Author Topic: Legality of building 12 guage signal cannon from ATF? (Read 9193 times)

bloomautomatic · « **Reply #30 on:** April 05, 2006, 03:44:21 AM »

I've submitted a few letters to ATF on some of my other products. One of the things they do consider is the intended design of the item. If it is designed to be used as a weapon, then it is not a DD. Only thing is, that statement is open to the opinion of the ATF.

So far, my experiences with ATF tech inspectors has been positive. One of my devices was close, and it took a few phone calls back and forth to get it settled.

This next statement is my opinion only...
As for "what if" someone uses it as a weapon, making it a DD, then sold it to someone else. I don't think the second person would be guilty of a crime unless they knew it was used illegally, or had the criminal intent to do the same thing. I do not thing it would make future use illegal. Consider someone using a flare gun as a weapon, has probably happened more than once, that makes that flare gun a DD, but it does not make all other flare guns DD's.

I can post the copy of my ATF letter if anyone wants to see it. It relates to launching golf balls.

Vince

Double D · « **Reply #31 on:** April 05, 2006, 06:46:06 AM »

This is a pretty important topic so lets not drift . Topic drift posts split away

Mark 42 · « **Reply #32 on:** April 05, 2006, 08:42:44 AM »

Quote from: Double D

This is a pretty important topic so lets not drift . Topic drift posts split away

I would like to see more about the golf ball launcher, even if in a new thread.

Back to the BATFE Response...
Very interesting info.
The letter itself may only apply to the recipient, but the codes it referenced
are more universal. I definitely agree that I need to be careful to seperate the
letter's interpretation versus the actual code and other ways it could be interpreted.

As a BTW, my project ground to a halt. That thread was HERE

de_lok · « **Reply #33 on:** July 11, 2012, 05:38:53 PM »

The bore should be considerably smaller than the blank cartridge chamber, and the design clearly defined and marked as signal cannon and you should have no problem with the BATF. It would be a mistake to manufacture and sell to the public without BATF approval, Better safe than sorry, just good business. I am attaching a spec for 10 ga signal cannon. notice specified tapered angle and smaller bore................

Rickk · « **Reply #34 on:** July 13, 2012, 05:47:30 AM »

I thought I would tfrow out an observation.

12 gauge is also used for flares (signal guns).

The flare hulls are shorter than standard 12 gauge rounds. There is a sharp step in the flare launcher chamber to prevent a standard shotgun round from fitting.

Yes, there are some short rounds that might fit but the step is so dramatic that it would be unwise to try to touch off one of those short rounds in a 12 gauge flare gun designed this way. The wad would not exactly clear the step and the results would be "bad". Hence, there is an obvious attempt to make the intent be flares or signal rounds only.

There are also numerous manufacturers of 25mm to 12 gauge and 37 mm to 12 gauge adapters. They put a sharp step in the adapters as well. There are a couple of sources that will sell you one bored straight through if you provide them with a copy of your ATF Destructive Device registration paperwork.

Designing to the same chamber specs as readily available flare guns use would seem to imply an obvious intent to not to accept a readily available anti-personel round but to accept a signaling round only.

Cutting down 12 G hulls to 2 inches makes them readily identifiable as "different". They roll crimp nicely btw, and are free for the taking at most ranges. A 2 inch hull still holds plenty of powder.

Rick

Mark 42 · « **Reply #35 on:** July 13, 2012, 06:35:57 AM »

That (putting a step to reject normal shells) sounds like good advice.

Being able to establish intent does often matter in court, and knowing this,
I doubt law enforcement would bother to pursue it.

I haven't done any more on the barrel I started - too many other hobbies.

But I did get my son one of these:
http://www.pyrocreations.com/inc/sdetail/499/13077

Double D · « **Reply #36 on:** July 13, 2012, 06:56:19 AM »

Quote from: GGaskill on April 04, 2006, 05:20:26 PM

We finally have an answer from the ATF on this subject. I am posting instead of Powder Keg since I put the letter images on my web server. The response is three pages long, but in large print so it won't take long to read. There are links at the bottom of each page to the following page.

ATF Letter

Suggest you guys review the link and the copy of the letter Wes got from ATF. Some of you are adding things that aren't mentioned in the ATF letter.

