Autonomous
Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2017
- Messages
- 1,147
- Reaction score
- 1,781
Pepper Spray
- Thread starter Kanewpadle
- Start date
CA PC 22810 sets forth the lawful usage conditions for use of tear gas weapons, but does not specifically address bear spray. Neither the poster who discussed this nor the sources I checked listed any specific federal statutes with this prohibition. Assuming there is a federal section, is any federal agency going to investigate such a de minimus violation and convince DOJ to prosecute? I would not be in the slightest concerned.
Back to CA PC 22810. Since bear spray is not mentioned, its use as a tear gas weapon, in CA, is not differentiated from any other form of tear gas. Thus, under the basic legal principle that all laws are codified means there is nothing specifically addressing bear spray, thus nothing to prosecute.
If one rereads my original post it is very clear that I advocate taking specific steps not to have to use deadly force, nor even displaying my firearm (CA PC 417, et seq). In other words acting completely lawfully. I lived this for over 30 years in my LE career as well as teaching the applicable laws in academy and college classes. I still do.
I have only had once instance of almost have to draw my gun off duty. It looked as if I was going to have to intervene to stop a third person from being attacked by a much larger individual armed with a motorcycle chain. I carefully planned my approach to delay to the last moment having to draw my revolver and intercede. At the last moment San Francisco PD arrived and halted this slow motion impending ADW. SFPD was focused on the two protagonists. I had not yet drawn, although I was extremely close. So by not having drawn nor otherwise called attention to myself, I was able to just walk away. The point being that I was not going to prematurely react or overreact. That has always been my nature. Not hitting the panic button, again, had been the wisest course of action.
Once an LEO reaches the rank of sergeant, thenceforth and on up that leader is responsible to monitor field operations to make sure his/her troops are in legal and departmental compliance.
Absent proof of specific federal statutes and incidences of federal prosecutions, as well as the circumstances and dispositions of such prosecutions, I fail to see any issue.
My advice still stands.
Back to CA PC 22810. Since bear spray is not mentioned, its use as a tear gas weapon, in CA, is not differentiated from any other form of tear gas. Thus, under the basic legal principle that all laws are codified means there is nothing specifically addressing bear spray, thus nothing to prosecute.
If one rereads my original post it is very clear that I advocate taking specific steps not to have to use deadly force, nor even displaying my firearm (CA PC 417, et seq). In other words acting completely lawfully. I lived this for over 30 years in my LE career as well as teaching the applicable laws in academy and college classes. I still do.
I have only had once instance of almost have to draw my gun off duty. It looked as if I was going to have to intervene to stop a third person from being attacked by a much larger individual armed with a motorcycle chain. I carefully planned my approach to delay to the last moment having to draw my revolver and intercede. At the last moment San Francisco PD arrived and halted this slow motion impending ADW. SFPD was focused on the two protagonists. I had not yet drawn, although I was extremely close. So by not having drawn nor otherwise called attention to myself, I was able to just walk away. The point being that I was not going to prematurely react or overreact. That has always been my nature. Not hitting the panic button, again, had been the wisest course of action.
Once an LEO reaches the rank of sergeant, thenceforth and on up that leader is responsible to monitor field operations to make sure his/her troops are in legal and departmental compliance.
Absent proof of specific federal statutes and incidences of federal prosecutions, as well as the circumstances and dispositions of such prosecutions, I fail to see any issue.
My advice still stands.
Last edited:
I have looked all over the internet I cannot find a specific statute. Apparently it's an EPA regulation. Either way I don't care. The only place I carry bear spray is in the mountains where there are in fact bears. Obviously I can justify having bear spray on me. And I suppose if somebody attacked me and I sprayed them I could justify it by saying that's what I had to defend myself.
Beyond that I really don't care what you do
Last edited:
sigp220.45
US Veteran
There's no federal law against spraying a human with bear spray. If you can justify it, have at it.
As far as the example of a crazy homeless guy advancing with an upraised BFR - he's gonna get shot in my neck of the woods.
As far as the example of a crazy homeless guy advancing with an upraised BFR - he's gonna get shot in my neck of the woods.
The EPA regulates bear spray as a pesticide under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and requires a minimum size of 7.9 oz while pepper spray is typically sold in 1.5 oz canisters. Bear spray is also dispensed more forcefully than pepper spray.
It says right on the can it is a violation of federal law to use this product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling. It also says right on the can that you are not supposed to spray humans with it.
I am still looking for a specific chapter and verse
Last edited:
white cloud
Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2009
- Messages
- 1,136
- Reaction score
- 1,542
Just don't carry your pepper spray into Canada. It's a prohibited weapon there, and possession could get you up to a 10-year sentence.
Could someone smarter than me, explain the logic of such a law?
If it's for sale in Canada it's been through whatever their version of the EPA is and they know that it meets Canadian laws. If you bring something in from the United States they don't know that for sure.
I'm guessing that's their logic.
sigp220.45
US Veteran
They can put what they want on the can. It may well violate some EPA rule, but nothing that is prosecutable. There are all kinds of regulations about the use of fire extinguishers, but I can still use one to beat an attacker to death if it is otherwise justified.
In the absence of an actual law saying it is illegal, it isn't.
Attachments
Last edited:
OP
So you're counting on a liberal judge and jury to follow the law as it's written?
Good luck with that.
I already carry a pistol, spare mag, wallet, keys, phone, and an Emerson folder.
Thats enough stuff for me to keep track of.
So no, I won't be adding pepper spray.
Thats enough stuff for me to keep track of.
So no, I won't be adding pepper spray.
charlie sherrill
Member
In my very long LEO career of over 40 years I've always had pepper spray around. The first time I was issued the stuff in the early 70's it was called Mace. It works on most people, except for some of the crazies. I always had a back up plan if it didn't work, usually a little more lethal. But I mostly used it on mean dogs. A lot of places that we were going to raid had dogs on chains or behind a fence. A squirt here and there usually took care of that problem. I never had a mean dog that could bite you after being sprayed. I did have some crazy people that kept on coming after a spray or two. They usually had a headache or worse if they could stand the spray. Most times when you use this stuff you're going to get some of it too. After a while you learn how to aim. The problem is when your fellow officer doesn't know how to aim and treats it like a mosquito problem. Bottom line: Most of the times it works on people. I've never had a dog get to me after being sprayed. They do this little cute flopping around and rubbing their eyes in the dirt thing completely ignoring you at the same time. I've seen a lot of formerly sprayed dogs "go under the porch" when a cruiser gets close. It has its uses. Keep something more lethal for a backup.
And you were absolutely certain of that weren't you?
7 U.S. Code § 136 - Definitions
(ee)To use any registered pesticide in a manner inconsistent with its labeling
The term "to use any registered pesticide in a manner inconsistent with its labeling" means to use any registered pesticide in a manner not permitted by the labeling, except that the term shall not include (1) applying a pesticide at any dosage, concentration, or frequency less than that specified on the labeling unless the labeling specifically prohibits deviation from the specified dosage, concentration, or frequency, (2) applying a pesticide against any target pest not specified on the labeling if the application is to the crop, animal, or site specified on the labeling, unless the Administrator has required that the labeling specifically state that the pesticide may be used only for the pests specified on the labeling after the Administrator has determined that the use of the pesticide against other pests would cause an unreasonable adverse effect on the environment, (3) employing any method of application not prohibited by the labeling unless the labeling specifically states that the product may be applied only by the methods specified on the labeling, (4) mixing a pesticide or pesticides with a fertilizer when such mixture is not prohibited by the labeling, (5) any use of a pesticide in conformance with section 136c, 136p, or 136v of this title, or (6) any use of a pesticide in a manner that the Administrator determines to be consistent with the purposes of this subchapter. After March 31, 1979, the term shall not include the use of a pesticide for agricultural or forestry purposes at a dilution less than label dosage unless before or after that date the Administrator issues a regulation or advisory opinion consistent with the study provided for in section 27(b) of the Federal Pesticide Act of 1978, which regulation or advisory opinion specifically requires the use of definite amounts of dilution.
Penalties
Any private applicator or other person not included in paragraph (1) who violates any provision of this subchapter subsequent to receiving a written warning from the Administrator or following a citation for a prior violation, may be assessed a civil penalty by the Administrator of not more than $1,000 for each offense, except that any applicator not included under paragraph (1) of this subsection who holds or applies registered pesticides, or uses dilutions of registered pesticides, only to provide a service of controlling pests without delivering any unapplied pesticide to any person so served, and who violates any provision of this subchapter may be assessed a civil penalty by the Administrator of not more than $500 for the first offense nor more than $1,000 for each subsequent offense.
(4)Determination of penalty
In determining the amount of the penalty, the Administrator shall consider the appropriateness of such penalty to the size of the business of the person charged, the effect on the person's ability to continue in business, and the gravity of the violation. Whenever the Administrator finds that the violation occurred despite the exercise of due care or did not cause significant harm to health or the environment, the Administrator may issue a warning in lieu of assessing a penalty.
7 U.S. Code SS 136j - Unlawful acts | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
7 U.S. Code SS 136l - Penalties | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
That's the problem with being certain you're the smartest guy in the room, sooner or later you find out you're not
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 949
- Reaction score
- 881
When I'm toting a gun, I am also carrying pepper spray. My preference is Sabre Red stream in the LE size can and concentration. About 2X the carry range and pepper percentage of the typical civilian stuff. Will only carry on my person and will never leave it in a vehicle. I don't count on it to be effective on all men and beasts, because it isn't. I consider it a deceleration option, when it is possible to use it. If you have ever been hit with it, you will remember most likely.
Mahalo_.32
Member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2015
- Messages
- 189
- Reaction score
- 150
I carry SABRE RED pepper spray it has served me well for over 18 years.
smoothshooter
Member
It's not the regular people I'm worried about.
I don't go to Socialist states or countries.
Not going to give them any money either.
smoothshooter
Member
geeollie
Member
Having never heard before about the EPA and bear spray etc..., I found this. Reading through it was very informative. Always good to be learning.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/f...021-0044-0002_attachment_4-defense_sprays.pdf
This is contained in the document. "EPA regulates bear spray as a pesticide under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA),1 and requires registration and labeling consistent with 40 CFR 156.70 for human hazards associated with a product." Which is new information for me.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/f...021-0044-0002_attachment_4-defense_sprays.pdf
This is contained in the document. "EPA regulates bear spray as a pesticide under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA),1 and requires registration and labeling consistent with 40 CFR 156.70 for human hazards associated with a product." Which is new information for me.
Last edited:
Protected One
Member
I keep an OC spray in my car and occasionally carry it. Whether it or my gun is used will be determined by the situation presented to me.
