PDA

View Full Version : Are flare gun down-conversions illegal?


kevmogun
03-25-2014, 3:30 PM
Originally intended as a reply to this thread:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=12803709

That looks dangerous, the bullet casing is ejecting.

Here's another interesting approach

FLARE PISTOL CONVERTED TO .50 CALIBER MUZZLE LOADER
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_GmTDm9M9Q

FLARE PISTOL CONVERTED TO .22 RIMFIRE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=z_GmTDm9M9Q#t=0

SkyHawk
03-25-2014, 3:39 PM
http://www.americanspecialtyammo.com/37mm_adapters.html

Not sure of the legality of converting a flare gun, especially if the bore is over .5 inch. The sub caliber seller for the .22 will not ship to CA fwiw. https://www.buymilsurp.com/265mm-flare-gun-22-subcaliber-insert-p-42104.html

Quiet
03-25-2014, 4:50 PM
Under Federal laws/regulations...
A flare gun with caliber conversion that does not use a rifled barrel is considered a Title 2 AOW.
Therefore, in order to be legal, BATFE approval is required.
Without BATFE approval, it would be a Federal felony.

A flare gun with caliber conversion that does use a rifled barrel is considered a Title 1 Handgun.
Because it is not a Title 2 firearm, it is legal to use without BATFE approval.


Under CA laws...
A flare gun with caliber conversion that does not use a rifled barrel would be illegal (state felony), due to violating CA's zip gun and unconventional pistol laws.

A flare gun with caliber conversion that does use a rifled barrel maybe legal, because it does not violate CA's zip gun laws but, depending on it's configuration, it may violate CA's unsafe handgun laws.

To be 100% CA legal, the flare gun with rifled barrel caliber conversion needs to have a barrel length of 6" or greater and an overall length of 10.5" or greater.

JasonL
08-27-2014, 2:31 PM
Quiet,
What is your reasoning that flare gun conversion using rifled insert is not a zip gun under CA's law?
I have been researching back and forth on this issue and argument seems to focus on wether it is exempt from excise tax so not to meet requirement 17360(c). Some argues that exemption is because home builders are not selling it, and exemption is in USC 4182 for small manufacturers. Others argue that 4182 is not explicit mentioned in 17360(c) so is not exempt. What is your take on this?

Tincon
08-27-2014, 2:45 PM
A flare gun with caliber conversion that does use a rifled barrel maybe legal, because it does not violate CA's zip gun laws but, depending on it's configuration, it may violate CA's unsafe handgun laws.

To be 100% CA legal, the flare gun with rifled barrel caliber conversion needs to have a barrel length of 6" or greater and an overall length of 10.5" or greater.

No. The only relevant physical characteristics of the "zip" gun are that it is a "weapon or device" which:

(B) It was not originally designed to be a firearm by a
manufacturer licensed pursuant to Chapter 44

and

(D) It is made or altered to expel a projectile by the force of an
explosion or other form of combustion.

The flare gun pistol would be a zip gun.

Also, separately, it would be manufacturing an unsafe handgun, unless it met current SSE requirements (or was submitted to the roster). It seems like you are confusing SSE/unsafe handguns with zip guns.

JasonL
08-27-2014, 3:32 PM
17360 says it must meet ALL 4 criteria. It does not say meet ANY. So I am still confused what 17360(c) is for and in what situation it would not be met if exemptions in USC 4182 is not applicable.

The SSE requirement can be met by using a long insert (such as using a 8" insert from Shortlane).

Tincon
08-27-2014, 3:59 PM
17360 says it must meet ALL 4 criteria. It does not say meet ANY.


Obviously. As I said, my post covered physical characteristics.

So I am still confused what 17360(c) is for and in what situation it would not be met if exemptions in USC 4182 is not applicable.


There are other threads that cover this issue in depth.