Read before you put Guns on you Aircraft!

[Fritz Kempf]

A lot of people have been talking about replica spandaus on the Ron Sands Dr1 site lately. This has been a part of the building process that I have given more thought than action. Thankfully as it turns out. Most of the people have been talking about using gas guns, which I think is a neat idea, although a little dangerous. I have been always concerned about the gas tank being right below the muzzle flash, I know, I know, at 90 plus mph how much fumes are there to ignite. Any way my Idea was to make a set of spandaus that fired M60 blanks. From my experience in the army I new these rounds already came in belt form. I later thought it better to just buy 308 rounds and put them in the web belt myself I think I saw them for 2000/$100. I would have been a relaxing thing to do after a nice flight, to sit around the plane and reload belts for the next foray over the front. Ya sounds weird but if I’m going to have firing guns I want to smell cordite and hear the brass. Thats liven!

Anyway the point of all this dribble is that having some experience in the area of the FFA (Federal Firearms Act) I Knew I needed to do some checking before I started.
So figured I’d start at the top, yep jump right in to the belly of the beast itself, evil incarnate, Tierney personified; other wise known as the ATF. Well, I got voice mail; imagine that; even Satan has voice mail; who knew? So I then called the State Police Firearms unit. I was in for a surprise, at first the officer couldn’t grasp the fact that I was talking about making the gun to blank firing spec only, with the barrel permanently attached to the receiver. The barrel being nothing more than an over sized gas tube to provide proper blow back. He then brought up the issue of facsimile weapons, what is that you ask? That is what I said too. It seems that here in the great State of Connecticut we have a law that bans look alike, blank and non-firing weapons, that are replicas of guns made after 1892 or something. So if I were to put Spandaus on my tripe I would be in violation of the law. Now comes the kicker, if the gun is a BB or paint ball gun its exempt, also if I paint it some outlandish color like pink or orange it would also be exempt. So who was the useless pile of representative excrement that came up with this law? Oh buy the way if you want a silencer in CT it’s OK (as long as its registered with the feds) but don’t you dare have a fake gun. I love Politics!!!! I can’t wait for tax season now knowing all the good it does.

Well at this point it didn’t seem like it was worth going any further, but what the heck, so I called the ATF back, this time I didn’t get voice mail; I was actually able to talk to a lower level demon, lucky me. He actually brought up some good points of concern. Mostly, even if you were to permanently attach the barrel to the receiver, the receiver itself would still be considered a machine gun. Go figure. So even after all this bad news I still went ahead and made one last call. I had remembered a company that use to carry a large selection of blank firing and non-firing guns called Collectors Armory from VA. I wanted to know how they deal with these laws, it was simple, they don’t ship to CT. They also told me that CA, RI, and the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts were also on the list.

Let me end by saying, just like with your plane, do your homework, this may not be life of death but it could mean having to sell you plane to pay the blood sucking lawyers. Also don’t think that just because someone else has them on their plane it must be ok, because it may not be. So I would like to hear from other builders out there to see what you may have found, or if any of you have even looked into this.

Be Safe
Ed

[franzkait]

first you guys must have an aircraft to put spandaus on !!!!!!!!!!!
an aircraft is a fuselage, wings and this funny thing in front, some people call it an engine. build the aircraft first.

[Fritz Kempf]

I agree, but the project is a long one and enjoyable little side bars like the guns are a fun diversion, So I can see why people build them in the middle of there project, it keeps the enthusiasm going. You Germans are to goal orientated, you must take the time to smell the roses or the cordite in this case….LOL.

Thanks Frankait
Ed

P.S. thanks for the tip on the mig wielder, it was a big help.

[greatwarpilot]

Fritz,

There are similar laws up here north of the 49th. In fact they are so rediculious that they say a REAL - LEGIT - ORIGINAL 08/15 or Vickers or any MG that has been deactivated according to current standards (basically weld up most of the moving parts) is legal to put on your aircraft because its considered a "non-gun". However a "replica" made of wood, plastic and whatever else you can conjure up is not.

Go figure.

I think the approach many take (and in my eyes the advisable one) is to follow a long standing dictum I learned in the air force.

