Template:Did you know nominations/Regulation of flamethrowers in the United States

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Rlink2 (talk) 00:00, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Regulation of flamethrowers in the United States

(

)

To T:DYK/P4

... that in the United States, flamethrowers are legal in 48 states and the District of Columbia, require a permit in California, and are only banned in Maryland? Source: [1] "Are flamethrowers legal? A spokesman for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives said it doesn't regulate them because they are not guns. That means buyers don't need to go through background checks from the FBI. Still, flamethrowers could run afoul of state or local laws. They are banned outright in Maryland. California considers them "destructive devices," which are illegal, but the state does issue permits for use on movie sets."
- ALT1: ... that while the United States Armed Forces are forbidden from using flamethrowers by an international treaty, there are no restrictions on civilian use in 48 states and the District of Columbia? Source: [2] "At the state level, California requires a permit while Maryland outright bans them—Ars is not aware of any other state-level regulation. The Inhumane Weapons Convention, which the United States signed in 1981, forbids "incendiary weapons," including flamethrowers. However, this document is only an agreement between nation-states and their militaries, and it did not foresee individual possession."

Created by Trainsandotherthings (talk). Self-nominated at 02:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: - Not done
Overall: Article, hook, etc. all look good, just waiting on QPQ. I think ALT1 is more interesting. — {{u|Bsoyka}} ^talk 02:42, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Perfect timing, I just did QPQ at Template:Did you know nominations/KMEX-DT. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Wonderful, all good from me then.

— {{u|Bsoyka}} ^talk 02:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)