California's Efforts To Restrict Elon Musk's Flamethrowers Go Down In Flames (arstechnica.com) 153
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: A California state bill that would have more heavily regulated the use of flamethrowers has now effectively fizzled out in a legislative committee. In light of this development, there's nothing to stop Boring Company customers in California from receiving the company's sold-out flamethrowers. On May 26, the day after the bill died in committee, CEO Elon Musk tweeted: "About to ship. @BoringCompany holding flamethrower pickup parties in a week or so, then deliveries begin. Check https://www.boringcompany.com/... for details." After Musk said he would be selling a flamethrower dubbed "Not a Flamethrower" to get around customs, Assemblyman Miguel Santiago (D-Los Angeles) authored a bill that would have imposed more restrictions on their acquisition and use.
"I honestly thought it was a joke when I saw the news about this," the assemblyman said in a statement at the time. "This product, in the wake of California's deadliest wildfire year in state history, is incredibly insensitive, dangerous, and most definitely not funny." He added: "There are many times in which technology and inventions benefit society but are not made available to the public. We don't allow people to walk in off the street and purchase military grade tanks or armor-piercing ammunition... I cannot even begin to imagine the problems a flamethrower would cause firefighters and police officers alike."
"I honestly thought it was a joke when I saw the news about this," the assemblyman said in a statement at the time. "This product, in the wake of California's deadliest wildfire year in state history, is incredibly insensitive, dangerous, and most definitely not funny." He added: "There are many times in which technology and inventions benefit society but are not made available to the public. We don't allow people to walk in off the street and purchase military grade tanks or armor-piercing ammunition... I cannot even begin to imagine the problems a flamethrower would cause firefighters and police officers alike."
To be fair, Santiago has a point. (Score:4, Insightful)
As far as wacky jokes go, this one is a little over the top.
Re:To be fair, Santiago has a point. (Score:5, Funny)
Only if he can explain the difference between military-grade and non-military-grade tanks.
Re: To be fair, Santiago has a point. (Score:5, Funny)
A military-grade tank doesn't have to pass emissions tests.
Re: (Score:1)
Given the silliness of gun control laws in the People's Republic of Kalifornia, it's pretty clear that legislators there have no idea what the differences are between military and non-military grade hardware in general. Therefore it's no surprise at all this particular legislator can't tell the difference with regard to tanks :P
Re: To be fair, Santiago has a point. (Score:4, Insightful)
There are many privately owned army tanks in the US.
Indeed. Privately owned tanks exist, and have never been a problem. Privately owned flame throwers consist of a hose, nozzle, igniter, and compressed air tank. Anyone can put one together, yet there are very few "school flamings".
What is really slick is the combination of the two: The flame tank [wikipedia.org]. These were very effective at close-in destruction bunkers and entrenched positions. They were used on Iwo Jima and Okinawa.
Alas, flame tanks were banned by the Geneva Convention in 1983 [wikipedia.org], so they don't make 'em anymore.
Re: To be fair, Santiago has a point. (Score:2, Interesting)
Hmm. Privately owned tanks have never been a problem? Tell that to the town of Granby, Colorado.
https://www.denverpost.com/2014/06/04/granby-bulldozer-rampage-revisited-ten-years-later/
Re: (Score:1)
That was a bulldozer that had steel plates welded to it. It wasn't an actual tank with a main gun. That being said, I think there was 1 tank incidents about 20 or 30 years ago in San Diego. If I remember correctly, that tank was stolen from a military base and was not privately owned.
Re: (Score:1)
The former governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, owns as his private property an Austrian army surplus M47 Patton tank. Perhaps the legislator means that Arnold’s tank is non-military-grade because it is surplus or outdated?
Re: (Score:2)
Bet it's demilled. The 'gun' is likely a long piece of pipe, just for show.
Re: To be fair, Santiago has a point. (Score:2)
Red flame and black smoke vs Yello flame and white smoke.
Also, a pistol grip on the handle vs a spatula grip on the civilian version
Re:To be fair, Santiago has a point. (Score:5, Interesting)
I remember going to a Tractor Supply style store (people know what a Tractor Supply store is in California, don't they) with my brother. While walking through the hardware section we stopped to see that they had electric motors for sale, and out of curiosity we looked at what kind of motors they had. We'd see on the labels things like "outdoor rated" and "heavy duty". What I found memorable was a motor with "farm duty" on its label. I thought WTF does "farm duty" mean and pointed this silly label out to my brother. He just shrugged and said something like if you are a farmer then you buy a "farm duty" motor.
This is the same with "military grade", it is only a marketing gimmick. If someone wants to make something sound "scary" then its called "military grade". Some time in the 1970s the US military had a bunch of expensive jeeps that had a tendency to roll over. The older jeeps were all worn out and the HMMWV was still on the drawing board. To make up for the lack of "military grade" trucks the government just asked Dodge and GMC for some trucks they could make on the cheap. They slapped together some 1-ton "farm duty" trucks with a beefed up suspension (so it's now rated for 1-1/4 ton), 28-volt electrical system, and some OD green paint and sold them as "military grade" by the millions to US and foreign armies.
I hear politicians talk about how "military grade" weapons should remain only on the battlefield. Well, then let's do that. That means the police should not carry AR-15 rifles, semi-automatic shotguns, or "sniper" rifles. I took a computer security class from a gentleman that was a Marine scout/sniper prior to his semi-retirement as a security consultant. After class one day we chatted for a bit and I asked what kind of weapon he used as a sniper. He said a Remington Model 700. The Remington Model 700 is a bolt action rifle available at most any sporting goods store for less than a kilobuck, and that includes the scope. If "military grade" weapons belong on the battlefield then we should not be arming our police with "military grade" weapons like a bolt action rifle. The police should not have battlefield weapons like the Beretta M9, a semi-automatic pistol chambered in the 9mm (a caliber developed in 1902).
If "military grade" means a GMC 3500 with green paint and aftermarket shocks, a cheap bolt action rifle, and a pistol that was "high tech" a century ago, then what is left? Can I get a pump action shotgun? Nope, that's the M870. Even a $300 shotgun is off limits if we can't have "military grade" anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Just to be safe, California will introduce a solar-powered tank for use by police SWAT teams.
Re: (Score:2)
I hear politicians talk about how "military grade" weapons should remain only on the battlefield. Well, then let's do that. That means the police should not carry AR-15 rifles, semi-automatic shotguns, or "sniper" rifles. I took a computer security class from a gentleman that was a Marine scout/sniper prior to his semi-retirement as a security consultant. After class one day we chatted for a bit and I asked what kind of weapon he used as a sniper. He said a Remington Model 700. The Remington Model 700 is a bolt action rifle available at most any sporting goods store for less than a kilobuck, and that includes the scope. If "military grade" weapons belong on the battlefield then we should not be arming our police with "military grade" weapons like a bolt action rifle. The police should not have battlefield weapons like the Beretta M9, a semi-automatic pistol chambered in the 9mm (a caliber developed in 1902).
If "military grade" means a GMC 3500 with green paint and aftermarket shocks, a cheap bolt action rifle, and a pistol that was "high tech" a century ago, then what is left? Can I get a pump action shotgun? Nope, that's the M870. Even a $300 shotgun is off limits if we can't have "military grade" anything.
In fairness, there is something called mil spec. That comes from the DOD and is a set of specifications that products must meet to be sold to the military. Its public and consumer products can meet those specs which should mean "military grade" but how well that's enforced in the market, I couldn't say. I wouldn't be surprised if very few products with the "military grade" label actually pass mil spec. But some do and unless there is a law preventing a specific technology from being sold to the public (
Re:To be fair, Santiago has a point. (Score:4, Insightful)
In fairness, there is something called mil spec.
Yes, that is a thing. If some elected numbskull says I can't have something because it's "mil-spec" then that person needs to be removed from office. I would also like to see them removed from the gene pool.
I was issued "mil-spec" earplugs in the Army. Does this mean I can't have the same kind of ear plugs now that I'm not in the Army any more? Construction battalions will be issued mil-spec steel toed boots, safety goggles, gloves, and again earplugs. If someone wanted to sell these same mil-spec items to civilians then should they be barred from doing so?
