User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/22/2015 8:47:16 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Maybe you missed the mention of the bomb squad. When they came and took out black powder they called bomb disposal. Poor bastards were embarrassed to carry that cardboard box out but when the atf man calls you answer. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The irony to this is that once the ATF agent orders you to forfeit your property, he'll put it in the back seat or trunk of his car and drive off, violating the same transportation & storage laws and regulations that were the reason for taking it in the first place. But that's OK, because 18 USC 845(a)(3) and 27 CFR 555.141(a)(3) says that they are better then us and don't have to abide by the same rules. As usual, some pigs are more equal then others. Maybe you missed the mention of the bomb squad. When they came and took out black powder they called bomb disposal. Poor bastards were embarrassed to carry that cardboard box out but when the atf man calls you answer. Nope, didn't miss it at all. He said that they "were coming", he never updated or posted to tell us who actually showed up. And if all they are coming for is that 40mm round, EOD will not be showing up and it will play out exactly as I described. Glad someone posted that letter as it's the first time I actually saw something that attempts to justify their seizure. <--------Yeah, it happened to this guy here |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2015 8:48:19 PM EDT
[#2]
I know he's still alive and hope he threw said item in trash
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2015 11:52:28 PM EDT
[#3]
Ok so a update. The agent that showed up was an actual bomb tech. I surrendered the rounds under protest per the advice of a attorney. The bomb tech was a really cool guy. He agreed that it was pretty stupid and he hated to do it but he was being forced to help out with the case. He did also tell me that they had sent him out to take 40mm chalk rounds under the same case. I walked out to the truck with him and watched him place the rounds in the explosive magazine in his truck. When I told him I was surrendering the rounds under protest he looked at me and said "good I hope you can fight it and get them back because this whole situation is stupid." I'm not sure if I will go to court over it or not. I'm not out enough money for it to be a big deal but it's an issue that has me concerned. I know there are not enough people out there with registered DD M203's for this case to ever become a big deal but it is really shitty that as far as I can tell all 40mm rounds are considered to be Low Explosives and can not be owned unless you have a explosive licence.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2015 3:18:26 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ok so a update. The agent that showed up was an actual bomb tech. I surrendered the rounds under protest per the advice of a attorney. The bomb tech was a really cool guy. He agreed that it was pretty stupid and he hated to do it but he was being forced to help out with the case. He did also tell me that they had sent him out to take 40mm chalk rounds under the same case. I walked out to the truck with him and watched him place the rounds in the explosive magazine in his truck. When I told him I was surrendering the rounds under protest he looked at me and said "good I hope you can fight it and get them back because this whole situation is stupid." I'm not sure if I will go to court over it or not. I'm not out enough money for it to be a big deal but it's an issue that has me concerned. I know there are not enough people out there with registered DD M203's for this case to ever become a big deal but it is really shitty that as far as I can tell all 40mm rounds are considered to be Low Explosives and can not be owned unless you have a explosive licence. Fuck that noise. I'm really sorry to hear that |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2015 12:29:11 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ok so a update. The agent that showed up was an actual bomb tech. I surrendered the rounds under protest per the advice of a attorney. The bomb tech was a really cool guy. He agreed that it was pretty stupid and he hated to do it but he was being forced to help out with the case. He did also tell me that they had sent him out to take 40mm chalk rounds under the same case. I walked out to the truck with him and watched him place the rounds in the explosive magazine in his truck. When I told him I was surrendering the rounds under protest he looked at me and said "good I hope you can fight it and get them back because this whole situation is stupid." I'm not sure if I will go to court over it or not. I'm not out enough money for it to be a big deal but it's an issue that has me concerned. I know there are not enough people out there with registered DD M203's for this case to ever become a big deal but it is really shitty that as far as I can tell all 40mm rounds are considered to be Low Explosives and can not be owned unless you have a explosive licence. So now ATF is going full retard and sending out EOD techs to pick up those evil, dangerous 40mm flares and chalk rounds with those dangerous .38 caliber "low explosive" blanks? Unbelievable. Guess these reports look good at budget time so they can get all the money they need to protect us from those dangerous "explosives." OP, I'm going to guess that they gave you a receipt for them (ATF form 3400.23 I think). What was put down for the "basis of seizure", Improper storage? Or are they going full retard with this too and putting "unlicensed possession" or "lack of license" or something like that? Sounds to me like they've effectively killed the M203, 40mm, 37mm hobby. You can own the launchers but you'll have nothing to shoot out of them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2015 12:51:49 PM EDT
[#6]
Any idea as to if this will effect people who own ordinance?
