ATF first came for the 40mm flares and now they're coming for the M781 chalk rounds. They've effectively killed the launcher hobby, you can own the launchers but not the ammo.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_6_2/448703_Well_ATF_Explosive_Ordinance_Disposal_is_coming_to_my_house_in_the_morning_.html&page=1

I dont see how they can ban the chalk rounds, there is nothing explosive about them other than the propellent used to shoot them through the air.

Are they banning them because there is to much powder in them? If so that means ALL DD could be confiscated, thats complete BS. Are they going to track down every legally registered cannon DD list and have them deactivate it too?

no.. a retarded acting branch chief gets an idea that all non small arm ammunition is subject to regulation as it is above 50 cal. publishes a letter and people run with it.

Nothing says anything about banning chalk rounds

Its no where in writing but In the other thread supposedly the guy who talked with the ATF agent who took his flare round said he was also picking up chalk rounds.

Maybe it is time to go buy a crate and bury it somewhere

Is there anything published yet?

Geez you have got to be kidding me!!! Guess i'll try to stock up on ammo while I still can. We'll see if they actually start going after the sellers of 40mm practice ammo though. I really hope they don't. Worst case I'll start loading my own ammo.

So herein lies the problem- ATF is holding that regular smokeless powder, when loaded as propellant in a cartridge larger than .50 cal, is considered a regulated explosive and would require the person possessing it to have a federal explosives license and approved storage magazine.  

Per ATF, you also aren't allowed to transport any such ammo on public roadways.  

This doesn't change/they aren't excepting home loaded ammo.  This effectively kills the entire destructive device community.

Sorry im confused by your last sentence.

Are they allowing hand/home reloaded ammo or not?

If they are allowing it then it really doesn't effect the DD community that much, most people were already loading their own ammo as is and you can just buy the components and assemble what you want.

If they are not allowing reloading and are considering any shell/device larger than .50 cal a explosive, then they essentially just shut down the whole DD part of the NFA. You can still own the grenade launcher or the cannon but you cant own the ammo for it.

How does this effect signal cannons that fire 12ga cartridges?

If one was to obtain a FEL, wouldn't that open up greater possibilities to them, such as purchasing commercial components, and having whatever quantities their storage magazine is rated for?

 

Also, can't one have a magazine in their vehicle? In the other thread, the person who had his round picked-up said the agent did. Industry people have to transport this stuff...

You cannot store anything overnight in a vehicle magazine.  You'll need separate magazines to store and transport the items.

Based on the wording of their letter, any loaded ammo over .50 cal is a controlled explosive device, whether or not it is home made.  After seeing the letter I called and inquired at both NFA and the explosives tech branch and was told that such is correct.

I was actually planning to contact them, thanks for saving me the time.

Im super pissed and thankful at the same time. Pissed as a M3 37mm AT cannon has been on my bucket list for some time, and thankful at this point that i didnt actually buy it and get screwed by this new rule.

The ATFs ability to "interpret" the existing laws as they see fit is getting scary. It seems like every few months they find a new type of firearm/ammo that is all of the sudden illegal despite having been around for decades (or sometimes a century or greater)

At some point they will declare all ammunition an "explosive" and confiscate it or limit people to only owning X rounds per home for pubic safety.

Honestly i cant believe this isnt getting more attention. Are people just throwing the towel?

So, according to the letter...

"Therefore, we have determined M992 IR 40 millimeter flares are low explosives subject to the requirements in 27 CFR, Part 555 - Commerce in Explosives. Individuals or companies acquiring M992 flares must possess a Federal explosives license or permit unless they are acquired pursuant to a Government contract."

So does that mean that if a person (normal citizen without any license) has any 40mm IR flares currently, they just became illegal to store? I don't see anything in the letter about current possession. Would ATF still want to "pick them up" if the individuals already in possession of them have a Type 4 explosives magazine, and store them within it?

I admit I know very little about federal explosives regulations... My current reading regarding a FEL indicates there are: licensees, holders of a user permit, and holders of a limited permit.




So now does this mean a person wanting to acquire more 40mm rounds now has to obtain one of these 3 credentials, and could then buy as many as they like, provided they're stored in a Type 4 (minimum) magazine?

