Len Dawn

A Cursory Look into U.S. Laws Governing Possession, Transport, Transfer or Use of Airsoft Guns

In a recent public disturbance in Albuquerque, New Mexico, the man carrying two airsoft rifles in plain sight, was merely questioned and later released by the responding police officers. Had the incident happened in another state or country, the carrying of a replica gun in public would have been treated as a criminal offense.

As it is, U.S. laws governing the use and handling of non-powder replica firearms like airsoft guns, vary from state to state; making it important for airsoft gun proponents to know what a state considers as legal or illegal before transferring, selling, transporting or buying a realistic-looking replica firearm.

U.S.Federal Laws Governing Non-Powder Airsoft and BB Guns

Airsoft and BB guns are generally used for recreational combat competitions, as props in movies and for simulated military or police training. An airsoft rifle or handgun with the most realistic-looking appearance and features, are therefore the most attractive. On a nationwide level, there are no specific federal laws that restrict the use, ownership, or sale of replica firearms.

Federal statutory limitations are mostly concerned with “substantial product hazard/s,” particularly their potential risks of causing injury to children. That being the case, the federal government explicitly prohibits the sale of replica weapons to minors.

The government agency tasked to regulate and oversee the manufacture and sale of mock weapons is the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Specifically, federal product regulations require the following:

  • Replica or “look-alike firearms” must have a blaze orange plug-insert, permanently affixed in the barrel of the mock weapon.
  • A similar marking must appear on the external surface of the barrel.
  • Construction of a non-powder firearm must make use of transparent or translucent materials.
  • Additionally, federal regulations require covering the lookalike weapon using specific bright colors.

The aforementioned regulations override any state law that is inconsistent with the stated requirements.

Autonomous Power of State Governments to Impose Laws on Non-Powder Firearms

In the U.S., every state government has the autonomous power to impose statutes regulating the sale, ownership and use of non-powder, pellet-powered replica firearms. However, under federal regulations, such laws must not include prohibitions on the sale of conventional mock weapons.

The States of Delaware, Connecticut and North Dakota appear to have the most rigid laws pertaining to non-powder replica firearms, because they define such articles as “dangerous weapons.” That being the case, it is illegal in those states to carry or transport mock firearms without a duly approved permit.

In most U.S. regions, state governments define non-powder replica guns as Firearms and therefore subjecting the use, sale, ownership, transfer, and possession of non-powder guns to the state’s Firearms Law. Majority of state laws, regardless of their definition of a replica non-powder gun, strictly impose age restrictions, as well as explicitly prohibit the carrying of mock firearms in school grounds.

In some jurisdictions, low caliber, low velocity airsoft guns are excluded from the firearms definition. Click here to gather more information about airsoft rifles and handguns with low or high caliber and rate of velocity.

 

The Housing Policies in the US, Limit the Political Influence of American Homeowners

How Can a Relatively Few Number of Homeowners Influence American Politics?

Homeownership political influence is affected if a country’s government does not regard affordable housing for low-income earners as an important agenda. As far back as 1996, the Republicans have put forward a campaign platform that will eliminate the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Although scrapping of the HUD has not materialized, the department continues to operate under limited authority and inadequate budgets.

That being the case, homeowners remain vulnerable to the actions taken by the present government. The current Trump administration has implemented tariffs that made primary construction materials such as lumber, nails and dry wall more expensive, even for middle-income earners. The US National Association of Home Builders, estimates that costs of building a new house will increase by as much as $9,000.

The Future of Homeownership In the US Hangs in a Balance

When the U.S. Congress Congress failed to pass a spending bill that had to consider U.S President Donald Trump’s demand for an additional $5.7 billion for the ongoing extension of the US-Mexico Border Wall, a partial government shutdown took effect. On Dec. 22, 2018, the start of a long-running partial government shutdown, ceased operations of several government agencies.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development was caught unprepared, as inexperienced HUD officials appointed by the Trump administration failed to renew expired affordable housing contracts. The contracts could have lessened the impact of Trump’s tariffs on middle and low-income earners seeking to rebuild or build their home.

The prolonged shutdown made homeownership future look even more bleak. As an aftermath to HUD’s temporary closure, Pamela Patenaude, touted as the most capable political leader supervising the HUD, along with several other HUD executives, submitted their resignation.

In the latest development (January 25, 2019), President Trump agreed to sign a bill to temporarily lift the partial government shutdown until Feb. 15, 2019. After which, he is still adamant that his $5.7 billion funding demand for the Border Wall will remain a condition for the final appropriations bill.

Upholding Animal Rights: Can Animals Turn to Governments for Protection?

Animal activism pertains to social movements that assert the moral rights of animals to live not as properties of humans; but as living beings with rights to exist on their own purpose, whilst receiving protection from harm. Although provided with rational arguments put forward by intellectuals, the movement is unable to gain total support from governments.

Animal Liberalization or Animal Welfare Rights?

Apparently, countries have differing laws on how to protect animals thriving within their region. Primarily because animal agriculture plays an important role in the economy of every nation. Food and by-products (e.g. milk, cheese, butter, eggs) produced by farm animals cannot be just removed as part of daily subsistence.

Moreover, putting an end to the practice of eating meat and all other food products derived from animals will result to business closures and loss of jobs. After all, the supply chain in which farm animals have great value includes that of leather and pharmaceutical industries.

Different ideologies divide organizations engaged in animal activism. One faction calls for total liberation of animals; recognizing every species as non-human animals. Their advocacy is to liberate animals from human activities, such as partaking of animal meat, using animals for scientific researches, and/or keeping them in cages either as pets, as performers, or as business inventory.

The other faction seeks only for the enactment of laws that will ensure animal welfare while in the care of owners, breeders or users. Here, non-human animals are classified as members of species that have value to species belonging to the upper level of a hierarchical system. Even if such is the case, their movement aims to stop mistreatment of animals; including cruel methods used in slaughtering animals in order to serve a business purpose.

Other smaller factions include the veganarchists, anti-hunting activists and militant animal liberators. The latter, insists on advancing the cause by direct and if necessary, violent actions.

Recent Laws Enacted by a Country as a Result of Animal Activism

Animal liberationists contend that countries do not recognize the natural values of non-human animals. Lawmakers enact laws based on the benefits that can be derived from their use, either as sources of food products, raw materials, or as pets or as entertainers. Their case point is exemplified by the U.S. Animal Welfare Act, which exempts

pet stores … state and country fairs, livestock shows, rodeos, purebred dog and cat shows, and any fairs or exhibitions intended to advance agricultural arts and science

In contrast, European Union (EU) countries enacted laws that ban fur farming even if it meant closing an important sector of the clothing industry. The United Kingdom for one, banned fur farming in 2000, a pre-election pledge fulfilled by the then ruling Labour party. The passing of the fur-farming bill, was also influenced by the daily protests organized by animal welfare rights movements.

Thereafter, several EU members followed suit, Austria, Netherlands, Denmark and Slovenia. Several others will implement the same ban as soon as the related phase-out period of the fur farming business attains completion.

The most recent to impose such law is Serbia. The county closed down fur farms, saving thousands of chinchillas from the horrible treatment and methods used by breeders in removing velvety-soft furs. The rescued animals have since been transferred to new owners; promising to give the best care and attention needed by the creatures, including the best cage for chinchilla recuperation.

𐌢