Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: When is a firearm not a firearm?

  1. #1
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234

    Post imported post

    Since everything I've read on firearms ALWAYS defines just what a firearm is......

    And since every firearms definition I've ever read states that a firearm uses "propellant", "explosive", "compressed air", or "chemical reaction"......DC says explosive......

    And since technology has developed the "ELECTRIC GUN" which uses neither propellant, explosives, compressed air, or chemical reaction.........

    Is there any "loophole" in the law that would alow an "electrically actuated device" (not a stun gun) to be carried without falling prey to some other "dangerous weapon" law? Don't all the dangerous weapons las specificaly mention nunchuks, brass knuckles etc. or have some "with the intent" or "while commiting a crime" type of explanation?

    I've seen a nifty electric gun "albiet not one you could carry) that can fire at a rate of 1 million rounds a minute. I can't imagine the reload time though.

    Just a thought.
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  2. #2
    Regular Member TechnoWeenie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,086

    Post imported post

    They still use propellant/gunpowder. Albeit an electric detonator instead of a primer.
    Evangelical lessons are provided upon request. Anyone wishing to meet Jesus can just kick in my door.

  3. #3
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234

    Post imported post

    I'm not talking about a gun that uses an electrically initiated cartridge. I'm talking about the new tech toys that use electricity to create a magnetic pulse that sends a stack of projectiles out the barrel. They are called "rail guns".

    Here (below link)is the state of the art (as far as I know) capability....180 rounds firing at 1 MILLION rounds per minute rate of fire from a 36 barell weapon....Way too much for civillian self defense needs but this is the capability. Imagine something scaled down to 20 rounds with a single round per trigger pull.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEu9L...eature=related



    And the below links are what some young kids tinkering with the technology have done with off the shelf items toscale the technology down, someto a hand held version. I'm pretty sure I've seen a commercially built experimental, handheld, 8 shot version of a rail gun.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdYxz...eature=related

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HU6Yb...eature=related

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwsPLAJVCtY&NR=1

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHv33...eature=related

    As you can see, the technology is available, it's just a matter of when it will be commercially scaled down (or if it will be) to a portable, handgun size. And since they use electricity to expel their projectiles, rather than the explosives generally used in defining a firearm in every jurisdiction I'm aware of, they will NOT be considered firearms without rewriting the laws.


    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  4. #4
    Regular Member TechnoWeenie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,086

    Post imported post

    The metal storm guns are NOT 'rail guns'..

    They're electrically ignited powder cartridges.

    http://www.popsci.com/scitech/articl...06/metal-storm

    http://videos.howstuffworks.com/disc...torm-video.htm
    Evangelical lessons are provided upon request. Anyone wishing to meet Jesus can just kick in my door.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama, ,
    Posts
    1,338

    Post imported post

    Your only problem is that they are so ANTI in our nations cesspool, they will
    claim that the coal plant that made the electricity to power the gun uses a chemical
    reaction. So your electric gun is using a banned chemical storage device.
    Remember they try and ban holsters and they don't propel anything but ideas.
    Loopholes need someone who can read and comprehend, neither is a sought
    after attribute in the beltway.


  6. #6
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234

    Post imported post

    I hadn't heard anything about trying to ban holsters. Did read a Second Amendment March story where the guy said some supposed DHS officer said it was illegal but we all know how well the cops know the laws.

    I just think that if garage tinkerers can come up with handgun sized rail guns and the "big boys" can make them from maching gun to artillery size, then someone will eventually develop the hand held, holsterable version.


    ADDED: Okay, the storm gun isn't a rail gun. The NAVY has an electric rail gun in artilery size (looks like 4-6 inch in the one I watched), and the tinkerers have hand helds, some of which are not incapable of being carried by a human, just not in a very ergonomic shape/style, and they don't look durable enough.....YET,
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •