Posted on 12/10/2002 11:35:19 PM PST by Myrddin
For Immediate Release
Contact: Jim Crandall
November 25, 2002
FY-03-02
Implementation Of the Safe Explosives Act,
Applying Stricter Controls
on The Purchase of Explosives in The
Continuing Fight Against Terrorism
Washington, DC - The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) announces that on November 25, 2002, President Bush signed new legislation that restricts the availability of explosives to felons and other persons prohibited from possessing explosives, strengthens licensing and permitting requirements, and aids in the fight against terrorism. This legislation, the Safe Explosives Act, amends Title XI of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970.
Previously, a Federal permit to purchase explosive materials was necessary if a person wished to transport, ship, or receive explosives in interstate commerce. A permit, however, was not necessary if a person acquired and used explosives within his or her State of residence. The new legislation now requires that any person who wishes to transport, ship, cause to be transported, or receive explosive materials in either interstate or intrastate commerce must first obtain a Federal permit issued by ATF. This requirement takes effect May 24, 2003.
The new legislation creates a new category of permit -- a "limited permit" -- designed for the intrastate purchaser who buys explosives infrequently and does not intend to transport or use the explosives interstate. This permit will allow the purchaser to receive explosive materials from an in-State explosives licensee or permittee on no more than six (6) occasions during the period of the permit. The permit will allow ATF to better monitor explosives commerce in an effort to enhance homeland security, but is designed to not be overly burdensome to legitimate purchasers. The limited permit is valid for one year and is renewable. ATF intends to set the application fee for the limited permit at $25.
The new legislation requires that all applicants for explosives licenses and permits submit photographs and fingerprints so that ATF can perform thorough background checks. The legislation also requires that all applicants submit the names and identifying information of all employees who will possess explosive materials. In this way, ATF can conduct a thorough background check to ensure that these individuals are not prohibited from receiving or possessing explosives. Under previous law, no background checks were conducted for the employees of businesses that used explosives. The business owners or managers were required to be on record with ATF; employees such as warehousemen and drivers were not. The new legislation enables ATF to systematically identify and conduct background checks on such employees to reduce the risk that prohibited persons will gain access to explosives.
The new legislation also expands the categories of prohibited persons to include: (1) aliens (with limited exceptions); (2) persons dishonorably discharged from the military; and (3) citizens of the United States who have renounced their citizenship. The new prohibitions on possession of explosive materials are effective January 24, 2003.
Finally, the new legislation will require manufacturers and importers of explosive materials, including ammonium nitrate, to furnish samples of these materials to ATF, as well as information on their chemical composition or other information ATF may request. This will assist ATF in the identification of explosives found at crime scenes. This provision will be effective January 24, 2003.
Additionally, on January 24, 2003, ATF will be moved to the Department of Justice and will be known as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATFE).
For further information, including proposed regulations and specific questions and answers about the effect of the new law, check the ATF web site at: www.atf.treas.gov.
So what does one do? State his intent to use legally or illegally to purchase?
Good point -- would have saved a lot of anxiety if this had been posted with the original article.
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.
You do not need a permit -- see posts 111 and 119.
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.
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
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).
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.
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.
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?
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.
A Grateful Nation's Debt Transcends Veterans Day
|
|
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. |
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.