New Regs From BATFE: License Required To Buy Smokeless Powder

17 January 2003, 19:34

Goes into effect May 24, 2003

http://www.atf.treas.gov/explarson/safeexplactfactsheet.pdf

This explains your licensing requirements. You won't be able to buy powder on more than 6 occaisins during the year and will be subject to BATFE JBT's inspecting your home for "compliance".

http://www.atf.treas.gov/press/fy03press/112502safeexpact.htm

This is the list of things considered explosives by your friendly friends who are just looking to protect you from yourself.

Page 3 Under "S".
http://www.atf.treas.gov/explarson/notices/notice_943.pdf

[ 01-17-2003, 10:42: Message edited by: Roger Rothschild ]

17 January 2003, 20:33

<1badassmagnum>

smokeless propellants are not explosives.the hodgdon website has a memo stating this law does not apply to smokeless propellants.you can transport 25 -50 pounds without any special packaging requirements.this law mainly prevents terrorrists from making explosive devices,it does not affect most shooters...YET.

18 January 2003, 03:17

Nitroman

I see by your reply you didn't take the time to look at the last link where the BATFE classifies SMOKELESS POWDER AS AN EXPLOSIVE.

Who knows what some dipshit JBT told Hodgdon. Since the FERALS...NOT HODGDON have classified it as an explosive, now they can say, "oops! that bureaurocrat was wrong, sorry, your customers need permits". Typical gub'mint joke. You'll go to the store to get some powder and be informed you need a permit by the salesman/woman. It'll be a neat trick to watch all the unsuspecting sheep mill in confusion, the ferals will love it.

"this law mainly prevents terrorrists from making explosive devices,it does not affect most shooters...YET."

I apologize, I now see your brain-dead reply.

[ 01-17-2003, 19:28: Message edited by: Roger Rothschild ]

18 January 2003, 04:08

<t_bob38>

Looks like Roger is right. I also believe monopropellants cover smokeless powder. I'm having dinner with my US Representative this evening and will bring it to his attention. This looks serious, folks.

18 January 2003, 04:10

savageshooter

If this really does apply to reloaders this is going to hurt! It's also going to cost the gubermint tons of cash to implement. I do see smokeless powder on the list mentioned, but I find it peculiar that the list doesn't include smokeless on the reference to new additions. I know that in the past they havn't treated smokeless or blackpowder substitutes as explosives. Kinda wish we had a knowledgable BATF agent on the forum to explain all. [Frown]

18 January 2003, 04:15

bigbore50ak

http://www.atf.treas.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/xcomplete.htm

18 January 2003, 04:15

Dutch

Section 8 (Applicability) of the Act states:

"Nothing in this act shall be construed to affect the exception in section 845(a)(4) relating to small arms ammunition and components of small arms ammunition or section 845(a)(5) relating to commercially manufactured black powder in quantities not to exceed 50 pounds intended to be used solely for sporting, recreational, or cultural purposes in antique firearms, of Title 18, United States Code."

For more details, the "news" section the Hodgdon website, AO. FWIW, Dutch.

18 January 2003, 04:35

smallfry

11. Is small arms ammunition affected by this law?

No. The law specifically exempts small arms ammunition and components thereof; therefore, the primers and smokeless propellants used in small arms ammunition are exempt from the provisions of the law. [ï¿½ 55.141]

this is from ATF's web site Roger sheep

18 January 2003, 04:41

Zero Drift

Holy Crap - Well, how much powder can my garage hold? I'll take 50 lbs of everything please.

I guess the BATF forgot about nitrogen based fertilizers and their destructive power, or were they asleep when Timmy McVeigh pulled up in front of the Alfred P. Murrah building in Oklahoma City. I can see the ATF showing up in full dress to inspect the fields of Old McDonaldï¿½s farm.

Ainï¿½t this some goofy crap? I bet ya this will not fly long. Too much work and too much manpower involved. Where is the ACLU when we REALLY need them?

