA is actively seeking independant, fair analysis of the device and it may go in DSAs favor. Perhaps not. Rather than put DSA's customers in a bad position regarding compliance with the 94 "Ugly gun ban", DSA recalled the kit guns. I have recommended that DSA aquire independant proof, comparing their brake with the original STG 58 flash hider and then suing the shit out of the ATF Technology Branch for "Abitrary and Conflicting" official approvals and Abuse of Authority. Interestingly enough, ATF does not have the authority to deem any device an "approved brake" or "non-approved flash hider" except in individual cases involving prosecutions. There has been ZERO prosecutions involving "interpretation" of brakes/hiders. There have been ZERO convictions involving same. DSA is doing the right thing by not putting customers in jeopardy. I have only installed five of these brakes and on all of the rifles the flash was significant and blinding. Want to help? Call the ATF Technology branch. Complain about arbitrary "interpretations" based on faulty methodology. Call your Congressdork and complain that we gunowners are tired of being jerked around by faceless, unaccountable bureauRats who have the ridiculous power to graciously allow us to be "compliant" one month and "felons" the next. Better yet, demand a repeal of the 94 gun ban and the "characteristic" sections of that. The whole mess (and indeed, much of what the 103rd Commie Congress passed and was eagerly signed by Komrade Klinton) has proven to be "unconstitutionally vague". D.
Link Posted: 5/1/2001 11:24:55 AM EST
Link Posted: 5/1/2001 1:52:54 PM EST
Link Posted: 5/1/2001 5:47:28 PM EST
Originally Posted By derek_huffman_azex: Apparently, DSA got verbal approval from the "Owens" staff at ATF Technology Branch,
View Quote
"Owens" as opposed to who? Did Owens quit?
Apparently, the new head of Technology branch likes to compare apples to oranges. They have been comparing the flash signatures of the new DSA brake with the flash signature of the Belgian multi function device (22mm, 2" long, triplets of 40degree slanted forward holes at 90 degree intervals). The MFD was given a flash reduction value of FIVE and the new DSA brake when compared to it was given a value of 2. Apparently, it was ignored that the STG58 came with a four-tine flash hider that surpasses the vaunted "vortex" in it's flash suppression capability.
View Quote
So what? I don't see where that makes any difference at all. I don't see what's wrong with it, anyway. Maybe I'm missing something.
So now the ATF says that the new brake "may" reduce flash enough to be considered a "flash hider". DSA is actively seeking independant, fair analysis of the device and it may go in DSAs favor. Perhaps not.
View Quote
They might not have a right to that. The BATF regs and or decisions will say if they do or not.
I have recommended that DSA aquire independant proof, comparing their brake with the original STG 58 flash hider and then suing the shit out of the ATF Technology Branch for "Abitrary and Conflicting" official approvals and Abuse of Authority.
View Quote
D, I don't think you can sue a gov't agency for doing its job. You [i]can[/i] sue for injunctive or declaratory relief, not money damages AFAIK, for "Arbitrary and Capricious" decisionmaking or "Abuse of Discretion" which is probably what you were thinking of. no money, though. Just "equitable relief."
Interestingly enough, ATF does not have the authority to deem any device an "approved brake" or "non-approved flash hider" except in individual cases involving prosecutions.
View Quote
Somebody has to. Otherwise, it's the fox guarding the henhouse. Anyways, there's a case, [u]Ethyl Corp.[/u] or something like that, where the Supreme Court says that requiring an agency to litigate for each determination of compliance (or something like that) was not realistic, so blanket rules were OK.
There has been ZERO prosecutions involving "interpretation" of brakes/hiders. There have been ZERO convictions involving same.
View Quote
Where did you find that out?
Link Posted: 5/2/2001 11:20:09 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/2/2001 11:20:12 AM EST by azexarms]
Since I build FALs for a living I make it my business to know how the insipid 94 law is being enforced. Ed Owens retired after giving verbal approval for these brakes. Apparently, according to Buddie Daniel at Tapco, Owens' staff had even reviewed a complete rifle with their brake on it, and had unofficially pronounced the brake as "not a flash hider". Too bad one administration does not communicate with the other. The brake comparison point was used to demonstrate the stacked aspects of the testing, the Belgian MFD does not hide flash well, when compared with the original STOLL four-prong hider. Had the four-prong hider been used as a benchmark for flash suppression capability...Remember: these brakes are made to look like the STOLL hider for authentic appearance while conforming to the stupid law...In that case the original STOLL hider should have been used as then benchmark for "maximum flash suppression". Since these are designed as postban replacements for that device. Had the testing been conducted fairly, the brake when compared to the original (I know, I've shot nearly all available FAL brakes at night) the original would've had a "5" a bare muzzle a "1" and the DSA or Tapco brake barely more than "1". Remember, criteria for flash suppressors is "significantly". A device that reduces flash "significantly" may be a muzzle brake when viewed from certain angles, like the bottom. Brakes are designed to re-direct gases, not break up flash. D.
Link Posted: 5/2/2001 11:23:14 AM EST
Besides, why do you care, you dont even live here. D.
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 8:05:54 AM EST
GU = Guam. NZ = New Zealand. There is no Guam in New Zealand. I live in the USA. GU, NZ GU NZ GUNZ GUNS Enjoy your free legal advice. It sounds like you've had enough of it, so I won't bother you with any more.
Link Posted: 5/5/2001 2:07:14 PM EST
Does anyone know if a semi-auto ejector block applies to the US parts count for FALs? I get the feeling it doesn't, but want to be sure.
Link Posted: 5/5/2001 4:18:39 PM EST
Does anyone know if any AR15 comps or brakes have now been ruled flash hiders?
Link Posted: 5/5/2001 11:26:42 PM EST
Mattja, http://www.fnfal.com/falfiles/usaparts.html
Link Posted: 5/20/2001 7:01:00 PM EST
Does anyone know what the current status of the appeal is?
Link Posted: 5/20/2001 7:55:53 PM EST
hey derek- open mouth, insert other foot .. LOL
Link Posted: 5/24/2001 6:29:19 PM EST
Yes, something I've been saying on this board for almost two years now which is... "our constitution limits legislation powers only to congress, and interpretation is solely limited to the judicial branch". Nowhere is the ATF mentioned regarding either one of these powers. Therefore ATF cannot make "rules" as this infringes on the duties soley reserved for congress. ATF can only submit their case to a judge. If you think about it, this is a right granted to all citizens so the ATF is no more special than all of us and all within HCI.
Top Top