possible SB798 loophole?

Airsoft safety discussion. Post here with questions about laws and safety concerns.

possible SB798 loophole?

Postby Bircher » Sun Sep 04, 2011 5:23 pm

Federal law in the United States requires that a 6 mm orange tip to be present on all airsoft replicas while being imported into the United States. These brightly coloured tips show the difference between real and replica firearms, which helps to ensure safety. However, when playing on a field, no orange tip is needed. The federal regulations do not require the owner to keep the muzzle painted after acquiring their airsoft gun. Few players choose to keep the tip, whether for safety or another reason, and some switch their orange-painted flash hiders with more realistic ones shortly before playing while at the field's staging area.

Don't federal laws precede federal laws?
State law usually takes precedence over federal law, preventing an all-powerful central government. Ideally state laws should comply with federal law. The precedence of state law over federal is seen with state laws such as open container laws and minimum wage laws that do not comply with federal law.

Current law: provides that any person who changes, alters,
removes, or obliterates any coloration or markings that are
required by any applicable state or federal law or regulation
for any imitation firearm in a way that makes the imitation
firearm or device look more like a firearm, is guilty of a
misdemeanor. This section does not apply to a manufacturer,
importer, or distributor of imitation firearms. This section does not apply to lawful use in theatrical productions,
including motion pictures, television, and stage productions.
(Penal Code § 20150.)


Purpose: The purpose of this bill is to include BB devices within
requirements pertaining to "imitation firearms" that are
prohibited for manufacture or sale in California unless the
entire exterior surface of the device is white, bright red,
bright orange, bright yellow, bright green, bright blue, bright
pink, or bright purple, either singly or as the predominant
color in combination with other colors in any pattern, as
provided by federal regulations governing imitation firearms, or
where the entire device is constructed of transparent or
translucent materials which permits unmistakable observation of
the device's complete contents, as specified.



Since most feilds are private, would'nt we they not have to have their guns colored as long as they were only presented only on said feild?

Have I found a loophole or am I just being stupid?
User avatar
Bircher
Soldier
Soldier
 
Team: N/A
Posts: 299
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2011 1:58 pm

Postby Hitokiri1597 » Sun Sep 04, 2011 5:31 pm

It did fail but they keep rewriting it and presenting it, the real issue is for the retailers based in California who's business would be seriously hurt by being able to only sell clear or brightly painted guns.
User avatar
Hitokiri1597
Grunt
Grunt
 
Team: N/A
Posts: 21
Age: 35
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 1:37 am
Location: Camas, WA

Postby Minerva » Sun Sep 04, 2011 7:23 pm

Hitokiri1597 wrote:It did fail but they keep rewriting it and presenting it, the real issue is for the retailers based in California who's business would be seriously hurt by being able to only sell clear or brightly painted guns.


Didn't NY ban a law like this because criminals painted their guns bright colors...?
"Minerva's hot dog is the biggest"-Minerva
Image
User avatar
Minerva
Ranger
Ranger
 
Team: N/A
Posts: 947
Age: 30
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 4:10 pm
Location: Tigard, OR

Postby Hitokiri1597 » Sun Sep 04, 2011 7:52 pm

Likely, making laws doesn't prevent people from being stupid or doing bad things
User avatar
Hitokiri1597
Grunt
Grunt
 
Team: N/A
Posts: 21
Age: 35
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 1:37 am
Location: Camas, WA

Postby ScaredShooter » Sun Sep 04, 2011 8:36 pm

My understanding has always been that federal law requires weapons sold/imported in the US to have orange tips, but no law prohibits the owner from swapping them out or making them black.

I think that many members of the airsoft community are aware of this.

Wikipedia knows everything:
"Federal law in the United States requires that a 6 mm (0.24 in) orange tip to be present on all "toy guns" (including airsoft replicas) while being imported into the United States. These brightly coloured tips show the difference between real and replica firearms, which helps to ensure safety.[13] However, when playing on a field, no orange tip is needed. The federal regulations do not require the owner to keep the muzzle painted after acquiring their airsoft gun. Few players choose to keep the tip, whether for safety or another reason, and some switch their orange-painted flash hiders with more realistic ones shortly before playing while at the field's staging area."

One thing I wanted to mention, I hate to think of state law as taking precedence over federal law. A strong, unified and somewhat authoritarian federal government over "state's rats" is part of our country's history - don't think of that as oppressive. Study up on your John Marshall. [/rudeness] I hope I didn't offend anybody there. And I think you're doing a good thing in scrutinizing all this stuff.

Example~ Federal law requires employees to be payed at least 7.xx, Oregon law bumps it up to 8.50. I really think of the federal rules as taking first precedence, because if any state allowed employees to be payed less than the federal minimum, they'd be in trouble.

So yeah, again my understanding is it's ok for us to have airsoft guns with black tips. Old news right? If not, I'm breaking the law.. And so are a lot of us!!

And what's to say California won't pass a law where all their inhabitants have to use hot pink airsoft guns for safety? I mean who gives a flip? Having a pink airsoft gun would piss me off at first, but it's still fun shooting people with plastic BBs. It's not the end of our sport if we're forced to look less real.

