User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/7/2011 7:43:22 PM EST
[#1]
+1 aimless, if it exists, that sucks, but I'd rather know now so I don't waste any more time on the issue. Honestly, a cheap red laser and an LED IR illuminator work fine since, for me, the target is a piece of paper (paper doesn't shoot back). That being said, most of us, myself included, would rather have a nicer setup. This thread is proof that there are a TON of people that want one, but are going to lengths end to make sure it is legal before doing so. You would think that, with that many people TRYING TO DO THE RIGHT THING, those who create and enforce the regulations and statutes would be happy to provide us with a concrete (ie. able to be backed up by written and passed legislation, or a promulgated regulation) answer. I forgot about this topic for nearly a year then stumbled back into this thread last month, beginning to wish I hadn't!!
|
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 10/7/2011 8:06:40 PM EST
[Last Edit: wyager]
[#2]
Originally Posted By dhs_hsi:
As for the PEQ-15 on Gunbroker, I don't know why Insight couldn't give me the end user. Perhaps Insight never sold it because it was lost. Or maybe the records weren't properly maintained. Who knows. I can't rule out that it is NOT stolen property but there is enough doubt that it would not sit right with me to seize it. Speaking for myself, if I do seize a laser only to find that it wasn't Government owned (haven't yet, but maybe one day) there are other options which I cannot post publicly...:) Please clarify... This could mean a lot of different things. Originally Posted By fordkicksass:
You would think that, with that many people TRYING TO DO THE RIGHT THING, those who create and enforce the regulations and statutes would be happy to provide us with a concrete (ie. able to be backed up by written and passed legislation, or a promulgated regulation) answer. You would think, right? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2011 8:07:56 PM EST
[#3]
Originally Posted By dhs_hsi:
Another agent in my unit, Patrick Manson, phone number 206-442-1651, has been getting a lot of flak. People are posting that he's a scammer trying to take peoples' lasers. Several people have refused to ship him lasers believing the story. Some forum members are even going as far as to recommend people lie to law enforcement, either stating that they no longer have the unit and other foolish games. Let me be straightforward: We take reports of our interviews and phone calls and if someone says they don't have the laser and we hear from someone else whether it be a family member, friend acquaitance or stranger that they saw the person with a laser, that person can be charged with 18 USC 1001. Each lie is an additional count so the penalties can quickly add up if someone is fabricating a story since each element of the story is a separate count. Also know that if you are contacted and we tell you these items are 99.9% stolen and you purchase a laser in the future you are "knowingly" purchasing stolen property and can be charged with that crime as well. We do have other tools at our disposal when someone says they "lost it" or "sold it at a gun show". I would rather not mention it publicly since people are actively discussing how to evade our efforts to recover the devices. By the way, to those people, shame on you. You are actively profiting in the theft of taxpaper money and are un-American as they come. If you walked up to someone with a laser with no serial number wouldn't the burden of proof be on you? Before seizing it would you not have to at least have more than mere suspicion? Simply not having a serial number is not PC by a long shot. Now, if you saw a photo of someone's and asked them to return it and they said it was not theirs would that be PC enough for a warrant? I would personally think not as it could be argued that it could either be a fake, copy, movie prop, or simply not that persons equipment. Is reasonable suspicion, wait, mere suspicion enough for a warrant now? Is our fifth amendment really that watered down? I have no IR lasers so I really have nothing to lose either way, but this law pisses me off, and agents expecting people to just give up their rights really piss me off too. I understand that even if you can not build a case at least you are recovering property, but our rights as a nation are in trouble for just this sort of thinking. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2011 8:11:43 PM EST
[Last Edit: Aimless]
[#4]
Originally Posted By DM1975: He's said before that he thinks that because nearly all these lasers are sold to the military that he can seize any he finds, in addition he has some other 'secret move" where he can seize a laser even if you legally own it.Originally Posted By dhs_hsi: Another agent in my unit, Patrick Manson, phone number 206-442-1651, has been getting a lot of flak. People are posting that he's a scammer trying to take peoples' lasers. Several people have refused to ship him lasers believing the story. Some forum members are even going as far as to recommend people lie to law enforcement, either stating that they no longer have the unit and other foolish games. Let me be straightforward: We take reports of our interviews and phone calls and if someone says they don't have the laser and we hear from someone else whether it be a family member, friend acquaitance or stranger that they saw the person with a laser, that person can be charged with 18 USC 1001. Each lie is an additional count so the penalties can quickly add up if someone is fabricating a story since each element of the story is a separate count. Also know that if you are contacted and we tell you these items are 99.9% stolen and you purchase a laser in the future you are "knowingly" purchasing stolen property and can be charged with that crime as well. We do have other tools at our disposal when someone says they "lost it" or "sold it at a gun show". I would rather not mention it publicly since people are actively discussing how to evade our efforts to recover the devices. By the way, to those people, shame on you. You are actively profiting in the theft of taxpaper money and are un-American as they come. If you walked up to someone with a laser with no serial number wouldn't the burden of proof be on you? Before seizing it would you not have to at least have more than mere suspicion? Simply not having a serial number is not PC by a long shot. Now, if you saw a photo of someone's and asked them to return it and they said it was not theirs would that be PC enough for a warrant? I would personally think not as it could be argued that it could either be a fake, copy, movie prop, or simply not that persons equipment. Is reasonable suspicion, wait, mere suspicion enough for a warrant now? Is our fifth amendment really that watered down? I have no IR lasers so I really have nothing to lose either way, but this law pisses me off, and agents expecting people to just give up their rights really piss me off too. I understand that even if you can not build a case at least you are recovering property, but our rights as a nation are in trouble for just this sort of thinking. What is this other part? This patrick guy is trying to buy lasers off the board and now these guys are threatening prosecution over trying to buy lasers off this site?  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2011 8:16:02 PM EST
[#5]
Wait a minute these two guys are TELLING people to mail them their lasers?
You're shitting me?
|
|
|
|
WI, USA
|
Posted: 10/7/2011 8:22:26 PM EST
[#6]
The more that I read this thread, the harder I'm finding to hold my tongue.
"If they outlaw lasers, only outlaws will have lasers." Every time a law, rule, or regulation is enacted, an artificial black market is created. The government has no one to blame but themselves! But what else do you expect from a government that knows better than it's subjects? "People should not fear their government, their government should fear the people" If I could only say how I really feel...... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2011 8:23:39 PM EST
[Last Edit: NapeSticksToKids]
[#7]
Originally Posted By Aimless:
Wait a minute these two guys are TELLING people to mail them their lasers? You're shitting me?thats what it sounds like. "Hey, i think that all 99.9% of PEQs on the market are stolen govt property, and i think you should send yours to me to be confiscated." i think i mentioned something about this before, but what about the multitude of Eagle Scalable Plate Carriers that are sold here and on ebay? the SPC is ONLY and ONLY issued to the United States Marine Corps, not even available to LE agencies as far as i know. i can say that 100% of them are stolen gov't property....yet there are 5 currently on ebay and they are ALWAYS on sale there. wtf? ETA: To dhs-hsi, i dont mean to sound like a dick towards you. this "regulation" and the reasoning behind it pisses me off to no end, because i used the peq-15 in the military and loved it and would love to someday have one, but obviously this whole debacle really throws a kink in my plans. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2011 8:30:08 PM EST
[#8]
Are any of you guys good friends w/ a lawyer who would be willing to have a look at CFR 21 parts 1010 and 1040 and post their professional opinion regarding the matter? I'm going to email my one lawyer friend to see what he thinks. Would be interesting to get some professional opinions from the people who have to interpret this stuff for a living! When I get something, and if he gives consent, I will post the result. Otherwise I will paraphrase.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2011 8:36:43 PM EST
[#9]
by the way, has anyone ever heard of someone actually sending in their peq, or getting their peq confiscated?
ive seen news stories of NVGs, body armor, etc being confiscated because it turns out it was military property, but ive never heard anything about peqs. oh, and dhs-hsi, you should go to the numerous tactical carbine classes across the country, you could just sit at the door and confiscate PEQs. every picture from any class i see, i see probably 10 or more people with some version of the PEQ. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2011 9:05:40 PM EST
[#10]
Why work and uphold the constitution when you can get on the interweb and scare people into giving you some kind of results through the mail?
