Is it legal in the US. ?

James331 said:
With how liberal WA is getting Tom, I’d recommend not.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your opinion. :)
Airguns are legal here because they are not considered firearms.

BUT.

watch
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
Thanks for your opinion. :)
Airguns are legal here because they are not considered firearms.

BUT.

watch
Click to expand...

I don’t think that’s going to be the big issue here, and that’s from a guy who debated installing Czech hedgehogs
 
Well we all know that murder is murder no matter how you do it.

But making a guy sore as hell isn't murder.
 
Would probably be viewed as a for of assault.
 
Sundancer said:
It's often legal to shoot people with real guns, so I'd expect so, if the criteria is met. . .
Click to expand...
I rather doubt the criteria would be met by an automated sense/shoot system. If someone breaks into my house and attacks me, I can stop them with whatever I happen to have available. If someone wanders into my yard, presents no clear threat, and I whack them with a baseball bat or airgun, I can predict handcuffs in my future.
 
DaleB said:
I rather doubt the criteria would be met by an automated sense/shoot system. If someone breaks into my house and attacks me, I can stop them with whatever I happen to have available. If someone wanders into my yard, presents no clear threat, and I whack them with a baseball bat or airgun, I can predict handcuffs in my future.
Click to expand...
Do you believe any stupid package thief is going to call the cops? a rubber bullet in the back is going to hurt like hell and leave mark, I'd think they'll drop the package.
 
Tom-D said:
Do you believe any stupid package thief is going to call the cops? a rubber bullet in the back is going to hurt like hell and leave mark, I'd think they'll drop the package.
Click to expand...
So how does the package, or the second package of the day get there without you winding up on the carriers no service list?
 
Tom-D said:
Do you believe any stupid package thief is going to call the cops? a rubber bullet in the back is going to hurt like hell and leave mark, I'd think they'll drop the package.
Click to expand...
The delivery guy is going to press charges. So will the parents of the Cub Scouts selling popcorn, or the Girl Scout selling cookies, that you whack in the eye with a rubber bullet.

I'm out of this one. You're the smartest guy in the room by far. Go ahead, install one, I'll catch up when it hits the network news.

o_O:rolleyes:
 
Tom-D said:
Do you believe any stupid package thief is going to call the cops? a rubber bullet in the back is going to hurt like hell and leave mark, I'd think they'll drop the package.
Click to expand...
You’re a walking lawsuit waiting to happen Tom.
 
Tom-D said:
Do you believe any stupid package thief is going to call the cops? a rubber bullet in the back is going to hurt like hell and leave mark, I'd think they'll drop the package.
Click to expand...

If they are smart hell yeah, he might even end up owning your house, this is the same as a laying traps, better let there be some crime or accident or gas leak or something and have a cop or medic or FD unexpectedly knock on your door and take a rubber bullet, don’t drop the soap.


On those same lines, but less stupid

 
How many of people believe this thing automatically shoots every thing that moves?

It has a control, you must aim it. Hopefully you'll not shoot the mailman, or the UPS delivery guy.

If you are that stupid, you probably deserve what you get.
 
But my opinion is, this is legal to own and use, The fact that what you use it for may get you in trouble, is not a factor, in it's legal status.
 
Sort of like a drone strike...with a remote operator...rather than a claymore on a tripwire...
 
Tom-D said:
But my opinion is, this is legal to own and use, The fact that what you use it for may get you in trouble, is not a factor, in it's legal status.
Click to expand...
Probably; in the same way buying a shotgun is legal, but wiring it to fire when your front door opens is not.

And legal has nothing to do with whether or not you get sued into homelessness.
 
If it requires human operation, it perhaps is legal in some places. It's illegal everywhere if automatic even with non-lethal force. A quick survey shows remotely operated guns are illegal in about half the states.
 
flyingron said:
If it requires human operation, it perhaps is legal in some places. It's illegal everywhere if automatic even with non-lethal force. A quick survey shows remotely operated guns are illegal in about half the states.
Click to expand...
This ain't a gun, in any state.
 
Tom-D said:
But my opinion is, this is legal to own and use,
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure it is. Back a few years ago a TX guy set up a remote deer hunting website. Click and boom. His setup was lethal but not full automatic. The only way they stopped it was it didn't follow "fair chase" rules of hunting. But the gun set up was okay.

flyingron said:
It's illegal everywhere if automatic even with non-lethal force.
Click to expand...
Well my old paintball guns were non-lethal and fully automatic and legal to buy? Unless the laws have changed that is.
 
Tom-D said:
How many of people believe this thing automatically shoots every thing that moves?

It has a control, you must aim it. Hopefully you'll not shoot the mailman, or the UPS delivery guy.

If you are that stupid, you probably deserve what you get.
Click to expand...

I think if you were in direct control of it firing rubber bullets, that actually might be even worse.

Maybe just don’t live in a sketchy area.
 
