The legal issues around the C3

[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

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?

___________

[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

(this is federal, so state might differ)


NOW DELETE THIS THREAD !!!!

[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

[VFX_Fenix]

Yay! Can we go home now?