http://www.gunblogs.org/2011/01/cro...njamin-rogue-357-big-bore-epcp-air-rifle

No...and it ain't innovative. This is repackaging of existing concepts. There were some "air rifles" years ago that injected a small amount of volitile solvent like ether and the diesel combustion of that solvent helped propel the pellet. ATF does consider those to be firearms.....this is just a complicated air rifle.

An Air rifle is an Air rifle. Period.

The only unique thing about that gun is it's electronically controlled air valve.

The projectile is STILL propelled by air.

larger caliber air rifles have been around since the 1400's......nothing "new" about this.....

BTW if BATF controls these will they also control those large air cannons they shoot pumpkins out of? if you think the above will do damage can you imagine an 8 pound pumpkin fired at yah at 100 yards from a cannon capable of launching said pumpkin most of a mile?

If these things are used for criminal activities, someone will try to regulate them.

It's not classified as a firearm under the '68 GCA:

"� 921 Definitions.

(a) As used in this chapter�

(3) The term 'firearm' means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm."

Page 5: http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-5300-4.pdf

"Any destructive device" can cover a lot of things.

But by the ATF's own applied definition it does NOT include airguns.

Period.

A link was provided for you to READ and RESEARCH, not post half-assed comments. From the definition immediately following firearm:

"(A) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas�

(i) bomb, (ii) grenade, (iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, (iv) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, (v) mine, or (vi) device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses; (B) any type of weapon (other than a shotgun or a shotgun shell which the Attorney General finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes) by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter; and (C) any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into any destructive device described in subparagraph (A) or (B) and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled.

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 ordinance 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."

You will note the airgun is not an explosive, incendiary or poison gas.

Nor is it a bomb, grenade, rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, missile having an explosive nor incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, mine, nor any device similar to the previously described devices.

It is also not a type of weapon that may be readily converted to expel a projectile via an explosive or other propellant. This is key: IT USES COMPRESSED AIR OR OTHER INERT GAS.

READ. THINK. THEN REPLY. IN THAT ORDER.

Well, If the ATF says it isn't then it isn't.

edit: Being less than a 50 caliber does seem to put it outside the definition of destructive devices.

Half assed? I have my whole ass still intact because I learned long ago not to trust people from the government who might want to lock you up. I do not feel a word of caution was out of line. I didn't say whether it was one way or another. You, Bricktop, can go sit on a snake if you can't understand what I wrote.

NO ,YOU are saying that.

A Knife or Baseball bat is a "destructive device", too .

I don't see the ATF declaring them to be firearms ,either.

Damn near every law in the books can be interpreted in more than one way..

That's what prior regulatory and legal precedents are for.

The ATF does NOT consider Airguns to be firearms . Period.

Jim, I didn't say whether it was or was not. I don't really have an opinion. I do know that the government folks can interpret things in all sorts of ways and that their definitions of what a firearm is, based on the reference given, can be quite broad and open to changing interpretations.

Uh, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, the reference is quite clear in its definition and scope. You really ought to put the effort into reading it that you're putting into posting these obviously poorly thought-out replies.

ONCE AGAIN, A DESTRUCTIVE DEVICE AS DEFINED BY THE '68 GCA IS ONE THAT USES AN IGNITABLE PROPELLANT OR OTHER INCENDIARY DEVICE TO DISCHARGE A PROJECTILE. AN AIRGUN USES COMPRESSED AIR OR OTHER INERT GAS. COMPRESSED AIR OR OTHER INERT GAS IS NOT AN IGNITABLE PROPELLANT NOR IS IT INCENDIARY.

bricktop, You need to read a little more and not put your own words into what is written. Please point out the place where it says IGNITABLE propellant. The part I read in part B just said propellant. A propellant can be interpreted as a variety of things that do not have to ignite.

I think I read a little deeper than you did.

No, a propellant cannot "be interpreted as a variety of things that do not have to ignite," nitwit. That's your own sad, little, ignorant definition. As stated previously, please put the effort into researching what you intend to post vice, you know, posting something dumb; i.e. your previous posts on the subject.

