PDA

View Full Version : PC 12301, tracers, and glowammo? Not Fiocchi's marketing shenanigans.


Merc1138
08-23-2011, 3:08 AM
EDIT: Let's ignore Fiocchi's marketing nonsense(ammo in a soupcan.. wth) and focus on the vagueness of the law which brought up my question to begin with. In the meantime I'm going to send ableammo an email about correcting their product descriptions.

I searched around on the forum a bit, and I can't find anything discussing their legality. I see a couple calgunners have bought and used some(they didn't say in CA, or where in CA), but that doesn't actually answer the question.

Specifically I'm referring to their rifle rounds, I already know the shot shells are good to go. PC 12301a1 states:
(a) The term "destructive device," as used in this chapter,
shall include any of the following weapons:
(1) Any projectile containing any explosive or incendiary material
or any other chemical substance, including, but not limited to, that
which is commonly known as tracer or incendiary ammunition, except
tracer ammunition manufactured for use in shotguns.

The problem that I'm not finding an answer to, is with the "or any other chemical substance" bit. It doesn't seem to specify that the "any other chemical" has to be incendiary to trigger 12301 and then later on says "commonly known as tracer or incendiary ammunition". Again it states tracer or incendiary and there isn't anything to indicate an exception that would include non-incendiary tracers like the canned heat rounds. It seems that the law was written without any forethought(ca gun laws written without forethought, imagine that :rolleyes: )that someone may come up with a non-incendiary tracer.

I did find a calguns thread about the glowammo non-incendiary tracer stickers for reloaders, and the same concerns about the wording in 12301 were brought up but there was no real discussion other than "well, CA banned yet another fun thing". As far as cases about 12301 and newer non-incendiary tracers there is only discussion about people getting nailed for having military surplus incendiary tracers and no real discussion of these newer products.

Obviously the lawyers here can't hand out legal advice over the internet, but has there been any serious legal discussion on the matter of these? Has there been any instances of people ending up in trouble over them that I'm just not finding? Obviously it isn't something I'd expect to be high on the list of legal challenges(if at all currently), but I am really curious about it.

edit: One other thing. If these non-incendiary tracers are indeed asking for a felony, what would happen if someone got some glowammo stickers(which themselves aren't tracer rounds), then reloaded a round without marking it(any normal tracer I've seen usually has some indicator such as a painted tip) and tosses it in someone else's ammo can who happens to unknowingly fire one off with a LEO in a bad mood witnessing it?

Meplat
08-23-2011, 3:53 AM
I’m thinking that is too vague to pass legal muster. Jeez, lead oxide is a “chemical”, so is bullet lube. Does it define “chemical” anywhere? So are lead, copper, the little pointy plastic tips, iron and iron oxide! Pretty much everything is a chemical, or made up of chemicals.


I searched around on the forum a bit, and I can't find anything discussing their legality. I see a couple calgunners have bought and used some(they didn't say in CA, or where in CA), but that doesn't actually answer the question.

Specifically I'm referring to their rifle rounds, I already know the shot shells are good to go. PC 12301a1 states:


The problem that I'm not finding an answer to, is with the "or any other chemical substance" bit. It doesn't seem to specify that the "any other chemical" has to be incendiary to trigger 12301 and then later on says "commonly known as tracer or incendiary ammunition". Again it states tracer or incendiary and there isn't anything to indicate an exception that would include non-incendiary tracers like the canned heat rounds. It seems that the law was written without any forethought(ca gun laws written without forethought, imagine that :rolleyes: )that someone may come up with a non-incendiary tracer.

I did find a calguns thread about the glowammo non-incendiary tracer stickers for reloaders, and the same concerns about the wording in 12301 were brought up but there was no real discussion other than "well, CA banned yet another fun thing". As far as cases about 12301 and newer non-incendiary tracers there is only discussion about people getting nailed for having military surplus incendiary tracers and no real discussion of these newer products.

Obviously the lawyers here can't hand out legal advice over the internet, but has there been any serious legal discussion on the matter of these? Has there been any instances of people ending up in trouble over them that I'm just not finding? Obviously it isn't something I'd expect to be high on the list of legal challenges(if at all currently), but I am really curious about it.

edit: One other thing. If these non-incendiary tracers are indeed asking for a felony, what would happen if someone got some glowammo stickers(which themselves aren't tracer rounds), then reloaded a round without marking it(any normal tracer I've seen usually has some indicator such as a painted tip) and tosses it in someone else's ammo can who happens to unknowingly fire one off with a LEO in a bad mood witnessing it?

