From the SME forum: Battlecomp on a featureless CA build?

[rero360]

***This is in response to: http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=109661 - SHIVAN***


While the BattleComp does do a pretty good job, the legal types here in CA have recommend people not to use them on featureless rifles as they do reduce the flash some what and the law covers what the device actually does in addition to what it is called and marketed towards. As far as I know the CADOJ have not released a opinion letter regarding the matter yet.

The KAC Triple Tap is generally regarding as being safe to use, but pricey.

Here is a good list of muzzle devices and if they are safe, risky or forbidden to be used on featureless builds: https://sites.google.com/site/featurelessrifleguide/muzzle-devices

I personally am establishing my exit strategy once my current enlistment ends.

[JBecker 72]

Just to reiterate what rero360 said, DO NOT USE A BATTLECOMP ON A FEATURELESS AR IN CA.

[SHIVAN]

I had to move these two responses here for follow-up. Sorry, it's a plain ROE.

[JBecker 72]

I had to move these two responses here for follow-up. Sorry, it's a plain ROE.

Understood, but unfortunately info was given which can lead to a felony in this ass backwards state. This info really needs to stick with the original question to prevent someone from falling into a potential legal nightmare.

[SHIVAN]

Understood, but unfortunately info was given which can lead to a felony in this ass backwards state. This info really needs to stick with the original question to prevent someone from falling into a potential legal nightmare.

100% understood.

Do two things:

1) PM the user.

2) PM the SME.

Let the chips fall where they may after that. Thanks. In this case, I have emailed LAV for clarification.

Ed

[Icculus]

I'm very confused by this thread as these two posts seem to indicate that a Battlecomp is very much CA legal.

https://www.m4carbine.net/showpost.php?p=687242&postcount=239
https://www.m4carbine.net/showpost.php?p=738504&postcount=86

From the second link


...
So far, two states confirm the BattleComp as a legal compensator: California and Connecticut.

Be safe,
Alan

That's from the mfg.

[JBecker 72]

I'm very confused by this thread as these two posts seem to indicate that a Battlecomp is very much CA legal.

https://www.m4carbine.net/showpost.php?p=687242&postcount=239
https://www.m4carbine.net/showpost.php?p=738504&postcount=86

From the second link


That's from the mfg.

Legal for use on a bullet button equipped rifle, yes. Legal to use on a featureless rifle, no. Featureless meaning no collapsible stock, no pistol or vertical fore grip, no bayonet lug, no flash hiding muzzle device.

The Battlecomp clearly possesses flash hiding characteristics and is therefore a no go on a featureless rifle, but legal on a fixed mag rifle. The legal experts on CALGUNS who pioneered the return of AR's and AK's in CA (as well as other semi auto rifles) say to stay away from this one.

ETA: here is a video showing the effectiveness of the Battlecomp as a flash hider compared to a widely accepted muzzle brake used for featureless rifles.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0cW8O7MCSU&feature=youtu.be

[JBecker 72]

100% understood.

Do two things:

1) PM the user.

2) PM the SME.

Let the chips fall where they may after that. Thanks. In this case, I have emailed LAV for clarification.

Ed

Thanks, I pm'ed the user with a link to this thread.

[MistWolf]

To be clear-

CalGuns consider the BC a grey area. BCE does not claim it to be a flash suppressor which BCE says the DOJ told them that was the criteria. However, the law also talks about performance and claims. When BCE made claims the BC also reduces muzzle flash, that put them in a grey area. CalGuns recommends not using the BC because it is unknown how the DOJ will treat it

[JBecker 72]

To be clear-

CalGuns consider the BC a grey area. BCE does not claim it to be a flash suppressor which BCE says the DOJ told them that was the criteria. However, the law also talks about performance and claims. When BCE made claims the BC also reduces muzzle flash, that put them in a grey area. CalGuns recommends not using the BC because it is unknown how the DOJ will treat it

Correct. But considering how people have been arrested on "assault weapon" charges for 100% legal rifles and had to pay to defend themselves, I wouldn't risk a grey area 1 bit in this state.

[PRGGodfather]

Except we have NEVER made the claim to reduce flash, and that is the nature of this Internet controversy.

I spoke directly with CA DOJ Firearms Bureau Chief Steve Buford BEFORE we opened for business in May of 2010. The ATF referred me to CALDOJ, because the sunsetting of the federal ban left them without jurisdiction. We would NEVER claim to be a CA LEGAL COMPENSATOR if we were not.

