Current LEUP Info?

The DESCRIPTION of a PAD in its DEFINITION describes motors and reloads to perfection.

See:

27 CFR 55.11, "Propellant Actuated Device. Any tool or special mechanized device or gas generator system which is actuated by a propellant or which releases and directs work through a propellant charge."

This definition is what is referred to in 27 CFR 55.141(a)(8)

55.141 exemptions (a) (8) Gasoline, fertilizers, propellant actuated devices, or propellant actuated industrial tools manufactured, imported, or distributed for their intended purposes.

From this, it is commonly understood that as long as the PAD are manufactured, imported, or distributed for their intended purpose, they are exempt from treatment as explosives per 27 CFR and other laws. There is no size or volume limitation on what is exempted.

See

formatting link
page 10 (page 62 of the "Orange Book")

  1. Who must meet storage requirements? All persons who store explosive materials must store them in conformity with the provisions of Subpart K of the regulations, unless the person or the materials are exempt from regulation. [18 U.S.C. 842(j), 845; 27 CFR 55.29, 55.141, 55.164,
55.201(a)]

Note the reference to 55.141.

So whether or not the components are explosives, they are exempt under this special provision for propellant.

"Because it is not designed to function by explosion" no doubt.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine
Loading thread data ...

I was re-reading the BATFE's arguments and its very noticable in their argument that APCP is an explosive that they do not argue that its "common or primary purpose is to function as an explosive" but instead they argue that APCP "functions as an explosive"...... A fine point perhaps, but still important..... I wonder if the court will notice this selective argument?

shockie B)

Reply to
shockwaveriderz

Further, they later explain that it's NOT an explosive, but deflagrates (burns quickly) and SOMEHOW believe they are supposed to regulate that!

Joel. phx

Reply to
Joel Corwith

Since the teo legal standards are "intent" and "primary use" which some might argue are interchangable, even that weak arguement has no legs whatsoever.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

AND assume facts not in evidence. The FACT is APCP burns (in MR/HPR styles) UNDER the threshold for what constitutes even a flammable solid

4.1 by UN tests. Therefore it does not fall within a hazard class at all as tested.

There are "arbitrary rules" by DOT and other Competent Authorities where they say in effect, I can see the test and that it should be exempt, but we disagree and arbitrarily assign Class 1 to the material.

This practice itself should be banned and stopped. I have strongly suggested associations assume AHJ functions to solve this but only IEAS has agreed and they are far from as well known as NAR or TRA. Despite the far higher professional experience per capita in explosives.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Does anyone actually think they want to regulate it because its an explosive? We all know why they want to regulate it. And if their current attempt, to put AP on the explosives list doesn't work then they will just make a new law against having high power rocket motors.

RDH8

Reply to
Robert DeHate

Exactly.

We know APCP doesn't explode, BATFE knows APCP doesn't explode. It's all about a facade of false sense of security. BATFE has to justify itself in some way; 'Why we can't have the public flying rockets... that would be total anarchy and that just can't happen'.

Ted Novak TRA#5512

Reply to
moonglow

But then you'd be ready for wire (fiber optic actualy) guided missiles , er sport rocketry.

Reply to
Alan Jones

Hmmm, can we buy, store, and use these without an LEUP?????

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

Reply to
Bob Kaplow

Of course. They are Propellant Actuated Devices.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Yes, and bring their existence up to the ATF and they will make a new ruling making a LEUP required. You see they are not out to get us. They are out to get anything that moves.

"Hold still, here comes an agent."

Reply to
Robert DeHate

Precisely correct.

Killing the wide swath Class C exemption energized them in that direction, too.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.