What kind of propellant does a spray can have? Show me in your official government publication where it says it has to ignite.

Anything they can get away with that will build the empire.

Why do I have to conduct research for an imbecile like you? Get off your ass and look it up yourself.

Here's something that applies to you, Notropis:

"Adjudicated as a mental defective.

(a) A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease:

(2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs."

I did look it up. It is not there. You can't find it because it is not there. You put the igniteable part in your definition.

This points out why my original post is relevant.

That's just it, in terms of REALITY , your post has no "relevance".

For the last 40+ years, the ATF has never sought to regulate airguns...

Because they are NOT FIREARMS..

It's sad when the ATF has more common sense than you seem to have in this area. By your open ended interpretation of "destructive devices", every thing from a claw hammer to a baseball bat is a "firearm".

I hope you also don't have any unregistered potatoes, plastic pop bottles or auto oil filters in your possession. By your paranoid logic, the ATF definition of a Silencer includes those items as well since they CAN be attached to a firearm to moderate the sound.

Uh, you are aware that legal definitions exist in other documents besides the one I provided, aren't you? No, strike that, you're not. It's readily apparent that you didn't spend a single second looking elsewhere and only looked at the document and definitions I posted because you were goaded into doing so. You want to somehow equate an aerosol can -- an item that doesn't drive a projectile -- with a firearm. And you keep harping on this ignorant definition of "propellant" that you've created in your infantile little mind.

Inert gases and air are not ignitable, nor are they combustible. Period. They are not explosive. Period. A propellant is a combustible material that produces gas upon ignition or creates an explosion capable of PROPELLING an object or objects with force. I really don't know why this is having to be explained to an alleged "adult," because everyone else here understands it. My dog understands it. And you? Well, you're kind of a dunce, so maybe there's no point in explaining it.

Bricktop, you are the one who put the ignitable part in your very limited definition of propellant. It is silly to think that a term such as propellant has but one very narrow definition. Notice they mentioned "other propellants" in the text.

Jim, reread my post if you are able. I clearly said that the ATF said it was not a firearm. You even quoted me in your reply. I further stated that the gun in question had a bore less than .50 inch and was clearly excluded.

I don't see any wording in the text that would even suggest that a hammer or potato would be considered to be a firearm.

The relevance of the original post becomes even clearer as this discussion continues because it points out that people will read what they want to read and act accordingly. Words often can be interpreted in many different ways, and the seemingly strict definitions given in the text may not be quite as strict as they may appear when spun by lawyers, judges, and beaurocrats. Just think how much grief the definition of "militia" in the 2nd has caused us gun owners.

You're quite the crawfisher, aren't you? Jim and I started beating your butt over your belief that an airgun could be "interpreted" to be a destructive device. Now you're claiming you realize it isn't and you've edited some of your responses to mirror that.

No, I didn't "put the ignitable part" in any "limited definition of propellant," dummy, I quoted the legal definition of a propellant. Get someone to look it up and read it to you. Maybe a diorama will help. I don't offer research for illiterate morons, Notropis, and yes, I DO mean you.

There are a myriad of reasons why this isn't a destructive device under current federal gun control laws; it doesn't use fixed ammunition, it doesn't use any sort of combustible, ignitable propellant to discharge a projectile, etc. This has already been covered. But you, Notropis, just can't get it through your THICK head.

Get someone to read to you the earlier quoted definition of "adjudicated as a mental defective," because it fits you to a T.

I have edited nothing other that spelling or changes that have been noted. My original post, which you and Jim seemed not to understand, was simply a statement that destructive devices can have a broad meaning under the guidelines that were posted. That is a true statement. I never said in my first post that an airgun was classed as a firearm by the ATF and on my second post agreed with you that the ATF says it is not. I agreed with you two again when I noted that it did not fit the criteria for a destructive device because it has a bore smaller than .50".

I am not sure what your problem is in understanding these things.

I would hope that Jim can read better than you can and hope he eventually understands what I have written.


It is fairly hard for me to edit something that has been quoted by someone else in their threads. The edit accusation is even flimsier than your other arguments.

The "other propellants" mentioned in the text you posted leaves the definition wide open to anything that can serve that function. How about explosive? Are all explosions caused by "ignitable" substances? Hardly. Did you never pop a balloon? You limited understanding of the meanings of words is quite entertaining.

Beating my butt? That is laughable.

Jim62 and others:
I know the conversations has been related to BATFE. Thought you might this precedent of interst.
"Firearms" is a legislatively defined term. Here in the fine state of NY, most air rifles recently became firearms, due to some outstanding legislation. Pretty amazing what a pensroke can do.
What can I say? We have seasons for coyotes, crows, frogs & turtles. We elected Hillary as our Senator.
It makes me so proud.......

Fishdog.

I am well aware of what various NON FEDERAL entities around the country consider Airguns to be firearms. NJ, Michigan, Illinois and some cites in California do as well.

Most cites and states consider Airguns ,Knives and Baseball bats to be "deadly weapons" if used in a robbery or assault.

That still does not mean the ATF regulates them as firearms.

Like I said, 40+ years of ATF interpretation of their duties shows that does NOT include Airguns..

Also, it takes a hell of a lot more than the stroke of a pen to change the ATF regs as they are currently interpreted.

One thing nobody has mentioned here is that the Crosman Airgun in the OP has a BUILT IN SILNECER. So does their MArauder model rifle and pistol. Airgunners call them moderators, but they certainly meet the ATS definition of a silencer- in both design and performance.

Why no Class III tax stamp required? Because it is NOT MOUNTED ON A FIREARM.

You can damn well bet a company like Crosman that does 100 million plus in sales every year had a legal team THOROUGHLY research the legal and regulatory precedents of those products before they unveiled them about 2 years ago.

Uh, yeah you have. You posted this bit of "brilliance" at 9:32 P.M. CST last night:



jim62 took you to task over that at 9:43 P.M. CST when he posted this:



You then returned at 9:50 P.M. CST and added this to your post after he and I had both pointed out the citation from the '68 GCA defining firearms and destructive devices:

Not exactly a spelling error you were correcting there, was it, dummy?

Jim understands the definition of DDs, firearms, propellants, ammunition, and ALL of the other items defined in the '68 GCA just fine. So do I. He and I have both been taking you to task over this and, as has just been pointed out, you're trying hard to save face. Your ego just won't let you admit you didn't know what in the hell you were trying to discuss.

The federal government sets the minimum standards for legislation.

You have a hard time with time as well as understanding. "Well, if the ATF says it isn't then it isn't." Does not that indicate that I agree that the ATF does not think it is classified as a firearm? Sounds like it to me. The time it took to edit and get the supporting reference was what, 8 minutes? I like to read the reference thoroughly in order to give an accurate answer. I was editing while he was posting. How does my edit change the meaning of the original post? They both agree that the ATF does not consider it a firearm. The edit gives a specific reason why that is true.

You need to spend more time trying to understand the meaning of posts instead of going off half cocked thinking someone is saying something they are not saying.

Notropis,

I think you have misunderstood something here.

I have not been responding to Bricktop's arguments with you at ALL . I have not been following it, and have NOT been responding to it. If you go back and look at each one of my posts, they have only been addressed to YOU, not Bricktop.

All this is a waste of time.


I emailed Laura at Crossman last night to see if I could drive the 15 miles tomorrow and see the gun in question, and here is her reply:


Hello Allen,

The .357 model is only a prototype currently and not in production or for sale at this time. Please check our website for updates on when it will be ready. We�re expecting early summer sometime. Thank you for your interest in Crosman Corporation.

Regards,

~Laura


It isn't an available gun to argue over.......IE it may never make it to market, according to the listed contact in the advertisement.....

Allen

The gun is an AIRGUN. Period. The only folks wasting their time here are are the dingbats claiming the ATF will be regulating them.

Now, you trump that by claiming Crosman is not even serious about making them...LOL. Yeah, and they got NOSLER involved in making ammo for a gun that "may never be built"..???

Yah, right...

Who told you it may never make it to the market? There is NOTHING in Crosman's reply to indicate that.