Inland_Empire_Shooter
08-23-2011, 3:55 AM
Tracers are illegal in CA. If a bullet burns(by design), ignites(by design), explodes, detonates, contains poison, contains anything designed to produce a chemical reaction (including illumination), or contains anything that sounds fun, I would stay away from it.

Im not a lawyer, or law expert. If you are determined enough and have the greenbacks, hire a lawyer to try and find a loophole or clear definition.

Merc1138
08-23-2011, 4:07 AM
I’m thinking that is too vague to pass legal muster. Jeez, lead oxide is a “chemical”, so is bullet lube. Does it define “chemical” anywhere? So are lead, copper, the little pointy plastic tips, iron and iron oxide! Pretty much everything is a chemical, or made up of chemicals.

Yeah exactly. Everything is a chemical, and the usage of tracer is only "commonly known as" so even a tracer by current standards(due to changes in technology) isn't defined, since "tracer" isn't clear.

Tracers are illegal in CA. If a bullet burns(by design), ignites(by design), explodes, detonates, contains poison, contains anything designed to produce a chemical reaction (including illumination), or contains anything that sounds fun, I would stay away from it.

Im not a lawyer, or law expert. If you are determined enough and have the greenbacks, hire a lawyer to try and find a loophole or clear definition.
But that isn't defined anywhere. According to the PC if I add ANYTHING(and everything is technically a chemical) and decide this new thing I invented is called a "tracer" regardless of whether or not it's incendiary, illuminates, or reacts with anything at all, it would violate 12301a1. I could stick chocolate chips to the back of all of my bullets before I pressed them into cases, call them "tracers" and find myself with a felony if I convince everyone on calguns to also call them that considering the way 12301a1 is written.

(chocolate chip tracer bullets are patent pending, Merc1138 Enterprises).

edit: Now that I think about it, wouldn't powder still burning that might be stuck to the bullet as it leaves the muzzle also trigger 12301a1 considering how stupidly vague it is? There is nothing in 12301a1 that even for the purpose of incendiary rounds defines how long it has to burn before it's considered a destructive device.

Inland_Empire_Shooter
08-23-2011, 4:27 AM
Yeah exactly. Everything is a chemical, and the usage of tracer is only "commonly known as" so even a tracer by current standards(due to changes in technology) isn't defined, since "tracer" isn't clear.


But that isn't defined anywhere. According to the PC if I add ANYTHING(and everything is technically a chemical) and decide this new thing I invented is called a "tracer" regardless of whether or not it's incendiary, illuminates, or reacts with anything at all, it would violate 12301a1. I could stick chocolate chips to the back of all of my bullets before I pressed them into cases, call them "tracers" and find myself with a felony if I convince everyone on calguns to also call them that considering the way 12301a1 is written.

(chocolate chip tracer bullets are patent pending, Merc1138 Enterprises).

edit: Now that I think about it, wouldn't powder still burning that might be stuck to the bullet as it leaves the muzzle also trigger 12301a1 considering how stupidly vague it is? There is nothing in 12301a1 that even for the purpose of incendiary rounds defines how long it has to burn before it's considered a destructive device.

The way its written I suppose that is correct. It is very open to interpretation though. This pertains to almost all California laws, gun laws in particular. We need a complete rehash of the laws and the way they are written.

Let me know how the chocolate chip bullets go. Put me down for 2 spam cans.

Merc1138
08-23-2011, 2:21 PM
The way its written I suppose that is correct. It is very open to interpretation though. This pertains to almost all California laws, gun laws in particular. We need a complete rehash of the laws and the way they are written.

Let me know how the chocolate chip bullets go. Put me down for 2 spam cans.

Obviously the bulk of our laws have been written so ridiculously that it's hard to understand them, but I don't think we'd want anything resembling our current legislature attempting to re-write some of the existing vagueness, I fear it'd end up worse for us if that were the case.

Glock22Fan
08-23-2011, 3:20 PM
Obviously the bulk of our laws have been written so ridiculously that it's hard to understand them, but I don't think we'd want anything resembling our current legislature attempting to re-write some of the existing vagueness, I fear it'd end up worse for us if that were the case.

