The legal issues around the C3

[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?

[Lohman446]

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.