The legal issues around the C3

[Lohman446]

I decided to make this thread to pull it out of the main C3 discussion thread and to see what other people think. Under Michigan law all paintball markers are technically firearms, though this is not true of most laws and I have never heard of it being enforced.

Does the C3 present a new legal issue? It uses an explosion to, indirectly, fire a projectile. This should define it as a firearm under federal law as I understand it and creat all sorts of issues.

1) Its being sold mail order in violation of federal law.
2) Its being sold to minors.
3) Because the barrel is under 18" it is a short barreled rifle and again prohibited
4) Because it is over .50 caliber it becomes a "destructive device" Edit: Slarty pointed out, at least for point 4, because it is used in a sporting manner and readily acceptable for it, that it is probably exempt from destructive device classifications.

Those are my opinions, and my very well be wrong. I just wanted to know what other people thought, and perhaps make an easier thread for this topic of discussion in regards to the C3

[paullus99]

You know, you'd think Tippmann researched all of this ahead of time. Don't know how the actual law is going to be applied (since it seems like you could go either way, depending on interpretation of the law) - but I doubt a company like Tippmann would have gone ahead with something like this if they weren't covered legally.

[Lohman446]

You know, you'd think Tippmann researched all of this ahead of time. Don't know how the actual law is going to be applied (since it seems like you could go either way, depending on interpretation of the law) - but I doubt a company like Tippmann would have gone ahead with something like this if they weren't covered legally.

One would think... I wonder how they interpert it.

[SlartyBartFast]

One would think... I wonder how they interpert it.

Well, for starters, can you point us to the exact text of the US Federal definition of a firearm?

Without the wording, this is all simply idle speculation.

[Lohman446]

Well, for starters, can you point us to the exact text of the US Federal definition of a firearm?

Without the wording, this is all simply idle speculation.





(3) The term "firearm" means

(A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive;



Obviously there is much more to it so I left the page that can be found at, and I'm sure there are others, thats just the first one I found with the text.

Up to this point the term firearm has not applied in the federal law to markers because there is no explosion. State laws are different of course, and MI law for instance clearly states air as being one of the sources of projection.

[BigEvil]

Nowadays it doesnt really matter what the letter of the law is, all you need is one crusader on the bench and that it.

[OneEyedPimp]

Well in my expert opinion, I think it will not be considered a firearm. I say this because of a variety of reasons. The first being that the ignition of the propane does not directly act to propel the paintball. I think if, somehow, the explosion directly powerd the ball, not the gases created from it, I think we would have a problem.

The second reason is that your definition of a firearm is a rather recent one, and there are a variety of definitions for the firearm. This includes muzzle velocity, which is obiously low on the C3.

Thirdly, even if it is a firarm, I think it will be classified under blackpowder type laws, making the marker exempt from virtually every gun law in the U.S.

I will post more if I think of anything else. Keep in mind however, that every state has its own laws, therefore, I believe that each state will be forced to interpret this gun on its own, even thought that interperetation will not come until something bad happens with this gun.

[SlartyBartFast]

any type of weapon (other than a shotgun or a shotgun shell which the Secretary finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes) by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter;

Seeing as standard paintball markers haven't been subject to the definition of a firearm, when the above could be applied, why the worry now it's propane powered?

We're missing the list of exemptions I think.

[SlartyBartFast]

Nowadays it doesnt really matter what the letter of the law is, all you need is one crusader on the bench and that it.

That works BOTH ways.

One person's guerilla soldier is another's freedom fighter, and all that.

So in the interest of open and enlightened discussion let's not go down that path. If you feel the need to limit your thinking to throwing lables about, don't bother posting.

[Lohman446]

I do agree there may be no issues around this - I see the possibility there and am curious if Tippman has addressed them or not.

[slade]

(3) The term "firearm" means

(A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive;
the c3 fits the latter half, but is it a weapon? what is the legal definition of "weapon"? i doubt paintball markers fall under that.


any type of weapon (other than a shotgun or a shotgun shell which the Secretary finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes) by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter;
it says that shotguns are not included because they are suitable for sporting purposes, so clearly any sane person would likewise say paintball markers, regardless of the method of propulsion used, are not included under that legislation either.

[Lohman446]

the c3 fits the latter half, but is it a weapon? what is the legal definition of "weapon"? i doubt paintball markers fall under that.


it says that shotguns are not included because they are suitable for sporting purposes, so clearly any sane person would likewise say paintball markers, regardless of the method of propulsion used, are not included under that legislation either.

So thats in regards to a destructive device - but not a firearm. Your taking two sections and meshing them. A shotgun is still a firearm, it is exempt from being a destructive device.

[11 Bravo]

:rolleyes: OMG :rolleyes:

[WingMan13]

1) Its being sold mail order in violation of federal law.
2) Its being sold to minors.
3) Because the barrel is under 18" it is a short barreled rifle and again prohibited
4) Because it is over .50 caliber it becomes a "destructive device


Good points. Also, a FFL is needed to even manufacture a "firearm", so maybe that could be added to the list as well? (of course, we still are not 100% sure that Tippmann is in any violation)

[Lohman446]

Good points. Also, a FFL is needed to even manufacture a "firearm", so maybe that could be added to the list as well? (of course, we still are not 100% sure that Tippmann is in any violation)

The key I think hinges on if it is a firearm in the first place. We have always assumed that because there was no explosion in a paintball marker using CO2 or HPA that they were exempt, and I think that is clearly right in regards to federal law. The question is - does the explosion in the C3 constitute the explosion necessary to be a firearm, and if it does is the C3 exempt or not?

[wimag]

I do agree there may be no issues around this - I see the possibility there and am curious if Tippman has addressed them or not.

out of curiousity what is it with you and all the legalitiy posts ?
did Tippman look into what you are insinuating ? Without any insider info i would assume so otherwise they should hire you to point out these small details that their corporate lawyers may have missed.

[11 Bravo]

You all think that you are going to come up with legal points that Tippmann and their lawyers have not already covered. PPPaaaalease get over yourselves. I hope yall are just bored and dont have anything better to do. I would hate to think that you are serious about this.

[Lohman446]

out of curiousity what is it with you and all the legalitiy posts ?
did Tippman look into what you are insinuating ? Without any insider info i would assume so otherwise they should hire you to point out these small details that their corporate lawyers may have missed.

