Hello all,
This is my first post here, so I right off the bat, I just want to apologize in advance if this topic has been covered and resolved previously. But that having been said, if the answer is out there, I certainly haven't been able to find it. So without further ado, my question for fellow Illinois airgunners is as follows:
Given that Illinois law regulates all airguns as firearms, save for those which "expel a single globular projectile not exceeding .18 inch in diameter, or which have a maximum muzzle velocity of less than 700 feet per second, or which expel breakable paint balls containing washable marking colors," does the act of expelling a pellet from a .177 caliber airgun at a velocity greater than 700 feet per second constitute discharging a firearm insofar as state law is concerned?
I understand that for the purposes of purchase/sale/transfer, it is well evidenced that since a change in the law which took effect in 2012, .177 caliber pellet guns with maximum velocities over 700 feet per second are no longer being treated as firearms by most retailers and agree that this does seem consistent with the letter of the law as it currently stands insofar as these airguns, though specifically designed and marketed to expel non-globular projectiles (pellets), are also equally capable of expelling commonly available globular projectiles (4.5mm BBs) without any modification required, and therefore should rightly qualify for this exemption.
However, when it comes to actually using this class of pellet guns (.177 cal. & >700 FPS) in practice, things get much more confusing to me. Specifically, I am unclear as to whether it would be legal for me to actually shoot pellets from them on my own property (against a safe backstop, of course), or whether doing so would constitute discharging a firearm, which, based on local ordinances, is not something that I can legally do in my basement or backyard.
This uncertainty stems entirely from the use of the word "globular" in the above cited law, which seems to specify that in order to be exempt from regulation as a firearm, a .177 caliber pellet gun with a maximum velocity of over 700 feet per second can only legally be used to discharge 4.5mm BBs, which of course negates any advantages of having a pellet gun to begin with in terms of increased accuracy gained from spin-stabilizing an oblong (non-globular) projectile. This, then, would seem to imply that, since pellets, unlike BBs, are not globular projectiles, that when loaded with a pellet, such an airgun would cease to qualify for the above exemption and thus become a firearm for at least the purposes of the specific subsequent discharge of the pellet in question.
The only tenable counterargument to this which I can think up is that, since loading/discharging pellets does not require any modification of the airgun, and that therefore, at all times--including while loaded with or actively discharging a pellet at speeds in excess of 700 feet per second--a .177 caliber airgun remains mechanically capable of expelling a single globular projectile not exceeding .18 inch in diameter, such a pellet gun should remain at all times exempt from being classified as a firearm. This seems to be at least a somewhat defensible interpretation, but I can also just as easily see someone having a strong case for pushing back against it by saying that under these circumstances, knowingly discharging pellets, rather than BBs, at velocities over 700 feet per second from a .177 caliber pellet gun would constitute criminal misuse of an airgun insofar as the user would be doing something other than the specific activity which provides legal pretense for his ability to acquire/own/use the product without it being subject to the myriad state-level restrictions which apply to actual firearms but not to airguns and that such behavior could therefore be seen in this light as a willful attempt to circumvent these state firearms laws.
So with all of that said, I am curious to know if any of you have wrestled with this issue and received any clarity from legal counsel or other authoritative sources that you would be willing to share. At the end of the day, all I am hoping to do is be able to shoot pellets out of a modestly powerful (>700 fps), rifled airgun in my backyard and basement without accidentally finding myself on the wrong side of the law by unknowingly engaging in activity that constitutes "discharging a firearm" as far as state law is concerned.
Any guidance on this subject would be welcome and appreciated; thank you in advance for your help!
This is my first post here, so I right off the bat, I just want to apologize in advance if this topic has been covered and resolved previously. But that having been said, if the answer is out there, I certainly haven't been able to find it. So without further ado, my question for fellow Illinois airgunners is as follows:
Given that Illinois law regulates all airguns as firearms, save for those which "expel a single globular projectile not exceeding .18 inch in diameter, or which have a maximum muzzle velocity of less than 700 feet per second, or which expel breakable paint balls containing washable marking colors," does the act of expelling a pellet from a .177 caliber airgun at a velocity greater than 700 feet per second constitute discharging a firearm insofar as state law is concerned?
I understand that for the purposes of purchase/sale/transfer, it is well evidenced that since a change in the law which took effect in 2012, .177 caliber pellet guns with maximum velocities over 700 feet per second are no longer being treated as firearms by most retailers and agree that this does seem consistent with the letter of the law as it currently stands insofar as these airguns, though specifically designed and marketed to expel non-globular projectiles (pellets), are also equally capable of expelling commonly available globular projectiles (4.5mm BBs) without any modification required, and therefore should rightly qualify for this exemption.
However, when it comes to actually using this class of pellet guns (.177 cal. & >700 FPS) in practice, things get much more confusing to me. Specifically, I am unclear as to whether it would be legal for me to actually shoot pellets from them on my own property (against a safe backstop, of course), or whether doing so would constitute discharging a firearm, which, based on local ordinances, is not something that I can legally do in my basement or backyard.
This uncertainty stems entirely from the use of the word "globular" in the above cited law, which seems to specify that in order to be exempt from regulation as a firearm, a .177 caliber pellet gun with a maximum velocity of over 700 feet per second can only legally be used to discharge 4.5mm BBs, which of course negates any advantages of having a pellet gun to begin with in terms of increased accuracy gained from spin-stabilizing an oblong (non-globular) projectile. This, then, would seem to imply that, since pellets, unlike BBs, are not globular projectiles, that when loaded with a pellet, such an airgun would cease to qualify for the above exemption and thus become a firearm for at least the purposes of the specific subsequent discharge of the pellet in question.
The only tenable counterargument to this which I can think up is that, since loading/discharging pellets does not require any modification of the airgun, and that therefore, at all times--including while loaded with or actively discharging a pellet at speeds in excess of 700 feet per second--a .177 caliber airgun remains mechanically capable of expelling a single globular projectile not exceeding .18 inch in diameter, such a pellet gun should remain at all times exempt from being classified as a firearm. This seems to be at least a somewhat defensible interpretation, but I can also just as easily see someone having a strong case for pushing back against it by saying that under these circumstances, knowingly discharging pellets, rather than BBs, at velocities over 700 feet per second from a .177 caliber pellet gun would constitute criminal misuse of an airgun insofar as the user would be doing something other than the specific activity which provides legal pretense for his ability to acquire/own/use the product without it being subject to the myriad state-level restrictions which apply to actual firearms but not to airguns and that such behavior could therefore be seen in this light as a willful attempt to circumvent these state firearms laws.
So with all of that said, I am curious to know if any of you have wrestled with this issue and received any clarity from legal counsel or other authoritative sources that you would be willing to share. At the end of the day, all I am hoping to do is be able to shoot pellets out of a modestly powerful (>700 fps), rifled airgun in my backyard and basement without accidentally finding myself on the wrong side of the law by unknowingly engaging in activity that constitutes "discharging a firearm" as far as state law is concerned.
Any guidance on this subject would be welcome and appreciated; thank you in advance for your help!
