ATF now requires explosives license (Safe Explosives Act)

http://www.atf.treas.gov ^ | 12/10/2002 | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms

[PatrioticAmerican]

I was getting to 845, but I wasn't typing so fast. thanks.

My point was going to be that the beginning of the stated law states gun powder as an explosive in certain cases when used illegally, but exempts it when used lawfully, up to 50 pounds, anyway.

[takenoprisoner]

My point was going to be that the beginning of the stated law states gun powder as an explosive in certain cases when used illegally, but exempts it when used lawfully, up to 50 pounds, anyway.

So what does one do? State his intent to use legally or illegally to purchase?

[gatex]

"My point was going to be that the beginning of the stated law states gun powder as an explosive in certain cases when used illegally, but exempts it when used lawfully, up to 50 pounds, anyway...."

Good point -- would have saved a lot of anxiety if this had been posted with the original article.

[El Gato]

Actually I was a bit premature with this

Although just because the law doesn't affect shooters and reloaders, doesn't mean it's a good law. It's a gross violation of the 10th amendment, since Congress is nowhere in the Constitution given power to regulate intrastate commerce. Although they've been doing it since (at least) the 1930s, but always hid under the fig leaf of interstate commerce, arguing that intrastate commerce affected interstate commerce, which it may, and somehow that gave them the power to "regulate" commerce and most anything else taking place within a state. Of course they've also perverted the meaning of "regulate" which meant to make to function properly, not to stifle. One of the major reasons for the interstate commerce clause had been that the states, under the Articles of Confederation, where doing just that, stiffling interstate commerce by various laws, regulations and duties designed to give their citizens an advantage over those of other states in various commercial endevours. Which like the Smoot-Hawley tarrifs on foreign commerce enacted in the 20s, along with their foreign counterparts, served not promote commerce but to stifle it, thus helping to bring on the Great Depresssion. Another example of the law of "Unintended Consequences" and ignoring the likely changes in behavior in reaction to any new law.

[takenoprisoner]

patriotic american: "My point was going to be that the beginning of the stated law states gun powder as an explosive in certain cases when used illegally, but exempts it when used lawfully, up to 50 pounds, anyway...."

gatex: "Good point -- would have saved a lot of anxiety if this had been posted with the original article."

So when someone seeks a permit to order 50 lbs, what do they do? Make a declaration of intent for legal or illegal use?

[gatex]

"So when someone seeks a permit to order 50 lbs, what do they do? Make a declaration of intent for legal or illegal use? "

You do not need a permit -- see posts 111 and 119.

[gatex]

"...since Congress is nowhere in the Constitution given power to regulate intrastate commerce...."

This has been nagging at me too. I fail to see that they have this power.-- Of course with interstate commerce, Justice Ginsburg said "...anything goes..." on C-Span.

[takenoprisoner]

Over 50 lbs. As a new tax and more paperwork has been invented for fireworks manufacturers.

[takenoprisoner]

This is all pointless. Terrorists don't use gun powder. If not pointless, what's the point?

[Boot Hill]

El Gato says:   "So it seems to me that the BATFE could change the defition in 841 to include smokeless powder anytime he wants."

The BATF currently lists Smokeless powder as an explosive. Please see "ATF - List of Explosive Materials".

This was done per the requirements of 18 USC 841(d):

"The Secretary shall publish and revise at least annually in the Federal Register a list of these and any additional explosives which he determines to be within the coverage of this chapter."

I'm still looking, but have been unable to determine exactly when they added smokeless powder to the list mandated by §841. If you have access to a copy of the annotated Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), the date can be found in the history section appended to each entry.

--Boot Hill

[gatex]

"This is all pointless. Terrorists don't use gun powder. If not pointless, what's the point?"

Post 119 has the law -- which says that the Organized Crime Control Act "shall not apply to ....(4) small arms ammunition and components thereof..."

Isn't gunpowder a component thereof ?

ATF P 5400.7 (09/00), page 56---"17. Is small arms ammunition subject to regulation under Federal explosives law? ---No. The law specifically exempts small arms ammunition and components thereof; therefore primers and smokeless propellents designed for use in small arms ammunition are exempt from regulation under chapter 40...." [Chapter 40 is the Organized Crime Control Act]....

page 62--"75. Is smokeless powder designed for use in small arme ammunition subject to the explosives storage requirements ? --- No....." {unless you are in the business).

[gatex]

"I'm still looking, but have been unable to determine exactly when they added smokeless powder to the list mandated by §841"

ATF P 5400.7 (09/00) that I have been quoting from also lists smokeless powder as an explosive, but also says small arms ammunition and components are exempt from regulation and explosive storage requirements --- unless you are in the business.

Smokeless powder is an explosive for commercial companies.

[PatrioticAmerican]

Nope. The law doesn't require intent to be stated, but references that criminal use has punishments. That's all.

[takenoprisoner]

Nope. The law doesn't require intent to be stated, but references that criminal use has punishments. That's all.

Well we needed that one to be reiterated yet again didn't we.