Crosman's dealers have said not to expect delivery until the fall. Every one of the half dozen new guns they have come out with in the last 3 years at SHOT only existed as prototypes at the first of the year. And, they all have been in production by year's end.

Unlike Ruger, Crosman does not have a track record of taking orders for items at SHOT and then never making any.

If it is announced as due to be made, it will be built.

Jim, That post you quoted above is not my post but rather Bricktop's.

My question to you is why do you think my second post
"Well, If the ATF says it isn't then it isn't."
means that I think it is a firearm?

Lol


You are right, there has NEVER been a product announcement that failed to make it to market.....LOL

So what is the velocity of the rifle - if we can get away from the argum.. er discussion of its legality.

We are not talking about just ANY gun, we are talking about the new Airgun here that YOU claim Crosman may not ever build...


Show me ONE Crosman product announced at SHOT that they never made in production quantities..

Instead of seeing only what you want to see to back up your baseless RUMOR, try dealing in facts.

The FACT is Crosman does not take orders on guns they don't intend to produce.

You're right, Jim

I forgot you are the Wizard of Oz, all seeing and all knowing.

And nice edit, who said anything about taking orders? It's a press release the poster was discussing, I attempted to handle said product today and was told it does not exist for sale..... nothing implied, other than a laugh at arguing over something that has yet to be manufactured to be sold. Sorry you want to make an argument over facts I stated.

I posted the facts I was emailed, nowhere did I say anything derogatory about the company, it's practices of delivering items it makes press releases for. Not sure why you've got a lemon in that sour puss of yours......


Carry on your argumentative attitude, I am not here to piss on people as you seem to relish in.....

The gun was unveiled at SHOT dummy, and is listed in their 2011 catalog and website. Their major dealers are taking orders, so you can damn well bet Crosman is.

Also, NOLSER is making the .357 slugs for the gun.

So yes, your false claims about Crosman not even being serious about making the gun IS germane to the discussion.

Especially since YOU brought it up.

Try sticking to the truth and nobody will feel the need to call you on your BS.

All the information is in the article including MV and bullet weight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEe7-Khg6PI&feature=player_embedded#at=84

Jim, you are so focused on being right all the time, you fail, again, to see my point was more about the whole thread became a heated, namecalling post about a gun that isn't even on the market yet.


Sorry you failed at seeing my post was an attempt to " break the trend" of a debate about laws on a product that doesn't yet exist for sale.

BTW, I recall at least a year ago a discussion of Nosler making .357 bullets for an airgun... is this the same gun that was "hitting the market" over a year ago? You should have an answer to this, Jim, since you are the king of knowledge and see to never be wrong....lol

Hemi...

It not about me being right. It's about you being WRONG when you claim Crosman told you they "may never make the rifle"..

Instead of misrepresenting what the folks at Crosman told you, try telling the truth.

As to the Crosman .357 airgun being "unveiled" last year, MORE false fairy tales from your key board.....

I was at SHOT last year-2010. No Crosman .357 rifle was ever announced None in the catalog. None in the display. No orders taken for same. Just rumors from their engineers of a big bore being worked on for 2011. And once again, Crosman was telling the truth- hence the .357 at SHOT in 2011.

Everything they DID have in the catalog for 2010 was eventually made in production qualities by the end of the year. I see no reason why that will most hold true for 2011's products including the new .357 rifle.

Vastly more powerful air rifles than the Benjamin rogue have been manufactured and sold in the USA for over 40 years. Quackenbush and Gary Barnes are two names of design geniuses who build very powerful air rifles and deer, boar and even bison have been shot with them. The ATF has NOT regulated them though they are fully aware of their existence.

As far as their being used in a crime is concerned, it would take a particularly dense criminal to want to use one of these when he could buy a handgun that makes significantly more power illegally and fire vastly more shots out of it in a few seconds than would be possible with one of these air rifles in a whole week.

I do not agree with all of the ATF's views but I do think that they are smart people and would not waste their time on non issues. The idle speculation about them regulating air rifles sounds exactly like the kind of nonsense that appears on the pages of the most extreme British tabloids.

+1

Good post.