Yes, we'd probably find that a few of our own members are misguided enough to help them get it accurate and unambigous, without loopholes to be exploited.

Digital_Hate
08-23-2011, 5:27 PM
i think your getting 2 thing mixed up here. Fiocchi canned heat line for pistol and rifles, and their canned heat shotgun tracer line. their canned heat rifle and pistol rounds are NOT TRACERS. they are normal rounds stored in a air tight container for long term storage,kind of like a can of Pringles chips.
The Canned Heat Shotgun tracers are a none incendiary tracer round. so according to the pc you quoted there good to go (a) The term "destructive device," as used in this chapter,
shall include any of the following weapons:
(1) Any projectile containing any explosive or incendiary material
or any other chemical substance, including, but not limited to, that
which is commonly known as tracer or incendiary ammunition, except
tracer ammunition manufactured for use in shotguns.

Merc1138
08-23-2011, 5:32 PM
i think your getting 2 thing mixed up here. Fiocchi canned heat line for pistol and rifles, and their canned heat shotgun tracer line. their canned heat rifle and pistol rounds are NOT TRACERS. they are normal rounds stored in a air tight container for long term storage,kind of like a can of Pringles chips.
The Canned Heat Shotgun tracers are a none incendiary tracer round. so according to the pc you quoted there good to go

Ugh, I'm not talking about the canned heat shotgun rounds. I'm talking about canned heat .308, .223, .22lr, etc. that are clearly NOT shotgun shells. Please read the original post as I indicated this in the third sentence:
Specifically I'm referring to their rifle rounds, I already know the shot shells are good to go. Also if you had read further you'd have seen that I mentioned the glowammo stickers, which are also not shotgun shells. Fiocchi happens to also make them in 9mm, .40, and .45.

http://www.ableammo.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=122630
http://www.ableammo.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=122631
http://www.ableammo.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=122641

And there's a whole bunch more that are not shotgun shells.

jaymz
08-23-2011, 7:57 PM
IDK, it says "projectile containing". Unless the cyalume is inside of the projectile, I'd say that it does not "contain" anything. IANAL, so use at your own risk.

Mssr. Eleganté
08-23-2011, 9:11 PM
What he's saying is, the Canned Heat rifle rounds do not have any kind of tracing ability. They are just regular rifle rounds packaged in a can.

Ugh, I'm not talking about the canned heat shotgun rounds. I'm talking about canned heat .308, .223, .22lr, etc. that are clearly NOT shotgun shells. Please read the original post as I indicated this in the third sentence:
Also if you had read further you'd have seen that I mentioned the glowammo stickers, which are also not shotgun shells. Fiocchi happens to also make them in 9mm, .40, and .45.

http://www.ableammo.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=122630
http://www.ableammo.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=122631
http://www.ableammo.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=122641

And there's a whole bunch more that are not shotgun shells.

jaymz
08-23-2011, 9:26 PM
^^^^That's what I thought at first also. Check the last link in the post you referenced. It describes .308 with cyalume coating.

Mssr. Eleganté
08-23-2011, 9:36 PM
^^^^That's what I thought at first also. Check the last link in the post you referenced. It describes .308 with cyalume coating.

Yeah, but it also says this in the description of that .308 ammo...

the shotshell buckets will allow the hunter to keep the product sheltered from the elements, and will definitively take care of the problem of damp or wet shotshell boxes on the field.

That just looks like a misprint on the vendor's web site. If you look at the Fiocchi catalog they only mention the tracing compound for shotshells.

Merc1138
08-23-2011, 9:38 PM
What he's saying is, the Canned Heat rifle rounds do not have any kind of tracing ability. They are just regular rifle rounds packaged in a can.

Ok, now I see it. Talk about dumb on fiocchi's part.
It actually looks like ableammo butchered the description, because Fiocchi's own catalog just specifies the canned heat name as a stupid gimmick for putting ammo in a soup can that takes up more space than it would if it were just square(or at least squared like a literal spam can).

Ok, dumb gimmick naming aside, there is still the matter of the glowammo stickers. Regardless of whether or not they work as advertised, they're actually marketed as a sticker put on the back of a bullet that somehow increases visibility of the path of the round in flight without being incendiary.

So the question still stands, would they be legal and if not what is the basis for it, and why does any chemical stuck to the back of a bullet that doesn't provide illumination not qualify as a DD based off of how vague the PC is?