Obviously our leaders believe the terrorists will resort to suicidal bombings (explosions) in America as they do in Israel. So my question is, why don't we go after them? Why don't we go after the terrorists?

If we are to get to the terrorists, we have to meet them head on. Restricting/prohibiting our rights is not the solution. Killing the terrorists and their mothers is the solution.

[from occupied ga]

You are just like all the bashers that expect Bush to work miracles immediately and ignore the long term strategy. You have no clue.

What strategy would that be? The "match the Democrats in spending and expand the government's stranglehold on citizen freedom strategy?" He's been in office two years. He has yet to veto a single solitary spending bill (or any other bill near as I can tell). He has yet to rescind any of the unconstitutional "executive orders" banning various firearms that the disgusting Clinton and daddy NWO King George I signed. If you're dull enough to be conned into thinking that you have to wait, then you'll wait a very long time for King George II to make any move to restore freedom. Don't you belong on the sychophantic "day in the life of" thread?

[matrix]

I assure you that I have done extensive study of this provision of the Defense Authirizations Act, it's history, it's backers and those who oppose (v ery few). 90% of House members co-sponsored it and so did 83 Senators.

Bush threatened a veto based on advice from Rumsfeld, the GAO and Hastert. Bush didn't think the disabled retirees were a high enough priority. He would rather spend $billions rebuilding Baghdad.

You can read about it on the VSO sites, TROA.org has a good synopsis. You can also find stuff at www.crlegislation.com.

The issue is moot now that the Act (without the provision) has already been signed, but there's always next year. I also posted several articles on the subject. Do a search om me and look for CR legislation.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/792366/posts

 

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/786755/posts

 

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/785900/posts

 

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/781037/posts

 

A Grateful Nation's Debt Transcends Veterans Day
By Ronald F. Conley (Commander, American Legion)

WASHINGTON (Nov. 6, 2002) - As American communities come together to honor the sacrifice of our nation's veterans on Veterans Day, Nov. 11, the U.S. armed forces prepare to fight in Iraq. On this 84th commemoration of the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month in 1918, the end of the Great War, I'm reminded that the tradition of the American citizen-soldier shouldn't be taken for granted.

"The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional to how they perceive the veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their nation," George Washington said.

Washington's words hold true today. No matter how clever the advertising campaigns of the armed forces and no matter how rough and tumble the economic tide, the best and brightest young Americans will look to the treatment of veterans as a measure of whether military service is worth its inherent risks and hardships.

Veterans Day is not only a day America imparts a collective "Thank You" to its 25 million veterans of military service. It's a day, for the sake of military readiness, that America should take stock of how well it's treating its veterans.

The American Legion surely takes stock. And, frankly, there is room for improvement.
More than 6 million veterans are enrolled to receive treatment in the Department of Veterans Affairs medical system but chronic under-funding leaves dedicated VA health care professionals under-staffed and under-resourced, resulting in waits of up to a year for thousands of VA patients to see doctors.

Hundreds of thousands of claims for veterans disability compensation are piled on desks throughout VA's benefits system. The situation is so bad that older veterans die while waiting months for their claims for service-connected disability to be processed.

More than a half million military retirees are robbed of a portion of their retired pay equal to the amount of compensation they receive from VA for their service-connected disabilities. A political stalemate on the conference committee that is negotiating the 2003 National Defense Authorization is bogging down "concurrent receipt" legislation that would repeal these cuts in retired pay. The president's non-veteran advisors say he should veto such legislation because it would cost too much to pay service-disabled military retirees every penny they earned. A veteran who retires from a civilian federal job fully collects both disability compensation and retired pay.

An invasion of Iraq could result in the mobilization of about 300,000 members of Reserve and National Guard units. Increasing the active-duty force, from its current 1.35 million to at least 1.6 million, is a more sensible way to correct the undersized total force than demanding long-term deployments from Reserve and Guard personnel, even though the Reserve and Guard units are highly capable.

It's a privilege to wear this nation's uniform and to serve under this nation's flag, which is an international symbol of freedom, justice and democracy. On the other hand, one must be prepared to make the Supreme Sacrifice to defend freedom, as more than 1 million U.S. citizen-soldiers have done.

Military service also imposes family separation, frequent deployments that require long working hours usually in inherently dangerous environments, and the acceptance of a code of conduct more strict than civilian law. Given the nature of military service, it feels great, as a veteran, to be appreciated. When a community comes together to pause and to say thanks, veterans love it more than words can say. There's something special about inspirational speeches, flyovers of military aircraft and parades down Main Street USA that can make a veteran feel proud.

But America's best and brightest young men and women weigh more than the annual celebrations when they consider military service. They look at the big picture: the quality of veterans health care; the treatment of those who seek compensation for their service-connected disabilities; the government's commitment to military retirees; and the quality of life of active-duty troops.

It's up to the people, not only veterans and their families but all Americans, to remind their elected representatives in Congress to make sure a grateful nation pays its full debt of gratitude to those who sacrificed, as well as to those who continue to sacrifice, for freedom.
Ronald F. Conley is national commander of the 2.8-million member American Legion, the nation's largest veterans organization.