Ind. Code » Title 35
Indiana Code

Ind. Code § 35-47.5-2-4 (2026)

"Destructive device"

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaInd. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

     Sec. 4. (a) "Destructive device" means:

(1) an explosive, incendiary, or overpressure device that is configured as a:

(A) bomb;

(B) grenade;

(C) rocket with a propellant charge of more than four (4) ounces;

(D) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter (1/4) ounce;

(E) mine;

(F) Molotov cocktail; or

(G) device that is substantially similar to an item described in clauses (A) through (F);

(2) a type of weapon that may be readily converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant through a barrel that has a bore diameter of more than one-half (1/2) inch; or

(3) a combination of parts designed or intended for use in the conversion of a device into a destructive device.

     (b) The term does not include the following:

(1) A pistol, rifle, shotgun, or weapon suitable for sporting or personal safety purposes or ammunition.

(2) A device that is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon.

(3) A device that, although originally designed for use as a weapon, is redesigned for use as a signaling, pyrotechnic, line throwing, safety, or similar device.

(4) A surplus military ordnance sold, loaned, or given by authority of the appropriate official of the United States Department of Defense.

As added by P.L.123-2002, SEC.50.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2005–2009 · leading case: State v. Joseph S., 698 N.W.2d 212 (Neb. Ct. App. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Joseph S., 698 N.W.2d 212 (Neb. Ct. App. 2005). “The State of *648 Indiana charged the juvenile with possession of a destructive device, and the allegation was found to be true following a delinquency hearing.”
In re S.R., 182 Ohio App. 3d 803 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009). “” If the legislature wished to outlaw or classify all bottle bombs as dangerous ordnances, as done in other states, it could have explicitly done so or removed the various exceptions. See Cal.Penal Code Ann. 12301(a)(6); S.”
State v. Morgan, 271 S.W.3d 217 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “§ 18-3318 (2); Ind.Code Ann. § 35-47.5-2-4(a); Ky.Rev.Stat.”
Ind. Code § 35-47.5-2-4(a): 1 case
State v. Morgan, 271 S.W.3d 217 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2008). “§ 18-3318 (2); Ind.Code Ann. § 35-47.5-2-4(a); Ky.Rev.Stat.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.