Destructive Device question

[essohbe]

If you want to load chalk or bean-bags (basically any non-lethal ammo) in a shotshell or flare is it then considered a D.D. or would you have to load lethal shot or exploding ammo to make it D.D.?

Some say yes and some say no. I hate trying to navigate through the ATF garbage that often conflicts itself. Does anyone know for sure?

[Don H]

Chalk and beanbags can most certainly be lethal. Depending on the state, there may not be any legal distinction regarding the supposed lethlity of the projectile. In other words, be it lead or feathers, the criminal charges (if any are made) will be the same.

The legal definition of 'destructive device':

Destructive device
The term “destructive device” means

(1) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas
(A) bomb,

(B) grenade,

(C) rocket having a propellent charge of more than four ounces,

(D) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce,

(E) mine, or

(F) similar device;

(2) any type of weapon 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, the barrel or barrels of which have a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter, except a shotgun or shotgun shell which the Secretary finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes; and

(3) any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into a destructive device as defined in subparagraphs (1) and (2) 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 ordnance sold, loaned, or given by the Secretary of the Army pursuant to the provisions of section 4684 (2), 4685, or 4686 of title 10 of the United States Code; or any other device which the Secretary finds is not likely to be used as a weapon, or is an antique or is a rifle which the owner intends to use solely for sporting purposes.

[essohbe]

What if you loaded chalk with less than 4oz? Oh well.

[highvel]

And, would you be quicker to shoot someone with beans, thinking it's less than lethal? I think it may open a huge can of worms legally.

[44 AMP]

If you want to load chalk or bean-bags (basically any non-lethal ammo) in a shotshell ...

Stop right there. There is NO "Non-lethal" ammo. There is less likely to be lethal, but loads with all kinds of "less likely" things have proven lethal under the right conditions. Even the classic rock salt and blanks have killed people, although its rare, it has happened.

The legal problem with "less likely to be lethal" is that, like shooting to "wound" it shows that you were not convinced that deadly force was necessary. And if you are not convinced that deadly force is necessary to stop your attacker (and shooting somebody with anything is going to be considered deadly force), then you don't have any justification for shooting soneone. Legally.

Since there is no explosive or incindeary in your proposed rounds, I don't think they would fall under the definition of destructive device.

I just don't know what you would use them for. Police can use them, in the course of their duties, but they have govt lawyers and money backing them up.

[kozak6]

It depends on whether you are talking about shotshells or flare shells.

It doesn't really matter what you load into a shotgun. Even though shotguns are generally over .50 cal, they are also generally considered particularly suitable for sporting purposes, so there is usually no NFA trouble.

However, it's inadvisable to use "less lethal" handloads to shoot people and other living things.

As for a flare shell, look here:

-> pdf 30 kB
http://www.atf.gov/regulations-rulin...uling-95-3.pdf

A flare shell with an anti-personnel load, possessed with a flare gun, is a Destructive Device. The ruling is written unusually clearly considering the source.