|
|
|
|
WI, USA
|
Posted: 10/7/2011 9:29:27 PM EST
[Last Edit: jrpett]
[#11]
Originally Posted By DM1975:
Why work and uphold the constitution when you can get on the interweb and scare people into giving you some kind of results through the mail? You mean threats through intimidation? It's called terrorism. It's already illegal but the government, as usual, doesn't think it applies to them. They don't call it the Department of FATHERLAND Security for nothing. History does repeat itself. If they think that they're going to get my XXXX(edited to prevent illegal seizure of my legally acquired device which will be claimed to be 99.9% stolen) by breaking one law to enforce another, they've got another thing coming. 18 USC CHAPTER 113B - TERRORISM TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART I - CRIMES CHAPTER 113B - TERRORISM Sec. 2331. Definitions ..... (5) the term "domestic terrorism" means activities that - (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended - (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or[/red] (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2011 9:35:56 PM EST
[#12]
|
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 10/7/2011 10:06:55 PM EST
[#13]
Aren't ad-stomping and illegal coercion grounds for a ban? This is ridiculous.
Agent Wu, you wonder why people sell these things illegally... Probably because whenever someone sells them legally, some alphabet agency tries to screw them. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2011 10:08:20 PM EST
[Last Edit: DM1975]
[#14]
Even though I hate to see the pressure do this it at least helps to knock off the dingleberries...
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2011 10:18:31 PM EST
[#15]
Originally Posted By Aimless:
I'm shutting down sales of IR lasers what about the "civi legal" ones? |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 10/7/2011 10:24:47 PM EST
[Last Edit: wyager]
[#16]
Originally Posted By NapeSticksToKids:
Originally Posted By Aimless:
I'm shutting down sales of IR lasers what about the "civi legal" ones? According to the Gestapo DHS, there is no such thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2011 10:25:01 PM EST
[#17]
Originally Posted By NapeSticksToKids:
Originally Posted By Aimless:
I'm shutting down sales of IR lasers what about the "civi legal" ones? Ve have Vays of taking jur Lazerz 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2011 10:28:25 PM EST
[#18]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2011 10:38:50 PM EST
[#19]
Originally Posted By DM1975:
Originally Posted By NapeSticksToKids:
Originally Posted By Aimless:
I'm shutting down sales of IR lasers what about the "civi legal" ones? Ve have Vays of taking jur Lazerz "The KGB vaits on novone!!" |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2011 10:44:40 PM EST
[#20]
First off, I don't condone the ownership of stolen property of any kind, but the kind of statements about "I have my ways" and stuff like that is just insulting and nothing more than enforcement via duress.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2011 10:51:25 PM EST
[#21]
Originally Posted By DM1975:
First off, I don't condone the ownership of stolen property of any kind, but the kind of statements about "I have my ways" and stuff like that is just insulting and nothing more than enforcement via duress. i would like to say the same thing, im not saying that if someone possesses stolen gov property thats its ok, but operating under the assumption that they all are is BS. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2011 11:09:47 PM EST
[#22]
Originally Posted By NapeSticksToKids:
Originally Posted By DM1975:
First off, I don't condone the ownership of stolen property of any kind, but the kind of statements about "I have my ways" and stuff like that is just insulting and nothing more than enforcement via duress. i would like to say the same thing, im not saying that if someone possesses stolen gov property thats its ok, but operating under the assumption that they all are is BS. Agreed, those who steal ANYTHING suck and are a drain on our society, however when an agency member openly, albeit indirectly (even w/ a smiley face), says that they will impede the return of LAWFULLY OWNED ITEMS to their rightful owner, completely destroys their credibility and that of those in their unit. That, in and of itself, is theft, its just the kind that they can justify. Sweet, we pay their salaries. Looks like I'm going to have to settle for a DBAL class 1 possibly... oh wait we still have not had a statute or regulation given to us... weird. I should be used to this, but it still stings, AGAIN BECAUSE WE PAY THEIR SALARIES. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2011 1:06:40 PM EST
[#23]
Originally Posted By wyager:
Originally Posted By NapeSticksToKids:
Originally Posted By Aimless:
I'm shutting down sales of IR lasers what about the "civi legal" ones? According to the Gestapo DHS, there is no such thing. Well that is not true.  Class 1 lasers are just that, not restricted unless something has recently changed.
