>50 cal rifle, according to the law

[JTknives]

As many of you know i have built a .700 cal rifle that leaves the 700 nitro express wanting. I posted the video on youtube and i'm catching all kinds of $#!t for making a DD (Destructive Device). There saying anything over .50 cal is a DD but if you read the law that's not what i see. I also am told i have to submit my round for approval to be considered for exemption. this is also not spoken of in the law, and so im wondering where this is all coming from. I will detail out the law below and was looking for you thoughts. my source is from the government its self, here http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C44.txt

Ok first off if you read it, it says.


(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;


Ok so all of the above are considered destructive devices, but it says there are some clauses. so let's look at those.


(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; .......

Ok there we go that's where the .5" bore is mentioned. but according to this its anything that expels a projectile from a bore thats greater then .5" not including shotguns. So that would include any flare guns, potato guns, line launchers and all the greater then 50 cal rifles like the 600 and 700 nitro express. but wait whats that below the clause, lets check it out.


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; or any other device which the
Attorney General finds is not likely to be used as a weapon, is an
antique, or is a rifle which the owner intends to use solely for
sporting, recreational or cultural purposes.

Bam right there in the same paragraph that allows flare guns and line launchers it allows rifles over 50 cal, if the owner is using it for sporting, recreational or cultural purposes. It does talk about it any where else, or even mention needing to get approval for sporting use. Its black and white so where does all this miss information come from?

Thanks for any input you might have.

[Ickisrulz]

There are MANY Muzzle loaders over .50"! Have been for YEARS!

Muzzle loaders don't apply to federal firearms laws.

[waksupi]

I know we raised this concern to JT when he started this project. He did the research, and there is the answer, in black and white. No legal problems with this firearm.

[Ickisrulz]

I know we raised this concern to JT when he started this project. He did the research, and there is the answer, in black and white. No legal problems with this firearm.

I have no dog in the fight...so to speak. But, why then do you have to get the tax stamp for a 20 mm rifle (Anzio Ironworks)?

[redneckdan]

I beleive it is because the 20mm cannon shell was originally designed as war materiel.

[JTknives]

I have no dog in the fight...so to speak. But, why then do you have to get the tax stamp for a 20 mm rifle (Anzio Ironworks)?I beleive it is because the 20mm cannon shell was originally designed as war materiel.

yes that is corect, read the last quote in my first post. it says and i quote

"The term "destructive device" shall not include any device which is
neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon

so thy are saying that if the device was originality or was converted to be used as a weapon then it is not excluded from the destructive device clause if its over .5".

[50-170-700 sharps]

So are people unnecessarily being taxed by the ATF on larger than 50 caliber rifles even though there is not a law that says that the ATF can?

[gew98]

"The term "destructive device" shall not include any device which is
neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon "


The absolute vague wordage of this ATF legalese bunk in itself would allow them to prosecute anyone they chose to hammer for whatever political flavor of the day. The "designed or redisigned as a weapon'...... can and will be interpreted by the gub'mit goons to their favor in any scenario they deem to use it just like they abuse the "interstate commerce" obscenity they so love to entrap people with !.

[shooter93]

The 20mm also fired explosive shells which JT's gun does not and they are not readily available for it (which ofcourse you could make explosive shells for anything). He's safe just as you are with 577, 600 or 700 Nitro express rifles.

[geargnasher]

Ok, so if an item is not considered a "destructive device" if it is "any other device which the Attorney General finds is not likely to be used as a weapon," then how come I can't have a potato launcher? Or can I have one if it's half-inch or less?

What about the Punkin' Chunkers? Do those guys have to have FFLs to do what they do?

Gear

[P.K.]

I may just be wrong, but I think there may be cause (anti-gun) for the traffic you(JT) are getting. Misguided, laughable and just plain ridiculious as it may be but I think your opposition may be using a combination of the rule to try and thwart you.

iv and vi.

iv= because the kinetic energy involved could be skewed as explosive.
vi= as a catchall to prove iv.

Bottom line if it uses gunpowder of any type it will be subject to question. Compressed gas? Nope.

[Rangefinder]

Personally, I think it's the coolest darn thing I've seen in a LOOOONG time and we should ALL have one---so get to work! We can't really stand shoulder to shoulder with you unless we're all on equal ground, right? :D

Seriously though, if someone is making noise about this, I'd say it's just that--noise. But here's someone you could get in touch with to see if he's had any similar such nonsense and dealt with it---here's another "monster bore" project I've been following for some time... ;) you two might benefit from joining forces.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=197214&highlight=700ne

[Bad Water Bill]

Glad it is NOT my shoulder feeling that recoil.:groner:

[bearcove]

rifle which the owner intends to use solely for
sporting, recreational or cultural purposes.

So don't shoot anyone with it or it will be a weapon then.

I assume weapon means that. And that ambiguity is why we have so many LAW YERS:|

[P.K.]

rifle which the owner intends to use solely for
sporting, recreational or cultural purposes.

