Armory Sponsor
Posted: 2/5/2007 10:12:51 AM EDT
|
Is there such a beast ? Can someone explain to me why a flashbang is a DD, I can't see how the USC definition of DD fits a flashbang |
Unfortunately it is the truth as far as the esteemed minds in DC see it. There really is no better answer than that. |
I agree on DC I was poking fun at the professional part having been certified on both :) |
It is classed as a DD because the explosive charge that makes the flash go bang exceeds the 1/4-oz maximum. 26 U.S.C. sec. 5845(f) "The term destructive device means 1) any explosive, incendiary or poison gas A) bomb B) grenade C) rocket having propellant charge of more than four ounces D) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce E) mine, or F) similar device 2) any type of weapon by whatever name known which will, or may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of a 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 Secretary or his delegate finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes; and 3) any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into a destructive device as defined in subparagraphs (1) and (2) and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled. The term 'destructive device' shall not include any device which is neither designed nor 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 pursuant to the provisions of section 4684(2), 4685 or 4686 of title 10 of the United States Code; or any other device which the Secretary of the Treasury or his delegate 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." |
I unserstand but to spit hairs it is not a missle nor a anti personal device |
You may attempt to split that hair, but BATFE and the U.S. Department of Justice will beg to differ with you. 
|
Not me, I was just hoping for an expanded why, I know they are no no's and don't really have any use for one Another one of those because DOJ says so rules 
|
I could have sworn that ATF agents testifed before Congress at the Waco hearings, that flashbangs were completly harmless. Regardless, they are DDs under the law. |
|
Ok, but if they are classified as DD, then why do cops get to use them, I mean they are soo destructive.. Police are supposed to protect & serve , not be destructive..
|
|
Yes, there is such a beast. There was a write-up in SWAT magazine within the past 2 -3 months. It was a CO2 simulator. I'm sorry I don't remember the name. I'll look for it when I get off work. It was pretty pricey, but reusable with the exception of the hard rubber diaphragms. IIRC it was $60 for like 20 reloads. The unit itself was like $120. |
|
ALS makes a trainer FB. It is the same fuze as a regular FB, but with a very small amount of flash powder. Does a small flash and sounds about like a 22 LR going off. Each "reload" is about $25. And for comparison's sake, 1/4 oz is equivalent to 109 grains. 109 grains of BP is fairly serious, as is 109 grains of flash powder. Take into account the priming charge, and you could probably run 90 grains of flash powder and not run afoul of the DD threshold of 1/4 oz.... But I'm no lawyer, and I sure as shit didn't stay at a Holiday Inn last night.... |
|
quote]I could have sworn that ATF agents testifed before Congress at the Waco hearings, that flashbangs were completly harmless. Regardless, they are DDs under the law. IIRC, it was Chucky Schumer who was telling everyone that flashbangs were harmless, and the ATF guys were telling him they were not. |
Armory Sponsor