Vic |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2011 1:10:32 PM EST
[Last Edit: fordkicksass]
[#24]
Originally Posted By fordkicksass:
Originally Posted By dhs_hsi:
Hey, I appreciate your response. Perhaps someone who works in military contracting procurement can chime in because I am no expert in that area. All I know is that of the several hundred IR lasers that we have seized thus far none of them were traced back to a Government contractor. That's all I can base my statements on. A contractor would still be bound by regulation to prevent the unauthorized sale of the devices to civilians so perhaps they are just better at keeping their stuff in order prevent it from happening because, unlike the Government, their finances are limited and they don't want to or can't afford to pay huge fines. Obviously my probable cause reasoning for seizing the lasers would apply differently to other things like M4's and 1911's. Those devices aren't restricted like lasers. In fact, I can't think of any other industry as heavily restricted as lasers are. They really are in their own little world only in this world will the "its only sold to the Government and you're not in the Government" logic be valid. Obviously probable cause is more than just "thinking". You must be able to articulate it. 1) Lasers only sold to LE and Military 2) There is no mechanism for the devices to be sold to civilians legally; any sale to a civilian would have occured through negligence or fraud. 3) Every device recovered was traced back to the DOD. It seems that the number of devices that weren't stolen from DOD is quite small. 4) devices often have the serial numbers removed, the removal of serial numbers is consistent with stolen property in general. Know that if you have PC, you can get a warrant. Trust me though, getting your house search by law enforcement is no fun. We go through everything and all your posessions, and thus secrets are revealed. No one enjoys them, cops or suspects. As for the PEQ-15 on Gunbroker, I don't know why Insight couldn't give me the end user. Perhaps Insight never sold it because it was lost. Or maybe the records weren't properly maintained. Who knows. I can't rule out that it is NOT stolen property but there is enough doubt that it would not sit right with me to seize it. Speaking for myself, if I do seize a laser only to find that it wasn't Government owned (haven't yet, but maybe one day) there are other options which I cannot post publicly...:) Anyways, you brought up some good points. Please keep the dialog going. I enjoy being able to interface directly with the public. I think a lot of Government needs to be more transparent (especially Congress). Forgive me if I read this statement incorrectly, but are you saying here that even if you discover that the laser was not a stolen item, you would explore other options in order to prevent it from getting back to the person from which it was seized? I hope not, but if so, that is wrong, period. Anyway, back to the FDA thing (the original purpose of this thread), what do you guys think of this section of CFR 21? CFR 21 part 1010.5 If I am reading it right, wouldn't it seem that these units are exempted from FDA regulations (as long as the exception is current, which it would be) and therefore beyond the scope of the FDA? At no place in there does it say that people outside of those for whom its use was intended cannot own one. It says "solely or predominantly by a department or agency of the United States," keyword predominantly. Again, though, I think this is pertaining to the manufacturer anyway, just thought it was interesting. This is all provided that you can find a laser w/ documentation behind it. Just saw this from aimless's post in this thread. I'm glad I misinterpreted his statement. All below is quoted from the thread in the link above: Edit: Agent Wu asked that I post this Dear forum members, When I stated that "there are other options" I was alluding that I would return the laser to the buyer if it wasn't stolen. I thought my meaning was clear because I had just stated that it wouldn't sit well with me to seize the peq15 that I couldn't confirm was stolen. I was trying to avoid directly saying the lasers would be returned, publicly, lest the FDA think we condone the civilian ownership of the lasers. The lasers are being confiscated on the basis that they are likely stolen. If they turn out not to be, of course they would be returned, simple as that. No one in law enforcement would condone taking something under those circumstances and it saddens me that there are those that would believe that is even possible. I made an effort to open up a line of communication between the Gov and the public. I see that my effort was not appreciated so I want to say that this will be my final post. Take care, everyone. I hope your dream of legal civilian ownership of the lasers is one day realized. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2011 1:53:50 PM EST
[#25]
Originally Posted By fordkicksass:
Originally Posted By fordkicksass:
Originally Posted By dhs_hsi:
Hey, I appreciate your response. Perhaps someone who works in military contracting procurement can chime in because I am no expert in that area. All I know is that of the several hundred IR lasers that we have seized thus far none of them were traced back to a Government contractor. That's all I can base my statements on. A contractor would still be bound by regulation to prevent the unauthorized sale of the devices to civilians so perhaps they are just better at keeping their stuff in order prevent it from happening because, unlike the Government, their finances are limited and they don't want to or can't afford to pay huge fines. Obviously my probable cause reasoning for seizing the lasers would apply differently to other things like M4's and 1911's. Those devices aren't restricted like lasers. In fact, I can't think of any other industry as heavily restricted as lasers are. They really are in their own little world only in this world will the "its only sold to the Government and you're not in the Government" logic be valid. Obviously probable cause is more than just "thinking". You must be able to articulate it. 1) Lasers only sold to LE and Military 2) There is no mechanism for the devices to be sold to civilians legally; any sale to a civilian would have occured through negligence or fraud. 3) Every device recovered was traced back to the DOD. It seems that the number of devices that weren't stolen from DOD is quite small. 4) devices often have the serial numbers removed, the removal of serial numbers is consistent with stolen property in general. Know that if you have PC, you can get a warrant. Trust me though, getting your house search by law enforcement is no fun. We go through everything and all your posessions, and thus secrets are revealed. No one enjoys them, cops or suspects. As for the PEQ-15 on Gunbroker, I don't know why Insight couldn't give me the end user. Perhaps Insight never sold it because it was lost. Or maybe the records weren't properly maintained. Who knows. I can't rule out that it is NOT stolen property but there is enough doubt that it would not sit right with me to seize it. Speaking for myself, if I do seize a laser only to find that it wasn't Government owned (haven't yet, but maybe one day) there are other options which I cannot post publicly...:) Anyways, you brought up some good points. Please keep the dialog going. I enjoy being able to interface directly with the public. I think a lot of Government needs to be more transparent (especially Congress). Forgive me if I read this statement incorrectly, but are you saying here that even if you discover that the laser was not a stolen item, you would explore other options in order to prevent it from getting back to the person from which it was seized? I hope not, but if so, that is wrong, period. Anyway, back to the FDA thing (the original purpose of this thread), what do you guys think of this section of CFR 21? CFR 21 part 1010.5 If I am reading it right, wouldn't it seem that these units are exempted from FDA regulations (as long as the exception is current, which it would be) and therefore beyond the scope of the FDA? At no place in there does it say that people outside of those for whom its use was intended cannot own one. It says "solely or predominantly by a department or agency of the United States," keyword predominantly. Again, though, I think this is pertaining to the manufacturer anyway, just thought it was interesting. This is all provided that you can find a laser w/ documentation behind it. Just saw this from aimless's post in this thread. I'm glad I misinterpreted his statement. All below is quoted from the thread in the link above: Edit: Agent Wu asked that I post this Dear forum members, When I stated that "there are other options" I was alluding that I would return the laser to the buyer if it wasn't stolen. I thought my meaning was clear because I had just stated that it wouldn't sit well with me to seize the peq15 that I couldn't confirm was stolen.I was trying to avoid directly saying the lasers would be returned, publicly, lest the FDA think we condone the civilian ownership of the lasers. The lasers are being confiscated on the basis that they are likely stolen. If they turn out not to be, of course they would be returned, simple as that. No one in law enforcement would condone taking something under those circumstances and it saddens me that there are those that would believe that is even possible. I made an effort to open up a line of communication between the Gov and the public. I see that my effort was not appreciated so I want to say that this will be my final post. Take care, everyone. I hope your dream of legal civilian ownership of the lasers is one day realized. but wait, didnt he give us many reasons why he thought we SHOULDNT have them? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2011 3:04:41 PM EST
[#26]
Agent Wu:
I do not own any NV gear or any IR lasers, but I do wish to purchase some in the future, probably distant future as this stuff is expensive. This is why I'm reading this with great interest. I do agree that people should not be purchasing stolen US gov property and understand why you are trying to track down said stolen property. What I do not agree with is your stance that civilians have no use for this gear. This gear could be used for hunting at night or used by hardcore action shooters at night shoots. For me, yes, it would be primarily a kick-ass novelty to have a helmet mount NV device coupled with an IR laser. Nothing more, nothing less. Once again, I agree with what you're trying to do, which is to recover stolen US gov property. But, in reading your posts I get a sense that you don't think civilians should own this stuff at all. Please correct me if I am wrong. I also