Mr. Rothschild gave three BATFE sites dealing with the new (proposed) rules concerning smokeless powder. All are valid and woth looking at. Mr. 1badassmagnum stated that the Hodgdon website has a memo stating that this law does not apply to smokeless propellants. Mr. t_bob38 commented that monopropellants in fact cover smokeless powder. I spent some time looking up the different termologies that has been used during this discussion. Using a Webster 9th Collegiate dictionary describes Smokeless Powder (1890) as any class of explosive propellants that produce camparatively little smoke on an explosion and consist mostley of gelatinized cellulose nitrates. Mono propellant (ca 1945) a rocket propellant containing both the fuel and the oxidizer in a single substance. Celloluse nitrate (1890) any of several seters of nitric acid formed by the action of nitric acid on cellulose (as paper, linen or cotton) and used for making explosives, plastics and varnishes. The one word these three definitions have in common is EXPLOSIVE. Mr. Rothschild also gave a site for pages 20864, 20865 and 20866, Volum 67, No. 81/Friday, April 26, 2002. of the Federal Register. Page 20866 list Monopropellants and Smokeless Powder. This seems to make the argument that Smokeless Powder sales will require a new permit issued by the BATFE to the person who purchases the powder through intrastate commerce. If Mr. 1badassmagnum wants to buy a 8 pound keg of Red Dot from Mr. Rothschild's guns and ammo store it is Mr. Rothschild who must posess the new permit and not Mr. 1badassmagnum. However, I read that the purchase of that same 8 pound keg from Mr. Landtrain in his Virginia store constitutes an intrastate transaction. Not unlike the sale of a fire arm to a non dealer in a non contiguious state. A little later on, Mr. ksduckhunter quotes from Section 845 of what appears to be Title 18, USC where it says that there shall be some granting of relief from disabilities. No where in that section does any of the aforementioned terms appear. While number (4) imply small arms components would include "smokeless powder" it does not use that term. I could assume that Mr. ksduckhunter is not a lawyer or he would know that "if it ain't in writting it ain't enforcable" and the BATF is notourious for their half truths and notice of proposed rule changes that appear only in the Federal Register. A government publication that because of it high annual subscription cost is seldome if ever is seen by 98.8% of the national population and can be found in citiy libraries with a population of 200,000 or more. With all of this being said by all of the submitters, we are left with one comforting thought. The federal government and its enforcement agencies are going to do what ever the party in power tell them to do and there is nothing you and I can do about it. We can write to our elected officials all we want and they have absolutly no obligation to do what the public wants. None whatsoever!!! Does this mean we give up. NO WAY. Keep the pressure on the whimps we put in the Congress.

Yes or No would have worked. So basically BATF is belowing smoke as usual.

I suppose someone will accuse me of being paranoid, but I still remember how relieved we all were when we found that the Brady Bill only affected handgun sales.... NOT!! Somewhere in the sleep-inducing paragraphs of legalese jargon, they changed the terminology from "handgun" to "firearm" and here we are today.

So�long as the only authority to differentiate smokeless powder from explosives lies within the BATFE, they can (and probably will) change it when they want to. Not only will they change it, but they'll do it with as little publicity and fanfare as possible. I think it would behoove us all to maintain a supply of powder and primers over an above what we normally do.

As I said, some will call me paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?