18 January 2003, 05:01

TomP

We might, for now, get out of this back-door registration, but the next time we get a Democrat in office there will be an attempt to extend registration to reloaders or at least their suppliers. Hell of a mess, worth trying to get it repealed but while the homeland security cheerleaders rule it will be difficult-to-impossible. It would appear that the Republicans, in their fervor, have handed the liberals an opporunity for something they could never have gotten on their own.

Tom

18 January 2003, 05:02

500grains

OK, what's the final answer?

Do we need a license for IMR4895 or not?

18 January 2003, 05:12

Orion 1

quote:
Originally posted by bigbore50ak:
http://www.atf.treas.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/xcomplete.htm

Taken from the above URL:

quote:
ï¿½ 845. Exceptions; relief from disabilities

(a) Except in the case of subsections (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), and (i) of section 844 of this title, this chapter shall not apply to:

(1) any aspect of the transportation of explosive materials via railroad, water, highway, or air which are regulated by the United States Department of Transportation and agencies thereof;

(2) the use of explosive materials in medicines and medicinal agents in the forms prescribed by the official United States Pharmacopeia, or the National Formulary;

(3) the transportation, shipment, receipt, or importation of explosive materials for delivery to any agency of the United States or to any State or political subdivision thereof;

(4) small arms ammunition and component thereof;

(5) commercially manufactured black powder in quantities not to exceed fifty pounds, percussion caps, safety and pyrotechnic fuses, quills, quick and slow matches, and friction primers, intended to be used solely for sporting, recreational, or cultural purposes in antique firearms as defined in section 921(a)(16) of title 18 of the United States Code, or in antique devices as exempted from the term "destructive device" in section 921 (a)(4) of title 18 of the United States Code; and

(6) the manufacture under the regulation of the military department of the United States of explosive materials for, or their distribution to or storage or possession by the military or naval services or other agencies of the United States; or to arsenals, navy yards, depots, or other establishments owned by, or operated by or on behalf of, the United States.

Seems pretty clear to me that black powder, percussion caps, smokeless powder, and centerfire primers used for sporting purposes (i.e. RELOADING) are EXEMPT FROM THIS LAW.

Baaaaaa Baaaaaaaa [Big Grin]

18 January 2003, 05:32

<t_bob38>

It looks like we are safe for the moment. See paragraph 4.

"ï¿½ 845. Exceptions; relief from disabilities

(a) Except in the case of subsections (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), and (i) of section 844 of this title, this chapter shall not apply to:

(1) any aspect of the transportation of explosive materials via railroad, water, highway, or air which are regulated by the United States Department of Transportation and agencies thereof;

(2) the use of explosive materials in medicines and medicinal agents in the forms prescribed by the official United States Pharmacopeia, or the National Formulary;

(3) the transportation, shipment, receipt, or importation of explosive materials for delivery to any agency of the United States or to any State or political subdivision thereof;

(4) small arms ammunition and component thereof;

(5) commercially manufactured black powder in quantities not to exceed fifty pounds, percussion caps, safety and pyrotechnic fuses, quills, quick and slow matches, and friction primers, intended to be used solely for sporting, recreational, or cultural purposes in antique firearms as defined in section 921(a)(16) of title 18 of the United States Code, or in antique devices as exempted from the term "destructive device" in section 921 (a)(4) of title 18 of the United States Code; "

18 January 2003, 05:40

RSY

quote:
Originally posted by Zero Drift:
Where is the ACLU when we REALLY need them?

Great question, and one highly deserving of a thread all its own. They're the biggest bunch of hypocrites out there!

RSY

18 January 2003, 06:06

ricciardelli

quote:
Originally posted by RSY:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Zero Drift:
[qb]Where is the ACLU when we REALLY need them?

Defending the Man-Boy Love Association!

18 January 2003, 08:23

John Frazer

Roger,

Sorry but those who pointed out the exemptions are quite correct; Sen. Hatch's staff was very careful throughout to make sure this was done right.

In fact, I just talked to ATF about this the other day and they confirmed it. Some black powder dealers are getting confused and posting ominous ATF notices. If you run into this, have them call the Public Safety Branch at ATF -- second phone number on the ATF poster.

The only loose end not tied up is why powder is on the ATF "list." I'll take a stab at that one:

The list of explosive materials is published pursuant to ATF regs (27 CFR Sec. 55.23); the same chapter of the regulations provides the following definition:

" Ammunition. Small arms ammunition or cartridge cases, primers,
bullets, or smokeless propellants designed for use in small arms,
including percussion caps, and 3/32 inch and other external burning
pyrotechnic hobby fuses. The term does not include black powder." (27 CFR Sec. 55.11)

Part 55 also includes a section on "exemptions" (Sec. 55.141) which says that

"(a) General. Except for the provisions of Secs. 55.180 and 55.181 [pertaining to marking and reporting of plastic explosives -JF] ,
this part does not apply to: [...] (4) Small arms ammunition and components of small arms ammunition."

Sec. 55.141 also repeats the black powder exemption as stated in the statute.

I presume ATF includes "smokeless powder" on the list of explosive materials to cover any uses it may be put to other than loading ammunition. But powder for use in ammunition is clearly exempt.

Hope this is helpful.

John Frazer
NRA Federal Affairs

18 January 2003, 08:49

Gonzo FreakPower

John F,

Thanks for your reasoned and detailed response. I, like most of us here, was about ready to march on Washington with pitchforks.

I really hope you're right. I'm glad you responded, because my post would have to wonder where in hell the NRA was in all this.

so thanks again...

18 January 2003, 09:53

reloader-1

Isn't it BATF (Bureau of Alchohol, Tobacco, and Firearms)? Thanks for the response everybody, I also was about to march on Washington with my pitchfork, too [Big Grin]

reloader-1

18 January 2003, 11:20

<t_bob38>

I just got a notice from the BATF saying that as of January 24th they are mostly moving over to the Department of Justice and being renamed the BATFE, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

18 January 2003, 11:36

Russell E. Taylor

Reloader-1: I hate to burst any bubbles, but, um... Hitler never said what you have in your signature. Just another urban myth.

Sounds good, though.

Russ

18 January 2003, 12:14

TCLouis

If I were guessing I would think that the batf used the annual update requirement to "include" smokeless powder on their list of "explosives"!

I suggest we move this discussion to political section also so we can all be spurred on to write elected officials!

LouisB

Just an opinion of course! [Roll Eyes]

[ 01-18-2003, 03:16: Message edited by: TCLouis ]

18 January 2003, 13:25

reloader-1

What signature? [Wink]

Just kidding, I changed it...

reloader-1

[ 01-18-2003, 04:25: Message edited by: reloader-1 ]

18 January 2003, 15:55

<Chainsaw>

Reloder 1, BATF short for (Bad Attitude Towards Freedom)Since the Patriot Act just recently passed, the E has been added to encompass Everyone and Everything------------Chainsaw

[ 01-18-2003, 06:57: Message edited by: Chainsaw ]

18 January 2003, 16:51

Leftoverdj

Think I'll keep my signature a while.

19 January 2003, 02:25

John Frazer

quote:
Originally posted by TCLouis:
If I were guessing I would think that the batf used the annual update requirement to "include" smokeless powder on their list of "explosives"!

I think it's been on there a while.

The exemptions are stated in the FAQ on the new explosives law.

John

27 January 2003, 16:50

KuduKing

Yet another example of Roger's infinite wisdon and keen intellect. His use of ad hominem attacks even when he is completely and utterly wrong, is another signature.

[ 01-27-2003, 07:57: Message edited by: KuduKing ]

27 January 2003, 16:52

KuduKing

btt

[ 01-27-2003, 07:53: Message edited by: KuduKing ]

29 January 2003, 00:01

<1GEEJAY>

Hey"
Isn't this a great country.We can discuss Government policies,on an open forum.Agree or disagree,and not fear the banging on your door,the next morning,by some despot Ruler.How sorry is it to live under those conditions.
1geejay
www.shooting-hunting.com [Wink]