Mark 42 · « **Reply #37 on:** July 13, 2012, 07:05:38 AM »

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C44.txt

Quote

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.

dominick · « **Reply #38 on:** July 13, 2012, 07:57:17 AM »

I saw a French antique version of the sunset salute cannon on a auction website some while ago. It was unique that the muzzle is completey solid and the opening is in the bottom of the barrel. The bore is straight and curves downward at about one inch before the front of the barrel.

Double D · « **Reply #39 on:** July 13, 2012, 01:15:59 PM »

Quote from: Mark 42 on July 13, 2012, 07:05:38 AM

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C44.txt

Quote
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.

This by it self is not sufficient. Look at the ATF letter in the link above you see that this paragraph is one of three sections need to clearly define what a signal cannon is and can not be.

Here are the uncoded links to the letter.

Page 1 http://mysite.verizon.net/gfg/html/ATF1.htm
Page 2 http://mysite.verizon.net/gfg/html/ATF2.htm
Page 3 http://mysite.verizon.net/gfg/html/ATF3.htm

de_lok · « **Reply #40 on:** July 14, 2012, 03:30:02 AM »

Quote from: Double D on July 13, 2012, 01:15:59 PM

Quote from: Mark 42 on July 13, 2012, 07:05:38 AM
http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C44.txt

Quote
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
This by it self is not sufficient. Look at the ATF letter in the link above you see that this paragraph is one of three sections need to clearly define what a signal cannon is and can not be.

This is why flare gun and signal cannon makers step down the bore. If a signal cannon will readily accept and fire live ammo you are either over the line are at best grey area. Even if a signal cannon gets the green light as such, if someone gets hurt and this gets tangled in the "unjustice" system the burdon of proof is on you to prove otherwise. In my opinion it just makes good sense to step down the bore. This clearly establishes "intent". Remember the clarification is for "signal" cannon, and as such stepping down the bore shouldn't be a problem. The only argument for not stepping down the bore is having the option to launch a projectile, which changes the definition of intent. Come on guys, these "toys" are for our entertainment, thrills, fun, irritate our neighbors,etc............ not to see how far we can launch a lead ball ! ! I'm not trying to be a buzz kill, I just hate to see people with good intentions get in trouble over what is intended to be a fun hobby..............

Double D · « **Reply #41 on:** July 14, 2012, 08:45:16 AM »

Quote from: de_lok on July 14, 2012, 03:30:02 AM

This is why flare gun and signal cannon makers step down the bore. If a signal cannon will readily accept and fire live ammo you are either over the line are at best grey area. Even if a signal cannon gets the green light as such, if someone gets hurt and this gets tangled in the "unjustice" system the burdon of proof is on you to prove otherwise. In my opinion it just makes good sense to step down the bore. This clearly establishes "intent". Remember the clarification is for "signal" cannon, and as such stepping down the bore shouldn't be a problem. The only argument for not stepping down the bore is having the option to launch a projectile, which changes the definition of intent. Come on guys, these "toys" are for our entertainment, thrills, fun, irritate our neighbors,etc............ not to see how far we can launch a lead ball ! ! I'm not trying to be a buzz kill, I just hate to see people with good intentions get in trouble over what is intended to be a fun hobby..............

Excellent point!!!!!!!

Mark 42 · « **Reply #42 on:** July 14, 2012, 04:47:42 PM »

Quote from: Mark 42 on July 13, 2012, 07:05:38 AM

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C44.txt

Quote
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
This by it self is not sufficient. Look at the ATF letter in the link above you see that this paragraph is one of three sections need to clearly define what a signal cannon is and can not be.

I'd have to disagree. That text is complete and sufficient. It would stand up as a defense in court. If you read the entire letter, you can see that the context of that text is such that it stands alone in its role relative to the rest of the letter's text.

What it says is that a device built as a non-weapon, or a weapon converted to a non weapon is not a destructive device.

Quote

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

is the part that applies to a home built signal cannon. Nothing else in the law negates that statement.

The letter is just a restatement of the same law I posted a link to, and a letter does not trump the law.
The letter says that if you build a signal cannon that is not intended to shoot a projectile, and you don't fire a projectile with it, it is neither a firearm nor a destructive device.

