Jabronies on SI

[Lohman446]

First off I agree entirely with you on the negative ramifications of the historic New Jersey issue.

The recent Illinois one was never intended to target paintball, though the wording was poor, and it was good to have changed.

The idea that having to take markers apart to travel would hurt the sport.. come its a valid argument. There are problems on the roads from people using paintball markers, forcing a more secure form of transport is not unreasonable.

[shartley]

The law described in this legislation could have been detrimental.

http://www.warpig.com/paintball/articles/news/020306_illinois_bill.shtml

Paintball is still going strong because of people like Gretchen Shay that have been fighting for this recreational sport.

And anyone who actually followed that (as I did) knows that there was really no real threat. It was first draft verbiage which was shot down rather quickly. This is how laws are drafted and the process they take.

Here is some history.This is going waaaaaay back, but some here may rememeber the ramifications of this legal battle. Can you imagine New Jersey without paintball?

http://www.topgunpaintball.com/Histo...Paintball.html

First off I agree entirely with you on the negative ramifications of the historic New Jersey issue.

The recent Illinois one was never intended to target paintball, though the wording was poor, and it was good to have changed.

The idea that having to take markers apart to travel would hurt the sport.. come its a valid argument. There are problems on the roads from people using paintball markers, forcing a more secure form of transport is not unreasonable.

I agree.

[RogueFactor]

Here is some legislation from townships. Cedar Grove, NJ classifies paintball markers as firearms:

http://www.generalcode.com/samples/04Spr_1.html

[RogueFactor]

The recent Illinois one was never intended to target paintball, though the wording was poor, and it was good to have changed.

If the law once it is enacted could be interpreted to include paintball markers, it would effect it--regardless of its intentions.

Unless of course we believe that politicians never word legislation ambiguously to include things that arent specifically outlined

[Lohman446]

If the law once it is enacted could be interpreted to include paintball markers, it would effect it--regardless of its intentions.

Unless of course we believe that politicians never word legislation ambiguously to include things that arent specifically outlined

I agree it was horrendous wording, and it was only good that it was changed. But there is a massive difference between a legislator aiming to take out paintball and "accidentally" including it in poor wording. Look how readily that was changed to not include paintball. Yes we need to be aware of such things, but we also need to know the difference between an "attack on paintball" and reasonable legislation. Legislation insisting that markers are not in operable condition (and defining such) is certainly not an attack on paintball. Its common sense legislation to deal with a problem that has occured in the past. Chicken little syndrome, everytime paintball, intentionally or otherwise, is mentioned in legislation too many people run around screaming about the sky falling.

[Lohman446]

Easy for you to say, since your livelihood doesnt depend on this industry.

When an industry has a 15-20 year history of attempts at legislation that could threaten its livelihood, I think those most affected have a right to run around and scream.

They see the ramifications of such legislation, the slippery slope that exists, and recognize that history repeats itself.

If you dont think that politicians change tactics, re-read the New Jersey story from the Top Gun link provided.

Ehh... the "ease" of me saying it is based on a logical evaluation, at least in my opinion (your mileage may vary).

Paintball is illegal in MI if one reads the firearm laws to the letter. They are defined as firearms, thus there use comes under, at best, the dueling statute.

If a politician sets out to ban paintball, its not going to be through some backdoor effort with new legislation (perhaps old legislation being applied). If it is new legislation that bans paintball its going to be far more direct about it.

15-20 year history of a few local attempts, one state attempt that was ended, and a few errors that were corrected when found does not make the great conspiracy to end paintball that some seem to want to find. Is vigilance needed to make sure that mistakes don't cause a problem? Sure, and I applaud such efforts.

That being said, I just don't see the "slippery slope" of the PA wording. If we fight reasonable attempts we may find ourselves fighting less reasonable attempts as well. That wording encourages safe handling of equipment, discourages reckless activity using equipment improperly, and would take minimal effort on our part. I frankly think it may be in our interest to support it.

[Lohman446]

Are you suggesting a slippery slope yourself?

I don't deny the existence to some. Should we act in a way that allows the government to set base rules for our sport it would no doubt be a step in the wrong direction. However, this is not that, this is a consideration of the transport of something that has been used in the past wrongly on the road. No problem.

[Lohman446]

The reason why the PA law is now changed...


This is why "chicken little" is necessary at times(paraphrased):




http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/trib.../s_405319.html

Interesting that it was the Gardners, and SP that stepped up in defense of all of paintball isn't it? One has to keep there eyes open, but these early drafts, or even laws that harm paintball, or not intended to, and are readily changed by the legislators when they find they have unintentionally harmed the sport.

[Lohman446]

So, this PA law addressing transport of paintball markers. Whats your stance on it? I have no doubt there are issues that need addressed, but I surely do not see this as one.

[RogueFactor]

So, this PA law addressing transport of paintball markers. Whats your stance on it? I have no doubt there are issues that need addressed, but I surely do not see this as one.

My stance is that the transportation of paintball markers should not be treated the same as the transportation of firearms.

To have to disassemble and carry the marker unloaded for transportation is an attempt to treat a paintball marker like a handgun. That requirement is nearly identical to the transportion of a handgun in California. Hence, I understand the "slippery slope" mentality.

"The bill also specifies that a marker must be disabled and empty when it is in a vehicle. The paintballs must be in a sealed container and the gun in a secure wrapper, be inaccessible from the passenger compartment of the vehicle or have a barrel-blocking device installed.

Every effort should be made to disassociate a paintball marker from a firearm.

An elephant can only be eaten one bite at a time.

These little steps are attempts to create enough of a similarity between paintball markers and firearms so as to regulate them as such. And enough of these little steps can add up to one big step in the wrong direction.

[Lohman446]

My stance is that the transportation of paintball markers should not be treated the same as the transportation of firearms.

To have to disassemble and carry the marker unloaded for transportation is an attempt to treat a paintball marker like a handgun. That requirement is nearly identical to the transportion of a handgun in California. Hence, I understand the "slippery slope" mentality.



Every effort should be made to disassociate a paintball marker from a firearm.

An elephant can only be eaten one bite at a time.

These little steps are attempts to create enough of a similarity between paintball markers and firearms so as to regulate them as such. And enough of these little steps can add up to one big step in the wrong direction.

Had they said "a paintball marker must be treated and transported asa firearm" you might have something. They did not say that, they did go through and treat a paintball marker similarly to a firearm, but in actually writing the law specific to it, rather than including it in the firearm statute I would argue they actually helped that disassociation. I have no problem with the transport system they propose here, or the reasoning behind it.

And it is very similar to the federal regulations for a handgun in "transport" mode, so likely covers most every state if you were talking firearms. Though I see the similarities I don't see the attempt to combine one with the other in definition.

[hitech]

I don't have any. I just remember it. As I remember Jessica was instramental in getting the las repealed.

[Lohman446]

My opinion. Your stance is not based on why such a transport method would be overly burdensome or unreasonable. It is based on "it makes a paintball marker seem like a firearm". Don't take it as an insult, but it makes you sound paranoid