Lots of things are mil-spec, like nuts and bolts, socks, eyeglasses, stocking caps, tents, sleeping bags, adhesive tape, bandages. I have a mil-spec ruler on my desk. It's a real deal military surplus 6-inch ruler. I guess I shouldn't have this ruler because it was designed "for use on the battlefield". It is in fact a ruler designed for use on the battlefield, because sometimes it comes in handy to know how large of a hole just got blown into your APC and/or battle-buddy.
Here's my thought on mil-spec or "military grade", if the military can buy it then anyone else should be able to buy it.
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing about mil-spec components that says civilians can't buy them. In practice almost nobody does because mil-spec components tend to be much more expensive and overspecified for most civilian uses.
There is, however, separate legislation that says you can't buy various military weapons (tanks, missiles).
And those laws have the occasional exception (you can buy old tanks as long as the guns have been rendered unusable).
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing about mil-spec components that says civilians can't buy them.
Shhhh, don't tell the politicians. .... Which is also the point of the conversation.
Civilian Grade weapons? (Score:3)
Grenade launchers, fully automatic weapons, crewed weapons, LAW rockets, cannons, Armor-piercing, incendiary, and explosive ammunition, mines and similar devices are probably fair to describe as military grade weaponry. Assault rifles are a bit more fuzzy, but mostly because lax laws have allowed them to proliferate as 'hu
Re:To be fair, Santiago has a point. (Score:5, Interesting)
To make up for the lack of "military grade" trucks the government just asked Dodge and GMC for some trucks they could make on the cheap.
Apparently you're not aware of the actual history behind the Dodge Power Wagon.
and that includes the scope
Let me correct a possibly larger misconception: any sniper or professional will immediately yank off the factory scope; it adds little value to a serious shooter and it's not at all uncommon to see a $300 firearm sporting a $3000 scope.
Re: (Score:2)
I've never seen one. Seems pretty uncommon to me.
Re: (Score:3)
Apparently you're not aware of the actual history behind the Dodge Power Wagon.
Please enlighten me. How much commonality was there between the 1940s era Dodge military vehicles and the 1970s era Dodge CUCV? Looking at the vehicles I can see a lot changed in the 30 years between them. Just because Dodge kept using the Power Wagon name on a series of trucks does not mean the trucks maintained any "military grade" features during its 30 years on the civilian market.
Re: (Score:2)
Please enlighten me. How much commonality was there between the 1940s era Dodge military vehicles and the 1970s era Dodge CUCV?
The sheet metal's changed but the CUCV is a direct descendent of the WC series. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The sheet metal's changed but the CUCV is a direct descendent of the WC series.
Whatever. By that standard every vehicle driven today is "military grade" because every vehicle today has some lineage from a vehicle produced for the military in the 1940s.
Perhaps a 1970s era Dodge truck met the "military grade" standards of a 1940s military but that does not mean it met the standard of "military grade" in the 1970s. If the standard was to meet or exceed the standard for a military of any prior era then I can call a modern baseball bat "military grade" because at some time in the past ea
Military Grade means (Score:3)
Based on what I've read this 'flamethrower' isn't military grade in either sense. Although as other's have pointed out on this thread the problem is that it encourages playing with fire in a state hit hard with drought.
Re: (Score:1)
As always, if you don't know a term because you are not in that industry, try Googling it before denigrating its meaning.
"FARM DUTY motors are specially designed for applications requiring high starting torque and moderate starting current. Some standard features such as V-ring slinger in both drive and opposite drive ends, reversible shaft rotation and start capacitors provide versatility for indoor and outdoor use."
The definition above doesn't mean a thing to me and I grew up on a small farm, almost every
Re: (Score:2)
As always, if you don't know a term because you are not in that industry, try Googling it before denigrating its meaning.
I grew up on a dairy farm and I had not ever seen the term "farm duty" before or since. I will say that I'm no expert on the workings of a farm, I mostly just milked the cows, baled the hay, and shoveled the shit.
