Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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

         
         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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist; guncontrol
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-137 next last
To: Boot Hill
What justification are they using to extent the ICC to intrastate commerce this time?
41 posted on 12/11/2002 6:53:49 AM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Sorry, extent=extend. Haven't had my coffee yet.
42 posted on 12/11/2002 6:54:41 AM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

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.

43 posted on 12/11/2002 6:55:50 AM PST by CWRWinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

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

47 posted on 12/11/2002 7:13:41 AM PST by Jeff Head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

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/
52 posted on 12/11/2002 7:54:52 AM PST by logic101.net
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

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.
56 posted on 12/11/2002 8:45:36 AM PST by Doctor Stochastic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

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

57 posted on 12/11/2002 9:05:45 AM PST by from occupied ga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

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.
59 posted on 12/11/2002 9:15:58 AM PST by TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson