Painting your gun with a 6mm - 2" blaze orange stripe on the end

[ODA 226]

imported post

simmonsjoe wrote:

ODA 226
Good choice to bug out. This thread is in lala land.

Joe,

Thanks for the support.

I apologize if I ever called or thought you were an asshat.LOL! You're not!

Craig

 

[ODA 226]

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

The basic code is part of 308 and is the definition of "concealed". -

"For the purpose of this section, a weapon shall be deemed to be hidden from common observation when it is observable but is of such deceptive appearance as to disguise the weapon's true nature."

There is similar language in ATF regulations and in fact there is a part of ATF regs that refers to "Hoax" weapons. Generally the Hoax issue relates to fake bombs and the like, but the language talks about "with the intent of targeting emergency or LE personnel to disrupt normal operations." I am trying to reach my contact at ATF to explore this a little.

In any case it is by no means clear tome that it is legal to disguise a firearm and carry it in public. Certainly here in VIrginia there is an issue with this. I think in the case of Virginia part of the problem might be that our permits are for the carry of a handgun concealed. The permit does not cover other devices like knives.

I knew it was somewhere in 18.2-308, but didn't have time to look it up for cite. Thanks. I also was going to call ATF and VSP Firearms Branch but I think they may be closed tomorrow.

Since this deals with "when it is observable but is of such deceptive appearance as to disguise the weapon's true nature", I don't believe a CHP would cover carrying something like this. Of course it may come down toproving mens reaor prima facie evidence that he intended to commit a crime. IMHOboth in this case isres ipsa loquitur.

Maybe we should ask the AG for an opinion?

 

[Task Force 16]

imported post

Let's look at this orange tip gun business from another angle.

OK, we know what Leonards excuse was for doing it, to prevent a cop from shooting him. Silly, maybe.

But suppose you encounter a BG and you draw a weapon on him/her that has the muzzle painted orange?

Now, I think we're all familiar with the statistics that show that in all the incidents that a gun is used to stop a felony crime, only a very small precentage require actually firing the weapon.

So you've pulled your weapon (doesn't matter what type it is) on the BG and the perp sees the orange muzzle. He/she may think you're some fool with a toy gun and continue executing his/her crime, forcing you to have to prove to him that it isn't. So now, you've shot some one that may have surrendered or fled had he/she believed you were armed with a real gun. And there's a possibility that an innocent could be harmed as well, due to the deception the orange muzzle created.

I think most of us would rather not have to fire our weapon if we don't have too, right?

 

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

ODA 226 wrote:

...SNIP

I knew it was somewhere in 18.2-308, but didn't have time to look it up for cite. Thanks. I also was going to call ATF and VSP Firearms Branch but I think they may be closed tomorrow.

Since this deals with "when it is observable but is of such deceptive appearance as to disguise the weapon's true nature", I don't believe a CHP would cover carrying something like this. Of course it may come down to proving mens rea or prima facie evidence that he intended to commit a crime. IMHO both in this case is res ipsa loquitur.

Maybe we should ask the AG for an opinion?

I agree. In looking around most states that permit concealed carry also have this language in their laws.

I think your premise that it might fall into the AOW for ATF/NFA classification my be important too. If that is the case it could be that modification without proper paper and tax accounting could be a separate offense.

I know ATF will be open tomorrow, but they will likely get off early and a lot of folks will be gone for the day.

 

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

Task Force 16 wrote:

Let's look at this orange tip gun business from another angle.

OK, we know what Leonards excuse was for doing it, to prevent a cop from shooting him. Silly, maybe.

But suppose you encounter a BG and you draw a weapon on him/her that has the muzzle painted orange?

Now, I think we're all familiar with the statistics that show that in all the incidents that a gun is used to stop a felony crime, only a very small precentage require actually firing the weapon.

So you've pulled your weapon (doesn't matter what type it is) on the BG and the perp sees the orange muzzle. He/she may think you're some fool with a toy gun and continue executing his/her crime, forcing you to have to prove to him that it isn't. So now, you've shot some one that may have surrendered or fled had he/she believed you were armed with a real gun. And there's a possibility that an innocent could be harmed as well, due to the deception the orange muzzle created.

I think most of us would rather not have to fire our weapon if we don't have too, right?
 

Good point. I would not want to have to defend that kind of a shooting in court.