News

Board of Supervisors moves to ban flamethrowers

 

Flamethrowers are not yet illegal possessions for the general public in unincorporated San Mateo County, but a process is now underway to make them so.

The county Board of Supervisors on Tuesday, Sept. 4, unanimously approved an ordinance that, if it becomes law, would prohibit the use, ownership, sale, trade, transfer or distribution of flamethrowers in unincorporated communities such as Ladera, Los Trancos Woods, North Fair Oaks and Stanford Weekend Acres.

A flamethrower ban may seem an unusual matter for county supervisors to take up, but it was in fact a timely move. In February, The Boring Company – a California firm founded by Elon Musk, the chief executive at Tesla and Space X – announced plans to sell 20,000 automatic-rifle-like devices, for $500 each, that shoot flames a distance of several feet. The devices sold out in five days, according to a February CNBC story.

A spate of recent news stories brought the matter to the attention of supervisors Don Horsley and Warren Slocum, who sponsored the ordinance.

The ordinance defines a flamethrower as a portable device "designed or intended to emit, or capable of emitting or propelling, fire or a burning stream of combustible or flammable liquid" a distance of 22 inches or more.

The flamethrowers made by Boring are powered by propane gas. A state permit is required only if the device shoots a burning liquid a distance of at least 10 feet. Videos show this device shooting flames several feet, but less than 10 feet.

The ordinance would go into effect 30 days after the board votes to approve it a second time. The board's next meeting is set for 9 a.m. Tuesday, Sept. 25, at 400 County Center in Redwood City.

"This is not a fun device," Horsley said before the initial vote. "This is not something that we want to see. ... Rather than wait and find that these are a problem in the community, we decided to pursue an ordinance."

In an interview, Horsley said he hopes that cities and towns in the county will consider their own ordinances in the interest of fire safety. Though the Boring devices sold out, other manufacturers may come along, he said.

"If it can be done, it will be done," he said. "We've been lucky so far, but we could have a wildland fire as well."

Slocum, in explaining his sponsorship, recalled a plethora of illegal fireworks going off within hearing distance of his house on the Fourth of July, and the relevance to the public's health and safety. "We don't need add to the chaos that's already going on on July Fourth," he said.

As for widening the ban to include ordinances by incorporated cities and towns, Slocum said he plans to talk with officials from a couple of communities "and see what the temperature is."

Mayors John Richards of Portola Valley and Chris Shaw of Woodside said they had no current plans to introduce ordinances. Shaw said he's more worried about fires sparked by vehicles and landscaping equipment operating in dry grass, and by lit cigarettes tossed or dropped by pedestrians.

Violations of the county ordinance would result in fines: $100 for the first violation, $200 for the second and $500 for subsequent incidents within one year.

Firefighters using a flame-throwing device in the line of duty would be exempt from the ordinance, as well as residents with permits to own flamethrowers.

Asked to comment on the Boring flamethrowers, Chief Dan Ghiorso of the Woodside Fire Protection District said he hadn't seen one but based on a description of a weapon-like device, said he didn't see any purpose for it other than seeking thrills.

"It doesn't sound like it has any practical application," Ghiorso said. He said he was "flabbergasted" and wondered what Musk was thinking when he decided to manufacture them.

--

Sign up for Almanac Express to get news updates. Follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

Dave Boyce

We can't do it without you.
Support local journalism.

Comments

4 people like this
Posted by Brian
a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on Sep 6, 2018 at 1:23 pm

Brian is a registered user.

I wish the reporting here were a little better. What they want to bad is not a flamethrower but a propane torch.

If you look at the definition of "Flamethrower" on Dictionary.com you get this: "a weapon, either mounted or portable, that sprays ignited incendiary fuel for some distance."

In California you already need a permit to own a flamethrower:

"HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE - HSC
DIVISION 11. EXPLOSIVES [12000 - 12761] ( Division 11 enacted by Stats. 1939, Ch. 60. )
PART 3. FLAMETHROWING DEVICES [12750 - 12761] ( Part 3 added by Stats. 2004, Ch. 496, Sec. 1. )

CHAPTER 1. Definitions and Scope [12750 - 12751] ( Chapter 1 added by Stats. 2004, Ch. 496, Sec. 1. )

12750. For purposes of this part, the following definitions shall apply:
(a) “Flamethrowing device” means any nonstationary and transportable device designed or intended to emit or propel a burning stream of combustible or flammable liquid a distance of at least 10 feet.
(b) “Permitholder” means a person who holds a flamethrowing device permit issued pursuant to this part.
(Added by Stats. 2004, Ch. 496, Sec. 1. Effective January 1, 2005.)

12751. This part shall not apply to the sale, purchase, possession, transportation, storage, or use of a flamethrowing device by a person if all of the following apply:
(a) The person is regularly employed by or a paid officer, employee, or member of a fire department, fire protection district, or firefighting agency of the federal government, the state, a city, a county, a city and county, district, public or municipal corporation, or political subdivision of this state.
(b) The person is on duty and acting within the course and scope of his or her employment.
(c) The flamethrowing device is used by the fire department, fire protection district, or firefighting agency described in subdivision (a) in the course of fire suppression."


Please not that it says a flamethrower emits a stream of flammable or combustible LIQUID. What the board is discussing banning does not so that, it uses compressed flammable gas, this burns much faster and does not go nearly as far "from the pictures I have seen a couple feet. What Musk refers to is a propane torch of the type commonly used to burn weeds or in the application of roofing material where the tar needs to be heated to adhere to the roofing material. You can find lots of them on Amazon.com by searching for "Weed Torch", "Roofing Torch" or "Snow Torch". Don't believe me, try it yourself.

So this article is wrong in many ways, and ways that are very easy to check.

P.S. I find it funny they bother to discuss fireworks because illegal ones are constantly going off and no law enforcement seems to care. That was a discussion on Nextdoor if anyone is interested


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Don't be the last to know

Get the latest headlines sent straight to your inbox every day.

First Sunnyvale, then Australia: Mountain View's Le Plonc plots expansion
By Elena Kadvany | 0 comments | 2,367 views

Juggling Renewables
By Sherry Listgarten | 27 comments | 1,803 views

Premarital and Couples: Living as Roommates?
By Chandrama Anderson | 2 comments | 1,344 views

Homestead Faire at Hidden Villa 4/27
By Laura Stec | 0 comments | 520 views

A trial run
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 507 views

 

The Almanac Readers' Choice ballot is here

It's time to decide what local business is worthy of the title "The Almanac Readers' Choice" — and you get to decide! Cast your ballot online. Voting ends May 27th. Stay tuned for the results in the July 17th issue of The Almanac.

VOTE HERE