Flamethrowers are now being sold to the public

[eddo36 16]

 

CNN - Flamethrowers were gruesome weapons of war and so controversial that the U.S. military stopped using them after Vietnam.

 

But as crazy as it may sound, they are available for sale to the public.

 

A Cleveland startup called Throwflame is selling flamethrowers for $1,599 that can shoot fire for 50 feet. Another company, Ion Productions Team of Detroit, is selling $900 flamethrowers that can eject flames for 25 feet. Both companies started selling them this year.

 

The flamethrowers are marketed not as weapons, but as fun devices.

 

"We always have the people who just want it for fun. Impress the neighbors at the BBQ," said Throwflame founder Quinn Whitehead.

 

Both Whitehead and Ion CEO Chris Byars said their flamethrowers have caused no injuries, and safety is a priority. But Ion notes on its website that the flamethrower "may result in injury or even death."

 

The flamethrowers do have practical uses, both companies told CNNMoney. They said farmers can use them to clear fields by burning unwanted brush, and fire departments can use them for controlled burns, to try and prevent accidental forest fires or to stop them from spreading.

 

How do they work? Throwflame's fire comes from a hose connected to a backpack with a tank of fuel. The Ion flamethrower is powered by a fuel can that's attached directly to the device.

 

Are flamethrowers legal? A spokesman for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives said it doesn't regulate them because they are not guns. That means buyers don't need to go through background checks from the FBI.

 

Still, flamethrowers could run afoul of state or local laws. They are banned outright in Maryland. California considers them "destructive devices," which are illegal, but the state does issue permits for use on movie sets.

 

Many other local jurisdictions have fire codes and weapon controls, which could prevent people from buying or using them.

 

There's no outright ban on them in the country's National Parks. However, you cannot use one, and displaying one could result in prosecution for causing "unrest," according to the Parks' regional chief ranger William Reynolds.

 

The Department of the Interior, which controls the Office of Wild Fire, said its firefighters use a variety of incendiary devices, including drip torches, flares and propane torches. While it didn't name a flamethrower, it does use a Terra Torch, which behaves like one. However, it's fueled by a tank mounted in a truck, which isn't portable.

 

Throwflame and Ion sell their flamethrowers online.

 

Byars said he ships via the U.S. Postal Service, which has restrictions against flammable liquids. So he ships them without the fuel.

 

Whitehead said he ships via UPS. Susan Rosenberg, a UPS spokeswoman, confirmed that "a flamethrower device without fuel is not a restricted item and is not licensed in the same way as firearms or ammunition. UPS will accept the device for shipment if legal in the origin and destination locations."

[Tonci87 163]

Flamethrowers are nasty. If some idiot gets hold of one and missjudges the harm it can do......

Those things should be classified as weapons and require background checks to obtain, on the other hand, it´s stupidly easy to build one yourself....

[eddo36 16]

Flamethrowers are nasty. If some idiot gets hold of one and missjudges the harm it can do......

Those things should be classified as weapons and require background checks to obtain, on the other hand, it´s stupidly easy to build one yourself....

2nd Amendment

[krzychuzokecia 719]

Oh, finally something for those nasty mosquitos. Flamethrowers are great tool for that. At least that's how it was in Jazz Jackrabbit 2!

 

Unfortunately, all I can get here is this. :(

[Jona33 51]

 <--Flame throwes have their uses. :D

 

But seriously, how the hell is a flamethrower legal anywhere (in public hands). Do you seriously need a flamethrower which shoots to 50 feet to "impress your mates". 

[mr burns 132]

.. selling flamethrowers for $1,599

 

Pah!

 

[spooky lynx 73]

But seriously, how the hell is a flamethrower legal anywhere (in public hands). Do you seriously need a flamethrower which shoots to 50 feet to "impress your mates". 

Some smaller kinds of flamethrowers are used in forest firefighting for creating counter-fire.

[roberthammer 582]

Well those will be banned soon enough - some idiot will cause some trouble with it

[Jona33 51]

Some smaller kinds of flamethrowers are used in forest firefighting for creating counter-fire.

Which makes sense, a fire department owning a flame thrower I can see, I just don't get why they'd ever be made available to the public in a commercial form with such limited controls. 

[eddo36 16]

Well those will be banned soon enough - some idiot will cause some trouble with it

Which makes sense, a fire department owning a flame thrower I can see, I just don't get why they'd ever be made available to the public in a commercial form with such limited controls. 

 

2nd Amendment of the US Constitution isn't going anywhere.

[spooky lynx 73]

Which makes sense, a fire department owning a flame thrower I can see, I just don't get why they'd ever be made available to the public in a commercial form with such limited controls. 

Here, in Russia, you don't need any special permissions or licenses to buy such devices. And they are rather cheap, about USD150-200.

[Tonci87 163]

 

 

 

2nd Amendment of the US Constitution isn't going anywhere.

 

Would you be OK with giving such a device to a mentaly challenged person? Does the 2nd amendment apply there too?

[krzychuzokecia 719]

Are flamethrowers even considered a weapon by US law? Not everything which is technically a weapon, is a weapon by law. For example in Poland airguns are not weapons by law, and thus no restrictions are applied to them.

 

And yes, many weirdos use them against other people, and are caught and arrested for that.

[vilas 477]

Would you be OK with giving such a device to a mentaly challenged person? Does the 2nd amendment apply there too?

compare with what Spooky said about Russia and flame throwers 

 

it is device not weapon by the law

 

in many countries by the law weapon is machine that throws projectiles with energy bigger than given limit, 

 

chainsaw also can make troubles and you can easily buy it in any machine shop

 

USUAL CAR can make much bigger troubles when someone will drive fast into crowd

 

such device is not weapon probably according to many laws in many countries, because it doesn't throw projectiles , problem is other, that company made it available to usual market, but anyway it would not be a weapon in many legal systems due to definition of weapon (which makes crossbow fall under regulation, but flame thrower not - it is matter of responsibility of company who made mess) 

 

matter is of definition - throwing or not throwing, burning or not burning, 

in our law weapon is thing that uses "pressured gas as effect of burning gas , throws projectile able to harm target at distance" (plus energy must be over 17 J) 

many lawyers discuss is it weapon by the law , some lawyers say that burning liquid can be threaten as "projectile that can harm target at distance" but than other lawyer says "what about garden water system "

 

weapon in common sense or weapon in legal sense are 2 different things , i wonder how many law makers in which countries ever considered flame thrower in civilian hand

[eddo36 16]

Are flamethrowers even considered a weapon by US law? Not everything which is technically a weapon, is a weapon by law. For example in Poland airguns are not weapons by law, and thus no restrictions are applied to them.

 

And yes, many weirdos use them against other people, and are caught and arrested for that.

Flamethrowers are unregulated and are completely legal in 48 of the 50 states in the US (not Maryland and California).

[spooky lynx 73]

Flamethrowers are unregulated and are completely legal in 48 of the 50 states in the US (not Maryland and California).

So there would not be a problem owning a bunch of "Bumblebees", yes?

[eddo36 16]

So there would not be a problem owning a bunch of "Bumblebees", yes?

Military flamethrowers cost in the thousands (in the States). You see how much cheaper those civilian ones are?

[krzychuzokecia 719]

So there would not be a problem owning a bunch of "Bumblebees", yes?

 

RPO-A is hardly a flamethrower. It's a rocket launcher which fires a thermobaric rocket. I think in US law it would be called a destructive device, and while not outrightly banned (on federal level), it would be a subject of registration (if I'm not mistaken - I hope that Eddo can clarify).

[spooky lynx 73]

Military flamethrowers cost in the thousands (in the States). You see how much cheaper those civilian ones are?

Those which are of local origin are not much effective.

 

I'd prefer to pay more but own military stuff legally :)

[eddo36 16]

RPO-A is hardly a flamethrower. It's a rocket launcher which fires a thermobaric rocket. I think in US law it would be called a destructive device, and while not outrightly banned (on federal level), it would be a subject of registration (if I'm not mistaken - I hope that Eddo can clarify).

I don't know about rocket launchers, it just says in the article that flamethrowers are completely unregulated in all but 2 states. Maybe there is a 2nd Amendment debate about it.

[eddo36 16]

Those which are of local origin are not much effective.

 

I'd prefer to pay more but own military stuff legally :)

How far can those shoot? The ones I listed in the article is 50 feet and 25 feet.

[spooky lynx 73]

First one that is compact - about 1-1,5 meters. Second one (backpack) - about 3 m.

[eddo36 16]

Well the ones the article I post listed do seem to be much higher quality by looks. You don't want that thing exploding in your hands lol.