Law interests me, questions of law interest me. Thats where they come from. I have no idea if Tippman looked into it or not. Often one does things without considering, even though the never intend to, they may be violating the law. I am curious if Tippman did look into the legalities of this as it pertains to firearm law. They may have never questioned if they were in violation because it may have never occured to them. There corporate lawyers may never have been asked about it, or considered it outside of the text of patents, etc. I'm kind of curious to know and if they did look at it, what the interpertation was. It may be they think it falls easily into an exemption somewhere.

11 Bravo: I think SP came up with very strong legally based arguments that noone else considered regarding patents. It is very possible to miss things by never considering them.

[11 Bravo]

I dont know what they are called, but you know those little cardboard things with a pull string in them. You pull the string and paper confetti goes flying everywhere. Maybe those should be considered firearms under Michigan law. :tard:
.
.

[Lohman446]

Just for you Bravo


8.3T "Firearm" defined - Michigan law]
Sec. 3t. the word "firearm", except as otherwise specifically defined in the statutes, shall be construed to include any weapon from which a dangerous projectile may be propelled by using explosives, gas, or air as a means of propulsion, except any smooth bore rifle or handgun designed and manufactured exclusively for propelling BB's not exceeding .177 calibre by means of spring, gas, or air.

The discussion got into the word dangerous... perhaps.

Is there a good chance that I am wrong on this? Sure. Is there a chance that Tippman never even looked at firearm law on this? Sure. Is it a discussion that we can have that at least some of us might find interesting? I think so. Disagree - thats fine, but for the most part aside from your snide remarks you are bringing nothing of value to the discussion. Think I'm totally off base in even bringing up the discussion? You've made your point, why not just ignore it.

Think discussions of legality have no place on this board? I can point you to the thread that TK stickied and participated in the past regarding it. And his opinion about what is acceptable for these boards is far and away more important than yours.

[11 Bravo]

I will ignore it. You can enjoy yourself without me pointing out how silly this is anymore.

You know that confetti could cause paper cuts and that could be dangerous, thats something to consider in your discussion.

[MadPSIence]

8.3T "Firearm" defined - Michigan law]
Sec. 3t. the word "firearm", except as otherwise specifically defined in the statutes, shall be construed to include any weapon from which a dangerous projectile may be propelled by using explosives, gas, or air as a means of propulsion, except any smooth bore rifle or handgun designed and manufactured exclusively for propelling BB's not exceeding .177 calibre by means of spring, gas, or air.

Well according to that definition a paintball gun is already a firearm... so why the new debate? Under that law, blow a thumb tack out of a straw or shooting paper hornets with an elastic band could be called a firearm. I think the law for what a firearm is, is WELL defined in court and us people need to stop being so nit-picky in trying to make something not even borderline, look like a weapon.

This propane system is not more dangerous that a regular paintball gun. It's actually less so. You couldn't hold a flame to the barrel and get a flamethrower. The flame would be blown out. Even if you managed to rupture and ingnite a 2oz propane tank you're HIGHLY unlikey to sustain any injury. You suffer worse injuries being shoit by a paintball.

I think everyone in the scene is just looking at the word "propane" and thinking" oogahh! Propane, Fire... BOOM! Burn!" or all the little kiddies are saying "OMG Flamethrower" ... when both groups are really far off.....

[Shane-O-Mac]

Something to consider:

Tippman, before they made pball guns, made tabletop replica guns that fired 22lr ammo. Replicas like a browning machinegun, or something similar. Tippmann had to stop manufacturing them due to law changes in the 80's. SO Tippmann in my opinion are full aware of the laws that pertain to the C3 and their big wigs (summit) wouldnt allow anything to be sold unless it was CLEARLY legal. Can you imagine the possible repercussions the BATF could throw at you? They would not chance that, would you put a multi million dollar company on the line for this new gun? NO WAY!

Shane-O

[chefstevie]

I will ignore it. You can enjoy yourself without me pointing out how silly this is anymore.

You know that confetti could cause paper cuts and that could be dangerous, thats something to consider in your discussion.


and the point of your posting is... :tard:

[Lohman446]

8.3T "Firearm" defined - Michigan law]
Sec. 3t. the word "firearm", except as otherwise specifically defined in the statutes, shall be construed to include any weapon from which a dangerous projectile may be propelled by using explosives, gas, or air as a means of propulsion, except any smooth bore rifle or handgun designed and manufactured exclusively for propelling BB's not exceeding .177 calibre by means of spring, gas, or air.

Well according to that definition a paintball gun is already a firearm... so why the new debate? Under that law, blow a thumb tack out of a straw or shooting paper hornets with an elastic band could be called a firearm. I think the law for what a firearm is, is WELL defined in court and us people need to stop being so nit-picky in trying to make something not even borderline, look like a weapon.

This propane system is not more dangerous that a regular paintball gun. It's actually less so. You couldn't hold a flame to the barrel and get a flamethrower. The flame would be blown out. Even if you managed to rupture and ingnite a 2oz propane tank you're HIGHLY unlikey to sustain any injury. You suffer worse injuries being shoit by a paintball.

I think everyone in the scene is just looking at the word "propane" and thinking" oogahh! Propane, Fire... BOOM! Burn!" or all the little kiddies are saying "OMG Flamethrower" ... when both groups are really far off.....

The new debate centers on federal law. The fact of the matter is in practice the Michigan law is simply ignored in regards to paintball markers. The question is, does/will the ATF ignore the C3 if in fact it is (which is still in question) in violation of applicable firearm laws. Shane seems to have shed some historical perpective onto this with Tippman's background and I am curios now, beleiving they did look into it, what interpertation they came up with.

[11 Bravo]

and the point of your posting is... :tard:


Exactly. Without realizing it, you got my point.

[SlartyBartFast]

I will ignore it. You can enjoy yourself without me pointing out how silly this is anymore.

You know that confetti could cause paper cuts and that could be dangerous, thats something to consider in your discussion.

How old are you Bravo? Two? Discussion doesn't agree with your particular world view so it's wrong?

The irony of someone making posts debating the silliness of threads is almost too great to bear.

THankfully, neither you norI live in a dictatorship where any group can write laws and interpret them how they see fit without concequence. We live in democracies that allow the discussion of laws, their re-writing, and their interpretation according to lawyers, judges, politicians, and public opinion.

To have an informed opinion you HAVE to discuss issues. Or are you nieve or dumb enough to think all your fellow citizens follow the law or that the law is even sane in the first place?