So don't shoot anyone with it or it will be a weapon then.

I assume weapon means that. And that ambiguity is why we have so many LAW YERS:|

I think it's what all the lawyer speak is about....;-) The silly SOB's are so worried aboult folks like JT that it has them wetting themselves. If they had any idea what most of America can do if so inclined.......

[JIMinPHX]

That 700 gun is in a gray area. I'm sure that it is intended by it's builder to be a sporting arm. If an over zealous ATF agent wanted to make a case against it, it would probably stick. Who is to say if that gun is actually a weapon? I would not want to be in court on the defensive end of that case. It would be a tough row to hoe.

The fact that it exists & you own it & have spoken about it in a public forum & have not been prosecuted is encouraging though. If enough precedents of this sort come into existence, then future interpretation of that law may be swayed in a positive direction. I thank you for setting this precedent. It is helpful to the shooting public at large. but I do believe that you took on some risk by putting yourself in that position.

[thx997303]

JT, I agree with your interpretation of the law, however I would suggest discussing the law with a good attorney that deals in these things for assurance.

I should have mentioned this last night when we shot that beast.

I'm sure you're familiar with James D Vilos, he's a Utah firearms attorney that literally wrote THE book about Utah firearms laws, as well as books about self defense laws in the 50 states.

He represented me when I was cited for disorderly contact for Open carrying, needless to say the defense was successful.

He has also attended and spoke at our open carry events, while open carrying himself.

I have no doubt he will speak to you about this and give you some perspective based on case law and experience.

http://firearmslaw.com/index-attorney.html

[Harter66]

As a point of order ,just for the sake of a positive wrench in the works. 1 half inch is .500 ,yes? Then Barrett has been fudging the grey line for some time w/the 50 BMGs .510 . I started out looking at the other 50/500s to find they are 500 not 501,as a quick trip to wiki-pedia showed. I'm sure there are rules for owning the Barretts in 50.

What about the 12ga from hello, or putting a rifled bbl on a shotgun? Isn't that a rework/redesign?

[bearcove]

Half inch BORE, not half inch groove diameter.

[Harter66]

Oh, I see . I still forget about that "hole" thing. Still leaves that door wide open for the slug gun thing . Over simplifacation,that's where I always get in trouble.

[bearcove]

Shot guns and the old existing stuff like 600 NE are grandfathered in as I understand it.

[JTknives]

Shot guns and the old existing stuff like 600 NE are grandfathered in as I understand it.

then how do you explane all the modern 700 huble express, 950 JDJ, 577 Trex, an a bunch more?

[Bret4207]

The first thing you ahve to do when reading law is to find and read the definitions. In this case you have to know what a "weapon" is, what they mean by "bore" and what they define as a "rifle". With out knowing this you are already delving into the unknown. Seriously, somewhere they likely have a definition for all those words and lots of others that you'd think need no explaining. Once you get that figured out you can start to look at the rest of it.

PK- your post #12- "...by the action of an explosive or other propellant...". I'm fairly certain they would include any compressed gas as a propellant...but then we'd need their definition on that, wouldn't we?

[bearcove]

then how do you explane all the modern 700 huble express, 950 JDJ, 577 Trex, an a bunch more?

I don't. I know a little about it not alot. I know some of those have bought a "stamp" for some guns. The $200 stamp might be cheap in the long run.

I'm on your side. It was a cool build. The last thing I would want is for you to get hasseled by some overzealous fed employee.

[bearcove]

The first thing you ahve to do when reading law is to find and read the definitions. In this case you have to know what a "weapon" is, what they mean by "bore" and what they define as a "rifle". With out knowing this you are already delving into the unknown. Seriously, somewhere they likely have a definition for all those words and lots of others that you'd think need no explaining. Once you get that figured out you can start to look at the rest of it.

PK- your post #12- "...by the action of an explosive or other propellant...". I'm fairly certain they would include any compressed gas as a propellant...but then we'd need their definition on that, wouldn't we?

And then you have to see how it is interpreted in court. Would not want to be involved in that process at all.

[arjacobson]

all I want to know is if you got those plans ready yet so I can build one? LOL

[P.K.]

PK- your post #12- "...by the action of an explosive or other propellant...". I'm fairly certain they would include any compressed gas as a propellant...but then we'd need their definition on that, wouldn't we?

We would Bret, problem is the EPA, their ally.[pumpkin guns or potatoe guns] Most use O2, compressed to 100s of pounds. Regulate O2? Unheard of! Wait.....


There is the Rub. Double standard? Yup!:bigsmyl2:

[Bret4207]

We would Bret, problem is the EPA, their ally.[pumpkin guns or potatoe guns] Most use O2, compressed to 100s of pounds. Regulate O2? Unheard of! Wait.....


There is the Rub. Double standard? Yup!:bigsmyl2:

Well, they already want to regulate CO2, so why no O2 too? And, hey! We can TAX IT!!!!!