IE Like Anzio 20mm or other big bore cannons? If so they basically just shut down the whole DD category of the NFA. 
What sucks even more is the DD community is so small there will be little or no support from anyone to get this cleaned up in court. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2015 11:10:27 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Any idea as to if this will effect people who own ordinance? IE Like Anzio 20mm or other big bore cannons? If so they basically just shut down the whole DD category of the NFA. What sucks even more is the DD community is so small there will be little or no support from anyone to get this cleaned up in court. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 12:38:20 PM EDT
[#8]
This is some terrible news. I just got my 40mm LMT launcher approved last month and have been looking forward to getting chalk rounds and illumination. I guess I will have to wait and see what happens next. Total bummer.
Also, will this ruling apply to 12 gauge and .22LR (beehive / hornets nest) adapters? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 8:34:17 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Texas Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What state?  Texas Texas? Don't they sell those at Walmart in Texas (and in). |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2015 9:49:01 AM EDT
[#10]
any updates on this? i cant find any info online.
im surprised no blogs or youtubers have picked this up yet, guess it shows how small the DD community really is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2015 11:07:19 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Texas? Don't they sell those at Walmart in Texas (and in). Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What state? Texas Texas? Don't they sell those at Walmart in Texas (and in). what part of texas? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2015 11:43:25 AM EDT
[#12]
Just to be clear, this wasn't a tax paid round, was it?
Out of curiosity, what does an individual round cost? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2015 1:29:31 PM EDT
[#13]
The license is easy enough. The magazine restriction is a PITA.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2015 2:36:49 PM EDT
[#14]
Soon...er??
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2015 5:06:04 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Soon...er?? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2015 9:56:29 PM EDT
[#16]
I've looked all over the ATF's website and couldn't find any publication, letter, or reports to confirm this rule change. I'll probably be able to read it this time next year. This shit is getting out of control.
So, if I buy a 100rd case of chalk rounds will the ATF be there to confiscate it when it shows up at my door? What about smoke, less lethal, 12 / 26.5 adapters? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 8:04:57 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ok so a update. The agent that showed up was an actual bomb tech. I surrendered the rounds under protest per the advice of a attorney. The bomb tech was a really cool guy. He agreed that it was pretty stupid and he hated to do it but he was being forced to help out with the case. He did also tell me that they had sent him out to take 40mm chalk rounds under the same case. I walked out to the truck with him and watched him place the rounds in the explosive magazine in his truck. When I told him I was surrendering the rounds under protest he looked at me and said "good I hope you can fight it and get them back because this whole situation is stupid." I'm not sure if I will go to court over it or not. I'm not out enough money for it to be a big deal but it's an issue that has me concerned. I know there are not enough people out there with registered DD M203's for this case to ever become a big deal but it is really shitty that as far as I can tell all 40mm rounds are considered to be Low Explosives and can not be owned unless you have a explosive licence. All that "support" from the ATF man, but he took your rounds anyway. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 2:28:22 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: All that "support" from the ATF man, but he took your rounds anyway. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Ok so a update. The agent that showed up was an actual bomb tech. I surrendered the rounds under protest per the advice of a attorney. The bomb tech was a really cool guy. He agreed that it was pretty stupid and he hated to do it but he was being forced to help out with the case. He did also tell me that they had sent him out to take 40mm chalk rounds under the same case. I walked out to the truck with him and watched him place the rounds in the explosive magazine in his truck. When I told him I was surrendering the rounds under protest he looked at me and said "good I hope you can fight it and get them back because this whole situation is stupid." I'm not sure if I will go to court over it or not. I'm not out enough money for it to be a big deal but it's an issue that has me concerned. I know there are not enough people out there with registered DD M203's for this case to ever become a big deal but it is really shitty that as far as I can tell all 40mm rounds are considered to be Low Explosives and can not be owned unless you have a explosive licence. All that "support" from the ATF man, but he took your rounds anyway. Job security? But seriously....somethings fucky with the ATF.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 3:47:48 PM EDT
[#19]
You all must have missed the memo. Tracer rounds are are also considered explosives, based on their arbitrary and capricious interpretation: See pages 1-2 below.