"If you don't want to hear the answer, don't ask the question"

Now to some that may seem silly when it comes down to something that may be breaking the law. However one has to keep in mind that the laws are in place for a purpose. In this case I take it that the powers that be don't want someone to use a replica gun to walk into a bank and hold it up (or something along those lines). Essentially, intentional malicious use of the replica in order to make others think its the real thing. Unless you're doing that or there is the potential of you doing that (or you give the local authorities a reason to want to give you a hard time) I don't think this is going to be an issue for most WWI replica owners.

WWI aircraft replica owners and builders put replica MGs on their airplanes for authenticity sake, for historical reasons and perhaps in the case of the gas firing variety to replicate the sight/sound of an original for yourself or a crowd. The closest most of us will get to using them as if they were actual MGs is chasing around airplane around in the sky, and its usually a buddy of yours who knows you aren't about to fill his airplane with holes.

So basically I think its pretty safe that even if you're in a jurisdiction where the letter of the law may prohibit the piece of plastic drainpipe and wood that you have sitting on the nose of your aircraft, so long as you don't try and hold up a bank with them or demonstrate intent to pursue some malicious activity with them this shouldn't be an issue.

These laws aren't new, but I've yet to see a WWI replica flying around without guns because of them.

My thoughts anyways.

Edward

[Jim Bruton]

Good grounding advice. i am wondering if we were to setup some type of non-profit "air museum", if we could get some special dispensation on what we do with PVC and wood!

[vongrube]

My two cents: Don't worry about it!
Iv'e been in aviation over 30 years, and been to probably over 100 airshows in my life. Iv'e seen countless demonstrations where aircraft were firing blanks or gas in their guns. Never seen a problem with this, never ever heard that anyone had a problem with it.
But I sure tell you one thing....quit stirring up the hornets nest!
Don't make an issue over this with ATF or whatever law enforcement agency is in your area, or...and I can assure you this...THEY will make an issue of it!!
Also...if you don't have a plane to mount a replica gun on..what are you worried about?
Like I said..my two cents worth!

[pmirl]

Out here in California, they have laws banning just about everything having to do with guns. Amazingly, the only thing they haven't screwed with is historical (re-enactment) groups. My suggestion to you would be to check and see if there are any WWI re-enactment groups in your area and see that if by joining one of them having the appropriate guns on your plane is covered.

You may also want to visit the pit of hell and see if a local politician can help you. This also sounds like it could be a good human interest story for a local TV News Station.

Paul

[vongrube]

Gentlemen....again....LEAVE IT ALONE!!
Those of you that are here that DONT have an airplane are going to screw this up for those of us who DO have one!
Sheesh!

[greatwarpilot]

I have to agree with VonGrube here.

It isn't a concern at the moment, and lets not make it one (regardless of how good your intentions are!).

Raising the issue is more likely to blow up in someone (or the whole community's) face rather than help the issue.

Especially because right now... ITS NOT AN ISSUE!

[Fritz Kempf]

Ok Vongrub has a point, although a very small one, mainly because this is a growing hobby. Until lately if you wanted to see a WW1 aircraft you had to go to a museum private ownership was all very low key. The more builders that get these projects done the more the “beast” will take notice. Also with the 100th anaversery getting close WW1 aviation is bound to get more popular.

Granted when I talked to the ATF the last thing I said was that I wanted to put them on an aircraft, they would have really had a cat fit and stepped in it. I had just said I wanted it for re-enactment use. I don’t know if you have ever had the pleasure of talking to the ATF but these people are not the friendliest to deal with, and; they have the personality of a wet dish towel. You get the feeling that they want no one to own any kind of gun what so ever. So to quell Vongrub’s worries they have no clue, but sticking you’re head in the sand will not protect you when there eyes are finally open. If you think they wont mind you doing it just because everyone else is; you’re just wrong!

The reason I posted this, is to find an “intelligent” way around this problem, some one on this forum must be in law enforcement that would know how to deal with this, or who to contact with out drawing too much attention.

As for the “not having an airplane statement”, I have as much as you do, so I’m just doing my home work, something that you’re a big advocate of.

Thanks
Ed