Skip to comments.
ATF now requires explosives license (Safe Explosives Act)
http://www.atf.treas.gov ^
| 12/10/2002
| Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
Posted on 12/10/2002 11:35:19 PM PST by Myrddin
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-137 next last
To: Boot Hill
What justification are they using to extent the ICC to intrastate commerce this time?
To: tacticalogic
Sorry, extent=extend. Haven't had my coffee yet.
To: cinFLA
I would not be surprised if you were bashing Bush in Jan. 2001!No I wasn't. In fact, I was working for his election. Bush has turned out to be a big disappointment.
To: Spandau; Travis McGee; Squantos; Jeff Head
You are correct smokelss powder is a propellant and not an explosive. Pyrodex and Black Powder (gunpowder)are specifically exempted. I wonder what this will do to lawn and garden shops>
Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown
44
posted on
12/11/2002 6:58:16 AM PST
by
harpseal
To: Doctor Stochastic
You may be a lot of things to a lot of people dr., but you are no Handloader.
Low explosive, High Explosive, What bull.
Show me where Smokless Powder is classified as any kind of explosive. Until then, quit trying to spook the Real Handloaders on this forum.
45
posted on
12/11/2002 7:00:46 AM PST
by
reloader
To: CWRWinger
I was elated at the Bush win! Now, I'm not so dang sure.
46
posted on
12/11/2002 7:07:02 AM PST
by
matrix
To: harpseal; Squantos; Travis McGee; Lurker; OWK
So its BATFE now huh?
I was thinking they might add another to it too ... BATFET ... Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, Explosives and Toilets, because that's what they are doing with our liberties, flushing them.
Rearranging, we could then call them ... FATBET ... of course without the toilets, that could be rearranged to just BE-FAT.
... and our liberties and freedoms continue to go right down that toilet in any case. More legislation directed at ALL of us, instead of at those who are the key problem.
Dragon's Fury
To: CWRWinger
"Bush has turned out to be a big disappointment."
Hmmm, perhaps you would have rather had Gore? We had a choice, Bush or Gore, there was no other ELECTABLE choice.
Better what we have than what we could have had.
Semper Fi
48
posted on
12/11/2002 7:15:24 AM PST
by
dd5339
To: matrix
I'll give one good reason. In the FY2003 Defense Authorizations act, there was a provision, passed by a vast majority of both Senate and House (about 90%), that would have provided much needed relief for disabled military retirees, (They are currently required to pay for their own disability compensation out of their hard earned retirement pay).
Bush threatened a veto of the entire act if this provision were included in any form. Hastert turned tail and essentially removed the relief from the final legislation that Bush signed the other day.
Bush cares nothing for the veterans he promised to help during the 2000 campaign.
Liar.
49
posted on
12/11/2002 7:17:21 AM PST
by
matrix
To: bybybill
But who are the "others" mentioned in the act? I've been watching the Feds "boil the frog" for 30 years. They feel they can slip anything by as long as they don't alarm the duck hunter types out there.
50
posted on
12/11/2002 7:22:17 AM PST
by
dljordan
To: matrix
Well gee, if your not buying dynamite, kinnepak, C4, or some other type of high explosive, then you don't have anything to worry about.
I bought Kinnepak in 92, had to fill out many forms, thumbprints, and was not allowed to use it out of state then. It did work well to blow the hell out of some stumps that I was cleaning up.
From the cross linked post in reply 12, this does not apply to blackpowder or smokeless powder.
Semper Fi
51
posted on
12/11/2002 7:25:03 AM PST
by
dd5339
To: Drammach
Actually "commerce" means that you have engaged in a transaction of some sort. This could have some "interesting" applications the next time a Socialist gets in power. I'm surprised I didn't read anything in the NRA publications about this.
MARK A SITY
http://www.logic101.net/
Comment #53 Removed by Moderator
To: CWRWinger
No I wasn't. In fact, I was working for his election. Bush has turned out to be a big disappointment. I said JANUARY 2001! You have probably been a Bush basher since that day. Bush has NOT been a disappointment. You are a disappointment for deserting him.
54
posted on
12/11/2002 8:34:04 AM PST
by
cinFLA
Comment #55 Removed by Moderator
To: reloader
I'm not trying to spook anyone. A low explosive is just a fast burning compound. Smokeless powder is a good example. It burns at a controlled rate with no shock wave. It also provides more push per pound than black powder.
The dividing line between high and low is tenuous. A gasoline-air mixture is generally a low explosive and will push an automotive piston smoothly. If the mixture is over compressed or the gasoline has too low an octane for example, the system acts like a high explosive causing pinging or even detonation where the shock wave can knock a hole in the piston.
The press often tosses the terms high or low explosive around as though a high explosive were the more powerful. It's really only a flame front thing.
To: cinFLA
Bush has NOT been a disappointment. You must share my very low expectations for King George II then. I expected Bush to be an anti-gun, anti-freedom statist, and he has not disappointed me
To: Centurion2000
Look at the effective date. It starts next year. January 24, 2003. Buy what you want between now and January 24th. No permit required until then.
58
posted on
12/11/2002 9:13:56 AM PST
by
Myrddin
To: Myrddin
With my usual caveat that I may be wrong;
I don't see anywhere in that article the words gunpowder.
It is my understanding that gunpowder is not classified as an explosive by the ATF and it would seem that this would keep it from being covered by this new law.
Anyone can correct me if I'm wrong.
To: dd5339
"We had a choice, Bush or Gore,.."
You're right of course, but therein lies the tragedy. Given a choice between Teedledum or Tweedledumber, Frick or Frack, the Pit or the Pendulum, we will never get out of this hole we've allowed our 'representatives' to bury us in.
I recently attended a meeting of a local group of the "Free State Project." As we introdduced ourselves to each other, we also mentioned why we were involved. I said that our country had to make a radical change soon or there would be bloodshed. The Free State Project provides a chance- albeit a slim one- for a peaceful change.
I voted for Bush too, but I held my nose when I did it. Now I see why.
Alan Stang recently wrote an article about recognizing a dictatorship. I believe it was published by Etherzone. It was very informative. Look it up, I think you'll agree.
60
posted on
12/11/2002 9:26:10 AM PST
by
oldfart
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-137 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson