Difdi
Regular Member
One thing I've always been kinda interested in is the possible use of an airgun (with suitably non-mousey projectiles) as my carry weapon.
It has a few things to recommend it -- among them ease of cleaning, compactness of ammunition (at least the bullet portion) and lack of hot, burning gun powder. With the right springs, valve machining and tuning you can easily reduce a 2x4 into a cloud of splinters with a paintball gun, though I'd use something a little more accurate if I did it (minie ball bearings, anyone? heh).
But I never actually tried it, because in Washington the carry of firearms is protected by the state constitution, but airguns were not considered firearms so lots of places had laws in place banning them. Just not worth the risk.
But now we have a state law that has drastically broadened the definition of what a firearm is. Firearms now include everything from nailguns to flare guns to paintball guns. And the state preempts firearm laws.
So now I'm wondering -- while I'd hate to be a test case, would you agree that a plain English reading of the law would mean that an airgun could be a carry weapon now?
It has a few things to recommend it -- among them ease of cleaning, compactness of ammunition (at least the bullet portion) and lack of hot, burning gun powder. With the right springs, valve machining and tuning you can easily reduce a 2x4 into a cloud of splinters with a paintball gun, though I'd use something a little more accurate if I did it (minie ball bearings, anyone? heh).
But I never actually tried it, because in Washington the carry of firearms is protected by the state constitution, but airguns were not considered firearms so lots of places had laws in place banning them. Just not worth the risk.
But now we have a state law that has drastically broadened the definition of what a firearm is. Firearms now include everything from nailguns to flare guns to paintball guns. And the state preempts firearm laws.
So now I'm wondering -- while I'd hate to be a test case, would you agree that a plain English reading of the law would mean that an airgun could be a carry weapon now?
Last edited: