Canada and the First World War. Trench Weapons Grenades Underground Mining Artillery and Mortars Machine-Guns Poison Gas Rifles Tanks and Armoured Vehicles The trench warfare of the Western Front resembled a siege, where enemy forces, shielded by trenches and fortifications, were difficult to see or to shoot with direct-fire weapons such as rifles. Dangerous Early Grenades In attempting to fight through enemy trenches, or to defend against attack, all armies came to rely heavily on grenades.
Dozens of Types of Grenades By the end of , all armies were being supplied with hand bombs. You are here U. Attorneys » District of New Hampshire » News. Department of Justice. Thursday, October 8, Topic s :. If the pin has successfully been reinserted, it must be bent out again with a tool, in order to obtain an acceptable safety.
In addition to conventional safety mechanisms such as those mentioned above, there is a known safety device for hand grenades from DE Offenlegungsschrift 4. This device consists of so many loose parts that it is difficult to reinsert the safety mechanism, if one should change one's mind. Furthermore, the pulling ring sticks out above the grenade when stored, which makes it not very compact and prone to damage in a fall.
FI describes a safety pin with accompanying pulling ring. The pin has two ends, which rest against each other when the pin has been pulled, preventing the pin from being reinserted in the ignition head. Thus it is difficult to reinsert the pin if the user wishes to reactivate the safety mechanism. One object of the invention has been to devise a simple safety mechanism for hand grenades whereby the deactivation of the safety can readily be reversed. Another object has been to produce a more reliable safety mechanism.
Yet another object of the invention has been to produce a safety mechanism that is more compact than previously known safety mechanisms. These objects are achieved with a safety mechanism according to the attached independent patent clobject 1, which contains a safety pin for cooperation with an ignition head and safety arm, where the safety pin is shaped like a clamp made of spring steel, with one end designed to be threaded through a hole in the ignition head and safety arm, and the other end designed to be twisted over the ignition head and secured by being drawn past protruding impediments on the ignition head or safety arm.
Additional embodiments of the invention are indicated by the subsequent dependent claims. Figure 2 shows a hand grenade equipped with a safety mechanism in accordance with the invention. The grenade is equipped with an ignition head 3 and a spring loaded safety arm In the ignition head 3, and under the safety arm 11, there is a firing lock not shown. The safety arm 11 is held in place by a safety pin When in use, the grenade is held in one hand.
The hand holds the safety arm 11 firmly against the body of the grenade. The problematic part of the "destructive device" definition is the third definition. While it's clear that a person's state of mind is not relevant when dealing with devices that fall into one of the first two categories, that's not the case with the third. Courts have come to inconsistent conclusions when considering whether the state of mind of the person charged matters, when caught with a combination of components, or an assembled device, that could be used either innocently or for destructive purposes.
Courts have adopted three approaches to deciding whether an item, or collection of items, constitutes a destructive device, which would include a hand grenade. Whether a non-military "grenade" is actually a grenade for purposes of the NFA will depend on the court's choice. Under one approach, some courts insist that prosecutors prove that the defendant intended to use the device for illegal purposes. Under this approach, someone who created the device, or assembled the components, would escape conviction unless the government proved that he intended to use the device for nefarious ends.
For example, imagine a car that is pulled over and found to contain bottles of gasoline and torn-up clothing. The driver says he's intending to recycle the gas; the clothing is just trash. Although the circumstances are suspicious, the prosecutor probably could not prove, without more evidence, that these items are components that will be converted to a destructive device a Molotov cocktail. Most courts have not adopted the approach described above—the "subjective approach. For instance, imagine a student who assembles the items needed for a home-made grenade, but has no intent on using it—he's doing this for a science project.
As long as all of the parts are there to make a complete grenade, his benign plans will give him no defense. This "objective" standard turns the "combination of parts" theory into one of strict liability, as is the case with possessing military weapons category 1 and weapons expelling a projectile category 2. The objective standard, while seemingly harsh, can have some surprising results, letting defendants off the hook even when they intended to make a weapon.
The objective approach won't count unattached commercial blasting dynamite as a component part, because it is specifically excluded from the definition of a destructive device.
0コメント