Anyone know if he has been Juried yet?

I know they seized his stuff, but don't recall anything after that.


Thanks!

I think he is still on gunbroker just under a different name...I remember seeing an email address under an item for sale with the name Copley in it..It was a rifle scope..This was last month or so.

Thanks.

Be very instructive to see the ATF spin up the media campaign against him, take his stuff, and then never got a day in court.

Of course, for the timid and the tired, maybe he got off easy.

I certainly would like to know. First, the factory made ones will fall, then they'll extend it to reloading.

I haven't seen the 'media campaign' against him, I only saw the one new article during a google search:

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#tbm=nws&q=%22James+W.+Copley%22





The affadavit is only one side of the story: COPLEY AFFADAVIT



I don't know.  Looks like he could be charged and tried for a whole bunch of violations.

If this case were looked at and run like a drug prosecution, substituting OXY in there for M228 - then it makes sense to me.

Allegedly: The guy went an bought the M228's OXY on the side of the road from someone who did not legally transfer them from the company, then was pulled over, arrested & taken into custody over something else, RV impounded and then conducted an inventory search and found the M228's OXY.

M228's OXY are a controlled item and should have been transferred according to the BATFE DEA.

The part that gets me is then its also improperly transporting explosives devices.  

Lack of placarding while transporting explosive devices.  

Improperly transporting explosive devices without a properly configured vehicle, without a permit/license & without a yearly health check IAW DOT & OSHA regs.

Then at the house, improper storage location, not a FEL holder, etc.


If he doesn't get charged, then he should be thanking his lucky stars!  As even the cost of the M228's he lost and other devices that were found illegally stored at his house comes NOWHERE close to what he would spend in GOOD LEGAL counsel to fight the charges.




I don't know how the BATFE is interpreting the law.  I would think that a RELOADED or MANUFACTURED M228 are the same thing.  Unless there is something different with the weights.

I surely don't think its the MIL getting involved with the push for rounding up the M228's - unless they were stolen FROM the MIL, which doesn't sound like the affadavit.


~Will

That's not what happened, Will.

Copley bought them from an individual, technically an unindicted co-conspirator.

This individual had ties to a company that legally possessed them, probably for resale.

Copley popped up on the radar, because a LICENSED INDIVIDUAL he sold fuzes to got arrested, and they rolled him over.


Here is the problem:

For YEARS now, people have been going back and forth over whether or not possession of these and the instant action fuzes are unlawful. NO ONE has come up with anything but anecdotal data.

The BATFE separated Copley from thousands of dollars of product because they decided these fuzes were.... something.

If they were per se illegal to possess, he should be in the legal system right now.

If they were, as BATFE contends, low explosives with a black powder 'explosion', he wasn't in violation until he tried to transport them over the public roads, or stored them in violation. They didn't charge him with that. He even knew he couldn't store them, he said so to the CI.

If they were trying to get him selling these, they messed up. He never made it to the alleged sale.



Read part 8 again. Affiant contends mere possession without licensing is felonious conduct.


What you are seeing here is how new rules are fabricated out of thin air. An opinion, then a small regulatory change (which, may or may not be correct, I don't have time now to research it), and then they tell distributors to quit distributing outside licensed channels, and now they go after a person with a lot of them.

He needs to go to court, and win this. Otherwise, this is the end of public possession of loaded grenade fuzes. Reloaded wouldn't be any different - they aren't demonizing the mechanism, but the fact it uses black powder, which is a regulated low explosive. (An argument could be made, however, that they are singling out the M228, in which case, if it technically isn't a M228, it doesn't count.)

EVEN THOUGH somewhere, it does say that the occasional use of explosives doesn't require a permit at the Federal level.

As far as the media, this is a topic on several boards. It is spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt among many people, including myself.

That's why I really want to keep up with what occurs. The man has been deprived of property without the ability to contest it. They picked him, because as a diverted potential felon, he won't rock the boat. They had the opportunity to get a guy that was selling them to resellers, a much larger fish, but they didn't, as far as I can tell.

They get to set a precedent they can rely on for future actions without any scrutiny. That's the point.

I have been told that there is a flavor of M228-style fuze that has a UN/EX classification of articles pyrotechnic and not the whatever the ones in this particular case are, by the way.


I don't remember saying the .mil was involved, sorry

Shawn

Also, I wrote that last post very quickly trying to get ready for 9 degrees tonight...


Shawn

I've posted this elsewhere, however, there is something not right here...





On ATF's website it states that:



"Articles Pyrotechnic



Federal explosives regulations generally exempt the importation, distribu­tion, and storage of "articles pyrotechnic,” as defined under the regulation at 27 CFR 555.11.This section defines "articles pyrotechnic” as "Pyrotechnic devices for professional use similar to consumer fireworks in chemical composition and construction but not intended for consumer use. Such articles meeting the weight limits for consumer fireworks, but not labeled as such, and classified by U.S. Department of Transportation regula­tions in 49 CFR 172.101 as UN0431 or UN0432.”(https://www.atf.gov/content/explosives/explosives-industry/fireworks)



Now with the below letter from DOT:




Unless that letter was fabricated, then the fuzes OOW sold (like OKEnt had taken in the other thread) are completely legal. I called the local and regional ATF offices and told them I had a few dozen of these fuzes, and they told me that if I'm not a licensee that really isn't their concern whether they are articles pyrotechnic or otherwise, as long as I store them in a type 4 magazine.



Something is supremely fishy going on re: these fuzes.

OK, so if they are concerned about the transportation & storage of them, and if the reason they are confiscating them is because they aren't stored properly, how are they transporting them when they confiscate them? Are they just throwing them in the trunk of their vehicle and driving away? Are they in an approved magazine for transport? Is there the proper placards attached to their car? I bet not.

Again- that not withstanding, if the above letter which I have is not a forgery, then these fuzes are exempt from storage and transportation requirements of the federal explosives regulations.  So then what is the actual, legal justification?

I agree, if they are using the storage issue for their reason for confiscation, then that letter shoots them in the foot doesn't it?

§ 555.141 Exemptions.
(a) General. Except for the provisions
of §§ 555.180 and 555.181, this part does
not apply to:

(7) The importation, distribution, and
storage of fireworks classified as
UN0336, UN0337, UN0431, or UN0432 explosives
by the U.S. Department of
Transportation at 49 CFR 172.101 and
generally known as ‘‘consumer fireworks’’
or ‘‘articles pyrotechnic.’’

And the letter does clearly state that they are UN0432. This is also the section that exempts model rocket engines and less than 50 pounds of black powder. Words mean things, and it couldn't be more clear. So if they are claiming it's a storage issue then they are dead wrong. The requestor who's name is blacked out in the letter, was it OOW?

I think I'm gonna add links to this threads when I find more M228 chicanery.

I'm not EOD - I did public safety bomb stuff. Can we agree M228's are fuses or fuzes?

This guy got himself into a pickle

Here is PICA's interpretation.

They say it is an igniter, not an (exploding) detonator.

http://www.pica.army.mil/pmccs/combatmunitions/grenades/training/m228fuze.html

Here is a picture I found of one:

Yeah...I used one for my registered destructive device build, and having spoken with ATF both before the build and after it (as recently as this week because of the shenanigans going on), they told me they don't have a problem with it.



Of course, I have a Type 4 magazine just in case they change their mind as they so often are known to do.

Uh, WHAT!?


Bro, that is YOUR interpretation of what PICA says it is.

Its a FUZE.  Not an igniter. It is a fuze used to set off a loud bang & emit a smoke cloud.  "Igniters" aka LIGHTERS are used for igniting things (time fuze, excelsior trains, etc).


Your basis of calling it an 'igniter' is interpreting ONE part from a description of its firing train, see your copy of their description in BLUE above.

The PICA full description:



Me personally, I wouldn't reference PICA for identification of anything, even a paperclip.

Now, the ORDNANCE BRANCH (that controls all the boom-boom in the Army) defines the M228 as a PYROTECHNIC.  But, that means NOTHING to the outside world, because they also designate the M115a2 Arty Sim as a PYROTECHNIC - but if you were to have one in CIV hands it would be classed as a DD due to it having 1.41 ounces (40 grams) of photoflash powder in it. [greater than 1/4 oz].

The way the BATFE looks at it is this: Component not intended for civilian use, which can be rapidly converted over to a DD as the BATFE HAS recovered the M228 fuze in several DD's on raids & search warrants:

26 U.S.C. § 5845(F)

(f) Destructive device
The term “destructive device” means
(1) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas
(A) bomb,
(B) grenade,
(C) rocket having a propellent charge of more than four ounces,
(D) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce,
(E) mine, or
(F) similar device;
(2) any type of weapon by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, the barrel or barrels of which have a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter, except a shotgun or shotgun shell which the Secretary finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes; and
(3) any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into a destructive device as defined in subparagraphs (1) and (2) and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled. The term “destructive device” shall not include any device which is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon; any device, although originally designed for use as a weapon, which is redesigned for use as a signaling, pyrotechnic, line throwing, safety, or similar device; surplus ordnance sold, loaned, or given by the Secretary of the Army pursuant to the provisions of section 4684 (2), 4685, or 4686 of title 10 of the United States Code; or any other device which the Secretary finds is not likely to be used as a weapon, or is an antique or is a rifle which the owner intends to use solely for sporting purposes.



Now.  I call BS on their interpretation as I don't believe the M228 will set off a HIGH-EXPLOSIVE train.

