The legal issues around the C3

[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.
.
.

[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...

[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...

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.