pyro doj letter questions

Has anybody taken a look at the pyro's foundation lawyers analaysis of the cpsc suits against firefox and skylighter?
http://www.fireworksfoundation.org/CPSC-Mawhorr3.aspx
he makes the following statement:
"COMMENTS: What is most important about this paragraph is what it DOES NOT STATE. The main body paragraph does not state the following:
1. The ATFE does not regulate or control any explosives manufactured for and used by an individual for their own use and enjoyment, except for the storage of those items;"
he seems to be saying that a person can make within limits all the explosive he wants(re APCP propellant) and that there is no corresponding BATFE regulation other than the requirement that these homemade explosives(re:APCP propellant) adhere to the BATFE storage policies.
Does this jive with that infamous letter where the BATFE says that a person making his own APCP propellant does not require a LEMP but does require a LEUP for storage of said home brewed APCP propellant?
Does this mean that AR/EX types now need a LEUP and explosives storage for their home brewed APCP propellant?
shockie B)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
shockwaveriderz wrote:

The ATF says no LEUP is required, just proper storage and handling.

No, see above

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I thought you said no interpretations were allowed?
This must be the "Brian Teeling" exception.
Jerry
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jerry Irvine wrote:

jerry, explain what the hell it is you are referring to?
Or did you switch from glue fumes to paint fumes?
Because that would explain "it".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave Grayvis wrote:

Does this mean that no LEUP is required for the storage of commercial grains H and above?
Kurt Savegnago
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kurt wrote:

The lawsuit isn't settled yet, but right now the ATF says you do need a LEUP for individual grains larger than 62.5 grams.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Without any basis in regs they can point to.
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Correct
Bob and Bubba Stump Blowers only need a LEUP if they start charging the neighbors for Blowin' stumps.
They can Blow all they want with out LEUP if they don't charge.
This example comes from the ATF documents and web files.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Why does rmr always have to be about Jerry?
Is Jerry Bob or the stump? 8-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Almax writes:
"Correct
Bob and Bubba Stump Blowers only need a LEUP if they start charging the neighbors for Blowin' stumps. "
I thought the ATF had something about "gifting" being the same as sale?
Ben
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

That refers to giving the explosive to someone. If Bob and Bubba make their own explosive, and offer to blow up the neighbor's stump for free, they aren't giving away the explosive, just a service. If they charge for their service, then they're a commercial operation and would be required to obtain a permit.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ray Dunakin wrote:
"That refers to giving the explosive to someone. If Bob and Bubba make their own explosive, and offer to blow up the neighbor's stump for free, they aren't giving away the explosive, just a service. If they charge for their service, then they're a commercial operation and would be required to obtain a permit. "
Do not take this as being inflammatory, as I do not intend it to be. Out of curiosity, did you check regulations before posting this, or did you hear otherwise?
In the ATF Orange Book Q&A section, number 40, "40. Is a manufacturer's license required for agricultural use of binary explosives? No, as long as the user is not engaged in the business of manufacturing explosive materials. For example, if a farmer buys binary explosives for use in blowing tree stumps on his farm, he or she does not need a manufacturer's license. However, if the farmer uses binary explosives in a business of blasting stumps/rocks, etc., for other persons, he or she would be required to have a manufacturer's license. See also Questions 18, 36 and 37. [27 CFR 55.11: Definition of "manufacturer", 55.41(a)]"
18- "18. Are binary explosives subject to regulation under Federal explosives laws? Until the compounds are mixed, they are not classified as explosives and, therefore, are not subject to control. However, once mixed, binary explosives are considered to be "explosive materials" and are subject to all applicable Federal requirements. A person who regularly combines compounds of binary explosives to manufacture such explosives for the purpose of sale or distribution or for the person's own business use is a "manufacturer" of explosives materials and must be licensed as a manufacturer under the law. [18 U.S.C. 841(h); 27 CFR 55.11: definition of "manufacturer"]"
36 and 37- "36. When is a manufacturer's license required? A manufacturer's license is needed only by persons engaged in the business of manufacturing explosive materials for sale, distribution, or for business use. For example, persons engaged in the business of providing a blasting service using explosives of their own manufacture would be required to have a manufacturer's license. Persons who manufacture explosives for their personal, nonbusiness use would not need a manufacturer's license. [27 CFR 55.11: definition of "manufacturer", 55.41] 37. What may a licensed explosives manufacturer do? Licensed manufacturers may engage in the business of manufacturing explosive materials for purposes of sale or distribution or for their own use. They may also engage in on-site manufacture. [27 CFR 55.11: definition of "manufacturer", 55.41(b)(2)] It is not necessary for a licensed manufacturer to also obtain a dealer's license to engage in business on his or her licensed premises as a dealer in explosive materials. [27 CFR 55.41(b)(3)]"
And the ATF definition of manufacturer- "Manufacturer. Any person engaged in the business of manufacturing explosive materials for purposes of sale or distribution or for his own use."
While a lot of this post is really not needed, my point is this: There definately not only seems to be an awful lot of confusion on what is/isn't legal with rocketry, in explosives regulations in general there seem to be an awful lot of varying accounts of what is go/no go. The ATF does not define "business". As such, I can not tell if that means for exchange of money, or the activity of doing so. My interp here may be wrong, but it seems Bob and Bubba could face some troubles for blowing a neighbor's stump.
Ben
PS- Everyone- can one thread be kept anti-inflammatory?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

And to close the loop on rocketry we have this fact:
27 CFR 555.141 exemptions (a) (8) Gasoline, fertilizers, propellant actuated devices, or propellant actuated industrial tools manufactured, imported, or distributed for their intended purposes.
27 CFR 555.11, 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.
In short PADS (yes including reloads) are NOT "explosive materials" as defined.
Jerry
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jerry Irvine wrote:

I should look before I leap. This answers my question about APCP being binary or not. Shouldn't matter and we should have won the lawsuit in a summary judgement.
Kurt Savegnago
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Correct.
Now consider this. Why didn't we win in summmary judgement?
Was this arguement not even presented?
Jerry
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
While I thank you for the to the point reply, I do no appreciate making it look like I posted the word "Useless" up there.
BTW- I really like the definition they give of a PAD. Seems to me a shape charge could be considered a pad- uses a propellant charge to create gases. Then again, I guess it depends on how they define "propellant". Has anyone ever seen a definition for this before?
Ben
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

All these definitions are very broad. It would be impossible for anything we use in rocketry to NOT apply.
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jerry Irvine wrote:

We all know that, Jerry. Tell it to the ATF, they're the ones who need the lesson.
e
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Hi Ben.
it says
business of manufacturing explosive materials for purposes of sale or distribution or for his own BUSINESS use."
that is a differance.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

Is APCP binary? And yes I know it should be considered not explosive.
Kurt Savegnago
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.