Battle comp legality?

[ZekeLuvs1911 1]

Ok, I need to know if the Battle Comp 1.5 is NJ legal. I would like to hear from any FFL in NJ that can tell me because my local gunstore says no but the manufacturer is saying yes.

[raz-0 1,259]

It's a comp, not a flash suppressor. It needs to be pinned or welded, but it's legal. Here's a comparison (the pws is legal).

 

[RUTGERS95 890]

I spoke to the owner over a year ago and he told me he spoke to whomever and it's legal in nj. He was pretty emphatic about it too. Now I know, he's selling his product but it's not a flash supressor.

[Shane45 807]

I have had a 1.0 and have a 2.0 on mine. I dont want to debate the legality of the 1.5 but I will say my personal comfort level with NJ (or the lack therof) I avoided the 1.5 due to the way its recessed.

[JackDaWack 2,895]

I have had a 1.0 and have a 2.0 on mine. I dont want to debate the legality of the 1.5 but I will say my personal comfort level with NJ (or the lack therof) I avoided the 1.5 due to the way its recessed.

While i have a tendency to agree with this, at the same time, nothing in the statute defines what a muzzle brake is, or how it has to be designed. Therefore, the 1.5 does fall within the law, as it is a muzzle break by design and function. It is also advertised as a muzzle brake. The simple fact is, you can be wrongfully prosecuted for a number of things, this being one of them, but u wouldnt have a hard time proving its a muzzle brake. The idea that all muzzle brakes must have a closed end is not correct, it's just another one of NJ's vauge terms and a rule of thumb, but there is, like everything in life, exceptions.

 

FYI- i have a battle comp 1.5, and it does make me worry, but in the end it is a muzzle break, i like it, and i aint gonna let retarded NJ spoil my fun! A huge plus is the pre-drilled hole at the 6 for pinning, i just tapped a hole into the threads bought some steel pins brought to a friends shop and had it tacked. So for the extra cash it costs, it wound up being the same, as there is no way i was going to make the initial hole myself in the brake, maybe if i had a drill press, but it didnt cost me anything to get it tacked and the rest of the work i did myself.

[ZekeLuvs1911 1]

Ok, I sent pictures and website link of the BC 1.5 to two different NJ FFL's and both said it is close to being a flash suppressor but it is good to go in NJ. What the hell am I looking at that will make the difference???

[evo03 0]

If that one is questionable then my PWS FSC-556 must really be illegal. As I read the law and how many others have agreed, if it is listed as a comp. you are good to go.

[JackDaWack 2,895]

Ok, I sent pictures and website link of the BC 1.5 to two different NJ FFL's and both said it is close to being a flash suppressor but it is good to go in NJ. What the hell am I looking at that will make the difference???

They "want" a muzzle break to have a closed end, the exit hole is a little larger then the bore. This however, doesn't make a muzzle brake, it is just what they look for to determine if it is a muzzle brake. The simple answer is the battlecomp does nothing to suppress the flash, if anything it makes it slightly bigger. The 1.5 does have the closed end, it is just recessed, which makes people hesitant. I believe the BATFE declared the FSC as a muzzle brake, but the 1.5 came out after they stopped ruling on these things.

[evo03 0]

They "want" a muzzle break to have a closed end, the exit hole is a little larger then the bore. This however, doesn't make a muzzle brake, it is just what they look for to determine if it is a muzzle brake. The simple answer is the battlecomp does nothing to suppress the flash, if anything it makes it slightly bigger. The 1.5 does have the closed end, it is just recessed, which makes people hesitant. I believe the BATFE declared the FSC as a muzzle brake, but the 1.5 came out after they stopped ruling on these things.

Yes the BATFE did declare that the FSC was not a flash suppressor. I have a copy of the letter from them stating this and it stays in the case with the gun just in case someone was to ever question it.

[n4p226r 105]

im not worried at all on this subject. if i get an AR, it will have a battlecomp 1.5 on it. the PWS FSC would be my 2nd choice.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

Yes the BATFE did declare that the FSC was not a flash suppressor. I have a copy of the letter from them stating this and it stays in the case with the gun just in case someone was to ever question it.

 

You do realize that it doesn't matter what the BATF thinks... only what the NJSP and AG office does...

[JimmyAGR 54]

You do realize that it doesn't matter what the BATF thinks... only what the NJSP and AG office does...

 

I think it does matter, and one of the reasons it is on my AR. Granted nothing in this state is ever clear, but when the BATF was the deciding factor, they ruled this a comp. I think that is probably as much of a guarantee we the people of NJ get. Could they try and prosecute, sure but they can do that for any of hundreds of unclear guidelines we are supposed to follow. There is no guarantees in NJ, but the letter from the BATF is at least something to stand on.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

I think it does matter, and one of the reasons it is on my AR. Granted nothing in this state is ever clear, but when the BATF was the deciding factor, they ruled this a comp. I think that is probably as much of a guarantee we the people of NJ get. Could they try and prosecute, sure but they can do that for any of hundreds of unclear guidelines we are supposed to follow. There is no guarantees in NJ, but the letter from the BATF is at least something to stand on.

