I just read it. Guess what? It says that a permittee can transfer
explosives to a non-permittee. Don't believe me? Read it.
Specifically, read 842.a.3.B
I'll shorten it, it reads...
842. Unlawful acts
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person --
(3) other than a licensee or permittee knowingly --
(B) to distribute explosives to any person other than a licensee or
So, if you don't have a permit, you can only transfer explosives to
someone with a permit. If you have a permit, you can transfer
explosives to anyone.
I'm open to hearing other interpretations of this, of course...
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?
one reason this double speek was put in there is so the forman permitte on
the blasting job can hand the explosives to the blasting men who don't have
permits so they can blow stuff up on top of the rock hill and the permitte
does not have to climb up there ;-0
Yes, that's where I got it from. True, it doesn't define "business" but
that seems pretty self-explanatory.
Again, "business use" obviously refers to a commercial operation.
Making it for your own personal use is not a "business".
Seems pretty clear to me. If you're doing something for free, that's
not a business. The explosive isn't changing hands, which is what the
ATF is mainly concerned with. Whether the stump belongs to Bubba or his
neighbor is irrelevant -- the person doing the blasting is the same one
who mixed the explosive, and he isn't getting paid for it there's no
No, it is NOT legal for a permittee to transfer explosives to a
non-permittee. I'll leave the section number which clearly states this as
an exercise for the 'alleged' reader.
Ever go to book club and it's obvious that the guy has only read a couple of
Actually, I think that the interpretation IS correct. In reading the
whole thing, on the first pass, it would appear that the intent is to
PREVENT it -- but when you actually follow the commas, hyphens, etc., it
appears that they DID word the law this way, but not on purpose. You
know as well as I do that lawyers can spend years wrangling over a comma
- but for government lawyers, it's a big "don't care", so this kind of
stuff happens. I think it's just a mistake that hasn't been caught yet...
I should add that I don't appreciate the inference -- I'm not an idiot,
and I'm someone who actually READS contracts before signing them. When
buying a house once, I refused to sign a certain contract - the
contractor (they were new homes) assured me they had been using that
contract for ten years, and that lawyers had thoroughly checked it out,
etc. I was finally able to convince him (and their lawyer) that they
way it was worded (accidentally, I'm sure, but it WAS there) was that I
had to pay them $150/day for every day they were late completing
construction of my new home...
How about this. Go back and read 842-unlawful acts and note back here the
section that says who a permittee can distribute to (there really really is
one). It's plainly obvious a permittee cannot distribute to a non-permittee
and there's no commas.
And for the record, you're the only one to use the 'I' word, I was implying
the 'L' word.
I still say that the wording is in conflict with itself, and would get
thrown out of court as vague. 842 (a) infers that a licensee/permittee
may do such a transfer, and 842 (b) says that they may not. The wording
is such that a good lawyer would be able to validly argue this (IMHO,
and IANAL) in court (if it came to that). The law, essentially,
arguably in conflict with itself.
Ok. Here's my take. You quoted 842a3B:
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person-(3) other than a licensee or
permittee knowingly-(B) to distribute explosive materials to any person
other than a licensee or permittee
(b) It shall be unlawful for any licensee or permittee to knowingly
distribute any explosive materials to any person other than-(1) a licensee
(2, and 3..);
Leads you to:
Give material to a non-permittee and get arrested and put in jail to maybe
have it later overturned because 842a3B ~implies~ you can.
Don't give material to a non-permittee and not get thrown in jail.
If the post on rec.pyro is to be trusted and courts are finding that
materials sent from out of state to make exempt devices mean the device is
covered by interstate regulation, then it might be easier to claim it's an
exempt non-explosive PAD.....
No question. My point is that IF someone ends up getting nailed, they
at least have a chance of getting out. My (sidebar) point is that any
loopholes that can be found in the regulations could (ultimately,
hopefully) assist in the court battle. Not that this is any major (or
even minor) thing, just that it points out how complex the regulations are.