Does the FEL have to be for business purposes? I recall reading a while back (after the FPS Russia raid) that it was established/held that making YouTube videos was an acceptable reason.









What about this part:


 

Below are the two government publications they are referencing.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/27/555.11
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.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2004-title27-vol2/pdf/CFR-2004-title27-vol2-sec555-141.pdf
555.141   Exemptions.
(a) General. Except for the provisions of §§ 555.180 and 555.181, this part does not apply to:
(1) Any aspect of the transportation of explosive materials via railroad, water, highway, or air which is regulated by the U.S. Department of Transportation and its agencies, and which pertains to safety. For example, regulations issued by the Department of Transportation addressing the security  risk of aliens transporting explosives by commercial motor or railroad carrier from Canada preclude the enforcement of 18 U.S.C. 842(i)(5) against persons shipping, transporting, receiving, or possessing explosives incident to and in connection with the commercial transportation of explosives by truck or rail from Canada into the United States. Questions concerning this exception should be directed to ATF’s Public Safety Branch in Washington, DC.
(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. ‘‘The United States Pharmacopeia and The National Formulary,’’ USP and NF Compendia, are available from the United States Pharmacopeial Convention, Inc., 12601 Twinbrook Parkway, Rockville, Mary-land 20852.
(3) The transportation, shipment, receipt, or importation of explosive materials for delivery to any agency of the United States or to any State or its political subdivision.
(4) Small arms ammunition and components of small arms ammunition.
(5) 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.
(6) Arsenals, navy yards, depots, or other establishments owned by, or operated by or on behalf of, the United States.
(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.’’
(8) Gasoline, fertilizers, propellant actuated devices, or propellant actuated industrial tools manufactured, imported, or distributed for their intended purposes.
(9) Industrial and laboratory chemicals which are intended for use as reagents and which are packaged and shipped pursuant to U.S. Department of Transportation regulations, 49 CFR Parts 100 to 177, which do not require explosives hazard warning labels.
(b) Black powder. Except for the provisions applicable to persons required to be licensed under subpart D, this part does not apply with respect to commercially manufactured black powder in quantities not to exceed 50 pounds, percussion caps, safety and pyrotechnic fuses, quills, quick and slow matches, and friction primers, if the black powder is intended to be used solely for sporting, recreational, or cultural purposes in antique firearms, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(16) or antique devices, as exempted from the term "destructive devices’’ in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(4).


FWIW ive read their letter 100 times now and from what i can discern this is whats going on...

The ATF has taken advantage of the grey area and lack of official definition of the ammunition used in NFA destructive devices. For example 40 MM chalk round is certainly not small arms based on the size, yet it lacks the quantity or type of propellent to truly be a high explosive.

Since they are not Small arms but do contain "explosive material" they are by the ATF's interpretation an explosive device. And because all explosive devices must be stored in secure and explosion resistant magazines this means that all DD ammo must be stored this way as well.

Now, since each DD round is considered an explosive they will have to be individually registered as a DD with a $200 tax stamp, and then stored in an approved magazine.

The only thing i can see that could be useful in a court case is from the list of exemptions in 555.141...
Gasoline, fertilizers, propellant actuated devices, or propellant actuated industrial tools manufactured, imported, or distributed for their intended purposes.

In the mean time while we figure out what the heck is going on, its worth nothing that black powder is exempt, so it is possible that for some of the devices, in particular the grenade launchers you should be able to switch to black powder and avoid all of the new imposed restrictions.

Just my interpretation.

You are looking at this wrong. We shouldn't even be discussing how to get permits at this point.  This has gone too far.  We should be discussing how to out maneuver ATF both politically and physically at this point.

If people roll over on this, they will take the next inch. We need to find someone with the capability and willingness to produce and sell this ammo regardless of the ATF. And we need to defend them however possible, both in politics, court, and by force of arms if necessary. No more bartering with this out of control agency. None.

Oh i agree, they are out of control, and if i had a big fat bank account I would be on the phone with a high paid lawyer right now working on a law suit, but sadly i dont have that kind of cash. And as mentioned before the DD community is so tiny there isnt enough political voice. If this were suppressors or SBRs everyone in the nation including the NRA would be up in arms. And if it were MGs there would be tens of thousands of very wealthy people throwing a fit threaten to stop funding their favorite congressmen. But DD, nothing, people who own DD are the gun nuts of gun nuts. Ive checked other websites and searched online and literally cant find anyone else discussing it, despite the fact that the OP claims the ATF agents were actively tracking down a list of people who had recently been sold Flare and Chalk rounds.

This administration has learned that passing anti-gun laws doesnt work and instead has turned to the ATF and is having them "reinterpret" already existing laws to get guns banned. The ATF has also learned its lesson trying to ban M855, they went to big to fast and have scaled back to picking the low hanging fruit.

So - you can still load & fire ammo the same day, but you can't store it overnight w/o a licensed magazine?  ETA:  Like all the binary explosives folks are using.

Over in the other thread, the member "Hard_Rock" posted this. Hopefully this will go somewhere. If nothing else, it's a good start.

"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."


http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_6_2/448703_Well_ATF_Explosive_Ordinance_Disposal_is_coming_to_my_house_in_the_morning_.html&page=3#i4378272

glad to see some people are finally taking notice.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/07/foghorn/atf-re-classifies-certain-flares-and-40mm-chalk-rounds-as-explosives-begins-confiscation/

Its a slow start but with enough attention hopefully we can get a law suit started against them.

Also, just out of curiosity, how are shotgun rounds effected...they are bigger than 50 cal, have explosive material and by their definition would be DD.

Specifically exempted due to sporting purpose in the DD definition.

The BATFE is rolling up MILITARY or LAW ENFORCEMENT ONLY ammunition that has been ILLEGALLY sold & distributed.

The 40mm M992 IR Flare was either erroneously sold OR stolen and sold (similar to the recent M228 fuze fiasco)

Nothing about CHALK rounds or other rounds, unless they have NEVER been for civilian sale or GOVT property and stolen then resold.

Nothing I type is gonna calm those that are easily spooked by INTERNET posts - though!



~Will

Then why is Hard Rock saying what he's saying in this and the other thread? Why are there others making very similar claims? Why did the ATF try to push an M855 ban? What about 41p? I could go on with several more examples...

I have bought and sold tens of thousands of dollars in DD ammo over the past 2 years, to include (in addition to the M228 fuze fiasco you mentioned) flares, smoke, and chalk for the 40mm, TP rounds that use 20ga blanks as spotting charges for mortars, and M201A1 fuzes, among other DD ammo.

With the exception of the M228 fuzes, I bought everything straight from the manufacturer.  Having had pretty extensive in person contact with the ATF during the months preceding my leaving the country, I can assure you that you are not correct William.  It happens that G.C. (Grog) recently had them take a lot of ammo from him as well, based on "improper storage".

 
That's exactly the point of my earlier post. I'm not suggesting that I should get a FEL because they changed the rules; I'm seeking clarification on exactly what ATF now believes requires a FEL. If they're saying Grog stored low explosives improperly, and that was/is the basis of their new confiscation scheme, then what is their new "correct answer"? Should Grog have simply stored his goodies in a Type 4 magazine, or do they believe he should have a FEL to do that now, or what?




What is BATFE's "new, correct method" of both keeping what one currently has, and obtaining more 40mm devices in the future? It appears to me they're saying one now must have a FEL to keep what they currently have, and would need a FEL plus a government contract to obtain future devices, only pursuant to that contract. Then what happens when your contract is up? They don't say.




I want to know exactly what they're saying first.




This obviously leads to more questions.... Will they issue a FEL for situations like this? They should, right, if that's what they're suggesting the new requirement is. Before any discussion of how to get a permit, I really want to know exactly why they believe I may need one, which is apparently the new "rub".




I don't agree with any more restrictive rule changes, nor more restrictive interpretations at all.  I do want to fight for our rights. I want the NRA to fight for them as well. The NRA has a poor track record for being supportive of Title II/NFA firearms, but has shown much improvement in the last decade or so. IF this is the developing situation it appears to be, then this is an excellent opportunity for the NRA to stand up and show their commitment to 2A rights.






 

Well.....  I waited way too long to stock back up on 40mm stuff now I guess.

No.  

It was seized as it was STOLEN property, illegally transferred to GROG.

I stand by my original comment.

~Will

who wrote this clarrification letter on the M992 rounds ? why do these Asshats even write letters ?

How do you know that it was stolen property, did Grog tell you that? I never saw him make any mention of that anywhere on his forum. And if they're being seized because of improper sale or that their stolen, why do the agents always use the excuse of "improper storage" instead of telling the actual reason. Another person on grog's forum said that "improper storage" was the reason listed for the seizure as entered on Form 2400.23 and I've also seen another pdf of a 2400.23 with "improper storage" written in as the basis of seizure, so no, they're going after them for more than just being stolen.

Grog has talked about this specifically on his forum.  He posted that he spoke to the ATF EOD guys who came, and asked them specifically if the ATF was restricting M781. They told him they absolutely weren't, and even refused to take the M781 and other types of rounds he had and showed them.



If its not okay to post what was stated on the other forum, i'll gladly edit this.  Otherwise, I suggest getting an account at Grogs website so you can read precisely what he wrote.

This is correct.  He said nothing about M781 being confiscated.  It was only smoke, flare, and illum ammunition.  He said the local ATF guy he spoke to said M781 is ok.  There is disconnect between the various field offices.  

Posting this in here for more people to see.

Greetings,

My first post to this section...........as of now I don't own and DD category items, but have been contemplating a mortar build in the future. Anyway, I just wanted to pass on some research I've been doing into the recent ATFE goings on. I'm not sure many are aware of the recent concept called "Unified Agenda". Ostensibly, it is to make uniform and efficient changes at all the regulatory agencies, in concert with the direction from the administration.  In fact, it's an end run around a congress that was not willing to follow the administrations wishes on their important issues (gun control among other things). There are laws passed by congress and there are regulations promulgated by agencies; both affect us in pretty much the same way. For example, congress gives the EPA power to enforce/change/re-interpret/amend regulations consistent with it's initial goals, and we have to follow those regulations under threat of fine, forfeiture, imprisonment, etc.. In the case of the recent UA (last few years), the administration has bypassed congress to impose its will via agency regulation.

SO, let's look at the agency that can have the most affect on our activities; specifically ATFE (though EPA is also to be carefully watched and a close second). Follow this link:

http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaMain?operation=OPERATION_GET_AGENCY_RULE_LIST¤tPub=true&agencyCode=&showStage=active&agencyCd=1100&Image58.x=42&Image58.y=20&Image58=Submit

and scroll down the DOJ list to where ATFE is. What you will see are about 19 proposed "rules changes". The table will have columns for "status", a brief explanation, and then a numerical hot link. Pick any of them and start reading. This will bring you to a dedicated page for that specific rule change. What you'll likely find (I haven't' read all of the yet) is a very ambiguous statement that doesn't really say much of anything, but does show the current status and WHO to contact regarding it.. What got me started on this was the proposed change # 1140-AA23. This has to do with a reclassification of some type regarding pistols and their definition under the NFA. I spent about a half hour on the phone with an ATFE attorney trying to find out what exactly this rule change was about. The essence of the conversation was pretty much that they didn't have to tell me anything during the period the change was being worked out. When it's complete, it will be posted on the ATFE web site. Problem being (from what I was able to understand), that as the comments periods for most of these changes are long over, when the final wording is posted, it essentially becomes "law" via regulatory decree. I'm trying to get my US rep and senators interested in pursuing this specific issue, and I'd suggest the DD community read up on the other proposed changes and do the same. FWIW, my guess at this point regarding 1140-AA23 is the reclassification of "large frame" hand gun lower receivers that can accept "rifle" ammo to be under the NFA regulations like SBRs, etc.. My guess has been concurred with by a legislative aid, but of course nothing official or in writing yet.

Sorry for the long post, I've been trying to get attention to this new method the federal government is using to bypass congress and the people. We need more watch dogs keeping an eye open as they function best behind closed doors.

Regards, Jim

PS:  I believe the rules change pertinent that you guys are discussing would be here:

http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201504&RIN=1140-AA00

Hi Jim,

 Informative, but I don't believe this is where this thread was going.  There seemed a more nefarious intent by the BATFE and a bit more misunderstanding of what is ACTUALLY going on.

