Another Bad Product Idea From Byrna?

Byrna is a company that manufactures various OC products for purposes of less-lethal self-defense (Byrna.com).

Though I’m generally a fan of OC as a less-lethal self-defense options, I’ve for years had serious concerns about the product design choices made by Bryna–specifically, their production of less-lethal OC devices that closely resemble actual firearms. (Find all my aggregated postings on Byrna here: https://lawofselfdefense.com/byrna)

This week I was made aware of another Byrna product offering that also raises concerns in my mind–OC delivery modules shaped identically to 12 gauge shotgun shells and intended to be fired through an actual 12 gauge shotgun.

Why do I find these products so troubling? Let’s discuss!

References

2021 Letter from Byrna CEO Bryan Ganz in response to my October 14, 2021 critique of Byrna pistol:

Become a Law of Self Defense Member for JUST 99 CENTS!

Not yet a Law of Self Defense Member? WHY NOT? Try our two-week trial membership, unlimited access to our show content, for just 99¢! Stay a member after that and it’s still just ~30¢ a day, less than $10 a month! Get the 99¢ trial membership by clicking on the image or link below:

https://lawofselfdefense.com/trial

Become a Platinum Member for ONLY 82 CENTS A DAY!

PLUS get EVERY class & book we offer, for FREE!
We ONLY consult on legal cases for our Platinum members!
BE HARD TO CONVICT, become a Law of Self Defense Platinum member TODAY!

http://lawofselfdefense.com/82cents

AMERICAN LAW COURSES

Get a law-school level education in typical first-year (1L) law classes, including criminal law, constitutional law, evidence, property, and more, at a fraction of the cost and time of law school, and without any of the political toxicity of today’s law schools. Spring semester starts soon with Constitutional Law!
Learn more at: americanlawcourses.com

americanlawcourses.com/conlaw

LAW CARDS!

https://www.lawofselfdefense.com/lawcards

SUBSCRIBE TO our STANDARD long-form YouTube channel:
“Law of Self Defense”
https://youtube.com/lawofselfdefense

FREE BOOK! “The Law of Self Defense: Principles”

Physical book, 200+ pages, we just ask that you cover the S&H:
http://lawofselfdefense.com/freebook

FREE 5-ELEMENTS OF SELF-DEFENSE LAW CHEAT SHEET!

Totally free cheat sheet explaining the 5-elements of any claim of self-defense.
If you don’t understand these five elements you have no idea what legally qualifies as lawful self-defense.
PDF download, zero cost:

http://lawofselfdefense.com/elements

Disclaimer – Content is for educational purpose only.

Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

---

Transcript

(PDF Link)

NOTE: All LOSD video/podcast transcripts are prepared in rough form, provided solely for our members’ convenience & documentation, and are not thoroughly reviewed for accuracy. Refer to the original video/podcast for the authoritative form of this content.

BEGIN

Welcome, everybody. Welcome to today’s episode of the Law of Self Defense show. I am, of course, attorney Andrew Branca for Law of Self Defense. Thank you. Thank you very much. We’re here to talk about the company, Berna. Particularly, we’re here to talk about one of their product offerings that may not be new, but I just learned of it.

And specifically concerns I have with some of Berner’s product offerings. I want to caution up front. I don’t tell people what to do. I’m not telling anybody not to buy Berner products. If you think it’s a good fit for you, great. That’s your decision to make, not my decision to make on your behalf.

I just want you to make an informed decision. That’s why I do these videos for the law of self defense community. So let me make sure we’re streaming where we need to be. It appears that we are, except of course, I can’t tell rumble. Come on, rumble. There we go. Okay. So we are everywhere we need to be.

So let me launch the formal start of today’s show with our little video intro. Here we go.

Welcome, welcome, welcome everyone to today’s law self defense show to talk about. Another product from burner that raises serious concerns in my mind again. I’m not telling anyone to Buy or not buy from burner. That’s a decision you have to make I just want it to be an informed decision and if You consider what I have to say and you decide to buy these burner products anyway It’s your neck you make those choices.

Before we start, of course, I should mention the sponsor of today’s show Which is none other? Then, Law of Self Defense ourselves, we only, this is an open access show, so it is streaming on YouTube, Twitter, Rumble, and of course on our Law of Self Defense members dashboard. We only address questions and comments from our Law of Self Defense members in the member chat.

If you’re putting questions or comments in YouTube or in rumble, I don’t even see those folks. If you’d like to be able to interact with me individually and with other law, self defense members in that exchange, you need to be a law self defense member. You can do that instantly right now for just 99 cents for a two week trial at law, self defense.

com slash trial. And if you stay a member after the two week trial, it’s still dirt cheap folks, it’s only about 30 cents a day, less than 10 a month to be a law of self defense member. And not only are you the only ones who get to interact with me and the other membership in the Law of Self Defense chat, get me to address your questions and comments during these live streams, you also get access to more than twice the content as non members because most of what we produce every week in terms of content is members only content.

And that’s particularly true of the breakdowns we do of use of force events caught on video where people are shot, stabbed, killed. We don’t bother putting those on YouTube or Open Access anymore because they just get demonetized. So that kind of content is only for Law of Self Defense members.

Again, two week trial, 99 cents. If you don’t like it, we’ll give you twice your money back. Negative risk opportunity at lawofselfdefense. com slash trial. You could do that right now. Open up another tab in your browser. And you’ll be instructed after you become a trial member on how to access today’s live stream Also, if you do nothing else, I would urge you to at least consider getting a copy of our best selling book The law of self defense principles real soft cover book.

We make this book available for free folks. You can look it up on amazon It’s also available on amazon five star rated Over 1400 reviews at this point. Very well received book, but don’t buy it on Amazon. Amazon will charge you for the book and shipping. We only ask you to cover the cost of getting the book to you.

The shipping and handling will eat the cost of the book. You can get our book at LawOfSelfDefense. com slash. Free, easy enough to remember. All right. So what are we here to talk about today? We’re here to talk about this company, Berna which I believe has the best of intentions. So I’m not attributing any malice to Berna, but the nature of their products causes me serious concern.

These products. Fire project pepper spray in the form of capsules which is fine. I’m an advocate of pepper spray. I carry pepper spray for personal protection. Got it right here. Just like I carry a pistol for personal protection. So I’m generally speaking a fan of pepper spray as a less lethal option as a useful tool in the toolbox for circumstances in which deadly defensive force is not appropriate.

Now, of course, OC is not magic. It doesn’t always work, but it’s a useful option to have if the circumstances make it appropriate. So I have nothing against OC spray. I do have concerns with Berna’s method of delivering OC. And really those are twofold now with this new product. I will, I don’t know if it’s a new product, but it’s new to me.

I just became aware of it. The shotgun shells that we’re going to discuss today, but even back. I think more than two years ago, I became aware of this product that you’re seeing on the screen right now or a version of it. It’s an OC dispenser projector that closely resembles an actual pistol.

And I wrote about this two years ago. I think I’ll link that, that prior discussion of this product in the description. It should already be there. Yeah. Or that’s prior coverage. And today’s show will also be available at this general link. Let me put it in here. I’ve set up an aggregate link as I sometimes do for these kinds of things.

Law of self defense. com slash burner is where I’ll be gathering, aggregating all the blog posts or videos that I’ve done on on burner products. Today’s show will go there as well when we’re done with it, we finished the post production. So my main concern with this item and I covered this two years ago, but I’ll do it again briefly today, is, let’s see, where can I, where are Here we go.

Is that it so closely resembles an actual pistol. And by the way, when I did my 2001, 2021 critique of the pistol I very quickly on YouTube got an a heated response from the CEO of Berna. And I’ll share that response with all of you in today’s show. I’ll pull it up and read it to be clear He’s responding to the 2021 review of the pistol not he’s that’s not a response to today’s show Which obviously he hasn’t even seen yet.

But let’s see. Where is it? This is the one I wanted to pull up So here it is. It comes in all black and this is the one that’s most concerning to me this looks like nothing but a typical concealed carry nine millimeter pistol. I think we’d all agree, right? If you saw this, if this was pointed at you in a heated manner, I think you would reasonably presume that someone was pointing an actual firearm at you.

There’s a couple of concerns I have with this, the design of this OC dispenser. So I don’t have a problem with OC again. I carry OC. I have a problem with this dispenser being designed. To look effectively exactly like a real firearm and to operate exactly like a real firearm. There’s a I don’t know if you can see it in the image here, but there’s a there’s a thumb safety.

There’s a obviously a trigger guard it’s just a it looks just like a normal a real firearm right a nine millimeter pistol so the two concerns I have come from two different directions one is that a user May think they’re using A non lethal Berna pistol, but in fact be using a real pistol.

Have we seen that kind of mistake made before? Does anybody remember the Kim Potter trial? Where she was using a Taser? She thought she was using a Taser? And she actually deployed her service pistol? and killed Dante Wright and was convicted of manslaughter and went to prison. Now, I think that was a wrongful conviction in that case, but nevertheless, that was the consequence.

You don’t get any forgiveness when you accidentally, unintentionally shoot somebody with a real gun, despite your best intentions. Unless, of course, you’re as Alec Baldwin is. Even he got charged. It took a year. But he was ultimately charged, and then he had to leverage his political capital to get out of that criminal charge.

But guns are inherently dangerous instruments, and the negligent use of a gun, because it is an inherently dangerous instrument, automatically bumps up the negligence. Which would normally only be enough for civil liability to recklessness, criminal liability. Now, your jurisdiction may use the phrase criminal negligence, but when they do that, what they’re, what they mean is recklessness.

Recklessness mean, meaning that because the gun is an inherently dangerous instrument, you’re presumed to know that you’re handling something dangerous. That you’re creating an unjustified risk of death to other people by handling it in a reckless manner. And if you cause that death, you’re guilty of manslaughter.

And this is charged all the time. The Alec Baldwin supporters pretended that this was unusual that he would be charged. For unintentionally firing a fatal round into Helena Hutchins from the real firearm he knew he was holding because he didn’t know it was loaded, right? It was someone else’s responsibility, his supporters argued.

But it’s the most common thing in the world, folks. I see these cases all the time. Here’s one from today. Today’s news, 17 hours ago, this news report. was published from Virginia. Man 21 dies after accidental shooting in Manassas area home. Second man charged. What was he charged with? The second man involuntary manslaughter.

Is there any evidence that he intended to shoot the victim in this case? No, none. They were passing the gun around the gun discharged when it was in the second man’s hands. And killed this victim and he’s charged now the second man the man who was holding the gun with involuntary manslaughter Why?

Because he was handling a gun an inherently dangerous instrument by definition in an unsafe manner because it discharged unintentionally The gun does not shoot itself folks That trigger must be depressed. So obviously he depressed the trigger while the muzzle was pointed at someone who did not need to be shot involuntary manslaughter for an unintentional shooting.

So one concern I’ve always had with the burner design is that someone. The user might think they’re handling a burner pistol, but in fact, be handling a real pistol under the stress that accompanies an attack.

The other risk that concerns me is how other people will perceive the burner pistol in one’s hand, because it would be reasonable for other people to perceive the burner pistol. As a real gun. It certainly looks like a real gun. Imagine, you’re, now, consider the circumstances under which you would use the Berna pistol.

It’s when you’re facing a non lethal attack. Because if you were facing a lethal attack, presumably you’d be using your gun. Now, listen, are there edge cases? Are there still states in America where it’s very difficult? To carry a gun on your person for personal protection states like New York, New Jersey, California, Maryland.

Sure. Those states exist. So if you’re, if your only option were a defensive tool option were a burner pistol, I’d say carry a burner pistol, but it’s not generally your only. Lawful defensive option. So for most of the country where you could be defending yourself with a pistol You have that option or with pepper spray you have that option That’s where this gets me concerned and that’s most of the country because say you’re facing a non deadly force threat Someone’s scaring you.

They’re a genuine threat You’re concerned that they might imminently cause you harm, but only non deadly harm. So you’re not going to the gun for self defense, because you’re not facing a deadly force threat. A threat readily capable of causing death or serious bodily injury. You’re not going to the gun because you’re not facing a deadly force threat.

Instead, you decide to go to your burner. Pistol. Looks just like this. Looks exactly like a nine millimeter pistol. Now, you’re doing that because you’re only being threatened with less lethal force. So you’re only defending yourself with less lethal force. A proportional defense, perfectly lawful.

Let’s assume that what you’re doing, presenting your burner pistol, is perfectly lawful under the circumstances. If someone else is observing this interaction between you and the other party, and they also agree with you that the other party is presenting at worst, A non deadly force threat, and they see you point,

they see you point this at the other party at the non deadly force threat, could they reasonably perceive that you’re responding to a non deadly force threat with deadly force? Could they reasonably perceive this as you pointing an actual nine millimeter firearm at that other person who hasn’t done anything to privilege you to point an actual gun at them?

Now this third party would be mistaken. You’re not pointing a firearm at them. But would they be reasonably mistaken? And if they’re reasonably mistaken, are they permitted to rely on their reasonable perception of the event? And if that third party is carrying a real firearm and sees you doing this, apparently presenting a deadly force threat.

to a non deadly force aggressor. Might they perceive you as acting disproportionately? As having, in effect, legally initiated a new fight, a second fight, unlawfully escalating what was merely a non deadly argument to a deadly force level? You’re not actually doing that, but could they reasonably perceive you’re doing that?

And if they reasonably perceive that, could they present their own real firearm and shoot you with it? And have that be lawful, even if it were not lawful you’re still shot, right? With a real gun, but it probably would be lawful defense of others, because they had a reasonable perception that you were presenting a real gun at another person without legal privilege, without justification.

One of the things the the Berner CEO Complained to me about when he wrote me the letter, when I reviewed this back in 2021, was that we make the gun. We don’t only make it in black. We make it another colors too. And that’s true. They do. So you can see it has various levels of orange here.

A tan, which of course real guns are made in tan colors these days. So that doesn’t really help. The orange might help purple, gray. They make real guns in gray. So a lot of these options are just the same colors you get as an option with real firearms. Even purple. I’ve seen purple, real guns in purple.

Orange would be less likely. This might help you. The orange might help you in terms of the second risk, how others might perceive what you’re pointing. Although I have to say, if you point that, this thing at one of my family members, you’re likely to get shot. I don’t care what color it is. But it might help you in terms of how others perceive it.

But in at Oh dark 30, does the orange help, whether you’re gripping a real gun or a burner under stress, if it’s dark, if it’s on your belt, remember Kim Potter took her service pistol right off her duty belt. And everybody agreed, even the prosecution agreed, that she did not know it was her service pistol.

She believed it was her taser. And she still went to prison over it. That is fundamentally my concern with this Burna product. Now, let me see if I have the if, I think I have the CEO’s letter pulled up.

Because I think it’s only fair that you get to hear what he had to say. It’s quite long, sorry. And some of this Maybe fair than other parts. Let’s see.

I’m going to have to put on my reading glasses because the print is so fine.

It’s a screen capture of his YouTube comment. And again, I’ll link, if you go to law, self defense. com slash burner, you’ll be able to see this yourself. So this is from Brian Gans who at the time was the CEO. I don’t know if he’s still the CEO or not. I’m not trying to suggest anything negative about Mr.

Gans, I just. Let’s see, they have information here on the company,

on the management, about.

I don’t see any

I don’t see any easy way to find out about the management. Let me just presume for the benefit of Mr. Gans that he’s still the CEO of the company. That may not be the case. Let me… Let me shrink this down while I’m reading the letter. Done a better job brushing my hair. Okay. So this is Brian Gans from 2021 comment to my YouTube video.

Much the critique I just did over the the pistol here. As CEO of burner, I was extremely disappointed that you came out so forcefully against the burner personal security device without even taking the time to understand what the device does and how it is intended to be used. You refer to the burner as a poor quality imitation clock that doesn’t fire rounds, but as a pepper spray device.

Nothing could be further from the truth. This is probably all correct. I was under the impression that it fired a a spray of OC, just a, much like a… pepper spray canister does but apparently it provides fires like pepper OC balls that burst on impact. And I’m told that it’s well made.

So here’s the CEO. The Berna is an extremely high quality product from the same type of high strength nylon infused polymer used to manufacture a Glock. Unlike my Glock 19, however, this is built from 34 components. That is built from 34 components. The Berna SD is made from 112 precision crafted parts and the finished product must hold air at 800 PSI.

It’s like building a Swiss watch. Okay. That’s I’ll accept all that. That’s fine. It’s a very well built product. None of that addresses my concerns. That either the user or a third party could misperceive the object as a real gun or accidentally on the part of the user, pick up a real gun thinking it was a burner.

He continues, if you had bothered, let me, if you had bothered to do even the most basic research, you would have known that the burner personal security device does not eject pepper spray, but does in fact fire projectiles. These rounds can be either solid kinetic projectiles or payload projectiles.

The payload projectiles are filled with a chemical irritant, either 5% pepper concentration. Burna pepper or eight percent occs combination burna max I guess is their trademark for that both the kinetic and chemical irritant rounds have extreme stopping power Do they I mean I carry oc Of a you know a reputable brand And I would never characterize O.

C. as having extreme stopping power. And in some cases, such as when an assailant is hiding behind a corner, the burner can be more effective than a lethal firearm. More effective for what purpose? You’d only be using a lethal firearm if you were facing a deadly force threat. He goes on, the kinetic rounds use pain compliance to stop an attacker.

Many people, when shot with a kinetic round, will think they have been shot with an actual firearm. Based on the look of the weapon, the sound of the report, and the pain of being hit. Okay, so this is me talking now. Is that a good thing? Because presumably, you’re using a less lethal weapon because you’re facing a less lethal threat.

Or you’d be going to the gun. If someone’s only threatening you with less lethal force, and you’ve apparently shot them, what do you think they’re privileged to do lawfully now? You think they’re privileged to shoot you back? Or there’s a third party who would reasonably perceive that you’ve just shot someone?

Really shot someone? As described here by the CEO? Even though they were only presenting as a less lethal threat that third party might believe their privilege to act in defense of others and use deadly defensive force on you. So I’m not sure this is a good thing. The CEO continues the chemical irritant rounds incapacitated an assailant by causing temporary blindness and respiratory distress.

Someone hit with the chemical irritant rounds will be almost immediately incapacitated, involuntarily shutting their eyes and gasping for breath. Most people, when hit with the Burna Pepper or Burna Max rounds, drop whatever is in their hands and fall to their hands and knees. There are dozens of videos online that show the human effects of being shot with both the kinetic and payload rounds.

The Burna is not a toy. Okay? I presume, I’m willing to accept that the the Burna OC… Projectiles act in a way similar to O. C. and C. S. generally, which means sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t. Different people have different responses to O. C. and C. S., even when it’s delivered in an optimal manner.

Let’s see, we developed a burner, this is the CEO now, we developed a burner initially for gun owners like myself that wanted a non lethal option. Like you, I have a Massachusetts concealed carry permit, and I own a number of firearms. While I have carried for years, if I’m truly honest with myself, I don’t know how quick I would have ever been to pull the trigger.

If I hesitated, however, would that be a fatal second for me? And if I didn’t hesitate, would I be making a fatal mistake? Even though the shooting was justified, once you pull the trigger, your life changes forever, legally, financially, and most of all emotionally and psychologically. With the burner, I will not hesitate.

If I shoot the paper boy coming up the driveway, I will leave a bigger tip at Christmas, but 30 minutes later, he will be fine. So this is. That was all the CEO. This is me now. I just don’t understand the mindset. If you’re faced with, or someone you have a duty to protect is faced with an imminent, deadly force threat, why would you think that a less lethal option is your best choice tactically?

I tell everyone, don’t get into fights you don’t need to get into. The last thing in the world you want to have to do is to use lethal force on another human being. But if they’ve compelled that circumstance, if you’re coming at me or a family member with imminent deadly force harm that I cannot escape by I’m not going to pepper spray because the pepper spray is unreliable and I don’t care what form the pepper spray is in.

I’m not going to an inert kinetic object that cannot actually stop somebody. Even real handguns. are pretty crappy when it comes to stopping a motivated aggressor. So I presume that a non penetrating burner kinetic round is inferior in stopping power to a real bullet. So I don’t understand this mindset.

If you’re facing a deadly force threat, an imminent deadly force threat that cannot be otherwise avoided, it’s imminent, it’s immediately about to happen or in progress, the appropriate tactical response is deadly defensive force. Not this.

Now, of course, can people think this way? Sure. If you want to take the risk that an O. C. device will protect you from the madman raising a gun at you, that’s up to you. That’s your decision to make. I don’t tell people what to do, but it strikes me as some optimal from a tactical perspective.

The CEO continues. Last year, 23 million guns were sold in the U. S. More startling. 8. 4 million were sold to first time gun buyers. This would be, 2021, folks. 8. 4 million people were so concerned

for their safety and for the safety of their families that they were willing to purchase a lethal weapon with all the attendant risks. They were. Good for them. What percentage would have opted for a non lethal weapon if they were confident they could safely disarm a threat at distance? With the 60 foot range, no recoil.

Okay, so how can there be no recoil with a kinetic round that is pain inducing on the target to the point where they’re according to Berna, compelled to stop what they’re doing to stop their attack on you has Newton’s laws or gone away, but any case with the 60 foot range, no recoil and the ability to mount the laser site, the burner has the accuracy and stopping power to disarm a threat before the situation escalates out of control.

You mentioned that you also carry pepper spray while effective when deployed properly is, as a close quarter combat device by the time it is effective, the situation has escalated way out of control. So I have to ask here, who are you shooting with a burner who’s 60 feet away?

What threat is someone who’s 60 feet away? What imminent threat is someone who’s 60 feet away? That you’re shooting them with your burner pistol. Now, of course, if they have a gun at 60 feet, they could well be an imminent deadly force threat. But then why would the burner be your defensive choice? As opposed to deadly defensive force.

And if they don’t have a gun, what are they armed with at 60 feet that you’d that, that they would represent as even a, an imminent non deadly against which the burner would be appropriate.

Let’s see, as law enforcement officers will tell you, standoff distance equals safety. Sure. Speaking of law enforcement, the burn is now being carried by more than 150 law enforcement agencies, including the ATF, as well as numerous private security firms. Okay, that doesn’t mean anything to me. Sony Motion Picture Studios traded in their lethal firearms for non lethal burners.

Why did they do that, do you think, folks? They did that because it looks just like a gun.

Although burners have been available to law enforcement for less than 12 months, the burner has already saved lives. On our website, we post a police bladder. Okay. Blah, blah, blah, blah. It is not, by the way, and these things used in a law enforcement context are completely different tactically than by civilians.

So the same would apply to a taser. So I don’t advocate tasers for civilian self defense because the way the police are able to use them is different than how a civilian would use them. When police are deploying a taser, the optimal way for a taser to be deployed is for one officer. to be deploying the taser attempting to use non lethal force to compel compliance with an arrest and a second officer standing behind him has a gun in case the taser doesn’t work as a deadly force backup option even if there is no second officer the first officer has a taser and a gun on his duty belt but how many civilians are going to carry a taser and a gun or have a backup partner with a gun while they’re deploying the taser and all that would be a limitation on the Burna, too.

So the fact that cops are using Burna successfully doesn’t mean it would be an appropriate choice for civilian self defense. Are you going to carry the Burna? You’re going to carry that on your belt and a pistol?

Then he talks about Burna saving we have, saving civilian lives. We have received dozens of reports of ordinary Americans that use the Burna to stop a home invasion, carjacking, or mugging. In some cases, these citizens were gun owners that chose non lethal before lethal. And in other cases, they were not gun owners and they relied on the burn it to protect themselves and their families.

Yeah. So if you can’t or won’t have a gun for personal protection, then maybe this is an option you want to consider. I’m not speaking to that audience. I’m speaking to the large majority of Americans who have the option and are willing to defend themselves, their families against lethal attack using deadly defensive force when appropriate.

And the fact that it can be used safely does not. Mean the risks I’m concerned about that a person may unintentionally mistake. A real gun for a burner or that it might be misperceived by a third party in public. Those risks don’t go away just because sometimes it can be used with a good outcome.

Let’s see continuing now from the ceo in most cases the homeowner did not even need to pull the trigger simply Presenting the burner was enough to stop the assailant Again, why do we think that is? Because it looks just like a gun. Oh, he goes on. This is the reason that the burner was designed to look like a firearm.

The form factor itself has a deterrent effect. Most criminals and assailants are cowards, and when confronted with someone willing and able to defend themselves, they simply retreat and move on to an easier mark. This is consistent with studies that have looked at the effectiveness of using a gun to stop a crime.

As I’m sure 92% of the time that a gun is used to stop a crime, the gun is never fired. This does not mean that you should use a toy gun or imitation firearm to stop a crime. 8% of the time, simply presenting the weapon is not enough. In those instances, the burner gives the homeowner the ability to stop the assailant without resorting to deadly force.

Does it? A lot of bad guys are not intimidated by a real gun. What happens when the bad guy realizes that your gun is a burner? Your apparent gun is a burner. A lot of bad guys are not intimidated by giant cans of O. C. spray in the hands of police officers. And the fact that it looks just like a real gun is precisely my concern.

The CEO continues, While we know that the form factor has stopped crimes and saved lives, we do make the burner in both less lethal orange and safety yellow. Why? Why do you do that? Because the black version, the versions that look like real guns, the black, the green, the tan, that’s dangerous.

That’s why you have the orange and yellow. I don’t even see the yellow on the website anymore. The CEO, you glossed over the fact that these colors are widely recognized by law enforcement and the general public as less lethal colors, not in the dark, indicating that the weapon is non lethal. All right.

But then if the weapons obviously non lethal, haven’t you lost the purported deterrent effect of the form factor that you were just. A proponent of

the CEO when developing the burner, we considered making it only in his last lethal colors. However, several private security firms and police agencies outside of the U. S. Indicated they wanted a black launcher so that it would have a deterrent effect even when Ulster, but you’re selling it to civilians.

You’re not just selling it to private security and police.

The C. E. O. This is not the first time people associated with the firearms industry have denigrated the burner. I’m not sure why. Why? I think I explained it in some detail. Of the ceo we are currently in discussions with major gun manufacturers to help them produce a non lethal weapon to complement their area firearms At burners, we are supporters of the second amendment and the burner was never intended to replace firearms Rather, we want to give both law enforcement and civilians more options.

It looks like it’s intended to replace a firearm. You designed it to look exactly like a firearm. You just said that you make it in black so that it will be perceived as a real firearm in place. Surely you’re not saying that the private security firms and police agencies that they’re going to carry a black burner and a firearm.

They’re not carrying both. If they were carrying the boat, both, you wouldn’t need it to be black. It could just be orange. Casers are yellow, typically.

The CEO, the burner fills a void on the continuum of force by being able to safely and effectively stop a threat at a standoff distance of up to 60 feet without resorting to lethal force. There’s nothing else that can do that. Again, I don’t understand the 60 foot thing. Because someone who’s not armed with a firearm at 60 feet away is not an eminent deadly force threat.

It’s not armed with some kind of projectile weapon, deadly force projectile weapon. It’s not an imminent threat of even non deadly force harm. They’re 60 feet away the CEO. The burner also provides an option for gun owners that may not be comfortable always carrying a lethal firearm. While you may be a firearms expert, I’m sure that not all the 8.

4 million first time gun buyers from 2020 or the 90 million gun owners in the U. S. have had sufficient training and or practice to safely deploy a lethal weapon under stress or in a crowded venue. Virtually every defensive use of a firearm in America is by someone who has effectively zero training in defensive use of firearms.

That’s just reality, folks. I wish you would have bothered to do a little research on Burna before denigrating this life saving device and calling it remarkably stupid. Frankly, what is remarkably stupid is to give advice that could have life or death consequences without doing the slightest bit of research.

In this day and age, with the rising civil unrest and the fraying of the social fabric, Americans do not know when they will need to protect themselves and their families. They do not know what type of weapon or assailant they may be confronted with. So if that’s true, why would you limit yourself to a less lethal option only?

Our mission at Burnett is to provide both civilians and law enforcement professionals with a safe and effective alternative to lethal firearms that will enable our customers to safely and effectively protect themselves, their family, and their community. I would ask your viewers next time they are facing a knife wielding assailant.

Would they rather have a burner or a lawyer at their side? Ha very cute Brian, but of course, that’s not the question. The question is, would they rather have a burner or an actual firearm at their side?

So that’s the and then he writes he’s just says Brian Gann, CEO, burner technologies, Inc. So that is the entirety of the CEO’s letter from 2021. That’s the pistol. Those are my concerns with the pistol that the user could believe they have a burner in the hand, but actually have a real pistol in hand.

Instead, let me pull it up here again. The burner SD.

How hard would it be?

To mistake this

and a real nine millimeter pistol. I don’t think it would be very difficult at all. So either the user might believe they’re holding a less lethal weapon because they’re choosing, they think they’re choosing that option because they’re only facing a non deadly force threat when in fact they’re in possession of a real nine millimeter pistol, and then they end up using deadly defensive force under circumstances where deadly defensive force is not justified.

That’s involuntary manslaughter, folks, because of a mistake, but a mistake involving an inherently dangerous instrument, a firearm. So that was the pistol. The other, the new product again, I don’t know if it’s a new product or if it’s been around, but it just was brought to my attention yesterday or within the last couple of days, is this thing.

Kinetic, less lethal, 12 gauge round. So I guess this is not an OC round. It’s just an object, a kinetic object. That would strike someone. By the way, you think if it struck someone in the head, it might cause death or serious bodily injury. I don’t know, but I know bean bag rounds that strike people in the head have killed them.

And this thing doesn’t look softer than a bean bag round. In any case, these are intended to be fired from. A real shotgun, what kind of shotguns are compatible? So apparently it won’t reliably cycle through semi automatic shotguns. So they recommend pump shotguns here. They list several the Remington eight 70, the Mossberg five 90, the Keltec KSG these are all real shotguns folks.

So what you’re intended to do here is load up a real shotgun with these kinetic purportedly less lethal rounds and fire them out of the real shotgun at whoever’s aggressing towards you. So it’s not even a Berna shotgun. It’s a real shotgun. It’s not just indistinguishable from a real shotgun. It’s actually a real shotgun.

And what happens if it turns out that shotgun, that round, that 12 gauge round you fire out of that shotgun, oops, it’s not one of these. It’s buckshot. It’s a slug. And you kill that person that you’d only intended to use less lethal force against. Again, it’s involuntary manslaughter, folks. And I know there are some police that have, less lethal shotguns set up for less lethal purposes, fire 12 gauge beanbag type rounds. They typically have very bright orange forearms and shoulder stocks on them. And the police are rigorously trained in the use of those. The CEO in his letter to me said, Hey, all these 8. 4 million people buying guns for the first time, they may not have adequate training.

Do they have adequate training in using 12 gauge less lethal rounds? Are they going to go out and buy a bright orange forend and stock for their shotgun for the Remington 870 at home? Even if they did, which they won’t, we know they won’t, even if they did, when they bring that shotgun up to their shoulder, how confident are they that there’s not a slug in there?

That it’s only these rounds? Or are they going to have to load it? Start with the shotgun empty and load it up with these rounds. In the moment of crisis to be absolutely sure that it’s only these rounds in the gun because otherwise, how would you know? How would you know with 100 certainty if you don’t check in the moment That you only have these less lethal rounds in the shotgun

years ago. Someone came to me with a very similar idea a business proposition they wanted my support for. And essentially it was pistol bullets that would just basically they were wax filled. Instead of having a lead bullet, they would have a pellet of wax or plastic of some kind. And the idea was you’d load up your magazine mostly with real ammo, but the last couple of rounds in the magazine, meaning the first couple of rounds to fire from the gun would be these less lethal rounds.

And that, according to this business proposition, would allow you to, when faced with even a deadly force threat, to fire a couple of less lethal rounds at the person, sting them, cause them pain for purposes of compliance. And only then… Would repeated presses of the trigger start delivering actual lead projectiles at the person?

And of course, I couldn’t support this business idea for all the risks I’m raising here. When you bring that gun up, how sure are you that the round you’re about to fire is wax and not lead? And if you need lead, do you want to be dealing with the wax? How much time do you think you have in a gunfight?

If that other person is shooting at you, you want your first couple of rounds to be wax rounds, shooting back at them. If that other person is shooting at your family, you want your first couple of rounds to be the wax rounds.

And of course it’s all the same risks of mixing up the ammo. So you think you’re firing a non lethal round but you actually fire a lethal round under circumstances where presumably you did not intend. You were not justified in using deadly defensive force. Or you would have been using real bullets.

Again, it’s involuntary manslaughter folks. So again, there are, I can imagine edge cases, places where you just can’t own a real gun, or you have a

a moral dilemma in using deadly defensive force, even against someone attacking you or your family with deadly force. That’s a moral position. Some people may have, so you would just never use a gun or you can’t ever use a gun. Then this kind of thing might be a viable option. But of course if you don’t have any guns in your home, then you don’t run the risk of mixing this up.

If you’ve never bought a nine millimeter pistol, you’re not going to confuse the burner and a nine millimeter pistol. There is no nine millimeter pistol around to confuse. If you’ve never bought actual 12 gauge rounds then you’re not going to mix these up, but actual 12 gauge rounds. So that would mitigate the risk.

But if you have other guns in your home, other ammo in your home, that could be mixed with this stuff in the gun, I think you’re taking a terrible risk by using these purportedly less lethal options. Now I’m not telling you not to do it. If these products fit your life circumstances, go for it.

It’s your money. It’s a free country. I don’t tell people what to do, but if you’re going to choose it, I want you to be making an informed decision. And those are the risks I see with these products. And again, with the shotgun shells, even if you could be 100% certain that you only had the Berna less lethal shells in the gun, would a third party observer know that?

So somebody shoves you a less than deadly attack against which only less lethal force would be appropriate, and you point a shotgun at that person? What does that look like to anybody watching? That looks like you’re about to kill someone for pushing you. Now, would OC spray, would a kinetic strike, be an appropriate response to a shove?

Sure. Seems reasonable, proportional, less lethal. But if you appear to be pointing at real… A Remington 870, a real shotgun at someone because they shoved you? How is that going to be perceived by other people? How might they respond to that perception?

And under circumstances in which you’d be privileged to use deadly defensive or someone’s kicking in the front door of your home I wouldn’t want burnish shells in my shotgun. I’d want real rounds in my shotgun to deal with that deadly force threat. Okay, let’s take a look at the questions now from members.

Again, we only take questions from Law Self Defense members in the Law Self Defense chat. If you’re not a Law Self Defense member, I have to ask why. You can try it out for two weeks for just 99 cents. 99 cents two weeks unlimited access to all our members only content Most of the content we produce each week is members only content Plus we only take questions and comments from members in the member chat You could get access to that immediately at law of self defense dot com slash trial And if you stay a member, it’s still dirt cheap.

It’s only about 30 cents a day Less than ten dollars a month to be a law self defense member. Okay, so let’s take a look at the chat

Is it still raining in Vermont? Good heavens. Let me pull this over. So I’m not looking sideways at the screen

Yeah, the show was an hour late starting today folks because I have some travel coming up and I have a lot of stuff I’m trying to get off my desk before I have to leave on this trip. So by the way, I do have I’m not sure how much live content I’ll have during this trip, but I do have pre recorded content that’ll be going out mostly for our law self defense members.

Let’s see. Jim says so now Berna offers a choice of using an actual firearm, completely removing any question that the thing some idiot was pointing was a deadly weapon. Presumably owners of the handgun shaped offering now present a less urgent danger than the shotgun. You’re using a real shotgun.

D says a bad guy can paint a real firearm orange to cause some hesitation in an LEO response. Are less lethal firearms had orange furniture as an identifier for safety purposes? Yeah. And I really, I’m in favor of like bean bag devices for law enforcement for civilians. I would just prefer that they look distinctly Like beanbag devices let’s see.

I had one pulled up here. Did I lose it?

Darn it. Let me take a look. Hold on folks.

Check my history real quick.

Something like this

is a lot less problematic to me. It’s 40 millimeter. It’s a giant tube. The beanbag ground’s a giant round. You’re not gonna confuse it with a shotgun shell. It looks distinctly unlike a real firearm, except I guess for a grenade launcher. Very unlikely to be confused with a real firearm. This one happens to be black.

I would paint them all bright orange or something similar. But nevertheless this is the kind of form factor that I would prefer to either something that is identical in appearance to a real firearm or is a real firearm 870 and burner now also makes rifle type products.

Like this.

Sure, it’s got orange on it. Can you tell at night? In the dark? Would, if this was pointed at a cop, would he trust that it’s only less lethal? Should a civilian trust that? Should a bystander trust that? If someone points this at your family members, are you going to presume it’s not a real gun?

That is my concern with this stuff. There are ways to do this. Where they don’t resemble a real gun. But I think Berne is probably correct in imagining that their sales are going to be substantially higher if they make the form factor appear as close to a real gun as possible. I think they’re right about that.

I think from a money making proposition, that’s the way to go, but it’s that exact identical form factor that raises the. The legal risks and the tactical risks that i’m concerned about with this product.

Okay, let’s see

Gregory says no question here. Just leaving a digital fingerprint Yeah, folks So one of the great things about our law self defense members only content is whether a show is open access or members only the members get a because they’re commenting in the member chat There’s a record that they learned this content and you need to be able to document that you possess This specialized knowledge, training and expertise, if you ever want it admitted at trial, heaven forbid you’re charged in the use of force case.

So documenting your knowledge, what you’ve learned, is very important for legal purposes. You can do that as a law self defense member because it goes into our database. You made a comment on that particular show. Plus, only law self defense members are also provided with transcripts of the shows, including both just a text transcript in the blog post itself with the video of the show, as well as a pdf download transcript that they can download and keep for their records.

Tony D asks, Is there ever an instance of a true accident when handling an inherently dangerous weapon? Yes, so it could happen, Tony, but it would be really an exceptional circumstance. So an accident Is a genuine accident carries no legal liability, not even civil liability, but an accident is something that is really completely beyond your control.

And when you’re handling an inherently dangerous instrument, really virtually everything is within your control, except truly bizarre circumstances. So if you say you were At a range. You’re shooting your gun at a range, responsibly, downrange, at the berm and then a tree falls on you, and the gun in your hand discharges, and strikes somebody.

That might be a genuine accident. That was completely beyond your control. It was completely unpredictable the tree would fall on you, cause you an injury that would induce you to clench your hand and pull the trigger on the gun. Even the direction of the muzzle could have been caused by the blow from the tree.

But it takes that kind of event for a bad outcome while handling a firearm to be a genuine accident.

Let’s see. D says, I know of one incident where a firearm went off by itself, an older shotgun, pretty well worn and lying on the hood of a truck. Luckily it was pointed away from us. We didn’t invite the owner on our next duck hunt. Yeah. I guess we should say that modern firearms. Don’t really discharge by themselves.

It just doesn’t really happen folks old firearms we had the stories about the sig 320 going off if it was dropped I don’t want to get into all that but I can tell you when the when someone’s shot and the police sees the weapon It’s studied by the firearms examiner. One of the things they do is they cock it And they pound it all over with a little rubber hammer to see if they can induce the hammer to fall without the trigger being depressed.

Very rare that happens.

Jeffrey says, and it’s, the Burna pistol is too big and bulky compared to my POM. So this is POM pepper spray. It fits in my pocket with my car keys and a flashlight. I’m not carrying a second pistol. An object shaped just basically the same size or larger than the pistol I’m already carrying.

Scott says either this or the shotgun would always look like lethal force and when fired out of a real shotgun is classified as lethal force, even though it says less lethal. Yeah. Scott also says a person could also confuse a taser as lethal force if it’s black. That’s true. And taser has made its devices in all black.

I’m not a fan of that. DJ says the burner CEO was Brian Ganz as of last week. Okay, fair enough. Yeah, company website shows he’s still CEO. Okay.

Let’s see. Tony D says, as a gunsmith, I’ve cerakoted a lot of firearms, a lot of different colors. Indeed. Cerakote pretty much is every color under the sun today.

David says cautionary note, the burner platform also offers a solid plastic kinetic projectile balls in addition to tear gas projectiles. I think a headshot. would reasonably qualify as an assault using a device capable of producing imminent deadly force trauma. Remember folks, deadly force is force readily capable of causing death or serious bodily injury, like a broken bone.

Could this projectile break someone’s orbital socket? Or take out an eye, because if it can, that’s deadly force, folks. Even though it’s supposed to be a less lethal projectile.

Frank says, aside from the printing on the side, those 12 gauge rounds look just like a 12 gauge 50 caliber sabot round. They don’t look much different. I’ll pull it up again. They have a, it looks like they have a little groove around the base, so you would maybe have a a tactile sense that it was the less lethal round.

I wouldn’t trust that under stress. I’ve seen people under stress insert a pistol magazine into a pistol backwards with the rounds facing. Towards them and jam that magazine so hard into the pistol that we need the tools to get the magazine out again. So you see these little grooves around the base.

I guess that’s supposed to be a tactile indicator that it’s less lethal. Trust that if you like, it’s up to you, your life.

Chuck says this is just foolishness, another demonstration of why God shouldn’t have given us free will. I wouldn’t go that far, Chuck. Let’s see.

Mike says, FYI, we had an individual shot by a LEO when she walked out of the house with a burner pistol. We’ll email you the link info. An individual shot by a law enforcement officer.

My phone just started up by itself. So it sounds like Mike’s describing a case where a civilian walked out of a house holding a burner pistol and got shot by a law enforcement officer. That’s the kind of thing I’m concerned about, folks. He says he’ll email me the link. Let’s see.

Yeah, I don’t see it here, but I’ll certainly keep my eyes open for it. And I’ll do a follow up Mike, if you send that to me.

Yeah, so Mike, you can just send it to Andrew at LawOfSelfDefense. com. David says, As a state registered firearms instructor, I’ve had these proffered to me by proponents as something you can arm your minor children with. What are your thoughts on putting this device in the hands of a child? We just heard from Mike that a cop shot a woman who left her home with a gun in hand.

If you put this apparent pistol in your child’s hand, you think there’s no risk they could end up getting shot? Because it’s mistaken for a real gun? I don’t know. Listen, I don’t have an inherent problem with making real guns available to children. I was nine years old when I had my first real firearm a 22 caliber rifle I was allowed to go out in the woods with a brick at 22 and shoot things without any adult supervision Now I don’t do gun law.

I don’t know what the laws are in your state regarding that kind of thing but again, it has to be an informed decision.

Kenneth says, question, could the use of a burnout shotgun shell in a non deadly force situation result in an aggravated assault charge? Yes, potentially. Now imagine someone points a completely inert imitation gun at you. It’s just, it’s one of these solid blue guns that they’ve painted black.

Completely non functional. And they say, give me your money. Have they just committed an aggravated assault and a felony robbery on you? Probably. Did you as the victim have a reasonable perception that you were facing an imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm? Yes. You believed there was a real gun pointed at you.

By the way, might you then pull your own gun and shoot back? Sure. But have you created in that other person’s mind? A reasonable fear of imminent deadly force harm because if you have, you’ve checked all the boxes for aggravated assault, whether it’s an inert solid gun, whether it’s a burn a gun, whether it’s a real gun, whether it’s not a gun at all, whether it’s your hand in your hoodie pocket with the finger pointed out to make it look like you have a gun.

What matters is not what you’re actually doing for aggravated assault. The crime of assault is the crime of the mental state of the victim.

Let’s see, Dimitri says, Have you seen this event? A man in Texas holds another man at gunpoint when he was trying to steal his vehicle. Police arrived and arrested the suspect and seemed to have no ramifications with the man with the gun. Of course, in Texas, you can use deadly force in defense of property.

You always have to take that into consideration. I can tell you that just in the last week here in Denver where we have rampant auto theft because the governor basically made auto theft a non crime. So now we’re one of, we’re the auto theft capital in the country, the Denver area. A man saw his car being stolen, ran out with his gun, and says he fired at the car thieves because he believed they were firing at him.

He shot and killed one of the car thieves. And now he’s been arrested and charged with murder. The car owner. These are risks.

And Dimitri sent me a link for that. I’ll I’ll save that link, Dimitri.

David says, Remington 700 malfunctioning trigger recall. That’s a true example of accidental firings leading to product recall. Yeah, so it, obviously it can happen. But it’s so rare that everybody knows it. Because they do recalls Doug says just took a Chuck Haggard O. C. instructor classes past weekend. Really learned a lot about what makes a good O. C. and was surprised about the effectiveness of quality O. C. It works more than I thought going to the class. So for those who don’t know Chuck Haggard, H. A. G. A. R. D. I don’t know if he’s still a law enforcement officer.

He was. I know he does a lot of instruction now teaching O. C. pepper spray. I’ve taken one of his classes. He’s world class. So if you have a chance to take an OC class from Chuck Haggard, or you’re well served taking advantage of that opportunity okay. And I think that’s all we have for today’s show. With that. I think I’ll go ahead and wrap things up just over an hour in so again, just to make clear, I’m not telling anyone not to buy burner products. If you like them, go ahead and buy them. If they fit your life circumstances, great. They’re a good fit for you. I just want you to make an informed decision aware of the risks that I see in these.

You may not care about those risks. You may feel you can mitigate those risks. You may feel they don’t apply to you. Whatever the case may be, only you can make your own self defense decisions. I urge you to do that. I just urge you to do it in as informed a way as possible. All right, folks. So with that out of the way, I just remind you that if you carry a gun, carry pepper spray, learn BJJ, whatever you do.

for self defense, to make yourself hard to kill, to make your family hard to kill. That’s why I do all those things. Carry a gun, carry pepper spray, study BJJ, so I’m hard to kill, so my family is hard to kill. Then you also owe it to yourself and your family to make sure you know the law, so you’re also hard to convict.

Until next time, I remain attorney Andrew Branca for Law Self Defense. Stay safe.

END