Boarded by the Coast Guard..Terminated Voyage

[hellosailor]

"M16 is .22 cal. The 5.56 NATO round is a .223 which is .22 cal. "

I have never, ever, heard a civilian or any serviceman call an M16 a "22". In the US we don't call them that, because the overall 5.56 NATO cartridge, or the .223 cartridge, is so much larger overall than any kind of "22" on the market.

As the drill sergeants say:

"This is my rifle
This is my gun
One is for killing
The others for fun "

Small differences count.

Similarly, while the M16 can fire on full automatic, it is always referred to as an automatic rifle, never as a machine gun. Except by folks who are trying to demonize weapons. If you have to ask what the difference is, just be glad you don't need to know.

[Ocean Girl]

USCG says

Documentation of your vessel does not cover the vessel's tender or dinghy. These craft fall within the jurisdiction of the motorboat numbering laws of the state of principal use. Please contact your state agency that handles the registration or numbering of motorboats for further information

USCG National Vessel Documentation Center, FAQ Page


Some states like Washington allow documented vessels to t/t their dinghies under certain criteria.

Link to CF thread about this subject
http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...hys-85521.html

My parents were documented and did T/T, but they were circumnavigating and purchased their tenders in other countries. When they got back they did not register their tender, it stayed t/t.

[pbiJim]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

Similarly, while the M16 can fire on full automatic, it is always referred to as an automatic rifle, never as a machine gun. Except by folks who are trying to demonize weapons. If you have to ask what the difference is, just be glad you don't need to know.

Wow, I really don't want to see this thread degenerate into an argument.

I do think that the following information is relevant to your post though.

The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) at 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(23), and the National FirearmsAct (NFA) at 26 U.S.C. 5845(b), define the term “machinegun” as “any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.”

Also, from my vague memory of older versions of the Army field manual, I seem to remember them defining the M-16 as an offensive & defensive weapon for engaging targets on the battlefield. I seem to remember newer versions simply refer to it as a shoulder fired weapon

Perhaps you have different sources of information.

I do agree with you that it is unusual to refer to an M-16 as a .22. A better description would be a selective fire .223 or 5.56mm.

[Jammer Six]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

"M16 is .22 cal. The 5.56 NATO round is a .223 which is .22 cal. "

I have never, ever, heard a civilian or any serviceman call an M16 a "22". In the US we don't call them that, because the overall 5.56 NATO cartridge, or the .223 cartridge, is so much larger overall than any kind of "22" on the market.

Listen closely:

The M16 is a .22. At least, close enough for this crowd.

Now you've heard it, from a number of different of sources.

Originally Posted by hellosailor

Similarly, while the M16 can fire on full automatic, it is always referred to as an automatic rifle, never as a machine gun.

Not even close. The M16 is not an automatic rifle. The BAR is an automatic rifle. Hence it's name. The M16 (and M14, for that matter) is a selective fire assault weapon. They are very different weapons that serve different purposes at different times used by different people, and, in fact, by different numbers of people.

In the U.S., we call lots of things by lots of names. We even have ropes on boats. Really.

Some folks call AR 15s "assault weapons".

So don't get wrapped around the axle about the name, because as we've just seen, the movies don't always use accurate information, even when R. Lee Ermy is involved. (Actually, give him a Glock, and he'll say anything you want him to, and hold a straight face while he does it.)

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

I stand corrected (with the one bold edit I added), you are completely correct with regard to pleasure vessels.. My experience with UK flag has all been on commercial classed boats, which are required to have flares.

For Dave, the following from the little ship club is directly on point. See the first paragraph "if you are on innocent passage, then the flag state requirements rule".
http://littleshipclub.co.uk/files/im...20part%202.pdf

Evans that article just contradicts what you said. Since yachts are almost never on innocent passage , the article clearly states French rules apply

Dave

[bobconnie]

I don't know much about 22s, except for a 22 Hornet. But as far as dinks go, if ya don't have a motor on it, and ya row or sail your dink, At least all the states Ive been in, you can name it, and don't need to register it. It may be different in some states but Ive my kept my row/sailing dink named and un registerd so far !!

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

Yes, I know for sure, a foreign flagged vessel on "innocent passage" thru the US does not need uscg approved PFDs (and no, the spinlocks do not have uscg approval) or USCG fire extinguishers, or horn.

The uscg guys I have met specifically all know this with regards to Canadian vessels (who have different equipment requirements than the US).

But you do have to meet other "non safety equipment" local regulations, like the US holding tank regulations.

No yacht can really be regarded as on innocent passage. That suggests a passage through national waters , going to or from a local port or cruising up a coast is not " innocent passage "


Note the use or " practice " of any weapons removes the protection of innocent passage


The US never ratified UNCLOS anyway , so its all a moot point in US waters

PS a centre fire .223 round is worlds away from a .22 LR rim fire round. , worlds away
Dave

[Robin3]

Originally Posted by Ocean Girl

Pbijim, I thought this was the case also, maybe documented vessels..?

Ours is a USCG documented boat, kept in Florida and we had to State register the tender 'because it has a motor' and stick ugly numbers on it that will probably peel off with time and UV, but them is the local rules we woz In the context of the question asked however, we are permanent USA/Florida residents, even though I'm a Brit ( but the Admiral is American, hence the USCG doumentation) and we are not just passing through, cruising via the ICW as the questioner

[hellosailor]

Jim, the USC isn't a sterling place to get definitions of anything. If you want to know what a machine gun is, ask NATO, or the DoD, or someone who deals with these things. The definitions put forth in the USC are "for the purpose of" the USC only. They don't apply to the real world, they are generally what some Congressional aide cobbled together for the specific purposes of a specific bill.

Heck, the M16 is a "only" slides into the category of "large caliber" because most ranges call anything over a .22 to be large caliber. But in the military world, it isn't even a "main battle rifle", isn't a squad automatic weapon, isn't a light machine gun or a plain heavy machine gun. The troops pretty much all called it a "mouse gun" for a decade, and that was not a term of respect.

But coming back to the USCG...Yes, most of them will carry the common US military issue service rifle, an M16. Those will be (selectably) fully automatic but if any one of our servicemen called an M16 "a 22" he'd be sent back to boot camp. The only standard machine gun you will find on most USCG vessels will be the 30 caliber or 50 caliber gun(s) mounted on the boat and fed from a belt-fed cartridge box. And THAT one, they will all call a machine gun.

From the Wiki at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle
"The M16 rifle, officially designated Rifle, Caliber 5.56 mm, M16, is the United States military select-fire adaptation of the AR-15 rifle. The rifle was adapted for semi-automatic and full-automatic fire.[6][7] Colt purchased the rights to the AR-15 from ArmaLite, and currently uses that designation only for semi-automatic versions of the rifle. "

Most people think the AR15 is a "civilianized" version of the M16. But that's backwards, the M16 is actually a military version of a civilian rifle. Plain "rifle", according to the folks who make them, and the folks who buy so many millions of them.

When it was proposed to the Army, the arguments were that it was too light, too ineffective, and couldn't kill the enemy. Aha, they said, that's a good thing, because a dead enemy is one man down, but if you just wound him, three men are down because two more help evacuate the casualty. And if you make the ammunition small enough and light enough, and make the rifle selective fire (normally in 3-round groups) there's a better chance of hitting something with the three rounds, than one large bullet. (Most draftees are lousy shots, and at that time, most Army were draftees.)

OTOH, a machine gun tends to wreak havoc, not just wound. And to be heavy enough so that it must be fired from a tripod, not from the shoulder. The BAR is considered a "light machine gun" and that's a 30-06 round.

Now, if I wanted the definition of a useless self-aggrandizing piece of (ahem), then I'd look to Congress and the USC for being the folks who really know what that is.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

Read the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), Articles 94 and 217. As I previously said, if you really want to understand this you should get a copy of the NZ & Chile court decisions. A serious attempt was made in both countries to enforce national safety regulations on Foreign vessels and both were taken to the highest available courts, and both law were overturned because they contravened international treaty obligations. I was in both countries and involved, when each was issued. They were unfortunately issued back in the paper days so I don't have electronic copies, but I suspect they exist somewhere. But unlike "impeded" this issue has been comprehensively ruled.

France does NOT enforce it's flag state safety equipment regulations on Fireign vessels. Just for example, US vessels will not have CE markings, and France do not and cannot insist on it. It has the power to fine a UK boat for out of date flares because the UK's own requirements include in date flares.

AR15s and competency laws and all the other examples you quote are not considered safety equipment issues.

I think your mixing things up . UNCLOS does not refer to " safety equipment "

" The coastal State may adopt laws and regulations, in conformity with the provisions of this Convention and other rules of international law, relating to innocent passage through the territorial sea, in respect of all or any of the following:
(a) the safety of navigation and the regulation of maritime traffic;
(b) the protection of navigational aids and facilities and other
facilities or installations;
(c) the protection of cables and pipelines;
manning or equipment of foreign ships unless they are giving effect to generally accepted international rules or standards.
(d) theconservationofthelivingresourcesofthesea;
(e) the prevention of infringement of the fisheries laws and
regulations of the coastal State;
(f) the preservation of the environment of the coastal State and the
prevention, reduction and control of pollution thereof;
(g) marine scientific research and hydrographic surveys;
(h) the prevention of infringement of the customs, fiscal,
immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of the coastal
State.
2. Such laws and regulations shall not apply to the design, construction, manning or equipment of foreign ships unless they are giving effect to generally accepted international rules or standards."

There is mention of " equipment " but not specifically " safety equipment "

Equally under UNCLOS, it would suggest that there is no ability to control " behaviour " either , a strict reading would suggest that both Ireland's lifejacket laws and Croatia competency Certs woud fall foul of UNCLOS.

note I would argue that in any case these states would argue that a yacht in a coastal cruise through a country , is not on innocent passage in the first case.

Note that unlike what was quoted , French requirements for documents , do not stem from Britons own law , but from a requirement that a yacht demonstrate its right to carry its flag . It is a legal requirement in France that you carry documents ( originals) showing your right to show a particular flag.

Note that CE regs have nothing to do with UNCLOS or flag state. They are related to the sale or importation of goods into the EU customs territory. Should a US citizen attempt to sell a US flagged yacht inside the EU customs union , the RCD will apply to the purchaser irrespective of the flag state.


Furthermore UNCLOS actually prevents states from enforcing national law onboard a vessel , should the vessel break its own flag law. Hence France cannot fine a British boat for enfringing British law in French waters , only in breaking French law

Dave

[hellosailor]

Dave, the UN is all well and good (well, not all) but perhaps France and the USK simply have a treaty agreement to allow mutual enforcement of their safety standards? That's all it would take, one writing that said "OK, you can enforce our rules on our boats while they are in your waters" and the same way that your own flag authorities can board you anywhere in the world...the power transfers.

this is, after all, the way that the USCG has the legal authority to stop and board SO many flag vessels anyplace on the high seas. Treaty and convention. And you'd have a damn fine time trying to datamine the internet to dig up all that kind of obscure stuff.

Could be, no?

[Stu Jackson]

Has anyone firmly provided a reference to the tender to" part of this discussion? As I understand it, it is NOT required by the USCG and dinghies are dealt with on a state-by-state basis. Is this correct? If not, please provide some links. Thanks.

[carstenb]

Whilst the gun portion of this thread was iterating, let's please drop that and get back on USCG Regs and Practice re: terminating voyages and what the USCG can demand.

My interpretation of "innocent passage" has always been: A foreign-flagged ship passing through coastal waters, without stopping is on innocent passage and therefore not subject to local safety, crew or equipment regulations, rather they are subject to their flag states regs and laws.

My further interpretation has always been that "innocent passage" would also include making harbor (but not going further upriver than the outer harbor). A ship would also have to leave national waters after the harbour, for it to be construed "innocent passage".

A trip down the ICW, if my interpretation is correct, does not construe "innocent passage". The ICW is, to my knowledge, considered an "inland waterway", "innocent passage" is (generally) not possible on an inland waterway (national waters).

Phew! Comity, on the other hand, generally does allow foreign-flagged ships the right to be subject to their flag states regs, even though they are on a lengthy visit to another country. So American boats visiting the EU are not required to be CE marked (example). I don't believe the EU countries would force an American (or other country) boats to carry CE PFD's, safety equipment or the like - even though they were cruising for an extended period of time.

So would the USCG also adopt that attitude? A foreign-flagged vessel is not subject to the US regs? By its nature, a foreign-flagged vessel is not US. Any number of laws would require the vessel to be re-registered and flagged as US if the the owner/boat had a US port as home port.

[Zanshin]

As soon as the U.S government is funded again and my query is answered, I'll post the response in full and we will have an official USCG response rather than having us try to interpret various legal texts.

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

It is a legal requirement in France that you carry documents ( originals) showing your right to show a particular flag.

And one of the reasons this is checked is that quite a few French boats are (completely legally) sailing under Belgian flag, to avoid French safety regulations... If aFrenchman sailing under Belgian flag can get away with not complying with French regulations, well so can a Brit I'd guess...