I completely understand folks being skittish, as the BATFE has been doing some whacky things lately, with the M855 shenanigans and GUN RUNNER and who knows WHAT ELSE that hasn't been disclosed!

Being critical of our Government is a GOOD THING and OUR RIGHT!!!  Ever vigilant!

But, let's take a look at what you linked to:



For more reading on the subject there is the FEDERAL REGISTER

To clear up some misconceptions about the ATF at Grog's house, I'll post the encounter and reason for same here.

1. The ATF were not here because of any storage violation, or any violation that I committed. Matter of fact, they were quite specific that I did nothing wrong.

2. The reason they are trying to get all that ord back is because it was transferred illegally from a third party, not the manufacturer, but someone who was properly licensed, but decided to make some quick cash by selling things he should have only sold to other explosives licensees, without the proper paperwork.

IF the paper trail had been done right, there would have been no problem, but since this douche decided to go about things the wrong way, I, and a few others are out some cash. It is an annoyance, nothing more.

In order for those rounds to have been properly sold, the manufacturer has a paper trail on each case or lot number of items. Those are transferred via paper to the end user, who also needs to have the proper storage and license for same item.

ATF advised me that even if I had the proper license, and storage (which I do have BTW) they would still confiscate the items because they were transferred illegally, with no paperwork. THAT is the reason they are coming after these items, not storage or licensing issues. This came right from ATF DC EOD tech, who came here because he knows of me, and that I know the rounds in question. The other two guys with him didn't offer much...

The whole problem is because one douche decided to make some quick cash by selling things in a way he knew to be wrong, and we got to pay for it... well, he will be paying for it later, but for now it's us who doled out the cash.

I was told directly by the EOD guy that this was only concerning the things sold by Whisper Tech, and Ohio Ord, and anyone who got them from those sources. It had nothing to do with 781 practice, or anything else powered by a 38 blank. I came out with a green tipped sponge round, directly from military sources, and he didn't want it. He said that those are not a problem to have, as they do not contain more than .25oz of explosives or explosive mixtures, and were not, as far as he knew, transferred illegally. I have his contact info if anyone desired to write.

Oh, and I've been on vacation for a while, so that's why no e-mail response or post checking. I am, after all, retired. :) GROG

So basically this is an isolated incident and DD owners should not be concerned?

The wording in that letter made it seem as if almost any DD could be confiscated, especial since some of the larger ordinance holds many oz of powder.

Greetings,

William, thank you for the informative post and clarifications. As I may have inferred, DDs and Explosives are not my specific area of study/expertise. In reading through the document I linked to, it seemed to me ATFE was *expanding* it's powers, perhaps beyond congressional mandate. I certainly don't want to be the alarmist "sky is falling" guy, but as you mention, following the Russian ammo import ban and the attempt of same with M-855, I must say I'm very concerned with any potential expansion of power by an agency whom I believe has previously shown its true stripes.

My other reason for posting here was the  essentially one sided "conversation" with the ATFE attorney regarding the " change in definitions of pistol, re: NFA". The fact she wasn't willing to even provide the slightest bit of clarification on a very vague sentence that was posted had me concerned they are up to far more than meets the eye. About the only clarification I was able to get from her is that during their review process, they are not willing/able to make any comment whatsoever beyond that initial statement.

 Having an interest in DDs and doing some initial reading up on things, I understand  DD enthusiasts to be a minority of a minority of a minority. I'd doubt a similar out cry and reaction from the general gun public, NRA, GOA, etc. would  occur as did with the 855 issue and wanted to post what I saw as a possible further infringement by regulation.




Thank you also for the link to the Federal Register article; it's going to take me some time to read and digest that one. My hope is that more of our freedoms are not gradually whittled away by agencies attempting to satisfy temporary political expedient.


Regards, Jim

Yeah, its a tough read unless one is familiar with the explosives industry.

I too am concerned about the expansion of powers or reach of many GOV'T agencies, but, we need to call off the dogs, THIS CASE isn't the one to get ALL SPUN UP ON and exhaust any time & energy on!