I think you are mistaking the statement of laws regarding what a firearm &/or destructive device is defined as to somehow imply that they apply to a signal cannon. If it doesn't meet the definitions of a firearm or destructive device, even if it could be be converted to one, or some one could stuff a marble or golf ball into it, that does not make it a firearm or destructive device. If the design intent is for use as a signal cannon, it is a signal cannon.
If it is made to take blanks, not full length shot shells, but someone could stuff a lead fishing weight into it, it isn't a firearm - but if you stuff a lead weight in it, you are no longer using it as intended, and now the signal cannon / flare gun exclusion does not apply.

What part of the letter would make a signal cannon built with no intent to use it for other than a signal cannon anything but a legal device if you only use it as a signal cannon?

Double D · « **Reply #43 on:** July 14, 2012, 05:36:55 PM »

Sorry, I will take the ATF letter citing the laws that apply to court and submit that as a positive defense over your legal advice.

Which reinforces why the policy of this board has away been to not allow legal discussions except legal opinions from an accredited authority concerning our blackpowder cannons.

If you want to know what constitutes legal 12 guage signal cannon you need to write ATF.

de_lok · « **Reply #44 on:** July 14, 2012, 06:35:12 PM »

Quote from: Mark 42 on July 14, 2012, 04:47:42 PM

Quote from: Mark 42 on July 13, 2012, 07:05:38 AM
http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C44.txt

Quote
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
This by it self is not sufficient. Look at the ATF letter in the link above you see that this paragraph is one of three sections need to clearly define what a signal cannon is and can not be.
I'd have to disagree. That text is complete and sufficient. It would stand up as a defense in court. If you read the entire letter, you can see that the context of that text is such that it stands alone in its role relative to the rest of the letter's text.

What it says is that a device built as a non-weapon, or a weapon converted to a non weapon is not a destructive device.

Quote
The term "destructive device" shall not include any device which is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon;...
is the part that applies to a home built signal cannon. Nothing else in the law negates that statement.

The letter is just a restatement of the same law I posted a link to, and a letter does not trump the law.
The letter says that if you build a signal cannon that is not intended to shoot a projectile, and you don't fire a projectile with it, it is neither a firearm nor a destructive device.

I think you are mistaking the statement of laws regarding what a firearm &/or destructive device is defined as to somehow imply that they apply to a signal cannon. If it doesn't meet the definitions of a firearm or destructive device, even if it could be be converted to one, or some one could stuff a marble or golf ball into it, that does not make it a firearm or destructive device. If the design intent is for use as a signal cannon, it is a signal cannon.
If it is made to take blanks, not full length shot shells, but someone could stuff a lead fishing weight into it, it isn't a firearm - but if you stuff a lead weight in it, you are no longer using it as intended, and now the signal cannon / flare gun exclusion does not apply.

What part of the letter would make a signal cannon built with no intent to use it for other than a signal cannon anything but a legal device if you only use it as a signal cannon?

These rules aren't as applicable to muzzle loading black powder cannons as their inheirant design coplies with the code, where as you mention stuffing a lead fish weight into. It is breech loading signal cannon that the distintion has to be made because any devise that readily accepts commercially availabe ammo is considered a firearm. A lot of focus has been paid to the term "destructive device", but there are many other firearm classifications that are regulated by federal law. It is not enough to declare that this item is a "signal cannon". You can spin your own out in your home shop and more than likely there will be no legal consiquense. But you start ginning them out wholesale and selling them to the public you might oughta make sure your right first or you could be hooked up to the chain gang................................

I have built and sold several hundred signal cannons in the past, you look around this forum and you will see pics of my products their owners have posted here. I have consulted with the local ATF about this in person in the past, I'm not tellin you something I heard, I'm tellin you something I know firsthand

I choose to make piece with those guys! ! !

Mark 42 · « **Reply #45 on:** July 15, 2012, 05:45:17 AM »

I think we agree.

I wouldn't want to see someone build something that will get them in trouble,
but I also don't like the idea that people would be afraid to build something
that is within the law (for their own use). I think we need more freedom in
this country - unfortunately, we don't seem to be going in that direction.

If I still lived in Alabama, I would build myself a 12 Ga. cannon, call it a firearm,
and shoot it in my back yard (same as we did with rifle, pistol and shotguns).