"FARM DUTY motors are specially designed for applications requiring high starting torque and moderate starting current. Some standard features such as V-ring slinger in both drive and opposite drive ends, reversible shaft rotation and start capacitors provide versatility for indoor and outdoor use."
In other words its rated to run a feed auger. If that's what they mean then call it "auger rated". There were lots of things on our farm that had motors in them and not all of them required high starting torque. A ventilation fan isn't likely to have a high starting torque. An auger might need
Re: (Score:1)
Farm duty are for applications requiring high starting torque and moderate starting current. Such as for a conveyor belt. Other motors are set up such that they don't have high torque and would simply burn out or burn out after a short period of time.
Re: (Score:2)
As far as wacky jokes go, this one is a little over the top.
Nonsense! Scientifious Studies have proved that Concealed Flamethrower laws greatly reduce violent crime against women.
Getting up close and kicking an assailant in the balls is tricky. Lighting an assailant up like the Fantastic Four's Human Torch at a safe distance is easier.
Re: (Score:1)
I disagree. Elon has labeled this as "not over the top"
Re: (Score:3)
It's an over priced, modified Airsoft gun that has as much flame throwing capacity as a weed burner. You can buy actual flamethrowers with 60' range but they aren't regulated - it's just because this one got attention.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I just wonder why he bothers to sell them. They aren't going to make significant money, are a distraction to any core businesses, and could bring liability claims (justified or not). Seems like most buyers would use the 'for fun' instead of as a tool like a week burner.
Marketing isn't free.
Re: (Score:2)
Marketing isn't free.
Actually, for Tesla it pretty much is.
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla's marketing is free only if their time is.
Re: To be fair, Santiago has a point. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> military grade flamethrower he'd definitely have a point, but it really isn't.
He has a valid point, but poor execution (assuming California is still prone to wild fires.) His point was that these were clearly marketed to upper-middle class office workers, not to those with a practical use for them. Pumping thousands of these gadgets into a fire prone area to people with no reason to own, other than cool! Trying to make them illegal was a poor reaction, to a valid concern. Elon apparently supporting
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Meanwhile in the regular world and not as speculative in terms of danger, my car is still finding plenty of unfilled potholes.
-- This SIG was last seen orbiting planet Ludicrous
Not a flamethrower (Score:5, Informative)
After Musk said he would be selling a flamethrower dubbed "Not a Flamethrower" to get around customs
And also for the simple fact that it's not a flamethrower. It's a blowtorch in the shape of a squirt gun.
What's the range on the thing? (Score:2)
TL;DR, It's fun
Re:What's the range on the thing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: What's the range on the thing? (Score:2)
His is the version designed by lawyers.
Re: (Score:2)
It has about the same range as a $20 harbor freight propane torch used to kill weeds, which is a couple feet. If yours only does a few inches you got ripped off.
Yep, and if you take a 3/32" drill bit to make the nozzle wider and flip the propane tank upside down so the pressure is blowing out liquid instead of gas, then you get a lot more range and BTUs out of them.
Re: (Score:1)
you have to accept some responibility for what happens.
No. No, I don't. I have no control over how people abuse things. That's like saying we should stop making box cutters because they were used on 9/11. At some point people have to accept the fact that there are evil and clever characters in this world who can subvert the use of almost anything for a weapon. There are lots of tools that make very difficult and time consuming jobs very easy but that when, used on people, can cause carnage. Solution: don't use them on people.
This reminds me of when I we
Re: (Score:3)
Capitalism wins. Look for 'real' nozzles at the same store. Since they're sold separately from the dangerous can, they can be - wait for it - a nozzle. No silly springs, flaps, clamps or pinchers.
Re: (Score:1)
- Suicide kit vending machines in areas around phsychiatric wards. Be sure to display 'this is a toy' on the box.
- Location aware apps that target AA meeting locations and advertise the nearest happy hour special
- Candy that looks exactly like medication, purchased in a real medication bottle. You could even make it look like a brand of ecstasy.
- Candy that looks like tide pods that you actually CAN eat.