WE, specifically as BCE, have NEVER claimed to reduce flash.

This question was answered over two years ago.

Panic, fear, distrust and bluntly, some unscrupulous and dishonorable motives drive a question already addressed.

We don't blame folks for not trusting the government. We merely ask you not put words in OUR mouths in the process.

Thanks for your patience and understanding.

[JBecker 72]

Except we have NEVER made the claim to reduce flash, and that is the nature of this Internet controversy.

I spoke directly with CA DOJ Firearms Bureau Chief Steve Buford BEFORE we opened for business in May of 2010. The ATF referred me to CALDOJ, because the sunsetting of the federal ban left them without jurisdiction. We would NEVER claim to be a CA LEGAL COMPENSATOR if we were not.

WE, specifically as BCE, have NEVER claimed to reduce flash.

This question was answered over two years ago.

Panic, fear, distrust and bluntly, some unscrupulous and dishonorable motives drive a question already addressed.

We don't blame folks for not trusting the government. We merely ask you not put words in OUR mouths in the process.

Thanks for your patience and understanding.

Do you have a letter you can produce from CA DOJ to verify this? It would sure make this argument go away. Where the problem stems from is one of the DOJ parameters stating they would test the compensator for flash reducing qualities should the need arise in a criminal trial. As there are numerous videos out there as well as customer reviews on your very site stating the comps flash reducing capabilities, it seems like the fears are founded.

Note: I have a BC 1.0 on one of my rifles and I love it. That rifle however has a bullet button on it as it has "evil features".

[Suwannee Tim]

What is "featureless"?

[rero360]

Thank you for commenting PRGGodfather and letting everyone know the steps your company have taken to ensure compliance with the retarded laws.

My comment wasn't meant to disparage your company or product in any way, buddy of mine has one on his BBed AR and I thought it was fantastic, fit and finish, and performance actually shooting the gun. I guess its purely a result of the convoluted, confusing and at times contradictory laws here. Seems there are too many grey areas that are open to individual interpretation that could result in felony charges that many just avoid it to be safe.

Hopefully some opinion letters from the CADOJ, and the successful conclusion to some current lawsuits going up the courts will clarify everything.

Keep up the good work.

[rero360]

What is "featureless"?

Featureless in CA means that the rifle does not have:
pistol grip
adjustable stock
flash hider
Thumb hole stock
grenade or flare launcher
forward pistol grip

Not having these features allows you to use the original magazine release and any sized magazine you own.

However if you want any or all of those features, you must install a bullet button and only use 10 round magazines

Also, you can't use a bullet button on a featureless rifle because if you insert a magazine with a capacity of greater than 10 rounds you break another portion of the law and make yourself a felon, can't have fixed magazine rifles with capacities greater than 10 rounds.

Its all retarded, can't wait for it to get struck down or I leave the state, which ever happens first.

http://www.calguns.net/caawid/flowchart.pdf

[PRGGodfather]

Do you have a letter you can produce from CA DOJ to verify this? It would sure make this argument go away. Where the problem stems from is one of the DOJ parameters stating they would test the compensator for flash reducing qualities should the need arise in a criminal trial. As there are numerous videos out there as well as customer reviews on your very site stating the comps flash reducing capabilities, it seems like the fears are founded.

Note: I have a BC 1.0 on one of my rifles and I love it. That rifle however has a bullet button on it as it has "evil features".

We wish we did. While the law says they test for "flash reducing qualities," the practical truth is: NO such test exists. If it did, we would have happily submitted the BattleComp for such testing to receive such a letter. Simply, there is no bureacracy to accomplish the statute's vagaries.

I have 27 years of experience, including over 15 as an LE supervisor/manager, and I know Steve Buford and our regional ATF Agent personally.

In prosecutions for such arcane violations, the three-part test is, "Does the device have a solid face (Can you stick your finger in it)? Is back-pressure part of its functionality?" Most sublimely, the last part of the three-part test is, "What does the manufacturer call it?" We couldn't make that up.

The A2 device is commonly accepted as legal on CA Legal Rifles (CLRs), and depending with whom one speaks; the venerable A2 ITSELF is referred to as BOTH a "flash hider" an "A2 compensator," becuase the A2 has a solid bottom.

This LANGUAGE is the problem. We use terms interchangeably, and legally, they can be difficult to distinguish -- ESPECIALLY when the folks who bandy these terms about, don't really know for themselves. There IS no technical definition. It's like trying to describe the color BLUE to someone who cannot see.

The BattleComp has a flash signature brighter than an A2 muzzle device. Yet, muzzle flash can be eliminated with the selection of ammunition which use flash retardants. That said, what test should be used?

As to the legal landscape in CA, UNLESS YOU HAVE A CROWNED BARREL ONLY, it is always possible that the WRONG LEO, through ignorance, incompetence or even an anti-gun agenda, could make hay with virtually ANY SCREW-ON DEVICE, even if it was pinned and welded.

There is an old saying, "The Constitution means what the cop on the corner THINKS it means." Caveat emptor.

Whenever we encounter this question (which is very frequently), we always advise our customers, in summary:

"We are NOT lawyers and we CANNOT dispense legal advice. We call the BattleComp a compensator, and we designed it specifically as such. For legal clarification, certification or assurance, please contact the CALDOJ directly. It is unlikely an official letter will be provided."

That's the best advice we can give.

FOR THE RECORD, in EVERY case where a BCE customer has contacted their State DOJ; whether New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and even the very QUEEN of the NANNY States -- California -- we are a compensator. WE HAVE NOT BEEN TURNED DONE EVEN ONCE.

Like us, MOST Internet pundits are also not licensed to practice law; yet it does not stop them from asserting their "legal opinions" about any number of things. We encourage more collective cooperation.

Distrust, fear and ignorance are the very tools hoplophobes and tyrants employ to pass such nonsensical legal schemes in the first place. Frankly, sometimes even the CALGUNS folks -- who BCE supports 1000% in philosophy (and early in our corporate history, we used their financial fiasco known as GUNPAL as our OWN payment gateway) -- are our own worst enemies. When we bicker about such things, the anti-gunners WIN.

Need to know for certain? Please contact the DOJ. Don't be surprised if they tell you to go ahead; yet not provide a letter. We would encourage one to take the agent's name, and the date and time of your call. If you prefer, write a letter. Perhaps you will receive a written response.

At no time; however, should you trust the legal "opinion" of someone unlicensed to practice law (and even some who are licensed are little sketchy, too). The buyer IS responsible for the most informed decision -- and that is best found at the CALDOJ -- not the Internet.

Good luck, be safe, and shoot straight. We wish you all the very best.

[PRGGodfather]

Featureless in CA means that the rifle does not have:
pistol grip
adjustable stock
flash hider
Thumb hole stock
grenade or flare launcher
forward pistol grip

Not having these features allows you to use the original magazine release and any sized magazine you own.

However if you want any or all of those features, you must install a bullet button and only use 10 round magazines

Also, you can't use a bullet button on a featureless rifle because if you insert a magazine with a capacity of greater than 10 rounds you break another portion of the law and make yourself a felon, can't have fixed magazine rifles with capacities greater than 10 rounds.

Its all retarded, can't wait for it to get struck down or I leave the state, which ever happens first.

http://www.calguns.net/caawid/flowchart.pdf

Yet, there IS NO TEST for "flash hider" or "compensator." It is truly a language issue, not a technical one.

Further, Sen. Leland Yee's SB249, if passed, will create a new class of firearms also called "Assault Weapons" -- the epitome of an ill-defined (if wholly WRONG) term. These previously-termed "California Legal Rifles" (CLRs with bullet buttons) will be NEWLY registerable as "Assault Weapons." Once registered, owners will have the legal paperwork required to reinstall the original mag release, and any other features currently outlawed. Such paperwork also allows you to use any capacity magazine, provided it was legally acquired.

Those of us who registered our ARs during original 1989 ban, the 1994 ban and the 2001 ban saw it happen then. The list keeps growing. Terms keep changing. Gun owners, designers and inventors challenge the definitions with new products. They've tried three times, and there are more AR variants in CA than any other state.

Legally registered "Assault Weapons" get returned, if wrongfully confiscated.

Registering California Legal Rifles as "Assault Weapons" will provide CLR owners the legal means to convert CLRs into the very rifles the Hon. Mr. Lee wants to destroy. The more he wants to outlaw, the more "Assault Weapons" he will create. The more he creates, the more will be registered. Registered "Assault Weapons" can feature real mag releases, pistolgrips, telescoping stocks, and flash ELIMINATORS like the Brakeout and the Vortex -- two of the best flash hiders around. That's irony.