My nephew builds his own rifles (AR-15 Variant IIRC). He knows what he
has to do to comply (e.g. engraving a serial number, etc.). I would get
advice from him since I trust him (I know he has done his research).

But I live in the city, and it's not legal for me to shoot firearms at home.

Someday I'll move out in the country again...
But we won't shoot out our own phone line by shooting trap/skeet
through the wire (As a former phone man, I figured the wire was tough
enough that the pellets would just bounce off if they hit).

onegreatshot · « **Reply #46 on:** July 15, 2012, 06:00:51 AM »

So what I'm reading is that those who have Golf Ball mortars and light one off with a G/B in the barrel and are observed doing this by some govt official then were up the creek!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cat Whisperer · « **Reply #47 on:** July 15, 2012, 11:58:29 AM »

Quote from: onegreatshot on July 15, 2012, 06:00:51 AM

So what I'm reading is that those who have Golf Ball mortars and light one off with a G/B in the barrel and are observed doing this by some govt official then were up the creek!!!!!!!!!!!!

No.

Two principles: one: build it as a replica of something pre 1898 and two: if there is ANY question about it, before building it submit the plans to BATFE.

The letter establishes your intent and is the BATF's written advice to you about your design (and use). (There are very knowledgeable folks, and many of them have done it. Follow their example of ASKING the governing agency. You need to have their advise - not mine, not DD's but the BATFE itself.

onegreatshot · « **Reply #48 on:** July 15, 2012, 02:27:49 PM »

OK, good enough. I will contact the builder and see what he has done in this manner.

de_lok · « **Reply #49 on:** July 15, 2012, 03:17:52 PM »

Quote from: Cat Whisperer on July 15, 2012, 11:58:29 AM

Quote from: onegreatshot on July 15, 2012, 06:00:51 AM
So what I'm reading is that those who have Golf Ball mortars and light one off with a G/B in the barrel and are observed doing this by some govt official then were up the creek!!!!!!!!!!!!

No.

Two principles: one: build it as a replica of something pre 1898 and two: if there is ANY question about it, before building it submit the plans to BATFE.

The letter establishes your intent and is the BATF's written advice to you about your design (and use). (There are very knowledgeable folks, and many of them have done it. Follow their example of ASKING the governing agency. You need to have their advise - not mine, not DD's but the BATFE itself.

Amen Cat Whisperer............................

Double D · « **Reply #50 on:** July 15, 2012, 03:57:36 PM »

Quote from: Cat Whisperer on July 15, 2012, 11:58:29 AM

Quote from: onegreatshot on July 15, 2012, 06:00:51 AM
So what I'm reading is that those who have Golf Ball mortars and light one off with a G/B in the barrel and are observed doing this by some govt official then were up the creek!!!!!!!!!!!!

No.

Two principles: one: build it as a replica of something pre 1898 and two: if there is ANY question about it, before building it submit the plans to BATFE.

The letter establishes your intent and is the BATF's written advice to you about your design (and use). (There are very knowledgeable folks, and many of them have done it. Follow their example of ASKING the governing agency. You need to have their advise - not mine, not DD's but the BATFE itself.

Yes thank you Tim!

Double D · « **Reply #51 on:** July 15, 2012, 04:26:48 PM »

As long as it replicates a pre 1899 cannon design and uses antique ignition it is with in the scope for discussion on this board. If you need to know the legality of it, contact ATF.

That has been the long standing policy on this board...discussing the issue of what is legal or illegal or what complies or does not comply, is off limits here.

We have allowed the posting of letters from ATF to serve as legal opinions. If you have questions about those letters or you disagree with those letter, contact ATF.

This post goes far beyond the allowable limits of the rules of this board. It should have been lock down a long tome ago for being out scope of this board. In fact I believe he board rules calls for legal opinions to be deleted.

There is a real hard and serious reason for this. There is far to much garbage and nonsense on the internet about what is legal and what is not legal. I do not want to see some one run afoul of the law because he saw a post on GBOCannons that says such and such is legal.

If you want to debate and argue the law the forum to use is the Pot Bellied Stove...

Moderators, I suggest this post be at the minimum locked down.