Armory Sponsor
Posted: 1/14/2008 6:46:21 AM EDT
|
Victor, may I ask what your policy is regarding sales to California? It seems to me that passive night vision is OK, but integrated IR illuminators are not. The 'telescope' wording also leads me to believe that 1x optics with integrated IR are ok, but any magnification would make them illegal. Specifically, I would think the PVS-14 and MUM-14 are not legal due to the integrated IR and 'adaptability' to use on a firearm, but COULD be construed as legal because they are 1x. The D-760 or 740 without the optional IR illuminator would be legal. On the other hand, my use of these devices would be strictly for scientific research or educational purposes  ; would a letter to that effect allow their sale?The law (straight out of 1958): 
|
|
I'm guessing that law was written specifically because of this. |
|
There has been some case law regarding this issue I wish I could find again. Back in the 90's a person was arrested in Northern Cali with a so-called NV Sniper Scope. The key word is INTEGRATED IR illumination. The case law I read was about a magnified NV optic and another IR attached light to another part of the rifle. The case was ultimately thrown out due to the scope did NOT have an illuminator built into it. The bottom line is magnified NV rifle scopes are not illegal in California unless they have a integrated IR light source. Of course, none of the D-760's, D-740's or Raptors has anything like this. PVS-14's, MUM's, D-300's, GT's etc. are NOT illegal as a hand held option, but when mounted on a rifle, (the grey area begins) and these can be considered a NV sniper scope with magnification attachments as I interpreted the "telescope" wording as well. I am NOT an attorney and any "official" legal advice would be best sought from a qualified legal expert. Hope this helps. Vic PS. Sorry for the late response as I have been on JURY DUTY!!  My presence should END VERY SHORTLY! 
|
OHHH GOOD GOD that is disjointed and a mess. I had never heard about this crap before but being that it is California I am not even remotely surprised. I like California for it's countryside but that is about it... Couldn't live there again nope soooory. The bottom line is unless you are doing something an LEO could deem illegal then you are fine. On the flip side of that, if any LEO wants to press the issue and even if you are completely within the letter of the law, expect to spend large amounts of cash (in legal fees) to get you property back. Just ask Tim Goins... IPSC_GUY SIERRA II ALPHA |
Thanks for the reply Vic. The way the law is worded, I wasn't so sure about a separate IR light source being legal. The 'sniperscope' could be considered one device. A passive device is not a 'sniperscope', and an IR illuminator is not a 'sniperscope'. OR, put together on the rifle, they could be a 'an attachment, device, or similar contrivance' that together would constitute a 'sniperscope.' Don't you just love the law? If anybody out there can find the Northern California case, I'd be forever in your debt. LOL jury duty! I can imagine your answers to some of their questions... |
| that is just the sort of ambiguous law that we get heaped on us here in the uk, its deliberatley worded like that so the authorities can argue that it coveres more than it should . thank your lucky stars that you have that constitution to save you from being smothered in this stuff like we are here. or mebe im wrong - . |
Thank you for the reply! Not to get off topic, but amen to our constitution even though it gets attacked from every corner, especially from some folks that are from other countries that come to live here. Even though our (American) brave men and women were the ones who actually fought and died (even today) to fight for their freedoms only to have them come over here and attack our constitution and open it up to their interpretation??? Strange times we live in.  Btw, just noticed this was your first post! Welcome aboard, a great site with VERY knowledgeable folks. Enjoy, Vic |
Armory Sponsor