don't know enough about the sales of IR gear, so I don't know how people can/do get MIL grade IR lasers. But, it seems that you are saying that this is next to impossible and that anyone who has one HAS to be stolen. I defer to you and to others who are more knowledgeable about how this gear is sold. But, in reading some responses, it seems that it is possible that this gear CAN get out and be legitimate; however, I do see your end, as mostly everything you have seen is stolen. All I know is that I would like to opportunity to have this stuff when/if money permits. Am I gonna hunt with it? No. Do I want it? Yes? Why? Why not? Am I gonna tell people to look into the laser so they can go blind? No. Am I responsible when I comes to stuff that can hurt people? Yes. Are there dumbass people in this world that mess it up for the rest of us? Yes. |
|
|
|
WA, USA
|
Posted: 10/8/2011 4:22:00 PM EST
[#27]
Originally Posted By urbankaos04:
Agent Wu: I do not own any NV gear or any IR lasers, but I do wish to purchase some in the future, probably distant future as this stuff is expensive. This is why I'm reading this with great interest. I do agree that people should not be purchasing stolen US gov property and understand why you are trying to track down said stolen property. What I do not agree with is your stance that civilians have no use for this gear. This gear could be used for hunting at night or used by hardcore action shooters at night shoots. For me, yes, it would be primarily a kick-ass novelty to have a helmet mount NV device coupled with an IR laser. Nothing more, nothing less. Once again, I agree with what you're trying to do, which is to recover stolen US gov property. But, in reading your posts I get a sense that you don't think civilians should own this stuff at all. Please correct me if I am wrong. I also don't know enough about the sales of IR gear, so I don't know how people can/do get MIL grade IR lasers. But, it seems that you are saying that this is next to impossible and that anyone who has one HAS to be stolen. I defer to you and to others who are more knowledgeable about how this gear is sold. But, in reading some responses, it seems that it is possible that this gear CAN get out and be legitimate; however, I do see your end, as mostly everything you have seen is stolen. All I know is that I would like to opportunity to have this stuff when/if money permits. Am I gonna hunt with it? No. Do I want it? Yes? Why? Why not? Am I gonna tell people to look into the laser so they can go blind? No. Am I responsible when I comes to stuff that can hurt people? Yes. Are there dumbass people in this world that mess it up for the rest of us? Yes. Mr. Urbankaos4, Thank you for your refreshingly professional response. When I first began posting I did say that I wasn't privy to the FDA'S internal decision and gave some reasons why they decided to restrict them but that was an attempt at humor. I apologize if I offended anyone as that was not my intention. I personally don't care if the lasers should be legal or not. I'm no scientist but have heard from those who are and they say that the devices have the capability to burn out your retinas from hundreds of meters away which sure makes them sound dangerous. I've never hunted so I'm not familiar with why the IR lasers are so useful. Pardon my ignorance but do NVG's not pick up visible lasers? If so you could just shine a visible laser on a hog. It probably wouldn't notice the dot. Or just use a night vision riflescope and skip the laser entirely? |
|
|
WA, USA
|
Posted: 10/8/2011 4:23:47 PM EST
[#28]
Originally Posted By wyager:
Originally Posted By NapeSticksToKids:
Originally Posted By Aimless:
I'm shutting down sales of IR lasers what about the "civi legal" ones? According to the Gestapo DHS, there is no such thing. We never said that. There are civilian legal IR lasers like the class 1 DBAL'S and others. |
|
|
WA, USA
|
Posted: 10/8/2011 4:24:32 PM EST
[#29]
Originally Posted By DM1975:
First off, I don't condone the ownership of stolen property of any kind, but the kind of statements about "I have my ways" and stuff like that is just insulting and nothing more than enforcement via duress. Again, that was a misunderstanding. Please read my posts regarding that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2011 11:47:06 PM EST
[Last Edit: Aceecaus]
[#30]
|
|
|
|
WI, USA
|
Posted: 10/9/2011 12:22:02 AM EST
[Last Edit: mike12345]
[#31]
What i get from this is:
http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/RadiationEmittingProductsandProcedures/HomeBusinessandEntertainment/LaserProductsandInstruments/ucm116373.htm Lasers that emit between 5mW and 500mW output power are in Class IIIb or IEC Class 3B. Class IIIb lasers cannot legally be promoted as laser pointers or demonstration laser products. Product labels and user instructions must describe the hazard classification of the product and its output characteristics. Class IIIb hand-held lasers are too dangerous for use as pointers or amusement articles. Furthermore, promotion of Class IIIb or IEC Class 3B products for pointing or amusement violates FDA requirements and United States law. Manufacturers of such products may be required to repair, replace, or refund the purchase price of violative products distributed in the U.S. These products are also subject to detention and seizure by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection when imported.