Sure, you guys can circle around about how "only minors should have rainbow guns" and "making airsoft guns look fake will make criminals want to turn their real guns fake lookin" and "ya can't legislate stupid!"
Whatever.. That part has been argued about enough in other threads.
Image
Doesn't communist sound more dangerous than fascist?
User avatar
ScaredShooter
Ranger
Ranger
 
Team: {FAG}
Posts: 799
Age: 30
Images: 10
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 12:36 am
Location: Oregon

Postby Haloeclipse » Sun Sep 04, 2011 9:06 pm

Umm...I don't even know where to start on that.
Never ever insult Halo he is a god among men ~achillesnick~
User avatar
Haloeclipse
1337
1337
 
Team: N/A
Posts: 4098
Age: 41
Images: 1
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 9:03 pm
Location: Albany, Oregon

Postby Mr. Technicality » Sun Sep 04, 2011 9:09 pm

Nasty wrote:
ScaredShooter wrote:One thing I wanted to mention, I hate to think of state law as taking precedence over federal law. A strong, unified and somewhat authoritarian federal government over "state's rats" is part of our country's history - don't think of that as oppressive. Study up on your John Marshall. [/rudeness] I hope I didn't offend anybody there. And I think you're doing a good thing in scrutinizing all this stuff.


Oh this is gonna be fun.


I was thinking the same thing.
I'm a "fair weather" airsofter. I only play in the pouring rain, freezing cold, or broiling heat.
User avatar
Mr. Technicality
Soldier
Soldier
 
Team: N/A
Posts: 303
Age: 31
Images: 1
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 1:52 am
Location: Seattle, WA

Postby Wombat Six » Sun Sep 04, 2011 9:41 pm

Your argument fail to identify a loophole, it merely cites a Federal importation requirement. You need to go deeper.

Let me break this down for you. The individual States are free to impose additional requirements on lots of things, and you'd be hard pressed to make a Commerce Clause argument against the legislation as the States have police powers (you'll note that the Constitution lacks such a clause) to protect the general welfare, morals, health, and safety of their citizens, and they are not attempting to interfere in interstate commerce. They've been very careful to frame this as a "health and welfare" issue, not as a commerce regulation.

Could you argue that such legislation creates the beginning of an inconsistent pattern of legislation in the states that has a detrimental effect on interstate commerce (something the courts have ruled is a perfectly legitimate use of Congress's Commerce Clause powers to regulate)? Perhaps, but I'll change examples for a moment: do the 50 states have a consistent pattern of legislation on emissions standards for vehicles? Hint: the answer is no. Does the Federal government have a minimum standard that all vehicles within the states must meet? Yes. Are the individual states free to impose additional standards? Yes.

California is free to make additional requirements on "imitation firearms" sold within the state much as they are free to impose additional requirements on emissions controls for vehicles sold within the state.

As for the kid who argues for a strong Federal government, I think you'll find there's a reason that the Constitutional Convention made specific enumerations rather than general grants of authority, and included a very specific clause reserving everything not listed as being reserved to the states or the people. Marshall certainly made a strong case for federalism and had an expansive interpretation of the Constitution, but he wasn't in the business of trampling on the States wholesale (Cohens v Virginia has a pretty good example of this).
Ludere Causa Ludendi
User avatar
Wombat Six
Specops
Specops
 
Team: N/A
Posts: 1569
Age: 39
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 10:16 am
Location: Tualatin, OR

Postby Hitokiri1597 » Mon Sep 05, 2011 2:49 pm

ScaredShooter wrote:And what's to say California won't pass a law where all their inhabitants have to use hot pink airsoft guns for safety? I mean who gives a flip? Having a pink airsoft gun would piss me off at first, but it's still fun shooting people with plastic BBs. It's not the end of our sport if we're forced to look less real.


It may not be the end of our sport but it may mean the end of business for California vendors if all they can sell is clear and bright colored guns.
User avatar
Hitokiri1597
Grunt
Grunt
 
Team: N/A
Posts: 21
Age: 35
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 1:37 am
Location: Camas, WA

Postby Paladin101 » Wed Sep 07, 2011 12:18 pm

Nasty wrote:Didn't SB798 fail to pass?

And I think for something like this state law would trump federal law.


No Law can supersede the authority of a higher court. If the Federal Government makes a law (Constitutional amendment, case law, etc.) no state can go against it. However, if the higher court has no actual law then a lower court can make a ruling.

For Instance, open carry is not specifically banned in the state of Oregon. It IS however banned in Portland and Beaverton by the city government. This doesn't violate any state laws because it doesn't specifically state anywhere that open carry is legal, it just doesn't say anywhere that it's not. The flip side is that the state law DOES address concealed carry and therefore you CAN open carry in Portland and Beaverton with a Concealed Carry permit. This is because the city law cannot trump the state law on concealed carry.
User avatar
Paladin101
Soldier
Soldier
 
Team: N/A
Posts: 392
Age: 40
Images: 0
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 7:34 am
Location: Hillsboro, OR

Postby Ivan Daylovich™ » Wed Sep 07, 2011 12:40 pm

Paladin101 wrote:
Nasty wrote:Didn't SB798 fail to pass?

And I think for something like this state law would trump federal law.


No Law can supersede the authority of a higher court. If the Federal Government makes a law (Constitutional amendment, case law, etc.) no state can go against it. However, if the higher court has no actual law then a lower court can make a ruling.


I thought this once too, but that's not how it actually works.
Image
User avatar
Ivan Daylovich™
1337
1337
 
Team: {FAG}
Posts: 3365
Age: 33
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 11:39 am
Location: Poland

Postby Minerva » Wed Sep 07, 2011 12:51 pm

Ruling will be announced Friday. Hopefully I won't have to ragequit this whole California thing

Also if the ATF considers a lower receiver a "firearm" does this mean I would only have to have a smoky clear lower and an unregulated upper, such as the CA laws regarding AR's?
"Minerva's hot dog is the biggest"-Minerva
Image
User avatar
Minerva
Ranger
Ranger
 
Team: N/A
Posts: 947
Age: 30
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 4:10 pm
Location: Tigard, OR


Return to Safety/Legality

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests