Explosives background checks

[JConn]

Seems like it would make it illegal to reload...

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/04/robert-farago/sen-lautenberg-to-reintroduce-explosive-materials-background-check-act/

[Bigguy]

we must put these common-sense safeguards in place.

I'm really getting tired of the phrase "common-sense."

[LHS]

Jesus christ, I'll be happy when all these old farts retire and/or choke on their own vitriol.

[G60]

Seems like it would make it illegal to reload...


How? The term "explosives" has meaning. The language seems like it would ban Tannerite, or at least the mixing of it, and other such binary explosives without a license, but it wouldn't make it illegal to reload.

[LHS]

How? The term "explosives" has meaning. The language seems like it would ban Tannerite, or at least the mixing of it, and other such binary explosives without a license, but it wouldn't make it illegal to reload.

And these people twist language to suit their whim. If they thought they could get away with banning bulk black or smokeless powder, they'd do it in a heartbeat.

[Odin Bravo One]

If we read the article we can see it specifically states the intended proposed legislation will require a background check on the purchase of black powder, smokeless powder, and other explosives.

It doesn't say it will make reloading illegal. It says the intent is to require background checks for purchases.

Black powder, and smokeless powder are explosive materials by definition. By the language used in the article, the legislation would include tannerite, but also black and smokeless powders.

Regardless, while even a proposal of this sort is disconcerting, it doesn't equate to the sky falling, nor reloading becoming illegal. A very media-esque panic headline before the commercial break.

There is also still a lot of typical political grandstanding with the gun control debate still raging. Running your mouth to press about your proposed legislation is one thing, getting it passed and implemented is an entirely different animal......as we have just witnessed.

[JConn]

If we read the article we can see it specifically states the intended proposed legislation will require a background check on the purchase of black powder, smokeless powder, and other explosives.

It doesn't say it will make reloading illegal. It says the intent is to require background checks for purchases.

Black powder, and smokeless powder are explosive materials by definition. By the language used in the article, the legislation would include tannerite, but also black and smokeless powders.

Regardless, while even a proposal of this sort is disconcerting, it doesn't equate to the sky falling, nor reloading becoming illegal. A very media-esque panic headline before the commercial break.

There is also still a lot of typical political grandstanding with the gun control debate still raging. Running your mouth to press about your proposed legislation is one thing, getting it passed and implemented is an entirely different animal......as we have just witnessed.

The only thing I thought would make reloading illegal is the prohibition on manufacturing explosives. A round is just a tiny little bomb that we direct the blast of. I just know how these things get twisted. I'm sure you're right though.

[NETim]

Technically smokeless powder is not an "explosive." Black powder is though.

Regardless, anything at all to do with guns is bad. Gun use must be vilified and marginalized.

We are the new smokers.

[Odin Bravo One]

What is explosive and what is not depends on the dictionary in use. And who is using it. My dictionary says if it is a chemical that is the primary active ingredient used to build an explosive device, then we have an explosive compound. While technically speaking the actual combustion is deflagration, the resulting pressure build up and rapid expansion of gas until the device containing the gas fails structurally, creating a text book mechanical explosion.

And yeah....come to think of it from a "manufacturing" perspective, the technical details and language could very easily be manipulated to include making assembling components into a cartridge falling under the umbrella of manufacturing an explosive or explosive device (cartridge) without a permit illegal.

Good point. After all, a cartridge detonating is a very good example of a mechanical explosion.

Thanks for pointing that out.

[John Ralston]

Part of the "Manufacturing without a license" is so that farmers can clear stumps, etc. without having to have a license. If this were to pass, not only would they be banned from clearing land with homemade stuff...it would put an end to ANY exploding target shoots. Even if the promoter of an event had a license, only a licensee can detonate the explosive, so that kind of takes the fun out of it for the rest of us. Tannerite - gone, Internet sales of Powder - gone, cost of a pound of Smokeless powder at your LGS (with the required background check) - $40.

Of course, you could just buy a case of ammo, pull all the bullets and get your explosive material without a check...so what do you think is next on the chopping block?

[NEPAKevin]

...so what do you think is next on the chopping block?

The next barn door to be shut will probably depend on which horse gets out next. Hopefully, while they are keeping a close eye on black powder and P-mags, the bad guys aren't weaponizing viruses.

[Odin Bravo One]

Hopefully, while they are keeping a close eye on black powder and P-mags, the bad guys aren't weaponizing viruses.

Well lets just make it illegal to weaponize viruses!

[JConn]

Well lets just make it illegal to weaponize viruses!

Why didn't we think of that before! Duh! It makes so much sense now that you say it!

[ToddG]

I haven't read the bill, so a question for those so inclined:

Does the bill specify smokeless powder that is not in loaded ammunition or would it, on its face, make it illegal to buy something that contained smokeless powder? You know, like ammo.

[G60]

The only thing I thought would make reloading illegal is the prohibition on manufacturing explosives. A round is just a tiny little bomb that we direct the blast of. I just know how these things get twisted. I'm sure you're right though.

Small arms ammunition is not classified as explosives by the BATFE.

This bill would in not make it immediately illegal to reload.

Of course this bill is designed to get the camel's nose in the tent so to speak, so should face as loud an opposition as any other anti-gun bill.

[Tamara]

In retrospect, it was probably a bad idea to call them "legislators".

Burger flippers get graded on how many burgers they flip; assembly line workers on how many bolts they put in holes; looked at that way, can you actually blame someone whose job description is "lawmaker"? The only tool they have is writing laws, so every problem looks illegal.

[fuse]

brb panic buying 400 lbs of titegroup. PM me for rates

[Odin Bravo One]

Small arms ammunition is not classified as explosives by the BATFE.


But we still run into the word "explosive" as a potential issue...... Small Arms Ammunition and smokeless powder are "explosive" HAZMAT by the DOT, and requires a special license to drive it in quantities exceeding a certain (wait for it).....

......Net Explosive Weight.

NEW is calculated and measured by RE factor, against TNT, which has an RE of 1.00.

It requires a HAZMAT placard displayed on both sides and rear of the vehicle, marked as "Explosive 1.4S". There are specific restrictions such as no bridges, no tunnels, state to state laws with slight variations as well. In all of the publications governing the transport of such items, terms "explosive" and "Net Explosive Weight" are in widespread use. When a license is granted, the amendment/endorsement is for transporting "Demolitons and explosives". Certainly it includes other "true explosives", but there is a large section devoted to Small Arms Ammunition and smokeless powder.

The concern will always be exact wording of the bill, the wording of the final law, and interpretation of the law by DoJ, ATF, DOT, and other entities. All it takes to change the ATF's definition is for them to write a new definition.