Why not? It's legal so screw you.
Re: (Score:2)
> - Suicide kit vending machines in areas around phsychiatric wards. Be sure to display 'this is a toy' on the box.
Why not? If you are a liberal then you are probably all for suicide so long as the state is in the middle of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: What's the range on the thing? (Score:2)
Here you go: https://www.roverparts.com/Par... [roverparts.com]
Yeah, more expensive than the red plastic containers you find at the Depot of Home, but it is far less aggravating, and will last forever with just a gasket replacement every few years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They certainly wouldn't use one of these toys while drunk at a bush party
Before or after they make a campfire, light a BBQ, and toss away their burning cigarettes ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The 'international community' the still needs American supervision/protection? 70 years after WW2? That international community?
Re:What's the range on the thing? (Score:4, Funny)
but because CA's had a drought for ages and the last thing they need is numbnuts running around setting stuff on fire for fun (which appears to be the core market for this thing).
I think rich folks in CA are buying flamethrowers for use as a tool in the Great American Pastime of rich folks in CA . . . gentrification!
Knocking down a multi-family apartment building to build a single family tech-oligarchy dwelling is a bit of a hassle. There will be a lot of debris that needs to be hauled away. If you torch the building with a flamethrower first, the families living there will voluntarily move out, and you will have less debris that needs to be disposed of.
gentrification! Oh noes!! (Score:1)
Because it is immoral and should be against the law for richer people to pay poorer people above market for their homes and turn crime ridden cess pools into nice areas to live.
Re: gentrification! Oh noes!! (Score:2)
They don't have to sell at free-market prices, and they could work to improve their community themselves.
Besides, there's so much land not in the city they can take their money to and start a new life outside a lot of poverty.
Oh wait, I bet they don't own their homes - they rent them from rich folks who get all the money.
Sucks to be poor, I guess.
Re: (Score:2)
Besides, there's so much land not in the city they can take their money to and start a new life outside a lot of poverty.
Not a lot of jobs out of the city, nor practical transit to and from where there is jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly backwards.
Re: (Score:2)
People need a place to live, a place to work, and a way to get there and back. Should each of those be in or out of the city?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
but because CA's had a drought for ages and the last thing they need is numbnuts running around setting stuff on fire for fun (which appears to be the core market for this thing).
It's a propane roofing torch with a little extra range. It's something you hang in your garage and bring out at parties to light the barbecue. Honestly, it's probably less dangerous than Coleman fuel, which many a camper has used in place of lighter fluid. It's definitely less dangerous than alcohol in a super soaker, and it's not like kids haven't done that for decades.
Re:What's the range on the thing? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
It's not really a flamethrower is it. It's hardly projecting flaming material 60 feet away, which is surely the basic definition of a flamethrower. Military grade the material would stick to whatever it hits too, which is a bit of a bugger if that's you.
Odd Examples (Score:1)
It's sort of odd for Santiago to use those examples because you can buy a tank in the US no problem. It's only the main gun and machine guns that are regulated, with the main gun requiring a $200 destructive device tax as well as the same $200 DD tax on each shell. But if you don't want the guns on it you can buy a tank just fine with no background checks.
The same goes for armor piercing ammunition. The ban in the US on it only applies to handgun calibers. You can still buy black tipped 30-06 from WWII.
Re: (Score:2)
Citation needed. I shot a 20mm Lahti at a machine gun shoot for well under $200.
Sporting exception? Yeah, I'm hunting squirrel...
Ha (Score:1, Troll)
I honestly thought it was a joke when I saw the news about this," the assemblyman said in a statement at the time. "This product, in the wake of California's deadliest wildfire year in state history, is incredibly insensitive, dangerous, and most definitely not funny.
Maybe if the commies in Commifornia gave up communism they wouldn't have to deal with Hellfire and mockery.
Re:Elon Musk needs to be held accountable (Score:4)
For his children? Yes. For other adults? No, of course not, that's what it means to be an adult. Also, you don't get to treat other adults as children either.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Elon Musk needs to be held accountable (Score:3)
You act like parents aren't constantly hypocritical when parenting, about a great many subjects. Alcohol, tobacco, drugs, sex, driving, curse words, porn, video games, firearms, power tool safety, household chemicals, etc.
All of these things are widely available, and used / abused by parents while those same parents tell their children not to.
It's a wonder that society hasn't collapsed, according to you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait a second, fire hasn't been a toy forever?
I misspent my youth. Black powder is also a toy.
Like anything is different. (Score:4, Interesting)
I cannot even begin to imagine the problems a flamethrower would cause firefighters and police officers alike."
Just look around. Nothing has changed. Flamethrowers have been legal in CA since before it became a state. And yet to the best of my knowledge there isn't a single instance, ever, of one being used maliciously. (please correct me if I'm wrong)
This attempt at legislation looks more like a some kind of "OMG! Flamethrowers are scary! We have to outlaw them!" type of knee jerk BS I've come to expect from California lawmakers.
Re:Like anything is different. (Score:5, Funny)
>"This attempt at legislation looks more like a some kind of "OMG! Flamethrowers are scary! We have to outlaw them!" type of knee jerk BS I've come to expect from California lawmakers."
That is because they are "Assault Flamethowers", just like the "Assault Revolver" and "Assault Shotgun"... soon to be followed by the "Assault Car" and "Assault Steakknight" and "Assault Baseball bat". Come on, get with the narrative, already!
Re: (Score:3)
That is because they are "Assault Flamethowers", just like the "Assault Revolver" and "Assault Shotgun"... soon to be followed by the "Assault Car" and "Assault Steakknight" and "Assault Baseball bat". Come on, get with the narrative, already!
I assure you you have nothing to fear from the "Assault Steak Knights", as we only assault cows.
Re: (Score:2)
>"I assure you you have nothing to fear from the "Assault Steak Knights", as we only assault cows."
LOL, I caught the typo right after pressing Submit. Too late! Made it kinda funny, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry - Darwin has this covered (Score:2)
I've not looked up the specs, but as one who is slightly familiar with real flamethrowers, (and I doubt this is one), then you have to be really careful...if not, you're just as likely to cover yourself with flaming liquid as you are to "have fun"...or whatever the hell you're trying to do with it.
Re: (Score:2)
I've not looked up the specs, but as one who is slightly familiar with real flamethrowers, (and I doubt this is one), then you have to be really careful...if not, you're just as likely to cover yourself with flaming liquid as you are to "have fun"...or whatever the hell you're trying to do with it.
This. Real flamethrowers spray burning oil on stuff. Think napalm. This really is "not a flamethrower", it is a glorified tiger torch.
Re: (Score:2)
Real flamethrowers shoot flaming liquid. This things just burns propane through a nozzle.
Re: (Score:3)
That's nothing (Score:2)
That's nothing compared to the problems a flamethrower would cause to marshmallows.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
But you can... (Score:2)
Tanks [slashdot.org] are legal to own. Just a bit expensive. And if the main gun is operative a tax stamp is needed for the destructive device. Armor piercing, even anti tank rounds [slashdot.org] are available as well...
Politicians seldom actually research. And regards armor piercing rounds? Tungsten balls put into hollowpoint ammo suffice for light armor, and large game hunting rounds that aren’t armor piercing, wil
Re: (Score:2)
Musk doesn't have a conscience. It's that simple. No sign that he understands the consequences of his actions whatsoever.
Come on, hes basically selling a pocket lighter, not heroin to children, like the drug company Bayer used to do
Re: (Score:2)
Come on, hes basically selling a pocket lighter, not heroin to children, like the drug company Bayer used to do
Come on, Bayer didn't just sell heroin to kids, they made chemical weapons for use against US soldiers. Which of course is why they lost the US trademarks for Heroin and Aspirin.
Re: (Score:2)
Musk doesn't have a conscience. It's that simple. No sign that he understands the consequences of his actions whatsoever.
This statement is obtuse and you are an obtuse person.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Hold my beer and watch this (Score:2)
Because I'm sure there won't be a liability waiver involved in the purchase of such a thing.
Get real.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)