Quoted:
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?