Your poor attempt at sarcasm is a perfect example of why laws need to be discussed and people need to know the possible interpretations of laws. Should I assault you with a confetti thrower in Michigan, I may well be charged with assault with a firearm. Often the only think separating the application of a law and an exemption from it is intent.

Should someone complain about overshooting in Paintball to the police, in many jurisdictions it is assault with a firearm.

Assault in proffesional sport was once overlooked. Now, criminal charges have been placed against professional hockey players that overstep the bounds. What stopping a distraut parent or annoyed tournament player from pushing the definition of the law in a paintball related assault lawsuit?

[11 Bravo]

Lighten up. I never said that you cant discuss anything. Go ahead. You want to make your silly thoughts known and I wanted it known that I thought they were silly. We both have a right to voice our opinions and we did. One is silly and the other is not. If you want to take it so personal you can, but I think there are more important things to worry about.
This was not a discussion about assault, but you might as well add it to your big legal discussion - like its going to make any difference at all to anything.

If you want to discuss maturity- how mature is it to go on the offensive and get all upset and angry when someone disagrees with you. You come off as attacking and blustery - is it really important enough for you to get so upset.
Let us know how you and Lohman can save us from the legal troubles we are going to get into by playing paintball.

Save us all.

[SlartyBartFast]

If you want to discuss maturity- how mature is it to go on the offensive and get all upset and angry when someone disagrees with you.

You started it Bub.

If I say one opinion is assinine and one isn't. Or that posting simply to call the discussion of ideas silly is moronic. Is it just your fault if you take it personally. By your "logic" I guess it is.

Real low on the maturity scale to insult and dismiss other's opinions while holding your own as some kind of standard.

[11 Bravo]

"you started it" - Thanks for making my point about the maturity.
When this thread was started did lohman actually think that it was going to be taken seriously by anyone besides slartybartface? Plenty of other people have remarked at how rediculous this thread is but you seem to want to address me. I said that I would ignore this thread and let it continue without my input, but I cant do that if you keep bickering with me.
You can keep your feathers all ruffled and make remarks at me or you can go on with your enlightened legal discussion.
I would be glad to ignore anything further that you say about this terrible legal problem that the paintball world is facing as long as you leave me out of it.

[11 Bravo]

You started it Bub.

If I say one opinion is assinine and one isn't. Or that posting simply to call the discussion of ideas silly is moronic. Is it just your fault if you take it personally.

I dont take anything that you say seriously.

[chefstevie]

every single topic in this forum turns into an argument...wow

simply embarrassing...cmon ao i know we can do better than pbn!

[SlartyBartFast]

:cry:

Oh no. Name calling. :tard:

Think about it. You walk into a room with people talking. You don't like the topic so you make a snide comment and head for the door.

Can you really be surprised when you get a full pop/beer can to the back of the head?

It's our right to discuss whatever we want it's your right to leave. Don't hear anyone else clamouring for your wonderfully intelligent :rolleyes: discourse to continue. You 'input' hasn't amounted to a puddle of spit and you seem to be the only one that holds it in any regard.

Who are these "plenty" of people? The same people worrying about the dangers of propane and the possibility of changing this marker into a flamethrower?


Sorry, the thread went south Lohmann. I'd be happy to have a mod come in a erase all of this patehtic diatribe from both of us since Bravo's first post. :rolleyes:

[SlartyBartFast]

every single topic in this forum turns into an argument...wow

simply embarrassing...cmon ao i know we can do better than pbn!

It would be nice. These days the only difference between AO and PBN sometimes seems to be that bigger words are used by the interloping idiots who on PBN would post "NOOB" or "2k5er" or other dumb putdown.

But using "silly" is just unimaginative IMO. :p


I dont take anything that you say seriously.

So essentially, your life is so sad that your stalking Lohmann and me to make sad simplistic statements.

Bet you can't resist trying to get the last word in. :rofl:

[Muzikman]

Bravo, you just made my list of most annoying AOer.

Squid, if you read this, you have been bumped down to number 2 ;)



that second part was a joke

[KRAKMT]

Mr. Bravo I encourage you to watch http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting.php Please. Actually everyone should.

As to the legalities. It could make it quite intersting. Doesn't NY have very tight paintball regulations? What would it do to the sport if you could only purchase paintball equipment through an FFL? AND you had to be of age.

Did Tippman look into the laws- who knows? It would have been wise for them to have looked. And if it is true they had dealing in the area regarding miniture cannons then I would hope the researched the issue.

As for what fits under the definition- the law is directed at firearms manufacturors- and the process for which they are sold not what is a weapon(reference to fireworks- different regulations). Will a propane powered paintball markers be defined as a firearm and thereby subject to firearm regulations? If it does will it drag along pnuematics? I suspect the ATF probably doesn't want to deal with all the paintball crap.

[chefstevie]

Bravo, you just made my list of most annoying AOer.

Squid, if you read this, you have been bumped down to number 2 ;)



that second part was a joke

hahaha agreed.

[Lohman446]

"you started it" - Thanks for making my point about the maturity.
When this thread was started did lohman actually think that it was going to be taken seriously by anyone besides slartybartface? Plenty of other people have remarked at how rediculous this thread is but you seem to want to address me. I said that I would ignore this thread and let it continue without my input, but I cant do that if you keep bickering with me.
You can keep your feathers all ruffled and make remarks at me or you can go on with your enlightened legal discussion.
I would be glad to ignore anything further that you say about this terrible legal problem that the paintball world is facing as long as you leave me out of it.

TK has in the past chimed in on legal discussions, even on ones that were stretching liability standards. So have many others. Don't like a topic of discussion, fine ignore it. Have an opinion, fine state it. But quit using this forum to troll for flames. Where did I say it was a horrible legal situation? I pointed out that there could be an issue of interpertation, and I wondered if Tippman had addressed it.

[Lohman446]

Mr. Bravo I encourage you to watch http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting.php Please. Actually everyone should.

As to the legalities. It could make it quite intersting. Doesn't NY have very tight paintball regulations? What would it do to the sport if you could only purchase paintball equipment through an FFL? AND you had to be of age.

Did Tippman look into the laws- who knows? It would have been wise for them to have looked. And if it is true they had dealing in the area regarding miniture cannons then I would hope the researched the issue.

As for what fits under the definition- the law is directed at firearms manufacturors- and the process for which they are sold not what is a weapon(reference to fireworks- different regulations). Will a propane powered paintball markers be defined as a firearm and thereby subject to firearm regulations? If it does will it drag along pnuematics? I suspect the ATF probably doesn't want to deal with all the paintball crap.

