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."

Comments

To be fair, Santiago has a point.

[Qbertino]

As far as wacky jokes go, this one is a little over the top.

Re:To be fair, Santiago has a point.

[Nutria]

Only if he can explain the difference between military-grade and non-military-grade tanks.

Re: To be fair, Santiago has a point.

[Anonymous Coward]

A military-grade tank doesn't have to pass emissions tests.

Re:To be fair, Santiago has a point.

[blindseer]

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: To be fair, Santiago has a point.

[ShanghaiBill]

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. 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, so they don't make 'em anymore.

Re:To be fair, Santiago has a point.

[blindseer]

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:To be fair, Santiago has a point.

[Type44Q]

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.

Not a flamethrower

[religionofpeas]

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.

Re:What's the range on the thing?

[oic0]

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.

Re:What's the range on the thing?

[PolygamousRanchKid]

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.

Re:Elon Musk needs to be held accountable

[bill_mcgonigle]

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.

Like anything is different.

[PinkyGigglebrain]

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.

[markdavis]

>"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:What's the range on the thing?

[fluffernutter]

The good news is, Elon Musk can adjust the flame length OTA depending on the amount of liberalism in the area.

over reacting children

[ArylAkamov]

That isn't a fucking flamethrower, it's an expensive weed burner with a cool shape. You can buy them anywhere. It's compressed gas powered as well, so it's very safe.
These people don't know their ass from a gloryhole in a truck stop bathroom.