pyro doj letter questions

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 permittee

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...

David Erbas-White

Is APCP binary? And yes I know it should be considered not explosive.

Kurt Savegnago

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

Which is yet another reason to NOT ask for a LEUP when selling rocket motors even IF you are so foolish to believe they are not exempt from being defined as explosives per 27 CFR 555.141-a-8.

Jerry

Correct.

Now consider this. Why didn't we win in summmary judgement?

Was this arguement not even presented?

Jerry

Definitely not.

An APCP mix kit might be.

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

All these definitions are very broad. It would be impossible for anything we use in rocketry to NOT apply.

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 business transaction.

We all know that, Jerry. Tell it to the ATF, they're the ones who need the lesson.

e

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 chapters?

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...

David Erbas-White

. Yea - it was last week. You missed it. 8-)

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...

David Erbas-White

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.

842 (b).

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.

David Erbas-White

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

842b: (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.

Or 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.

David Erbas-White