Are Flamethrowers Legal? (California Laws)

[crazybuthappy]

Most of us have an interest in fire and many of us do at least dry runs of our work before heading out to Black Rock City. I was just emailed this summary today and have a new found respect for NAFAA. I have no previous affliation with NAFAA but plan on getting involved with them.
I suggest checking out their website. http://nafaa.org/

I have added hyper links and comments bracketed by + signs.

>Tedward +edited to protect from spam+ wrote:
>To: +edited to protect from spam+
>From: Tedward +edited to protect from spam+
>Subject: [NAFAA] CA fire marshal meeting
>Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 01:44:12 -0800
>
>Today was the quarterly SAFFE meeting and two important events came
>about.
>
>1) The state fire marshal was quite impressed
>with the new version 2 regs, and intends to
>implement them as the defacto suggestion for
>handling fire performers. Thus, if any fire
>department in California (or outside) that
>doesn't have regs involving fire performance,
>will be given the NAFAA regs as their base to
>work from. The state Fire Marshall, Al Adams is
>a very cool fellow who is totally hip to our
>concerns.
>
>2) California has declared war on Flamethrowers.
>Since 2003 the CA Senate has been batting around
>a couple of Flamethrower laws, and as of Jan 1st,
>the lesser of two evils has been put into place.
>Anyone intending to use a device that shoots
>flame should definitely read on.
>
>
>In 2003, the California Department of Justice (DOJ)
>sponsored a bill to change the penal code to, among
>many other things, make flamethrowers a destructive
>device under the weapons law. That bill was SB238
>(Perata) which can be found on the Internet in the
>legislative archives.
+ http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postq ... hor=perata+
>
>Destructive devices are things like field howitzers,
>anti-tank rocket launchers and similarly powerful
>weapons. Possessing these requires meeting difficult
>and expensive conditions set by DOJ and an annual fee,
>background investigation, etc. Failure to meet these
>conditions was a felony.
+I had previously found the Destructive Devices law. It’s consequences were almost enough to make want to put away all my tools, my teflon tape, and only use propane in my camp stove. Check it out here:
http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/dwcl/12301.htm+

>
>We opposed that bill because we felt that it did not
>sufficiently take entertainment use into consideration
>but it passed anyway. That left us in the above
>mentioned difficult and expensive situation, so last
>year we pursued changing the law to exempt
>entertainment industry use. That was opposed by DOJ,
>though we were able to work out a compromise which
>became SB1781.
>
>Items important to realize that we DID NOT advocate
>flamethrowers being heavily regulated but supported
>the SB1781 bill because we felt it was better than the
>then existing situation under the DOJ/weapons law.
>
>In essence (and anyone who might be affected should
>definitely read the actual text of the attached bill
>AND NOT simply rely on this summary), SB1781:
+ http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postq ... hor=knight+
>
>-transfers regulatory authority from the DOJ under the
>Penal Code to the State Fire Marshal under the Health
>and Safety Code.
>
>-defines flamethrowing device as "any nonstationary
>and transportable device designed or intended to emit
>or propel a burning stream of combustible or flammable
>liquid a distance of at least 10 feet."
>
>Source: Division 11 of the Health and Safety Code
>12750 (a) as per SB1781 (Knight)
>
>-makes it a crime to possess a flamethrowing device
>without a permit from the State Fire Marshal
>
>-requires, among other things, that a person who
>applies for such a permit have a Certificate of
>Eligibility (COE) from the DOJ
>
>The above is just our informal summary of this issue.
>Definitive information is contained in the law and set
>by the State Fire Marshal. As you know, the State Fire
>Marshal has formed a working group to begin to make
>regulations to implement the law and anyone who has a
>stake in the matter should contact Deputy Al Adams at
>+edited to protect from spam+ if they want to participate.
>Naturally, these regulations will be put out for
>public comment, etc. in accordance with administrative
>procedures before they are implemented.
>
>Hope that this is helpful to you. Please let any of
>your colleagues who might be affected know about this
>important change in the law.
>
>Thanks!
>
>Tas
>ASEPO Compliance Committee
>
>--
>
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>Tedward
>Founding Member
>North American Fire Arts Association
>http://nafaa.org/
>
>--^----------------------------------------------------------------
>This email was sent to: +edited to protect from spam+
>
>EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a2iX4r.a4vQuh.bW9ua2V5
>Or send an email to: +edited to protect from spam+
>
>For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
>http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
>--^----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Stuff your eyes with wonder.
>-Ray Bradbury
>http://www.firefabulon.sphosting.com
><http://www.firefabulon.sphosting.com/>
> _____

I used to live in Michigan and had a big back yard that was perfect for fire performances, testing of prototypes and my neighbors actually enjoyed our antics. As many of you know your rights are much better protected when on your own property. Now I live in a condo and testing a flamethrower anywhere within a ten mile raduis of my new house will probably require talking to the police.
I think you should draw your own conclusions about the legality of whatever device you intend to use but I like to be informed and understand the risks. Both technical and legal risks, I figure most of you do too.

Cliff Notes: If you use, make, or display flame devices especially flame throwers you should know the laws pertaining to your device. Alternatively you should plan on never getting caught using, making or displaying a flame device.

[sputnik]

Whoo Hoo, Fire Fabulon!