 

Doesn't matter. There are plenty of things that are allowed by Federal Law that aren't allowed by State Law. While the BATF rules it one way, the NJSP can come out and say it's something different.

 

These people are not rational... or logical...

[JackDaWack 2,895]

You can use the ATF letters. NJ makes no effort to declare muzzle devices, so you have to make a judgement based on something. The courts in NJ will recognize the ATF letters although they don't have to follow them. Same thing with pinning a muzzle brake or stock. There are no such guidelines in NJ, and we use the ATF guidelines. If the state wont make a decision on clarifying it's regulations then we have to find something of equal status to compare to. This way, even if the courts rule against you, you have proven that you did everything in your power to follow the law. The simple answer is, you dont need the ATF letters, NJ cours will have to prove that the muzzle device is a flash suppressor, since they have no guidelines then they would have to directly prove it suppressors the muzzle flash. Same thing with pinning your brake, no guideline exists, if they didn't accept the ATF's guide then they would try and take it off, and put it back on to see if its perm or not. A muzzle brake is not a design, its a function, you cannot make a legal argument just by looking at it.

 

The simple fact is, you can be arrested just for having a muzzle device in the first place since any muzzle brake can be confused with a flash hider.... that closed end don't mean crap.

[evo03 0]

If they have nothing better to do then bust my balls about my comp. then I think they need to reassess their priorities.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

If they have nothing better to do then bust my balls about my comp. then I think they need to reassess their priorities.

 

Unfortunately, busting your balls is their priority... again, logic and rationality are completely vacant in the State Gov't of NJ.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

You can use the ATF letters. NJ makes no effort to declare muzzle devices, so you have to make a judgement based on something. The courts in NJ will recognize the ATF letters although they don't have to follow them. Same thing with pinning a muzzle brake or stock. There are no such guidelines in NJ, and we use the ATF guidelines. If the state wont make a decision on clarifying it's regulations then we have to find something of equal status to compare to. This way, even if the courts rule against you, you have proven that you did everything in your power to follow the law. The simple answer is, you dont need the ATF letters, NJ cours will have to prove that the muzzle device is a flash suppressor, since they have no guidelines then they would have to directly prove it suppressors the muzzle flash. Same thing with pinning your brake, no guideline exists, if they didn't accept the ATF's guide then they would try and take it off, and put it back on to see if its perm or not. A muzzle brake is not a design, its a function, you cannot make a legal argument just by looking at it.

 

The simple fact is, you can be arrested just for having a muzzle device in the first place since any muzzle brake can be confused with a flash hider.... that closed end don't mean crap.

 

Ambiguity is our enemy here. While you would probably win in court, you'd still lose thanks to legal fees and the temporary loss of your firearm.

[JackDaWack 2,895]

Ambiguity is our enemy here. While you would probably win in court, you'd still lose thanks to legal fees and the temporary loss of your firearm.

 

The point is it could happen to you with any muzzle break, or anything where the law fails to clarify or create definitions.

[nino 0]

Does anyone know why nj don't allow flash hiders?

[DevsAdvocate 112]

Does anyone know why nj don't allow flash hiders?

 

Because the asshats in Trenton said so.

[nino 0]

That's all. Bc they said so. That don't make sense at all

[KpdPipes 388]

Does anyone know why nj don't allow flash hiders?

 

because the laws were written by people who made decisions based on looks and names, rather than actual function. To the Chimpanzees who wrote the 1992 AWB a "Flash Hider" obviously means something that allowed you to shoot from cover without giving your position away..rather than the ACTUAL function which is to reduce the flash signature to the SHOOTER to preserve night vision.

[ZekeLuvs1911 1]

Thanks all. This state sucks and I will have to seriously think about getting out.

[70gto 142]

well its been a year , any more clarification either way, if this battlecomp 1.5 will be a problem here

[n4p226r 105]

you are never going to get a clear answer.  there is no specific definition of what constitutes a compensator and what is a brake and what is a flash hider.  normally you will hear if the opening in the front is much bigger than the bullet, you have a flash hider.  some will just go by whatever the manufacturer says.  i tend to go that route.  i wouldn't be worried personally about having a BC1.5

[n4p226r 105]

Does anyone know why nj don't allow flash hiders?

 

because in an effort to make assault weapons less lethal they decided that flash suppression was bad, and definitely much less lethal than a device that lets you get back on target faster for the next "assault"  

[70gto 142]

Just for laughs I will call NJSP firearms unit tomorrow and ask.

[n4p226r 105]

see if you can get it in writing.  i bet if you called 10 times you'll get 11 different answers

[Contrvlr 17]

well its been a year , any more clarification either way, if this battlecomp 1.5 will be a problem here

According to the date stamp on post#23 it's been 2 years

 

It's a BC1 with an extension, can't get your pinky down to where the threads are on the barrel proper, makes it a brake/comp