There is no reasoning with some folks though, as they are a LIGHT SWITCH - FULL ON or OFF     no in between.

The Explosives Industry has a lot of money, and there is a lot of business riding on explosives still being an economical power tool.  These regulations are pretty much industry standard and in line with corporate practices, its the smaller mining organizations & fly-by-night HME training contractors that fall WAY short of industry best practices.

Hence, NEW REGULATIONS with CRIMINAL PENALTIES for violators.


The BATFE's big goto PHRASING for munitions is COMMONLY AVAILABLE or INTENDED FOR MILITARY or LAW ENFORCEMENT USE.  (The second paragraph & first sentence: HERE

That phrasing is going to be restricting the transfer of a lot of MILITARY or LE property amongst individuals or signaling the investigation of stolen or illegally transferred property.

Meaning, there is NO SUCH THING as a DEMILITARIZED LIVE ORIGINAL MILITARY MUNITION - RELOADED is a COMPLETELY different circumstance, as that is LEGAL in some instances (flares, smokes, TP, etc), NOT for DD's unless done accordingly!

So if someone has a MILITARY or LE only munition, with LOT NUMBER (which can be tracked to see if it has ever been LEGALLY transferred to civvie hands) then they need to figure out the legality of being in possession of such materials.

 Another option could be to make it APPEAR to have been fired & THEN reloaded...  But that's on the possessor.

Just as an FYI, I could be way wrong too.

~Will

So, the sky is not falling - shitty people doing shitty things causes shitty things to happen to other innocent people?  

...but I should not let up on convincing the better half to let me buy an M203?  

~Augee

No, the sky is not falling. Just one guy who decided to make some cash by selling "overstock" that he shouldn't have sold. He knew better. We were just innocent consumers doing what we do best, finding cool shit to buy. :)

I should point out that my property is surrounded by a fence, and four German Shepherds, so they never entered my property. The entire "transaction" if you want to call it that, took place at my front gate. They did not enter my house, nor did they ask to search anything, or to see any of my DD paperwork. (They already did that research before they arrived.) They were cool to me, and took the time to explain things that I had questions about. I did not agree with a few points, and voiced my concerns. I brought the items they were looking for out to them, and handed then through the gate. Now, if you have a similar encounter, and invite them in, or take them to your cool stuff stash, then don't be suprised if they start grabbing stuff... especially if you get someone who doesn't know what they are doing.

No,,, never let up Augee. She will relent sooner or later. There is still plenty of cool shit to do with a 203 and 79. That's why I prefer smokeless, as I shoot mine a LOT and hate black powder clean up. Reloadableshells,com has some nice tri-barrel that work fantastic for firing flechettes. I am currently working on chronoing a few, and testing the pressure boundries.

We, in the hobby, could not buy HE or HEDP anyway, and most of the clusters and flares we have are 'Nam era stock. It was nice to have access to some new stuff for a while anyway. I was happy for a while, and still ended up with some nice items. (Of which I provided the corresponding empty casings in return...) I just need to find a way of getting my money back from said douche. GROG

Ha.

Only marginally related - but I was once in a unit that had managed to lose... a lot... of equipment redeploying.  

They tried to tell everyone to "bring in all the military gear that you have" and started trying to take up all of everyone's everything, including personally purchased stuff, stuff that wasn't issued by our unit ever, and even Haji sewn stuff, if it happened to be military-ish.  Refused to show you your hand-receipt or clothing record as well.

I showed up to my layout with a flaccid duffel bag, a canteen, an unused helmet cover, and a shelter half.  

Supply Sergeant started asking "well where's this?  You're going to get a statement of charges."  I said, "oh wait, I think that's in my car..." and ran out to grab it.  "Is that everything you have?"  "Yup."  "Well where's this?"  "Oh, you know... I must've forgot to get that when I went out to the car..."

This repeated itself an embarrassing number of times before he finally realized that I wasn't going to bring him anything he didn't have documentation for me having, and let me have my damn clothing record so I could go fetch the stuff I was signed for.  

We were all square after that.  

~Augee

 Outstanding.

Ok this is what I was thinking happened.  An isolated incident to someone/company selling shit they shouldn't and the ATF trying to get it all back.  






