4 ms·
Here is one federal statute related to the definition of a firearm. It seems that the common denominator for firearms is the use of an explosive. https://www.l
by syedkarim 5y ago
Here is one federal statute related to the definition of a firearm. It seems that the common denominator for firearms is the use of an explosive.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921
The term “firearm” means
(A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive;
(B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon;
(C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or
(D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.
(4)The term “destructive device” means—
(A)any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas—
(i)bomb,
(ii)grenade,
(iii)rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces,
(iv)missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce,
(v)mine, or
(vi)device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses;
(B)any type of weapon (other than a shotgun or a shotgun shell which the Attorney General finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes) 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, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter; and
(C)any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into any destructive device described in subparagraph (A) or (B) and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled.
- Y_Y 5y agoFrom (B): "expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant" I would say here that a "propellant" would have to refer to some kind of chemical (even boring pressurised gas) and that it couldn't reasonably be extended to a magnetic field (or series of virtual photons or whatever). I'd like to know if that's likely to be the view the legislature or judiciary would take though.
- ceejayoz 5y agoB) has to be read with the "and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter" clause included, though; the projectiles in the video look narrower than that. I fully expect the ATF to be able to find some definition to work with, though, as with bump stocks.
- Y_Y 5y agoThey are indeed narrower, as the designed bore diameter is half an inch. Maybe that was deliberate in reference to this rule then. If so it would seem that the designers may have thought the device would otherwise be covered.
- chipsa 5y agoGiven that catapults and muzzle loading cannon[0] are generally held to be exempt from DD status, I would estimate that a EM cannon of whichever variation don't count as destructive devices. 0: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/are-muzzleloading-cannons-considered-destructive-devices https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/are-muzzleloading-cannons-co...
- Y_Y 5y ago> Muzzleloading cannons manufactured in or before 1898 (and replicas thereof) that are not capable of firing fixed ammunition are considered antiques and not subject to the provisions of either the Gun Control Act (GCA) or National Firearms Act (NFA). The answer at your link doesn't seem to apply here.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- mod 5y agoAir rifles don't fall under this definition (in the US, felons can own them). Air rifles are pretty serious, like guys are hunting bears with them in some larger calibers. I have no idea if it's been tested in court, though.
- okamiueru 5y agoHm, I suppose common denominator is correct. But, the gauss gun falls pretty easily withing the overall definition you've quoted. There are plenty of "and similar" stipulations that pretending it doesn't would seem a bit silly.