Slashdot Mirror
California's Efforts To Restrict Elon Musk's Flamethrowers Go Down In Flames (arstechnica.com)
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."
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.
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.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
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/
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.