Good point of contention. Didn't the ATF get involved though in regards to paintball silencers at one point as they could be easily converted towards firearms? How much does it change things if someone gets hold of pepperballs and uses them criminally in regards to all paintball markers? And is that just a matter of time?

Interesting tidbit from a charter boat captain I know. Michigan has cracked down on flare guns in violation of the Michigan laws on boats. Makes an interesting conondrum (sp) for those trying to meet Coast Guard regulations requiring flares (and the requirements for those flares) and Michigan law.

[-=Squid=-]

Jesus Christ, WOULD YOU STOP WITH THE DISCUSSION THREADS?

[Glickman]

Jesus Christ, WOULD YOU STOP WITH THE DISCUSSION THREADS?

THE POWER OF CHRIST COMPELLS YOU!


as far as the ATF and silencers, they never got involved to my knowledge, they just never allowed any sort of silencer that could be used to silence a firearm beyond usually 5 db (dont quote me on that), otherwise it has to be registered/approved at the BATF

i dont understand what pepperballs has to do with this conversation.

with the flare gun
"Is a flare gun used as a signaling device on a watercraft required to be registered in Michigan?
MCL 28.432b and 750.231c, No. "

this does not apply to vessels for hire though, so technically, on a charter, it is a pistol, and needs a carry license

[Huskie_American]

2) Its being sold to minors.
3) Because the barrel is under 18" it is a short barreled rifle and again prohibited
4) Because it is over .50 caliber it becomes a "destructive device" Edit: Slarty pointed out, at least for point 4, because it is used in a sporting manner and readily acceptable for it, that it is probably exempt from destructive device classifications.


and these differ from any other marker sold...how?

[AGD]

Guys,

Do you REALLY think this product is so creative NO ONE has thought of it before??? Maybe its not THAT obvious propane could be used as a power source after browsing all the nail guns at home depot?

SO...... maybe if you tell yourself "well yea a ton of peeps probably looked into that" then you have to ask the question....
Why haven't we seen it before????????

There is a VERY GOOD REASON that has to do with legal issues. Because once again I am under legal obligations not to say anything, I can't go into details. I think the smart guys here are asking the right questions, typically the rest just go with the flow (I had some other nasty comments but we will leave it at that).

AGD

[Lohman446]

and these differ from any other marker sold...how?

Other markers do not use an explosion as a source of propulsion and thus do not appear to meet the federal definition of a firearm (though they appear to under some state laws and are, thankfully, simply ignored).

[Lohman446]

i dont understand what pepperballs has to do with this conversation.

I brought up pepperballs as a question. Blissfully the ATF has basically left paintball alone to the best of my knowledge at least. It has been accepted that we are not using a weapon when we play, carrying one in our car, or selling one to minors or without the proper paperwork because they have not been used as a weapon. How does this change if there is a high profile "prank" employing a paintball marker and pepperballs into a crowd of people (and not by the police). Or are pepperballs a different enough caliber that its not possible? A paintball marker shoots a projectile - we may call them markers all we want, but would that classification stand if they started to be used more maliciously then the simple acts of vandalism and pranks we sometimes see. What if those pranks were more high profile?

[SlartyBartFast]

Because once again I am under legal obligations not to say anything, I can't go into details.

Well, I hope having to keep quiet is at least half as frustrating as hearing that you know something but can't say. :p


I think the smart guys here are asking the right questions, typically the rest just go with the flow.

On behalf of all those asking questions, thank you for the compliment. :cheers:


(I had some other nasty comments but we will leave it at that)

Don’t hold yourself back on that! :argh: You’re no president anymore, ruffle a few feathers. :p

Or, sign on with another username and have at it. ;)

[Glickman]

Guys,
Do you REALLY think this product is so creative NO ONE has thought of it before??? Maybe its not THAT obvious propane could be used as a power source after browsing all the nail guns at home depot?

AGD

not really, i think its been around for a while, expecially green gas (just propane, a lubricant, and a fragrance) in airsoft as i stated earlier. but what i do think is relatively new (to me atleast) is the way the C3 combusts to move the ball. i wouldnt be surprised if you had planned on marketing something like this already in that endless ingenious thinktank of yours :D , but ive, and apparently most other people havent heard of something that combusts to move the ball.

as far as the pepperballs go, i dont think it nessissarily needs to be pepperballs to get paintball guns classified as "dangerous" (although pepperballs wouldnt nessissarily help), just even some idiot kid shooting the wrong guy in the street. i do agree that the ATF has pretty much ignored paintball as a serious threat though.

[phantomhitman]

I posted this on a few other forums, so why not here.

There are all kinds of stories going around about counties and even states wanting to ban paintball because of the ignorant people in our sport (shooting signs, buildings, or even people). If they take that so seriously, and even attempting to, and successfully halting some (silencers), of the after market scenario mods you have to questions this. People have already started screwing with this gun trying to make it break or roast marshmellows. This would give a smart lawyer or judge with a vendetta against paintball the reason he/she needs to ban this gun and further hurt the sport in general. If they can do more over smaller issues I think the new tippmann gun would be considered a weapon of mass destruction.

[shartley]

Or, sign on with another username and have at it. ;)
That is good in theory but you forget this is AO. And on AO “who” says something is often more important than what is being said. Content is not as important as who is delivering it and we see good content shot down and attacked time and again here simply because folks don’t like the person saying it (and the opposite with bad content and behavior… it being left alone and not challenged). But enough of that….

I think this is a great topic though. And I have expressed my concerns about this as well (on other forums). But the general consensus with players seems to be that laws don’t matter….. that is until those laws bite them in the rear. Folks seem to think that just because a law has not been actively enforced that it does not “really” matter and that it can’t start to be actively enforced. This is a huge mistake and one that has gotten many a person in trouble when the winds change direction, or they upset the wrong person (be it a police officer or government official).

I think these markers are pretty nifty. I think they would take care of an “efficiency” issue for those with limited budgets. I think they would fill a nice spot in the pump market and specifically those who play long game formats. But I also think they teeter on the edge of legalities concerning the distinction between paintball markers and firearms (and in some jurisdictions fall right over the edge). And this has been an edge that most have tried to stay away from, for obvious reasons. It impacts more than just one marker, and could actually (IMHO) affect the sport in general.

Will it though? That is to be seen. I pray it doesn’t, but those who think it “can’t” should really open their eyes. It is far better to plan for the worse and try to avoid problems than it is to close your eyes running headlong into dangerous situations and hope things turn out okay.