Irresponsible use of more powerful laser pointers poses a significant risk of injury to the people exposed. Persons who misuse or irresponsibly use lasers are open to personal liability and prosecution. So if you get a GUN SIGHT and its not stolen just dont shine it at anybody or air planes/choppers and your GTG. I'd like to see any quoted law, USC, whatever, that says you cant own one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2011 1:26:20 AM EST
[#32]
Originally Posted By mike12345:
What i get from this is: http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/RadiationEmittingProductsandProcedures/HomeBusinessandEntertainment/LaserProductsandInstruments/ucm116373.htm Lasers that emit between 5mW and 500mW output power are in Class IIIb or IEC Class 3B. Class IIIb lasers cannot legally be promoted as laser pointers or demonstration laser products. Product labels and user instructions must describe the hazard classification of the product and its output characteristics. Class IIIb hand-held lasers are too dangerous for use as pointers or amusement articles. Furthermore, promotion of Class IIIb or IEC Class 3B products for pointing or amusement violates FDA requirements and United States law. Manufacturers of such products may be required to repair, replace, or refund the purchase price of violative products distributed in the U.S. These products are also subject to detention and seizure by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection when imported.
Irresponsible use of more powerful laser pointers poses a significant risk of injury to the people exposed. Persons who misuse or irresponsibly use lasers are open to personal liability and prosecution. So if you get a GUN SIGHT and its not stolen just dont shine it at anybody or air planes/choppers and your GTG. I'd like to see any quoted law, USC, whatever, that says you cant own one. i dont think anyone here is saying that you cant own one. what the issue is is that people own military/LE only (PEQ-2, PEQ-15, ILWLP, IZLID, etc) lasers by one way or another, and the argument is over ownership of those lasers, and the way that they were acquired (legal means vs stolen/taken/"lost"). |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2011 1:43:24 AM EST
[#33]
Originally Posted By dhs_hsi:
Originally Posted By DM1975:
First off, I don't condone the ownership of stolen property of any kind, but the kind of statements about "I have my ways" and stuff like that is just insulting and nothing more than enforcement via duress. Again, that was a misunderstanding. Please read my posts regarding that. I see what you mean then. I apologize for taking it out of context. I do think that in your approach to do this you have just driven anyone owning one of these to never again post or talk about them and thus made finding these units a trillion times harder. For me you have just solidified me disregarding any purchase of any of these units. It was a decision I had already made, but you sure have strengthened my resolve in the matter as I don't want to get involved in this black market that you two have now inadvertently created. Best of luck to you in your efforts to protect us from ourselves. |
|
|
|
VA, USA
|
Posted: 10/9/2011 8:47:43 AM EST
[Last Edit: semperfi202]
[#34]
Deleted
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2011 11:54:18 AM EST
[Last Edit: Jarhead_22]
[#35]
Originally Posted By dhs_hsi:
If you own one please speak up in this forum. Fear not, I won't take your lasers. Remember folks, it's illegal to lie to a federal agent, but there is plenty of case law and court decisions stating that it's not illegal for them to lie to you. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2011 7:07:35 PM EST
[#36]
Originally Posted By dhs_hsi: So, it's okay for the .gov to steal from the taxpayers? I mean, what else would you call taking what you (the .gov) bought with our (the taxpayers) money and then giving it away to someone that did not pay for it? A entire shipment of night vision goggles that the Army was giving to Honduras disappeared and later turned up in Alaska, far from its original destination. Is there a double-standard at play here or is that like re-gifting a bad Christmas present from Grandma? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2011 7:16:27 PM EST
[#37]
I'm not trying to defend DHS......but eric10mm, you should know better. Stuff like that happens every day. The United States gives anywhere b/w millions to billions of dollars away all the time. Whether economic aid, military equipment to a friendly nation to assist in fighting drug cartels, giving equipment, money, aid, etc to Iraq and AFG........dude the list goes on and on.
I think you're really reaching with that argument. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2011 7:30:09 PM EST
[#38]
Originally Posted By scoutfsu99: I'm not trying to defend DHS......but eric10mm, you should know better. Stuff like that happens every day. The United States gives anywhere b/w millions to billions of dollars away all the time. Whether economic aid, military equipment to a friendly nation to assist in fighting drug cartels, giving equipment, money, aid, etc to Iraq and AFG........dude the list goes on and on. I think you're really reaching with that argument. So that makes it right? Or even legal? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2011 7:30:48 PM EST
[#39]
Originally Posted By eric10mm:
Originally Posted By dhs_hsi:
So, it's okay for the .gov to steal from the taxpayers? I mean, what else would you call taking what you (the .gov) bought with our (the taxpayers) money and then giving it away to someone that did not pay for it?
