Another oddball question

[sealocan]

^^ I can launch all the above items with just my arm...

are they going to cut my arms off?

should I just cut them off and turn them in?

I always thought I was safe because I had just 10 fingers..

you know, nothing above standard capacity.


oh nos, I just thought...
I can launch things with my feet & legs as well.

well someone roll me and my sawed off arms and legs to a local police station to turn them in?

;-)

[Cessnapilot89]

I just really wanted it to go with my stack of british guns.

[DennisCA]

How about a trebuchet?

[Cessnapilot89]

How about a trebuchet?

Don't have that be of a back yard.

[Mustang]

How about a trebuchet?

Great for launching old pianos, dead cows and Volkswagons...

[Cessnapilot89]

Aye, but I currently don't have a surplus of any of those.

[adamjay]

^^ I can launch all the above items with just my arm...

are they going to cut my arms off?

should I just cut them off and turn them in?

I always thought I was safe because I had just 10 fingers..

you know, nothing above standard capacity.


oh nos, I just thought...
I can launch things with my feet & legs as well.

well someone roll me and my sawed off arms and legs to a local police station to turn them in?

;-)

Oh, now you've gone and done it! Prepare for lawmakers to spend hundreds of clock hours and thousands of dollars in working lunches to figure out a way to tax our arms and legs. Yearly fees, special cards, unexplained wait times. Of course prohibited people will have to turn theirs in. There's always the buyback programs. Pound of flesh?

[Rogerbutthead]

The PIAT is listed as a C&R in Section III - under British PIAT - https://www.atf.gov/file/56621/download - Weapons removed from the NFA as Collector's items and classified as Curios and Relics under the GCA.

Note: This ATF publication states a PIAT is a firearm. Being removed from the NFA means it is not a destructive device under Federal law - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destructive_device I was under the impression that California firearms laws followed Federal definitions i.e. a stocked Canadian Inglis Highpower is not a short barreled rifle under the same Section as above and thus falls under the provisions of the pistol section of the Assault Weapons bill instead of the rifle section. Thus if a PIAT is not a destructive device under Federal law, it is not one under California law - the part where a PIAT is considered a firearm does baffle me though.

I just read Quiet's post that follows and a thread in the GunBroker forum - https://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=568550 - and I am quite willing to bet your freedom to see if it is or not California legal. I wouldn't bet mine. Error on the side of caution - good luck.

[Quiet]

The PIAT is listed as a C&R in Section III - under British PIAT - https://www.atf.gov/file/56621/download - Weapons removed from the NFA as Collector's items and classified as Curios and Relics under the GCA.

Note: This ATF publication states a PIAT is a firearm. Being removed from the NFA means it is not a destructive device under Federal law - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destructive_device

Still a DD under CA laws.

To be legal in CA, need a valid CA DOJ Dangerous Weapons Permit for a DD.
Acceptable "good cause" for issuance of a Dangerous Weapons Permit for a DD is "collector".
However, one of the requirements is that the DD can never be discharged.
In addition, the DD needs to be registered with CA DOJ BOF along with every location where it will be stored and every vehicle that will be used to transport it. Location and vehicles must have proper storage requirements.
Also, there is an annual renewal fee to keep the Dangerous Weapons permit valid along with annual CA DOJ BOF inspection audits.

[Rogerbutthead]

The California definition of a destructive device does seem to rely on the Federal definition, so I would believe that a Federal exception should qualify as a state exception - http://law.justia.com/codes/californ...301-12316.html

However, it is your freedom, time and money at risk, not mine, so good luck.

[Cessnapilot89]

I'm just going to wait to buy one until I leave California in the near future.

[titan2]

I think they got me on this one

16460. (a) As used in Sections 16510, 16520, and 16780, and in
Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 18710) of Division 5 of Title 2,
"destructive device" includes 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.
(2) Any bomb, grenade, explosive missile, or similar device or any
launching device therefor.

Guess that would rule out the tire inner tube stretched across a "Y" shaped tree branch that is used to launch said projectiles!!!!

Damn, now I'll have to de-mil my inner tube and dispose of it!!!

This state sure sucks the fun out of life!!!

[Rogerbutthead]

If I had to argue this case, I would state that 16460 (a)(3) was the applicable Californian provision as it applies to a weapon - as the Feds have defined a PIAT as a firearm.

(3) Any weapon of a caliber greater than 0.60 caliber which fires
fixed ammunition, or any ammunition therefor, other than a shotgun
(smooth or rifled bore) conforming to the definition of a
"destructive device" found in subsection (b) of Section 479.11 of
Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations, shotgun ammunition
(single projectile or shot), antique rifle, or an antique cannon.
For purposes of this section, the term "antique cannon" means any
cannon manufactured before January 1, 1899, which has been rendered
incapable of firing or for which ammunition is no longer manufactured
in the United States and is not readily available in the ordinary
channels of commercial trade. The term "antique rifle" means a
firearm conforming to the definition of an "antique firearm" in
Section 479.11 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

The Federal definition of a destructive device -
Destructive device. (a) Any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas (1) bomb, (2) grenade, (3) rocket having a propellent charge of more than 4 ounces, (4) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, (5) mine, or (6) similar device; (b) any type of weapon by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, the barrel or barrels of which have a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter, except a shotgun or shotgun shell which the Director finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes; and (c) any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into a destructive device as described in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this definition and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled. The term shall not include any device which is neither designed or 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 ordnance sold, loaned, or given by the Secretary of the Army under 10 U.S.C. 4684(2), 4685, or 4686, or any device which the Director finds is not likely to be used as a weapon, or is an antique or is a rifle which the owner intends to use solely for sporting purposes.

This Federal definition seems to encompass a PIAT and since the PIAT is specifically excluded from the NFA's rules on destructive devices, and since the California law relies on Federal definitions, I can't see a State prosecutor going after a collector for having a PIAT.

Now if a person had a PIAT, was making explosive rounds for it, was being dangerous with it, then a State prosecutor might throw the destructive device weapon charges for having a PIAT in with all the other charges. I cannot see a State prosecutor wasting his/her time on a collector having a Federally exempted PIAT - arguing that the State destructive device weapon charges based on Federal definitions still applies - ? No jury would convict you if that was the sole charge.

[onelonehorseman]

Looks like something CA might call a destructive device; like a grenade launcher.