[Muzikman]

That is good in theory but you forget this is AO. And on AO “who” says something is often more important than what is being said. Content is not as important as who is delivering it and we see good content shot down and attacked time and again here simply because folks don’t like the person saying it (and the opposite with bad content and behavior… it being left alone and not challenged). But enough of that….

I think this is a great topic though. And I have expressed my concerns about this as well (on other forums). But the general consensus with players seems to be that laws don’t matter….. that is until those laws bite them in the rear. Folks seem to think that just because a law has not been actively enforced that it does not “really” matter and that it can’t start to be actively enforced. This is a huge mistake and one that has gotten many a person in trouble when the winds change direction, or they upset the wrong person (be it a police officer or government official).

I think these markers are pretty nifty. I think they would take care of an “efficiency” issue for those with limited budgets. I think they would fill a nice spot in the pump market and specifically those who play long game formats. But I also think they teeter on the edge of legalities concerning the distinction between paintball markers and firearms (and in some jurisdictions fall right over the edge). And this has been an edge that most have tried to stay away from, for obvious reasons. It impacts more than just one marker, and could actually (IMHO) affect the sport in general.

Will it though? That is to be seen. I pray it doesn’t, but those who think it “can’t” should really open their eyes. It is far better to plan for the worse and try to avoid problems than it is to close your eyes running headlong into dangerous situations and hope things turn out okay.

I agree...

(Shutter)

:D

[11 Bravo]

In the end you are going to find that this is all about nothing. Tippmann has the drive to continue to be innovative unlike some companies. They continue to find better ways to build a mouse trap at a low cost. Maybe if they were threatened with legal action they would try and find a way to avoid it and still come up with new designs, without giving up and saying Oh we cant do that.

[Muzikman]

In the end you are going to find that this is all about nothing. Tippmann has the drive to continue to be innovative unlike some companies. They continue to find better ways to build a mouse trap at a low cost. Maybe if they were threatened with legal action they would try and find a way to avoid it and still come up with new designs, without giving up and saying Oh we cant do that.


And I am sure your years of paintball development and years of involvement in the industry tell you this. Maybe you traveled back in time to tell us this after seeing 5-10 years into the future.

It's not like a paintball company has never been sued or made to stop producing a product because the government had stepped in.

[Muzikman]

You can buy the pepper balls in some states and they are .68 cal. Even the FN rounds are .68 cal, though I have been trying to buy the marking FN rounds for over a year now and have not been able to no matter what state you are in.

Also, the government stepped in and stopped the development and sale of the BOA Concealer.

[Lohman446]

In the end you are going to find that this is all about nothing. Tippmann has the drive to continue to be innovative unlike some companies. They continue to find better ways to build a mouse trap at a low cost. Maybe if they were threatened with legal action they would try and find a way to avoid it and still come up with new designs, without giving up and saying Oh we cant do that.

I would like to think that Tippman has already addressed this. Do you conceive the difference between the threat of civil litigation and the threat of criminal penalties for violation of federal firearm laws? Major difference, its one thing to take risks in regards to civil penalties, quite another to take risks with criminal.

Considering TKs statement, and the fact that AGD was THE innovator in alternative power sources at one point (recall the search for a source that was better than CO2) I would think that he may have far more knowledge on this, from both the technical and legal aspects of this.

Patent violation: Might lead to civil (monetary penalties), likely avoided by a simple cease and desist agreement.
Federal firearms violation: in addition to civil penalties may also include criminal fines and jail time.

[11 Bravo]

I would like to think that Tippman has already addressed this. Do you conceive the difference between the threat of civil litigation and the threat of criminal penalties for violation of federal firearm laws? Major difference, its one thing to take risks in regards to civil penalties, quite another to take risks with criminal.

Considering TKs statement, and the fact that AGD was THE innovator in alternative power sources at one point (recall the search for a source that was better than CO2) I would think that he may have far more knowledge on this, from both the technical and legal aspects of this.

Patent violation: Might lead to civil (monetary penalties), likely avoided by a simple cease and desist agreement.
Federal firearms violation: in addition to civil penalties may also include criminal fines and jail time.


I have to ask do you think that Tippmann did not think of looking into what the BATF would think of this gun? I am sure they didnt just put it out there and hope nothing happens. The owners of Tippmann put a lot of money into the company and I am sure that they are not going to risk it on being stupid.
We could all be wrong. None of us has seen the gun. It could be the most dangerous piece of krud ever produced. If someone modifies the gun it could be dangerous, but that is true with all markers. Then again it could be the new "wonder system" and is impossible to modify. None of us knows yet. So its kind of pointless. TK brought up nail guns that use gas as the driving force. Should those fall under gun laws?
And yes AGD was an innovator and a great one. I am going to leave it at that, theres more that could be said. That would turn this into a Tippmann vs. AGD thread and I dont want to do that.

[Lohman446]

I have to ask do you think that Tippmann did not think of looking into what the BATF would think of this gun? I am sure they didnt just put it out there and hope nothing happens. The owners of Tippmann put a lot of money into the company and I am sure that they are not going to risk it on being stupid.
We could all be wrong. None of us has seen the gun. It could be the most dangerous piece of krud ever produced. If someone modifies the gun it could be dangerous, but that is true with all markers. Then again it could be the new "wonder system" and is impossible to modify. None of us knows yet. So its kind of pointless. TK brought up nail guns that use gas as the driving force. Should those fall under gun laws?
And yes AGD was an innovator and a great one. I am going to leave it at that, theres more that could be said. That would turn this into a Tippmann vs. AGD thread and I dont want to do that.

I am curious if Tippman looked into this or not and what the conclusion was. I'm not the only person who wonders. No, its not conceited, I don't know if the thought ever even crossed anyone's mind in the development of this. Often one does not consider every aspect of what they are doing and how it could be taken differently than they mean.

[11 Bravo]

We could also be living in two totally different worlds and not understand where the other is coming from. I live in a state that is pretty much no nonsense and has common sense when it comes to the lives of its citizens (unless your Rush Limbough). Other states may be a little different so I will differ to your point as to where and how paintball may be affected in your area.
I have read posts from people in other areas of the country that honestly supprised me. I would have thought some of these stories would have come from a less free country. Such as the Soviet Union. So from my point of view here in Florida I dont think its a big deal, but I can see where in other areas it may be.

