The article says he was charged with a probation violation, which suggests he is an ex-felon. That would make him federally ineligible to own a firearm... but (depending on state law, and I'm not up on California) very possibly NOT a flare gun. In California, I believe it also makes him ineliigible to own real ammunition... but (I think) not flares. Shooting someone with a flare would cause serious damage (as well as possible collateral arson), so replacing the contents with a less-lethal alternative is at least rational in some applications.
Bottom line is, perhaps this fellow really did his research and constructed a personal defense weapon *that he could legally own.*
Why do I say defense? Did you notice the "victim" declined to press charges? Hmmm.
The article says he was charged with a probation violation, which suggests he is an ex-felon. That would make him federally ineligible to own a firearm... but (depending on state law, and I'm not up on California) very possibly NOT a flare gun. In California, I believe it also makes him ineliigible to own real ammunition... but (I think) not flares. Shooting someone with a flare would cause serious damage (as well as possible collateral arson), so replacing the contents with a less-lethal alternative is at least rational in some applications.
ReplyDeleteBottom line is, perhaps this fellow really did his research and constructed a personal defense weapon *that he could legally own.*
Why do I say defense? Did you notice the "victim" declined to press charges? Hmmm.