But, I think the BATFE is looking at "WILL IT INITIATE A BURNING OF POWDER TO CAUSE A MECHANICAL EXPLOSION" - such as a fuze for a BP loaded container (welded up grenade, pipe bomb, etc) - I think it WOULD do that.




I think its B.S. that the BATFE is doing this, but, I do kinda see why they are, but, its a retarded point of view.  In that a christmas tree light bulb with a bit of match head compound hooked up to a timer does the same thing.  BUT, these items ARE readily available, there are a few steps to go through with MAKING it.  Versus an e-match.  BUT STILL has to have an attached timer!

Basically, an M228 is an expensive a metal sleeved fire cracker.  BUT IT LOOKS DANGEROUS.  Which apparently is enough for the BATFE to interpret it into a controlled status (especially with recent decisions in context!)

~Will

....



I'm a little confused, Will. You say that I am interpreting the PICA document in a particular manner, then you show that what I said was exactly what it said.

PICA says its' an igniter.

Oh. I see what you are saying (I think).

It is a fuze that ignites something.

I still say that it means it's an igniter. Especially when you yourself say, and I agree, this device is not capable of detonating an explosive in its' unaltered state.


Shawn

It does have meaning to the world external to the .mil, Will.

I know you've done your research, but maybe you've forgotten that on occasion BATFE has put in warrants that an item in possession of a citizen is classed as something munition as defined by the military.

In fact, the munitions import list is managed BY the BATFE.

A guy and his grenades are soon parted


 Price was indicted for possession of an unregistered firearm, to wit, components that readily could be assembled into a hand
grenade, 26 U.S.C. sections 5861(d) and 5871;

At trial, an ATF explosive expert testified that in about 10 minutes he could "readily assemble" a fragmentation grenade from
the components found in Price's house. The expert added that a grenade constructed from those parts would be as deadly as a
military grenade even though the hulls were not of military origin and were similar to those commonly used as paperweights

The ATF agent testified that he did not ask for a warrant to search for the grenades because "the [Assistant] United States Attorney ... felt like we didn't have probable cause to obtain a warrant for contraband items." The district court obviously credited the agent's testimony in finding that the discovery of the grenades was inadvertent.




Price next maintains that evidence of his possession of unassembled grenade components was insufficient to support his
conviction for possession of an unregistered firearm, 26 U.S.C. section 5861(d). In evaluating the sufficiency of evidence, we must
consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, drawing all reasonable inferences and making all credibility choices which support the jury's verdict. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942).

Among the type of "firearms" proscribed by federal law is "a destructive device," 26 U.S.C. section 5845(a)(8), defined by 26
U.S.C. section 5845(f) as, among other things, "any grenade ... [or] any combination of parts either designed or intended for use
in converting any device into a xx." A homemade explosive device is a destructive device within the meaning of section
5845(f) even though all of its components may be possessed legally. United States v. Campbell, 685 F.2d 131 (5th Cir. 1982).

Moreover, unassembled components fit within the definition of a destructive device if the defendant possesses every essential part necessary to construct an explosive device, and if those parts may be assembled readily. See United States v. Malone, 546 F.2d 1182 (5th Cir.1977) (reversing a conviction for possession of a grenade type destructive device where defendant did not possess gunpowder or other explosive material to arm it).

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/national-firearms-act-firearms.html#dummy-ammo


Q: What is the status of unloaded or dummy grenades, artillery shell casings, and similar devices?

   Unloaded or dummy grenades, artillery shell casings, and similar devices, which are cut or drilled in an ATF approved manner so that they cannot be used as ammunition components for destructive devices, are not considered NFA weapons.


Hm. If BATFE considers a DD as a firearm...

Q: What is an unserviceable firearm?

   An unserviceable firearm is defined as one which is incapable of discharging a shot by means of an explosive and which is incapable of being readily restored to a firing condition.

The term “destructive device” shall not include any device which is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon; any device, although originally designed for use as a weapon, which is redesigned for use as a signaling, pyrotechnic, line throwing, safety, or similar device

Well...

A M228 does not appear to be designed as a weapon, nor redesigned for use as a weapon.

It does, however, appear to have a use as a signalling or pyrotechnic device.


Also, how does this jibe with a flash bang type distraction device?

more research for others who will eventually find this thread...  save you some time.





http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/4684

10 U.S. Code § 4684 - Surplus obsolete ordnance: sale to patriotic organizations


Subject to regulations under section 121 of title 40, any branch, office, or officer designated by the Secretary of the Army may sell, without advertisement and at prices that he considers reasonable—
(1) surplus obsolete small arms and ammunition and equipment for them, to any patriotic organization for military purposes; and
(2) surplus obsolete brass or bronze cannons, carriages, and cannon balls, for public parks, public buildings, and soldiers’ monuments.


§4685. Obsolete ordnance: loan to educational institutions and State soldiers and sailors’ orphans’ homes

(a) Upon the recommendation of the governor of the State concerned or Guam or the Virgin Islands, the Secretary of the Army, under regulations to be prescribed by him and without cost to the United States for transportation, may lend obsolete ordnance and ordnance stores to State, Guam, and the Virgin Islands educational institutions and to State soldiers and sailors’ orphans’ homes, for drill and instruction. However, no loan may be made under this subsection to an institution to which ordnance or ordnance stores may be issued under any law that was in effect on June 30, 1906, and is still in effect.

(b) The Secretary shall require a bond from each institution or home to which property is lent under subsection (a), in double the value of the property lent, for the care and safekeeping of that property and, except for property properly expended, for its return when required.

§4686. Obsolete ordnance: gift to State homes for soldiers and sailors

Subject to regulations under section 121 of title 40, the Secretary of the Army may give not more than two obsolete bronze or iron cannons suitable for firing salutes to any home for soldiers or sailors established and maintained under State authority.

Bro, I hear you and see your frustration, BUT, I think this is the BATFE's bggest beef: THAT M228 FUZES HAVE BEEN FOUND IN DD (IED's).

No, I don't think AT ALL that an M228 would trigger a HIGH EXPLOSIVE DETONATION, but, it COULD trigger a low explosive initiation and hence a mechanical detonation.

So that is their beef.


I have no idea why a FB or Banger is considered a DD.  Maybe by NEW?


And you can call it an "igniter" or a "detonator" or a "fuze", it DOESN'T MATTER:

18 USC Statute 841

(d) Except for the purposes of subsections (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), and (j) ofsection 844 of this title, “explosives” means any chemical compound mixture, or device, the primary or common purpose of which is to function by explosion; the term includes, but is not limited to, dynamite and other high explosives, black powder, pellet powder, initiating explosives, detonators, safety fuses, squibs, detonating cord, igniter cord, and igniters. The Attorney General shall publish and revise at least annually in the Federal Register a list of these and any additional explosives which he determines to be within the coverage of this chapter. For the purposes of subsections (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), and (i) ofsection 844 of this title, the term “explosive” is defined in subsection (j) of such section 844.


I am NOT taking BATFE's side on this, just trying to understand myself WTH is going on.  This coupled with the M855 nonsense is shocking to me with the BATFE extending its reach and flexing its power.

Nonsense.



~Will

If the fuzes were illegal to transfer without a license, every manufacturer would have this on their website. They don't. They simply rarely sell them to the public because BATFE asked them not to.

Today, it's a silly fuze. What's it gonna be tomorrow?

The BATFE appears to have taken private property without just compensation in the Copley case.

I need to reread the Copley affidavit some more, and collect a few more affidavits involving M228 or M201 fuzes.


Will, you've done a great job representing the governments' interest in this particular case at bar. Now, play my side of the table. How could these be shown to be legal to possess sans license?

Shawn

Whoa buddy, I am not taking the GOV side, I am just trying to apply common sense and reasoning to why the ATF does the schiesse that they do.  Its a form of backwards planning in getting to know ones enemy to determine their next move or frustrate their strategy.  OODA loop & all.

How could these be shown to be legal?  I cannot justify the M228 unless it is used for its EXACT or intended purpose, as a training grenade FUZE for a fragmentary grenade.

But, according to the ATF these fuzes HAVE been found in pipe bombs and other non-registered DD's.

 What is the impact of restricting them?  People are forced to make their own.  OK.  Definitely the GOOD outweighs the BAD then.


Now, M201a1 fuzes could be used for legit SMOKE or CS grenades, which are useful for signalling, screening or releasing a riot control agent.  

Could they be used by bad guys as a BOOBYTRAP device?  Sure.  Have they been encountered?  I don't know.   I think the BAD outweighs the GOOD on this, as SMOKE GRENADES and CS have super legit uses (living near the back country mountains!)

I personally think FLASH BANGS should not be considered a DD or RESTRICTED item as they are NON LETHAL when used accordingly.

Misuse?  Well, thats the crux isn't it?

A screwdriver is commonly available, but, could be misused to inflict great bodily harm or death, but isn't regulated.  Only when it is MISUSED by an individual does it become an issue.

 I personally think that use of explosives or energetics in ANOTHER criminal endeavor (resisting arrest, criminal mischief, arson, violence against a person or object) which should invoke a mandatory minimum in sentencing as well as increase the crime to aggravated circumstances AND make the person ineligible for parole.

 Want to use explosives in a crime: DO THE TIME.

 Want to blow up stuff on your OWN property, without endangering ANYONE else: GO FOR IT.  But if during USE or STORAGE someone is injured, or doesn't like the sound of things going BOOM, then the user/storer has to suffer the penalties.  Fire dept's don't like stuff going BOOM while they are trying to help people or contain a fire.

 At least thats my interpretation.  I could be wrong.



~Will