[Muzikman]

Just because you are in Florida doesn't mean you are safe. People have this strange thought that states rights still exist or something.

[11 Bravo]

Okay I give up.
I was just trying to point out that we are probably coming at this from two different life experiences. From two different areas of the country. Lets not get into state rights.

And I appologize for being sarcastic yesterday, maybe it was the hurricane :) .

[SlartyBartFast]

At least the level of discussion has improved.


I have to ask do you think that Tippmann did not think of looking into what the BATF would think of this gun?

Considering that Tippmann previously got into hot water with the BATF over the production of their fully functional scale model gattling gun, I'd think they have a history to worry about.

If they have looked into it, it would enlightening for them to come forward with the information.


I live in a state that is pretty much no nonsense and has common sense when it comes to the lives of its citizens.

Never trust common sense. Trust only the written law.

Laws and their effects have nothing to do with any concept of "free". Many people confuse freedom and democracy with being allowed to live as they please. Whether you're living in the same room as someone, the house, or the same community, balance has to made between collective and individual rights and freedoms.

Falling into the trap of discussing the Soviet Union or dictatorships is just wrong. That's not where any of us live. Do I have more freedom than you because I can drive faster on my highways than you? No.

Do I think you have more freedom because you can obtian handguns with a barrel shorter than I can? No.

But you have to admit that even in Florida, the classification of paintball equipment under firearms regulations could have a hugely detrimental effect on the paintball industry.

No one will come to the defense of a sport that uses firearms to shoot at live participants.

[phantomhitman]

There are only 3 innovations left in paintball
1-airsource
2-loader speed
3-type of play

Just about every single manufacturer has a gun that can outshoot a halo, and every gun could use a better airsource regardless of speed. Other than that only the game can change. So why get mad at wdp, agd, or dye because they do not make an innovative design every year? You cannot maxim9ize the guns now, what else do you want? I guess you want a lighter, better looking, minor upgraded gun....oh wait.......

[SlartyBartFast]

For Americans curious about federal laws concerning paintball and the Tippmann C3,

For answers from the BATF, the FAQ on spud guns probably covers paintball markers:
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#a29

Of course if you really were serious about finding out, you could contact your local field office:
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#a33

Canadian law seems much clearer and liberal than American law.

Canadian law bases the determination of whether something is subject to firearms law or not on muzzle energy.

American law seems to leave a lot of the question up to the whim and interpretation of the ATF. I couldn't even find a legal definiton of "dangerous" as used by the ATF.

[Lohman446]

Interesting in relation to spud guns. I would question a major difference in that, spud guns, at least in my experience, are generally not fired at people. My concern more is if it is classified as a firearm because someone shoots someone not participating in the sport with it - how much trouble are the people who sold it, in violation of federal law, in? In general spud guns are homemade and not manufactured, or sold mail order to minors. I think.

[11 Bravo]

There are only 3 innovations left in paintball
1-airsource
2-loader speed
3-type of play

Just about every single manufacturer has a gun that can outshoot a halo, and every gun could use a better airsource regardless of speed. Other than that only the game can change. So why get mad at wdp, agd, or dye because they do not make an innovative design every year? You cannot maxim9ize the guns now, what else do you want? I guess you want a lighter, better looking, minor upgraded gun....oh wait.......


Are you talking to me? I am not mad at anyone or any company. I think out off all of those companies that you listed only one is not doing anything to improve their product. Seems to me they are thinking the same way you are. We already did it now lets sit on our laurels and die.

[SlartyBartFast]

A link for Canadian law concerning air guns, replicas, and toys:
http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/info_for-renseignement/factsheets/airguns_e.asp

Found nothing as clear with regards to American law. Seems to me judgement is at the whim of the ATF agent and as to whether they see the item as dangerous, designed to be dangerous, or of "suitable" recreational purpose.

[11 Bravo]

I hope I am wrong and that I am proven by them to be totally ignorant, but I dont think thats the case.

Now I duck and run for cover.

[Lohman446]

A link for Canadian law concerning air guns, replicas, and toys:
http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/info_for-renseignement/factsheets/airguns_e.asp

Found nothing as clear with regards to American law. Seems to me judgement is at the whim of the ATF agent and as to whether they see the item as dangerous, designed to be dangerous, or of "suitable" recreational purpose.

Or worse yet "readily convertable to be dangerous" even if it is neither designed or manufactured as dangerous. Basically, if you make something that shoots something and upset the wrong people, or the social winds change against you, you have serious issues. It sucks...

[rabidchihauhau]

Slarty said:
Considering that Tippmann previously got into hot water with the BATF over the production of their fully functional scale model gattling gun, I'd think they have a history to worry about.

I'll take that as a starting point.

If we posit the following:

Tippmann has looked into the legalities

The technology may or may not run afoul of CFR

Then perhaps the question that needs to be asked is: is the use of this technology in a paintball gun strictly intended for paintball, or are there other, future applications in mind?

Its not too foreign a concept to use the development of new technology that exists in a gray area to help 'define' the law. The current and on-going new developments in stem cell research are a good case in point.

[phantomhitman]

Are you talking to me? I am not mad at anyone or any company. I think out off all of those companies that you listed only one is not doing anything to improve their product. Seems to me they are thinking the same way you are. We already did it now lets sit on our laurels and die.

I am talking to everyone that *****es about guns coming out every year with minor upgrades. Why complain over a gun, or a manufacturer that releases more than one gun a year. I hope your answer was agd from that list of manufacturers.....

[11 Bravo]

I am talking to everyone that *****es about guns coming out every year with minor upgrades. Why complain over a gun, or a manufacturer that releases more than one gun a year. I hope your answer was agd from that list of manufacturers.....


Yes it was.

[MicroMiniMe]

Well my take is Tippman, and their parent company, can now afford, or take on, the higher risk of using the propane in this way. Wheras TK in the past, may have found the usefullness of propane, but didn't want to go near the legal rammifications.
And with the marker being a pump, it caters a bit more to the old school and scenario crowd who might be at better odds not to dremel and mod the marker to their own demise. Though I'm sure plenty will attempt still, they might have better skill and boundries from experience.

Though I do think the risk of attracting the attention of the federal government by Tippman is more than the risk of using a marker firing combusting propane by an individual person/player in comparison to standard markers.

[SlartyBartFast]

My concern more is if it is classified as a firearm because someone shoots someone not participating in the sport with it - how much trouble are the people who sold it, in violation of federal law, in?

I think that in that respect, your worry is misdirected. At least by Canadian law, while airguns and the like are exempt from firearms controls and legislation, their use in the commission of a crime carries the same penalties as if they were in fact firearms. With the same penalties and sanctions.

As I have said before, American law (at least federally) seems far less clear than Canadian law. But, it would seem clear that what defines a “firearm” in the eyes of the ATF is the designed purpose and intended use (as defined by the whim of the examining ATF agent).

Seems funny that I'm more comfortable about the governemnt not charging me under gun laws because of my air guns in supposedly "anti-gun" Canada than I think I'd be in the supposed "pro-gun" US.

Not too sure that my desired air gun, a CP99, doesn't violate replica firearm rules though....

[Lohman446]

I think that in that respect, your worry is misdirected. At least by Canadian law, while airguns and the like are exempt from firearms controls and legislation, their use in the commission of a crime carries the same penalties as if they were in fact firearms. With the same penalties and sanctions.

As I have said before, American law (at least federally) seems far less clear than Canadian law. But, it would seem clear that what defines a “firearm” in the eyes of the ATF is the designed purpose and intended use (as defined by the whim of the examining ATF agent).

Seems funny that I'm more comfortable about the governemnt not charging me under gun laws because of my air guns in supposedly "anti-gun" Canada than I think I'd be in the supposed "pro-gun" US.

Not too sure that my desired air gun, a CP99, doesn't violate replica firearm rules though....

What if a minor uses a questionable marker in comission of a crime? Will there be issues with who supplied what suddenly may become a "firearm" to this person? No doubt said minor will have his own issues but if the government suddenly decides that does in fact constitute a firearm are you now responsible for having sold it to them in violation of federal law either to a minor or mail order to someone restricted from owning a firearm, without proper paperwork, etc.

[SlartyBartFast]

are you now responsible for having sold it to them in violation of federal law either to a minor or mail order to someone restricted from owning a firearm, without proper paperwork, etc.

Speaking as a Canadian, I would say absolutely not. For an American, I don't know.

At no point do firearm procurement or possesion laws apply to exempt items. Only the criminal charges related to firearm use may be applied if the exempt item is used during the commision of a crime.

The sales person is no more chargeable than the person who manufactured or sold the get-away car.

And if a minor is involved? Unless an adult who was responsible for the minor or in charge of the equipment used was negligent, I don't see how anyone but the minor would be charged.

[Lohman446]

Speaking as a Canadian, I would say absolutely not. For an American, I don't know.

At no point do firearm procurement or possesion laws apply to exempt items. Only the criminal charges related to firearm use may be applied if the exempt item is used during the commision of a crime.

The sales person is no more chargeable than the person who manufactured or sold the get-away car.

And if a minor is involved? Unless an adult who was responsible for the minor or in charge of the equipment used was negligent, I don't see how anyone but the minor would be charged.

This is where the law to me sucks. To me it looks like a firearm unless Tippman has secured an exemption. Spud guns are allowed a broader exemption it seems, but I don't know of any particular manufacturer of them. Without that exemption, if someone is injured / killed by one, or one is used in the commission of a crime (especially high profile) is it going to be considered a firearm? It seems to me the way the exemption list reads, is that if its not on it, it is a firearm. If they do decide, after such an incident, it is a firearm and always was because it was not on the exemption list, then whoever manufactured, sold, posessed, etc. it is responsible for following proper guidelines in regards to selling a firearm. I can tell you that they are not currently doing so from what I see.

You and I can agree that it looks like it would qualify to be exempt - but if it is not issued an exemption what kind of problems does that create? Or has Tippman already obtained that exemption? I would like to think that Tippman has already addressed the issue, but I don't see any indication of it and am wondering what interpertation they have of it.

[Beemer]

A link for Canadian law concerning air guns, replicas, and toys:
http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/info_for-...s/airguns_e.asp

From this link.

500fps, greater then 5.7 joules. Can you get a Paintball out the barrel at 500fps?
How about a 68cal 3g nylon ball?

Just figured Id throw this out there because that word joules got my attention.


The Formula for calculating Joules is as follows:

E=1/2mv2

E= Joules m= mass in kilograms v= velocity in meters per second

3.18grams at 300fps = 13.29443 Joules


Now lets go bunker someone point blank at 300fps,15bps :wow:

In Illinois My Paintball GUN is considered a toy, BUT I have to treat it as a Firearm.

Got pulled over once and the first thing the Trooper asked was where is the ammo?

Do you think Ballers know how to treat there gun as a Firearm?

___________

http://home.comcast.net/~beemerone/AoIL.gif

[cledford]

Haven't had time to read this whole thread - but the premise of it amuses me. First, firearms, traditional markers and the C3 all propel paintballs exactly the same way - through the use of the expansion of gas.

Second, the people who make laws regarding firearms aren't usually the brightest people - I've already seen laws on the books that consider air rifles firearms.

To freak out and assume that the C3 will open doors to the banning/regulation of paintball is silly. The idiots who drive around shooting inocent bystanders with markers will lead to the regualtion of paintball much quicker...

-Calvin

[Glickman]

Haven't had time to read this whole thread - but the premise of it amuses me. First, firearms, traditional markers and the C3 all propel paintballs exactly the same way - through the use of the expansion of gas.

Second, the people who make laws regarding firearms aren't usually the brightest people - I've already seen laws on the books that consider air rifles firearms.

To freak out and assume that the C3 will open doors to the banning/regulation of paintball is silly. The idiots who drive around shooting inocent bystanders with markers will lead to the regualtion of paintball much quicker...

-Calvin

except the c3 combusts the gas, thats the only differernce i see, and am currently waiting on hold with an ATF attorney to get a definate answer

[SlartyBartFast]

Just figured Id throw this out there because that word joules got my attention.

But it has to be both. Not either.

However, once you bunker someone at 15bps point blank, you enter the same zone of the law Marty Mcsorley was charged under.

Was the behaviour an accepted risk and part of the game or was it beyond the accepted risk and actually assault.

In the case of paintball, if a case of overshooting was found to be assault it could catapult the offender to assault with a firearm charges.

[SlartyBartFast]

except the c3 combusts the gas

Which is irrelevant. The American laws is very clear that the propulsive force doesn't matter. It's the caliber, whether designed as a weapon, and whether it shoots "dangerous projectiles".

[Lohman446]

Which is irrelevant. The American laws is very clear that the propulsive force doesn't matter. It's the caliber, whether designed as a weapon, and whether it shoots "dangerous projectiles".

yes and no, in one section it gives the idea that other means of propulsion may be considered a weapon, but in another it clearly states if it uses an explosive it is a firearm. Of course then you get into the exemption list (such as spud guns) that you brought up. In the end it is a nightmare of differing laws and interpertations that, if you are wrong under, you may end up in jail over. This is not some great cry out of people flying off the handle, I think there valid questions. I am very interested to see what Glickman hears from the ATF.

[cledford]

I stand corrected, here is the ATF definition...

Federal Firearms Act. 15 U.S.C. Chapter 18.
Firearm. Any weapon, including a starter gun, which will or is
designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the
action of an explosive; the frame or receiver of any such weapon; any
firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or any destructive device; but the
term shall not include an antique firearm. In the case of a licensed
collector, the term shall mean only curios and relics.

[SlartyBartFast]

Second, the people who make laws regarding firearms aren't usually the brightest people - I've already seen laws on the books that consider air rifles firearms.

You can't honestly deny that an air rifle shooting at super sonic speeds and with high caliber pellets shouldn't be classified and regulated the same way as gunpowder based weapons.

This one for example:
http://www.pyramydair.com/cgi-bin/model.pl?model_id=771

There are air powered weapons that are far more powerful and accurate than many "traditional" firearms.

What determines how dangerous the item is and how likely it is to reach out and harm someone is the velocity and weight of the projectile (and of course effective range).

[Glickman]

Which is irrelevant. The American laws is very clear that the propulsive force doesn't matter. It's the caliber, whether designed as a weapon, and whether it shoots "dangerous projectiles".

so whats the difference between a real rifle and a spring airsoft rifle? from what you say, it could be nothing.

caliber, "6mm"
designed or not doesnt matter, as of the ATF, its what can be converted
shoots "balls", but so does a muzzleloader so its dangerous



i would say that from what the ATF guy said, the type of propulsion could matter


now im told to put a written request to a certain guy at firearms technology (heh big surprise)

[Lohman446]

Does anyone have good contacts with anyone at Tippman that they might ask the same question to? Its possible that Tippman has an exemption certification sitting on someones desk or some such. I am very interested in there take on it or if we get a simple no comment response.

[Lohman446]

so whats the difference between a real rifle and a spring airsoft rifle? from what you say, it could be nothing.

caliber, "6mm"
designed or not doesnt matter, as of the ATF, its what can be converted
shoots "balls", but so does a muzzleloader so its dangerous



i would say that from what the ATF guy said, the type of propulsion could matter


now im told to put a written request to a certain guy at firearms technology (heh big surprise)

A muzzleloader is "probably" exempt under replica/antique firearms not firing centerfire or rimfire ammunition.

[Glickman]

A muzzleloader is "probably" exempt under replica/antique firearms not firing centerfire or rimfire ammunition.

thats assuming its an old one ;)

ill try calling up tippmann, but i doubt it will go anywhere.

edit: talked to them...


They are not deemed firearms as they have the intent for recreation, and propane is not considered a dangerous combustable fit for the firearm.


ill give you half credit, we were both right, its due to intent AND propulsion :D

(this is federal, so state might differ)


NOW DELETE THIS THREAD !!!! :tard: :tard:

[Lohman446]

thats assuming its an old one ;)

ill try calling up tippmann, but i doubt it will go anywhere.


who knows, some states it might be legal while others are not.

It is very clearly illegal under Michigan law, as is every paintball marker produced at this point - its just noone seems to care about it. I don't think you will get such an uncaring position in regards to federal law - especially after the fact, should a tragedy occur.

I wish Tippman had sought a clear exemption... that seems troublesome to me on two fronts. That one, the type of explosion is not important the definition reads


(3) The term "firearm" means

(A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive

It doesn't mention what type of explosion, so I question the idea that because it uses propane its exempt. Though I do give them credit for this section if it


The term "destructive device" shall not include any device which is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon; any device, although originally designed for use as a weapon, which is redesigned for use as a signaling, pyrotechnic, line throwing, safety, or similar device; surplus ordinance sold, loaned, or given by the Secretary of the Army pursuant to the provisions of section 4684(2), 4685, or 4686 of title 10; or any other device which the Attorney General finds is not likely to be used as a weapon, is an antique, or is a rifle which the owner intends to use solely for sporting, recreational or cultural purposes.

I just wonder if the Attorney General has found as this section seems to indicate, or if Tippman is relying solely on what they feel will be found. Or if they simply beleive the first part of that section shields them.

In the end, though I hate the thought of blurring the line anymore than it already is - there interpertation has merit, and likely far more exerptise than I have.

Still an interesting discussion, and I don't feel like deleting it.

[Glickman]

found out federal from tippmann , look above :D

[VFX_Fenix]

Yay! Can we go home now?

[Muzikman]

Why delete the thread? This is good information.

[shartley]

found out federal from tippmann , look above :D
No offense, but you fell for that answer? :rofl:

[OneEyedPimp]

Found nothing as clear with regards to American law. Seems to me judgement is at the whim of the ATF agent and as to whether they see the item as dangerous, designed to be dangerous, or of "suitable" recreational purpose.

Wow, you get it more than most Americans do....

[OneEyedPimp]

Its not too foreign a concept to use the development of new technology that exists in a gray area to help 'define' the law.

Or just get rid of all firarm laws...

Ok, Im going there:

Part of me wants all paintball guns to be classified as guns, so that eventually these disgruntled children will grow up and help change the laws. Hey, its a dream...

[Glickman]

No offense, but you fell for that answer? :rofl:


ill take it for now, untill that ATF guy emails me back

[OneEyedPimp]

ill take it for now, untill that ATF guy emails me back

Actually I thought that was a great answer. I think it is very fit as the spud exemption proves.

Edit: I once e-mailed the ATF about a firearm on one September, I didn't get a reply until June...

[Lohman446]

Actually I thought that was a great answer. I think it is very fit as the spud exemption proves.

Edit: I once e-mailed the ATF about a firearm on one September, I didn't get a reply until June...

Its a reasonable answer... I would hate to be the test case but its a logical answer. Unfortunately the law is not always predictable, or logical, but at least it seems they did address the issue.

[OneEyedPimp]

Its a reasonable answer... I would hate to be the test case but its a logical answer. Unfortunately the law is not always predictable, or logical, but at least it seems they did address the issue.

Can't argue with you there, I hope I am not the "example" either but mine will be here around Halloween.