Kimber Pepper Blaster Legality?

[9unknown]

My girlfriend does a lot of commuting by bicycle sometimes late at night, so a few months ago I bought her a Kimber Pepper Blaster. Seemed like a good choice, I saw it advertised on a pretty reputable online store for cyclists.

http://www.competitivecyclist.com/road-bikes/product-accessories/2010-kimber-pepperblaster-ii-7730.2323.1.html

In the description there is no mention of it being considered a "firearm", or any California law regulating it. I know that it uses a pyrotechnic charge which prompted me to email Kimber directly and ask them. The response I got was this:

"PepperBlaster is legal for sale in the state of California, and I have
not heard anything about the device's small pyrotechnic charge being
related in any way to a firearm. "

That was direct from their marketing manager. However, I have heard otherwise. I keep getting different stories from all over and just wanted to be sure my gf won't get in trouble for carrying it, especially if something happens and she actually has to use it. Just looking for some clarification on this.

Thanks.

[winnre]

I heard it is legal if the amount of spray is very small.

[norcal01]

It comes down to whether the local DA decides if it constitutes a firearm or not. I'm sure some would make the argument that it is not a firearm and say the OC that is expelled by the charge doesn't constitute a projectile, therefore it isn't a firearm. Others would say that anything, including OC, can constitute a projectile and that it is a firearm. My prediction is that people using them for lawful purposes won't have any problems until they start getting used in criminal activities, then the state will decide they are firearms.

[9unknown]

I heard it is legal if the amount of spray is very small.

It actually only fires two bursts, so according to the law regarding amount of spray, it's well within legal limits. The main source of confusion is the pyrotechnic charge, which some say classifies it as a "firearm" which seems a little bit overboard to me.

http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/12001.html

Someone cited this as the reason why.

[9unknown]

My prediction is that people using them for lawful purposes won't have any problems

That was my initial thought, it all comes down to intent or usage. I don't really see much of a difference in using a pyrotechnic charge or just regular aerosol spray if someone is planning on using it for criminal activity. The main reason I bought her the Kimber was because it seems to have less risk of blowback which could be vital if she is riding on her bike.

[Doheny]

The issue is that it propels the liquid in a method other that aerosol spray:

12403.7 (e) (1) No person shall purchase, possess, or use any tear gas weapon that expels a projectile, or that expels the tear gas by any method other than an aerosol spray, or that contains more than 2.5 ounces net weight of aerosol spray.

[BigDogatPlay]

The issue is that it propels the liquid in a method other that aerosol spray:

^^^ This ^^^... while Kimber's website doesn't include California in the "no ship to" list, that it propels the spray by means other than aerosol seems to take it out of the tool box for us.

[9unknown]

^^^ This ^^^... while Kimber's website doesn't include California in the "no ship to" list, that it propels the spray by means other than aerosol seems to take it out of the tool box for us.

Guess it's one of those things you can own but can't carry around with you. Which would make pepper spray pretty damn useless.

Have to find her another brand I suppose. Thanks for all the info.

[Matt_]

Seen this on the website.
I'm not sure if the laws have changed since this thread was created. Or maybe this website isn't aware.

[scottyb]

One lawyers interpretation.

[AR15Man]

My girlfriend does a lot of commuting by bicycle sometimes late at night, so a few months ago I bought her a Kimber Pepper Blaster. Seemed like a good choice, I saw it advertised on a pretty reputable online store for cyclists.

http://www.competitivecyclist.com/road-bikes/product-accessories/2010-kimber-pepperblaster-ii-7730.2323.1.html

In the description there is no mention of it being considered a "firearm", or any California law regulating it. I know that it uses a pyrotechnic charge which prompted me to email Kimber directly and ask them. The response I got was this:

"PepperBlaster is legal for sale in the state of California, and I have
not heard anything about the device's small pyrotechnic charge being
related in any way to a firearm. "

That was direct from their marketing manager. However, I have heard otherwise. I keep getting different stories from all over and just wanted to be sure my gf won't get in trouble for carrying it, especially if something happens and she actually has to use it. Just looking for some clarification on this.

Thanks.

A C2 Taser is much more effective than the 2-shot pepperblaster.

http://www.taser.com/products/self-defense-products/taser-c2

[sd_shooter]

Is the taser legal here?

[sd_shooter]

$400 for taser? No thanks. Glock beats that.

[likesrugers]

My understanding is that no one has been charged for using or carrying the Kimber Pepperblaster. If someone were charged, what would they be charged with?

[Doheny]

My understanding is that no one has been charged for using or carrying the Kimber Pepperblaster. If someone were charged, what would they be charged with?

You realize you replied to a thread that's over a year old, right? We'll let it go since it's your first post.