[PRGGodfather]

Thank you for commenting PRGGodfather and letting everyone know the steps your company have taken to ensure compliance with the retarded laws.

My comment wasn't meant to disparage your company or product in any way, buddy of mine has one on his BBed AR and I thought it was fantastic, fit and finish, and performance actually shooting the gun. I guess its purely a result of the convoluted, confusing and at times contradictory laws here. Seems there are too many grey areas that are open to individual interpretation that could result in felony charges that many just avoid it to be safe.

Hopefully some opinion letters from the CADOJ, and the successful conclusion to some current lawsuits going up the courts will clarify everything.

Keep up the good work.

No worries, brother. First, we definitely never take it that way. Second, thank YOU -- for your graciousness, class, and support.

Best to you and yours,
Alan

[ChocLab]

There is so much FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) about your device over at Calguns regarding use on a non-fixed mag rifle. Here is a pic for those who do not know how we have to configure rifles in California to use the mag release from a vendor who sells grip wraps.

http://i634.photobucket.com/albums/uu65/mcad33/DSC01166.jpg

I can not say that I am not swayed somewhat by such inferences. Not because of what is said and your cogent arguments but the risk of $10k legal bill to fight an aggressive DA or prosecution.

What I can say working for exec management of an City, gives me unique access to chiefs, captains, lieutenants etc... The scary part is many are not aware of the intracacies of the law that surrounds CA's confusing AW ban nor are its officers. In fact, I gave our former chief the "do you have an AW "flowchart" years ago and he joked that he would have me answer the questions if this ever came up in a discussion with the Council. Your quote about the cop on the corner and the constitution is great. I am using that next time with the City Attorney.

[PRGGodfather]

I can not say that I am not swayed somewhat by such inferences. Not because of what is said and your cogent arguments but the risk of $10k legal bill to fight an aggressive DA or prosecution.

What I can say working for exec management of an City, gives me unique access to chiefs, captains, lieutenants etc... The scary part is many are not aware of the intracacies of the law that surrounds CA's confusing AW ban nor are its officers. In fact, I gave our former chief the "do you have an AW "flowchart" years ago and he joked that he would have me answer the questions if this ever came up in a discussion with the Council. Your quote about the cop on the corner and the constitution is great. I am using that next time with the City Attorney.


Exactly my point. When the policy makers don't know, and the issue is politically charged by the ignorant -- the path of least resistance results in the erosion of rights. Maybe some case law will help.

Yes, the scrolling photos on www.battlecomp.com include a SOCOM16 with a BABC.

Calguns is a good bunch of folks; yet, the anti-LEO sentiment there can be palpable at times, even if sometimes deserved. Far too many folks (cops, too) follow a crowd without even asking about the direction.

Interestingly, the "reduction" claims made that muddy the waters are not made by us. Further, we have never been turned down by ANY state, ever. Anti-gun legal schemes stopped making sense a long time ago, and comprehending the reasons behing this current scheme is much like picking up a turd by the clean end. "Assault Weapon" bans are arbitrary and capricious. The first three bans haven't done a thing to reduce crime or stall purchases of AR lowers. In fact, we expect to see an increase in sales due to Yee's half-baked bill.

No one has ever been prosecuted or jailed for possession of a BattleComp. Yet, we understand the "FUD" and we really can't blame folks for how they feel. You are your own SME, and ultimately, it's your Habeus Grabbus and your comfort zone that matters most.

Still, the best advice is to call the CALDOJ. Enough calls, and maybe they will issue a letter (although with the current AG), the rapture is more likely. We would EAGERLY submit the BC for testing, if they actually had a test -- but they don't. We pass the current three-prong legal test, though, to be sure.

Like Forrest Gump, "That's all I got to say 'bout thaat."

Take care, and yes, I think we did meet in Chino. That's when we met Buck for the first time. We will always owe LAV, SMGLee and Spartan Imports for that opportunity.

Thanks again for the support, kindness and graciousness.

[JBecker 72]

No one has ever been prosecuted or jailed for possession of a BattleComp.

Thanks for the responses. It certainly would be nice if the DOJ would issue a statement on this matter, as well as several others, but it seems they have no interest in responding to these questions.