ATF Explosives Newsletter This is all a result of the Safe Explosives Act which passed after 9/11; and ATF's decision to define "small arms ammo" however they want. When will Congress learn to stop giving the executive so much power? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 4:09:57 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You all must have missed the memo. Tracer rounds are are also considered explosives, based on their arbitrary and capricious interpretation: See pages 1-2 below. ATF Explosives Newsletter This is all a result of the Safe Explosives Act which passed after 9/11; and ATF's decision to define "small arms ammo" however they want. When will Congress learn to stop giving the executive so much power? Seems that we need to attack the low explosive definition that includes black powder, smokeless power, and pyrotechnics. It also appears that small arms is not codified just a long held definition. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 4:29:40 PM EDT
[#21]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 4:52:45 PM EDT
[#22]
I just contacted my Senator and OMB concerning this. My Senator is very concerned and OMB's response was interesting in that they say ATF is citing one section of law while ignoring others that define what makes a DD. OMB believes that ATF may be outside of the law on this and will be contacting my Senator tomorrow. After a nice discussion with an investigator there, it appears ATF is fudging the language of the applied section of code to make a determination to allow them to confiscate. The investigator with OMB believes that this may warrant action against FTB in BATFE. We shall see what happens if anything. But there is absolutely no doubt that BATFE is deliberately incorrectly interpreting the section of code and is pursuing illegal action.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 5:14:06 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOP's thread made the "Big Time" 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 11:54:29 PM EDT
[#24]
All gun owners need to work together to fight this, we cant put blinders on and ignore it because "its a DD issue and that doesnt effect me". Sure the ATF is only going after DDs now, but then its MGs, then Suppressors and when theyre down with the NFA they will go after your AR15s, other title 1 firearms and ammunition.
If someone can put together a halfway decent law suit i would be willing to donate some cash to help the cause. FWIW I dont even own anything effected by their new interpretation, but at some point you have to draw a line in the sand, lets stop them now before they do any more damage. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 12:38:42 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
All gun owners need to work together to fight this, we cant put blinders on and ignore it because "its a DD issue and that doesnt effect me". Sure the ATF is only going after DDs now, but then its MGs, then Suppressors and when theyre down with the NFA they will go after your AR15s, other title 1 firearms and ammunition. If someone can put together a halfway decent law suit i would be willing to donate some cash to help the cause. FWIW I dont even own anything effected by their new interpretation, but at some point you have to draw a line in the sand, lets stop them now before they do any more damage. Need to find a plaintiff. The plaintiff needs to have surrendered in protest and have the receipt from ATF stating such. If you can get that, you have standing. That plaintiff then needs to contact Nolo. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 12:41:38 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Need to find a plaintiff. The plaintiff needs to have surrendered in protest and have the receipt from ATF stating such. If you can get that, you have standing. That plaintiff then needs to contact Nolo. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
All gun owners need to work together to fight this, we cant put blinders on and ignore it because "its a DD issue and that doesnt effect me". Sure the ATF is only going after DDs now, but then its MGs, then Suppressors and when theyre down with the NFA they will go after your AR15s, other title 1 firearms and ammunition. If someone can put together a halfway decent law suit i would be willing to donate some cash to help the cause. FWIW I dont even own anything effected by their new interpretation, but at some point you have to draw a line in the sand, lets stop them now before they do any more damage. Need to find a plaintiff. The plaintiff needs to have surrendered in protest and have the receipt from ATF stating such. If you can get that, you have standing. That plaintiff then needs to contact Nolo. well it seems we've got what we need... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 3:57:38 PM EDT
[#27]
Ok... got in touch with the patent holder and manufacturer of the M992. To put it bluntly, they are pissed as this will reclassify the M992 under ITAR and have a severe effect on their sales.
Secondly, they're pissed because the separation charge in the M992 uses a component called M9. This is scientifically, legally, and technically a propellent, not an explosive. While some of the base components by themselves are considered explosive, when mixed into the M9 configuration, that is no longer the case. This round is classified as a non-lethal/flare round. It is no different than a 37mm flare. ATF is outside it's mandate with this interpretation and they are using baseless justification to do so. The patent holder is considering all options at this point in time. It is too early to tell what they are going to do but they're not happy at all. I need to know what distributor sold the flare to the OP as well. I need to reach out to them. the OP needs to reach out to NOLO asap. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 4:10:23 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ok... got in touch with the patent holder and manufacturer of the M992. To put it bluntly, they are pissed as this will reclassify the M992 under ITAR and have a severe effect on their sales. Secondly, they're pissed because the separation charge in the M992 uses a component called M9. This is scientifically, legally, and technically a propellent, not an explosive. While some of the base components by themselves are considered explosive, when mixed into the M9 configuration, that is no longer the case. This round is classified as a non-lethal/flare round. It is no different than a 37mm flare. ATF is outside it's mandate with this interpretation and they are using baseless justification to do so. The patent holder is considering all options at this point in time. It is too early to tell what they are going to do but they're not happy at all. I need to know what distributor sold the flare to the OP as well. I need to reach out to them. the OP needs to reach out to NOLO asap. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 4:56:55 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ok... got in touch with the patent holder and manufacturer of the M992. To put it bluntly, they are pissed as this will reclassify the M992 under ITAR and have a severe effect on their sales. Secondly, they're pissed because the separation charge in the M992 uses a component called M9. This is scientifically, legally, and technically a propellent, not an explosive. While some of the base components by themselves are considered explosive, when mixed into the M9 configuration, that is no longer the case. This round is classified as a non-lethal/flare round. It is no different than a 37mm flare. ATF is outside it's mandate with this interpretation and they are using baseless justification to do so. The patent holder is considering all options at this point in time. It is too early to tell what they are going to do but they're not happy at all. I need to know what distributor sold the flare to the OP as well. I need to reach out to them. the OP needs to reach out to NOLO asap. Thank you for staying on top of this. I'm impressed that you are able to find the right people to talk to and you're able to get some good, honest information out of it. Keep up the good work. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 5:28:03 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The guy that sold them to me is a dealer on gunbroker. His email was the only way I had to contact him. I will IM you his email address. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Ok... got in touch with the patent holder and manufacturer of the M992. To put it bluntly, they are pissed as this will reclassify the M992 under ITAR and have a severe effect on their sales. Secondly, they're pissed because the separation charge in the M992 uses a component called M9. This is scientifically, legally, and technically a propellent, not an explosive. While some of the base components by themselves are considered explosive, when mixed into the M9 configuration, that is no longer the case. This round is classified as a non-lethal/flare round. It is no different than a 37mm flare. ATF is outside it's mandate with this interpretation and they are using baseless justification to do so. The patent holder is considering all options at this point in time. It is too early to tell what they are going to do but they're not happy at all. I need to know what distributor sold the flare to the OP as well. I need to reach out to them. the OP needs to reach out to NOLO asap. Got it and replied... thanks! |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 5:29:40 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thank you for staying on top of this. I'm impressed that you are able to find the right people to talk to and you're able to get some good, honest information out of it. Keep up the good work. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Ok... got in touch with the patent holder and manufacturer of the M992. To put it bluntly, they are pissed as this will reclassify the M992 under ITAR and have a severe effect on their sales. Secondly, they're pissed because the separation charge in the M992 uses a component called M9. This is scientifically, legally, and technically a propellent, not an explosive. While some of the base components by themselves are considered explosive, when mixed into the M9 configuration, that is no longer the case. This round is classified as a non-lethal/flare round. It is no different than a 37mm flare. ATF is outside it's mandate with this interpretation and they are using baseless justification to do so. The patent holder is considering all options at this point in time. It is too early to tell what they are going to do but they're not happy at all. I need to know what distributor sold the flare to the OP as well. I need to reach out to them. the OP needs to reach out to NOLO asap. Thank you for staying on top of this. I'm impressed that you are able to find the right people to talk to and you're able to get some good, honest information out of it. Keep up the good work. I'm sick of having our Freedoms trampled by some arrogant stuck up cunt in ATF. I intend on jamming this interpretation sideways up her ass. I have a map, a shovel and a will to use both. I know where to dig to find the skeletons, ATF is giving me the reason to do it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 9:42:52 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm sick of having our Freedoms trampled by some arrogant stuck up cunt in ATF. I intend on jamming this interpretation sideways up her ass. I have a map, a shovel and a will to use both. I know where to dig to find the skeletons, ATF is giving me the reason to do it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ok... got in touch with the patent holder and manufacturer of the M992. To put it bluntly, they are pissed as this will reclassify the M992 under ITAR and have a severe effect on their sales. Secondly, they're pissed because the separation charge in the M992 uses a component called M9. This is scientifically, legally, and technically a propellent, not an explosive. While some of the base components by themselves are considered explosive, when mixed into the M9 configuration, that is no longer the case. This round is classified as a non-lethal/flare round. It is no different than a 37mm flare. ATF is outside it's mandate with this interpretation and they are using baseless justification to do so. The patent holder is considering all options at this point in time. It is too early to tell what they are going to do but they're not happy at all. I need to know what distributor sold the flare to the OP as well. I need to reach out to them. the OP needs to reach out to NOLO asap. Thank you for staying on top of this. I'm impressed that you are able to find the right people to talk to and you're able to get some good, honest information out of it. Keep up the good work. I'm sick of having our Freedoms trampled by some arrogant stuck up cunt in ATF. I intend on jamming this interpretation sideways up her ass. I have a map, a shovel and a will to use both. I know where to dig to find the skeletons, ATF is giving me the reason to do it. I have no doubts that he found the right people . If I can help I'll be in touch . This affects us at work I'm sure as well . Joe is really pissed right now . Good luck and take care brother . |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 10:14:39 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ok... got in touch with the patent holder and manufacturer of the M992. To put it bluntly, they are pissed as this will reclassify the M992 under ITAR and have a severe effect on their sales. Secondly, they're pissed because the separation charge in the M992 uses a component called M9. This is scientifically, legally, and technically a propellent, not an explosive. While some of the base components by themselves are considered explosive, when mixed into the M9 configuration, that is no longer the case. This round is classified as a non-lethal/flare round. It is no different than a 37mm flare. ATF is outside it's mandate with this interpretation and they are using baseless justification to do so. The patent holder is considering all options at this point in time. It is too early to tell what they are going to do but they're not happy at all. I need to know what distributor sold the flare to the OP as well. I need to reach out to them. the OP needs to reach out to NOLO asap. Nice work. Reading the tortured interpretations from the ATF makes my head hurt. Won't the change also require the manufacturer to change storage and shipping procedures now that these are explosives instead of small arms ammunition? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 10:28:29 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nice work. Reading the tortured interpretations from the ATF makes my head hurt. Won't the change also require the manufacturer to change storage and shipping procedures now that these are explosives instead of small arms ammunition? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Ok... got in touch with the patent holder and manufacturer of the M992. To put it bluntly, they are pissed as this will reclassify the M992 under ITAR and have a severe effect on their sales. Secondly, they're pissed because the separation charge in the M992 uses a component called M9. This is scientifically, legally, and technically a propellent, not an explosive. While some of the base components by themselves are considered explosive, when mixed into the M9 configuration, that is no longer the case. This round is classified as a non-lethal/flare round. It is no different than a 37mm flare. ATF is outside it's mandate with this interpretation and they are using baseless justification to do so. The patent holder is considering all options at this point in time. It is too early to tell what they are going to do but they're not happy at all. I need to know what distributor sold the flare to the OP as well. I need to reach out to them. the OP needs to reach out to NOLO asap. Nice work. Reading the tortured interpretations from the ATF makes my head hurt. Won't the change also require the manufacturer to change storage and shipping procedures now that these are explosives instead of small arms ammunition? It also will change the ITAR classification. But, these are NOT explosives as there is zero explosives in them outside the primer. Same goes for the chalk rounds which consist of a .38 blank, a zinc weight, chalk and a plastic nose cone. ATF has taken stupid to a whole new level. I swear I hope those people do not breed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 10:38:51 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It also will change the ITAR classification. But, these are NOT explosives as there is zero explosives in them outside the primer. Same goes for the chalk rounds which consist of a .38 blank, a zinc weight, chalk and a plastic nose cone. ATF has taken stupid to a whole new level. I swear I hope those people do not breed. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ok... got in touch with the patent holder and manufacturer of the M992. To put it bluntly, they are pissed as this will reclassify the M992 under ITAR and have a severe effect on their sales. Secondly, they're pissed because the separation charge in the M992 uses a component called M9. This is scientifically, legally, and technically a propellent, not an explosive. While some of the base components by themselves are considered explosive, when mixed into the M9 configuration, that is no longer the case. This round is classified as a non-lethal/flare round. It is no different than a 37mm flare. ATF is outside it's mandate with this interpretation and they are using baseless justification to do so. The patent holder is considering all options at this point in time. It is too early to tell what they are going to do but they're not happy at all. I need to know what distributor sold the flare to the OP as well. I need to reach out to them. the OP needs to reach out to NOLO asap. Nice work. Reading the tortured interpretations from the ATF makes my head hurt. Won't the change also require the manufacturer to change storage and shipping procedures now that these are explosives instead of small arms ammunition? It also will change the ITAR classification. But, these are NOT explosives as there is zero explosives in them outside the primer. Same goes for the chalk rounds which consist of a .38 blank, a zinc weight, chalk and a plastic nose cone. ATF has taken stupid to a whole new level. I swear I hope those people do not breed. I agree not explosives. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 11:19:07 PM EDT
[#36]
After re-reader the ATF letter it appear that agencies are required to meet the storage requirements under 27 CFR 555 for this explosive ammunition. I bet they don't.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 11:54:38 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
1.2 G Tell them to pound sand. You fired it last night. Shoot that SOB off, might as well & just give them the shell. Fight it now, next they will say a 50 cal. Bullet will be a DD. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2015 2:08:01 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ok so a update. The agent that showed up was an actual bomb tech. I surrendered the rounds under protest per the advice of a attorney. The bomb tech was a really cool guy. He agreed that it was pretty stupid and he hated to do it but he was being forced to help out with the case. He did also tell me that they had sent him out to take 40mm chalk rounds under the same case. I walked out to the truck with him and watched him place the rounds in the explosive magazine in his truck. When I told him I was surrendering the rounds under protest he looked at me and said "good I hope you can fight it and get them back because this whole situation is stupid." I'm not sure if I will go to court over it or not. I'm not out enough money for it to be a big deal but it's an issue that has me concerned. I know there are not enough people out there with registered DD M203's for this case to ever become a big deal but it is really shitty that as far as I can tell all 40mm rounds are considered to be Low Explosives and can not be owned unless you have a explosive licence. 'Under protest' ...? You should have HOPPED THE F'IN COUNTER! I like (in a way) where this is going though. Good to say there is still a means to fight them on this. Good luck. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2015 2:12:56 AM EDT
[#39]
tag
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2015 10:02:31 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What's that mean? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
1.2 G Tell them to pound sand. You fired it last night. What's that mean? Just tell them. They should know what pound sand means. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2015 6:21:49 PM EDT
[#41]
Tag. Need donations?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2015 11:57:35 PM EDT
[#42]
Does any of this affect reloaded 37mm flares?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/31/2015 12:16:32 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Does any of this affect reloaded 37mm flares? It may. It may reclassify every freaking round out there over 0.50". The funny thing is, the more I'm reading, the more I'm convinced that ATF is stepping outside of it's mandate. I've got several Congress critters looking into it right now. There is one hell of a silver lining to this though. I will refrain from comment on it at this point but in one way at least, ATF fucked Obama hard with this opinion. The woman that signed that letter probably signed the end of her career with it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/31/2015 12:38:23 AM EDT
[#44]
please say its true. so rarely govt types have any justice. look at Hillary. should be in jail but nah I'll run for potus instead. her husband was impeached but never left. what a joke our government is.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/31/2015 12:38:39 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It may. It may reclassify every freaking round out there over 0.50". The funny thing is, the more I'm reading, the more I'm convinced that ATF is stepping outside of it's mandate. I've got several Congress critters looking into it right now. There is one hell of a silver lining to this though. I will refrain from comment on it at this point but in one way at least, ATF fucked Obama hard with this opinion. The woman that signed that letter probably signed the end of her career with it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Does any of this affect reloaded 37mm flares? It may. It may reclassify every freaking round out there over 0.50". The funny thing is, the more I'm reading, the more I'm convinced that ATF is stepping outside of it's mandate. I've got several Congress critters looking into it right now. There is one hell of a silver lining to this though. I will refrain from comment on it at this point but in one way at least, ATF fucked Obama hard with this opinion. The woman that signed that letter probably signed the end of her career with it. Do you really think this isn't coming from Obama? He wants gun control. I think this is a case of him using his pen and his phone to push when he can't ban outright. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/31/2015 1:46:33 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you really think this isn't coming from Obama? He wants gun control. I think this is a case of him using his pen and his phone to push when he can't ban outright. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Does any of this affect reloaded 37mm flares? It may. It may reclassify every freaking round out there over 0.50". The funny thing is, the more I'm reading, the more I'm convinced that ATF is stepping outside of it's mandate. I've got several Congress critters looking into it right now. There is one hell of a silver lining to this though. I will refrain from comment on it at this point but in one way at least, ATF fucked Obama hard with this opinion. The woman that signed that letter probably signed the end of her career with it. Do you really think this isn't coming from Obama? He wants gun control. I think this is a case of him using his pen and his phone to push when he can't ban outright. yeah, but if he overextends himself, if a dept overextends itself in an intent to intrepret a regulation into existence they may make arguments that will later be their undoing in a grander scale later. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/31/2015 1:48:19 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It may. It may reclassify every freaking round out there over 0.50". The funny thing is, the more I'm reading, the more I'm convinced that ATF is stepping outside of it's mandate. I've got several Congress critters looking into it right now. There is one hell of a silver lining to this though. I will refrain from comment on it at this point but in one way at least, ATF fucked Obama hard with this opinion. The woman that signed that letter probably signed the end of her career with it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Does any of this affect reloaded 37mm flares? It may. It may reclassify every freaking round out there over 0.50". The funny thing is, the more I'm reading, the more I'm convinced that ATF is stepping outside of it's mandate. I've got several Congress critters looking into it right now. There is one hell of a silver lining to this though. I will refrain from comment on it at this point but in one way at least, ATF fucked Obama hard with this opinion. The woman that signed that letter probably signed the end of her career with it. so there is a a law that calls ammunition > .50" explosives, excepting some ammo for "sporting shotguns." Assuming that, her reasoningin the letter makes some sense. But why does this letter protend the end of her career? Is it b/c her line of reasonging would make much or all shotgun ammo, fireworks, 37mm flares etc "explosives" and so forth? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/31/2015 1:53:14 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote Historyvery interesting video. good to know about this "surrender undre protest" to give one standing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/31/2015 8:56:00 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
yeah, but if he overextends himself, if a dept overextends itself in an intent to intrepret a regulation into existence they may make arguments that will later be their undoing in a grander scale later. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Does any of this affect reloaded 37mm flares? It may. It may reclassify every freaking round out there over 0.50". The funny thing is, the more I'm reading, the more I'm convinced that ATF is stepping outside of it's mandate. I've got several Congress critters looking into it right now. There is one hell of a silver lining to this though. I will refrain from comment on it at this point but in one way at least, ATF fucked Obama hard with this opinion. The woman that signed that letter probably signed the end of her career with it. Do you really think this isn't coming from Obama? He wants gun control. I think this is a case of him using his pen and his phone to push when he can't ban outright. yeah, but if he overextends himself, if a dept overextends itself in an intent to intrepret a regulation into existence they may make arguments that will later be their undoing in a grander scale later. That's true, but I think like a lot of what this administration is doing they're trying to change as much as possible knowing that inertia will keep it going. There is always the chance they will go too far, but you have to remember the way they think. They are the enlightened ones, while we are a bunch of uneducated racists who must be controlled so we don't upset our masters. I think they're pushing on everything they can without legislation, and this is the low hanging fruit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/31/2015 1:21:17 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm sick of having our Freedoms trampled by some arrogant stuck up cunt in ATF. I intend on jamming this interpretation sideways up her ass. I have a map, a shovel and a will to use both. I know where to dig to find the skeletons, ATF is giving me the reason to do it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Ok... got in touch with the patent holder and manufacturer of the M992. To put it bluntly, they are pissed as this will reclassify the M992 under ITAR and have a severe effect on their sales. Secondly, they're pissed because the separation charge in the M992 uses a component called M9. This is scientifically, legally, and technically a propellent, not an explosive. While some of the base components by themselves are considered explosive, when mixed into the M9 configuration, that is no longer the case. This round is classified as a non-lethal/flare round. It is no different than a 37mm flare. ATF is outside it's mandate with this interpretation and they are using baseless justification to do so. The patent holder is considering all options at this point in time. It is too early to tell what they are going to do but they're not happy at all. I need to know what distributor sold the flare to the OP as well. I need to reach out to them. the OP needs to reach out to NOLO asap. Thank you for staying on top of this. I'm impressed that you are able to find the right people to talk to and you're able to get some good, honest information out of it. Keep up the good work. I'm sick of having our Freedoms trampled by some arrogant stuck up cunt in ATF. I intend on jamming this interpretation sideways up her ass. I have a map, a shovel and a will to use both. I know where to dig to find the skeletons, ATF is giving me the reason to do it.  |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
.jpg)
