Tuesday: Supervisors to consider flamethrower ban

Another stupid move that is a knee jerk reaction to something that gets a little press. go to Amazon and search for "Flamethrower" and you will find many, they are used to burn weeds but they are also used for roofing to melt the tar on the roof cover. The one the people were using on the roof next door pushed a flame further than the one from the Boring company. I guess you will ban those as well? Doesn't the board of supervisors have anything better to do or at least a little common sense?

Awesome post, Brian. With all your knowledge, passion, common sense and research already performed, you'll be participating in the meeting at 9am, obviously.

Thank you for your service to our community - it's a please to read of an anonymous poster who WALKS the walk!

@Brian

I agree with you. How much time did our legislators spend creating policy to further restrict our freedoms? If this is such a big issue, why didn't the State legislature outlaw them?

This is a case of progressive politicians enacting rules to show they are busy. These policies resonate with the advocates of the nanny-state. Thank goodness we have the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors to protect us from the flamethrowers. I was having trouble sleeping knowing they were such a threat to our welfare.

@Supervisors - perhaps you could take up legislation to do something meaningful such as reducing traffic congestion. Perhaps a few thousand more high density housing units where the occupants would be banned from owning vehicles?

Wait - Nanny wants folks to possess FLAMETHROWERS?

Somehow, you just knew the fringe libertarian element of these boards would jump the shark.

Using a flamethrower to do gardening? Uh...yeah. Not.

I stand corrected, having done some research on the intertoobs since my last post:

'The Only Thing That Stops A Bad Guy With A Flamethrower Is A Good Guy With A Flamethrower'

"it's a please to read of an anonymous poster who WALKS the walk!"

Says the anonymous poster. Hypocrite much?

Sounds like I'm still in business. Cool.

Seriously, I think some laws are enacted as "Just in case some idiots get involved"
We have no alcohol rules in our parks, but well behaved adults are always seen sipping beer or wine and it goes on without any police issue. If "Some idiots" show up and decide to get rowdy, they are immediately put down by the police with the aid of the law being on the books.

I could see the same enforcement pattern here. Nobody is going to care about the roofer warming tar, but if some idiot shows up in a park and starts blasting fire into the sky (or whatever), the police can shut it down with a law on the books. It'll be complaint driven I would guess, probably won't involve a flame thrower task force or crackdown.

And don't forget those flame thrower guitars.

Web Link

First off, not sure if you can read it but I am a registered user and not hiding behind a silly name. Second of all what they are talking of banning are not really flame throwers. These are propane torches that can send a gas generated flame about 2 feet, the same as gardening torches and the torches used by roofers. Like I said go to Amazon and look them up. Musk released this as a gimmick and now our elected officials are falling right into it with this knee jerk reaction. Real flame throwers, which eject a liquid fueled flame many yards (50 feet?) that you see in movies and are used by the military are already illegal in the state of California making this this legislation is an unnecessary waste of time and money.