Regarding the part I quotes, I believe you are correct, however there are numerous cases of people being arrested and hassles by law enforcement over what turned out to be a legal rifle.

Would you be willing to state what you wrote here over there? This topic literally comes up daily there and the overwhelming consensus is that it should be avoided. It sure would be nice to clear this up and possibly even get a confirmation in writing from DOJ.

Thanks



Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

[rero360]

Not just that, but there was individual arrested by the same police department and charged with gun charges twice for the exact same guns, which were totally legal. He was in the process of suing them for the first time when they arrested him the second time if memory serve me correctly.

If that ain't a sign of a broken system than I don't know what is.


Thanks for the responses. It certainly would be nice if the DOJ would issue a statement on this matter, as well as several others, but it seems they have no interest in responding to these questions.

Regarding the part I quotes, I believe you are correct, however there are numerous cases of people being arrested and hassles by law enforcement over what turned out to be a legal rifle.

Would you be willing to state what you wrote here over there? This topic literally comes up daily there and the overwhelming consensus is that it should be avoided. It sure would be nice to clear this up and possibly even get a confirmation in writing from DOJ.

Thanks



Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

[jasonhgross]

Just out of curiosity, is the battlecomp 1.5 a go or no go on a featureless rifle in California? Mostly concerned with the "can you put your finger in it" test.

[MistWolf]

PRGodfather, I apologize for the confusion my prior post caused. I was in a rush before heading off to work and was too brief. Nevertheless, I pulled the trigger on the post and own it.

The BCE website states The BattleComp gives the tactical operator excellent control WITHOUT the excessive concussion and crushing blast produced by most compensators on the market -- with flash comparable to an A2 -- and all in an A2-sized package

CalGuns is basing their "grey area" classification on strict interpretation of the law and claims on threads posted on various forums that the BC reduces flash. I don't think CalGuns has the full story

[PRGGodfather]

No worries, brother.


Simply, we are a California Legal Compensator. There is no question for anyone using a bullet button.
The BC1.5 has a closed face and the identical internals as all our 5.56 models. The hood extends so a 14.5" barrel reaches the legal 16" OAL when the device is pinned/welded.
For those truly interested in determining the CALDOJ's actual position on BattleComps for featureless rifles, PLEASE CONTACT THE CALDOJ.
That is the best advice we can offer, and further "muddying" of this confusing legal scheme will not get us closer to the DOJ's opinion.

BCE is not responsible for any past, present or future LE incompetence and/or malicious prosecutions in the US or elsewhere, whether inadvertent or intentional; and offers no comments about them.

Thank for your friendship, support and the faith you have placed in our products, customer service, and the contributions we have made to this commmunity. We truly appreciate it.

We wish you only the very best to you and yours.

Be safe, have fun and shoot straight.

[trinydex]

Yet, there IS NO TEST for "flash hider" or "compensator." It is truly a language issue, not a technical one.

Further, Sen. Leland Yee's SB249, if passed, will create a new class of firearms also called "Assault Weapons" -- the epitome of an ill-defined (if wholly WRONG) term. These previously-termed "California Legal Rifles" (CLRs with bullet buttons) will be NEWLY registerable as "Assault Weapons." Once registered, owners will have the legal paperwork required to reinstall the original mag release, and any other features currently outlawed. Such paperwork also allows you to use any capacity magazine, provided it was legally acquired.

Those of us who registered our ARs during original 1989 ban, the 1994 ban and the 2001 ban saw it happen then. The list keeps growing. Terms keep changing. Gun owners, designers and inventors challenge the definitions with new products. They've tried three times, and there are more AR variants in CA than any other state.

Legally registered "Assault Weapons" get returned, if wrongfully confiscated.

Registering California Legal Rifles as "Assault Weapons" will provide CLR owners the legal means to convert CLRs into the very rifles the Hon. Mr. Lee wants to destroy. The more he wants to outlaw, the more "Assault Weapons" he will create. The more he creates, the more will be registered. Registered "Assault Weapons" can feature real mag releases, pistolgrips, telescoping stocks, and flash ELIMINATORS like the Brakeout and the Vortex -- two of the best flash hiders around. That's irony.

whoa... so there will be a rush to buy bb lowers in order to register them?

[PRGGodfather]

Undoubtedly. A mad rush usually precedes a gun ban attempt. History will repeat itself.