Tom-D said:
This ain't a gun, in any state.
Click to expand...
Eh? The article calls it a gun. Just because it's less than lethal doesn't make it not a gun. I don't have any of the details because there's a paywall on the bulk of the article.
I can shoot you with rubber ball shells from my 12 guage, but as far as the law is concerned, I might as well have loaded it with buckshot.
 
flyingron said:
Eh? The article calls it a gun. Just because it's less than lethal doesn't make it not a gun. I don't have any of the details because there's a paywall on the bulk of the article.
I can shoot you with rubber ball shells from my 12 guage, but as far as the law is concerned, I might as well have loaded it with buckshot.
Click to expand...
Wrong word, different implication. Gun laws regulate firearms, these are not firearms.
 
Tom-D said:
Wrong word, different implication. Gun laws regulate firearms, these are not firearms.
Click to expand...

Forrest through the trees Tom.

Destructive device, toy, gizmo, whatever you want to call it, it’s clearly designed to be shot at people and to hurt them, you’ll never convince a jury of anything else especially after the DA shows them that website.

And you’ll be grabbing your ankles for some guy named bubba as the knuckle head you shot with it is enjoying your house and life savings.

From the website
“A Sublethal Remote Gun is a non-lethal weapon”


And many have argued less lethal rubber bullets can get you in more legal trouble than very lethal JHPs

From a CCW site

“
That may be the case, but it is not quite that simple. See, even in states that have a so-called “castle doctrine” you cannot simply shoot a person just because they broke into your home. That may be the practical application in most cases, but in reality, the law simply recognizes that unlawful entry into a home qualifies as a reason to believe that the intruder intends to cause grievous bodily harm or death to the occupant.

The actual justification for use of force is the threat that is assumed to exist, but you still need to be able to articulate a reasonable fear that there was a credible threat of such harm. It is somewhat paradoxical, but by using a lethal level of force in a manner that has less likelihood of immediately incapacitating the attacker, it may be seen as an indication that the threat was not really so imminent after all and if the threat was not so imminent that you felt the need to use deadly physical force, then you were not justified in using deadly physical force.

That is to say, your use of less lethal ammunition may actually undermine your argument that deadly physical force was necessary in the first place. And remember that discharging the firearm, even with less lethal ammo is legally considered deadly physical force.”
 
Last edited:
I think this is criminally legal (barely, but hey..) and an invitation to a civil litigation nightmare. If it was with a thief, I'd probably enjoy the process. I'd probably NOT enjoy the verdict at the end of it.

I really freaking want one. I hate thieves so much, despite getting far less than my share of things stolen in my life.

What I do not want, though, is to be glued to my "rubber bullet thief-destroying nutsack gun" 24 hours a day, hoping that I can catch the miscreant, AND have correct aim when called upon to plink him. I can think of nothing sadder than having spent hours and days of my life installing, calibrating, practicing, and waiting with anticipation -- only to miss my shot when presented with it at last.
 
Tom-D said:
Wrong word, different implication. Gun laws regulate firearms, these are not firearms.
Click to expand...
How so? What does this thing use to propel the projectile?
State weapons laws then.
 
Sundancer said:
It's often legal to shoot people with real guns, so I'd expect so, if the criteria is met. . .
Click to expand...
Under certain conditions. If an intruder is on your property and you shoot and kill them, you’ll be convicted of murder as that won’t be covered under the castle doctrine. If they’re using excessive force to break into your home and you believe them to be a threat, you can then shoot them under most state laws.

I have a hard time believing that this would be legal. It might be classified as aggravated assault, since the device is considered a weapon.
 
Sundancer said:
It's often legal to shoot people with real guns, so I'd expect so, if the criteria is met. . .
Click to expand...

Typically the only reason you can legally shoot someone, is because you fear for you life or another. Not to defend property (exception in Texas at night)..

Which is why you don't fire warning shots, shoot to wound and other such media repeated non-sense.
 
Tom-D said:
These are air rifles, same rules as your BB guns
Click to expand...

Some cities classify them the same, and only allow discharge for lawful purposes. Shooting someone with a bb gun because they are on your property isn't generally legal.
 
And this is very dependent on your state and local, but the assault charges are likely to be your biggest problem as well as the civil issues.
 
(A) No person shall knowingly cause another to believe that the offender will cause serious physical harm to the person or property of the other person, the other person's unborn, or a member of the other person's immediate family. In addition to any other basis for the other person's belief that the offender will cause serious physical harm to the person or property of the other person, the other person's unborn, or a member of the other person's immediate family, the other person's belief may be based on words or conduct of the offender that are directed at or identify a corporation, association, or other organization that employs the other person or to which the other person belongs.
 
OK, I found the manufacturer site. It's a paintball gun with hard (not paintball) pellets. So, a manual one probably doesn't violate any laws until you use it or threaten to use it.
Alas, using it or threatening to use it, when you aren't on the property, won't trigger the SYG/Castle Doctrine exceptions to the assault statutes.
 
Clip4 said:
(A) No person shall knowingly cause another to believe that the offender will cause serious physical harm to the person or property of the other person, the other person's unborn, or a member of the other person's immediate family. In addition to any other basis for the other person's belief that the offender will cause serious physical harm to the person or property of the other person, the other person's unborn, or a member of the other person's immediate family, the other person's belief may be based on words or conduct of the offender that are directed at or identify a corporation, association, or other organization that employs the other person or to which the other person belongs.
Click to expand...
I guess you're in Ohio.

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2903.21
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top