A entire shipment of night vision goggles that the Army was giving to Honduras disappeared and later turned up in Alaska, far from its original destination. Is there a double-standard at play here or is that like re-gifting a bad Christmas present from Grandma? i think he meant that the shipment was stolen? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2011 8:08:27 PM EST
[#40]
Foreign aid is entirely legal. It's been happening a long time, I don't quite get what your getting upset about
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2011 8:31:37 PM EST
[#41]
Does this involve DBal A2's also? All I see mentioned are peq's but I know both are under the same regulations?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2011 8:37:54 PM EST
[#42]
Originally Posted By NorthStaR209:
Does this involve DBal A2's also? All I see mentioned are peq's but I know both are under the same regulations? I think they are mainly concerned w/ the ones on the list in the EE, the huge load of DBAL units that got out a few years ago were legit from the DOE, albeit accidentally. Ah, a time machine would be nice, I'd love to have one of those things! |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 10/9/2011 11:42:21 PM EST
[Last Edit: wyager]
[#43]
You know, I never even thought about the fact that the FDA can't do shit if the laser manufacture includes a status LED, safety interlock, and closable aperture.
http://www.sensorcentral.com/worldsupport/standards06.php I've been out of the laser game for a while. Any manufacturers out there want to make a class 3B+ designator with the proper FDA-approved safety features? That would clear up any black markets pretty quickly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2011 12:20:17 AM EST
[#44]
Originally Posted By wyager:
You know, I never even thought about the fact that the FDA can't do shit if the laser manufacture includes a status LED, safety interlock, and closable aperture.
http://www.sensorcentral.com/worldsupport/standards06.php I've been out of the laser game for a while. Any manufacturers out there want to make a class 3B+ designator with the proper FDA-approved safety features? That would clear up any black markets pretty quickly. PEQ-15 has all of those. the issue is that since the manufacturers wont sell to the general public, by default the DHS is assuming that ALL of the peqs that are on the market are stolen, and that is the argument here. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2011 5:42:44 AM EST
[Last Edit: Strongbow]
[#45]
Originally Posted By NapeSticksToKids:
Originally Posted By wyager:
You know, I never even thought about the fact that the FDA can't do shit if the laser manufacture includes a status LED, safety interlock, and closable aperture.
http://www.sensorcentral.com/worldsupport/standards06.php I've been out of the laser game for a while. Any manufacturers out there want to make a class 3B+ designator with the proper FDA-approved safety features? That would clear up any black markets pretty quickly. PEQ-15 has all of those. the issue is that since the manufacturers wont sell to the general public, by default the DHS is assuming that ALL of the peqs that are on the market are stolen, and that is the argument here. One more time (and I know you know this): the FDA does not have the authority to regulate the secondary market directly. Agent Wu, or anyone else is free to show me where in the variances the FDA actually requires the PURCHASER to do anything at all. The requirements are all on the manufacturer. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2011 4:37:56 PM EST
[#46]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2011 11:24:54 AM EST
[Last Edit: Dino1130]
[#47]
Delete
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2011 4:37:08 PM EST
[#48]
So, who's up for a road trip to Canadia!
 |
|
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 10/13/2011 4:45:42 PM EST
[Last Edit: CTM1]
[#49]
This was in response to Dino's post but he has since deleted it.
I recall it was mentioned before that you cannot just import an IR laser. So if you purchased one from overseas you would need to submit the proper paperwork to do so and your request would be denied. To give you a quick example of how far customs would go. An old vendor of mine imports travertine/marble etc from Italy and has been doing so for 40 years. His buddies decided to throw in some wine as a gift without his knowledge. Customs found the wine during a random inspection of his container and they rejected the entire shipment. It took him months and alot of $ to get his stone back. |
|
|
KY, USA
|
Posted: 10/13/2011 6:21:13 PM EST
[#50]
No kidding, just ask the owners of Gibson Guitar how those clowns in Customs are.
The "Dark Lords" know what is best for you, you need to be "protected" from yourself............. so it goes |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