So in short for the part time M203 users.......

Chalk rounds are still G2G?
Either reloaded at home or bought from a store (a store selling the correctly transfered ones?)


Loom rounds are still ok just not the new MFG ones due to douche company?

The letter, and their current actions only applies to M992 rounds, but the reasoning they used to justify it applies to all large bore ammo.   While they are not going after anything else now, they have stuck their foot in the door with this letter to ban any and all large bore ammo.

Unless they are previous ONLY MIL or LE rounds as per CONTRACT, not intended for sale to CIVILIANS. (Smoke grenades...)

RELOADED Illum & others (except DD/'Explosive' rounds) are still OK.

Confused...?  Yeah, so is everyone else...  Including most of the BATFE EEO's.

~Will

Hahah wat?

So say I know a guy with a bunch of loom rounds date stamped 70s era.  They ok?




My take on this is 40mm ammo was made for the gumment under contract, the maker slid some out the back door to vendors who sold to the public so technically it's stolen gumment property so the ATF is trying to get it back.  

Am I close?

Maybe.  Some 40mm stuff was not so tightly controlled back in the day.  Until the GOV Property is DEMIL'ed then its STILL GOV property.

Not alot of folks getting rolled up for illum, slap flares, whistle trips & smoke grenades though.

Rumors are that the BATFE is going to be more aggressive though.  Sequestration budgets and all.

The MIL doesn't give a damn about former MIL smoke grenades & pyro though (currently - that could change with an executive order!)




Close.

Its not OFFICIALLY GOV property until it is ACCEPTED by the GOV

BUT, part of the CONTRACT is that it is either for MIL or LE use only, NOT for sale to the public (and INDIRECTLY our overseas military adversaries) even the contract over-run stuff is supposed to be optioned to the GOV to buy, donated, destroyed or used for research by the company.  Many times it gets DONATED to LE.

So when the rounds leave after closing hours off the loading dock, or in a workers lunch box, then the MANUFACTURER is SUPPOSED to report them as missing controlled items, possibly pilfered items.  But, many of the companies DON'T report - cause too many missing rounds can negatively effect/affect them getting future contracts (poor performance criteria - even for SOLE SOURCE companies).

Even though its CORPORATE property (controlled under contract agreements), its not SUPPOSED to be released to the public as per the contract agreement, cause then our military adversaries can more easily exploit the items.

For instance, IR.  IR flares burn and emit light in a certain wavelength or frequency of light.  To the naked eye it may look like a red glow in the sky, but, to the proper NVD its like daylight.  To some other NVD's you may see a little light, but not the full illumination spectrum.  If our military adversaries can exploit these rounds they can use filters or redesign their NVD's to work better with our flares, or fine tune their flares to not work with our NVDs.

Spy vs Spy stuff, not the nefarious "GUV'MINT STOMPING ON MAH RAIGHTS!"

~Will

Hahahah.  Yea I knew all the "MUH RIGHTS" screaming usuals were pissing their pants as usual.  Don't get me wrong it's still annoying as fuck the ATF is starting to play games with the 40mm stuff but this is due to people almost within our community trying to either make a few bucks or seeing how stupid it is to destroy the ammo.  Then the ATF reacting to that, not the ATF suddenly wanting to start shit like a few months ago.

I hope the BATFE has slowed their role after the last debacle with M855 - I could be wrong on the above assessment, but thats my take with talking to BATFE EEO's and other MIL EOD folks.

Just as an FYI for everyone: Explosive Ordnance Disposal, is a title in the USA awarded to MILITARY EOD only that have completed NAVSCOLEOD AND spent at least 18 months to get through the probationary time as an EOD Basic Badge.

Saying a police officer or BATFE is EOD is like saying a civilian or Police PARATROOPER or a Police JTAC.

Its just doesn't jive.

A BATFE EEO can be a FORMER EOD guy, but, not CURRENTLY EOD (Unless they are also in the Reserves/NG)

Most police bomb squad are 6 week wonders out of Redstone Alabama (100% pass rate - no-one fails out!).  Not the 1 year long NAVSCOLEOD graduates (80% attrition rate!!!)  who then go on for about 3-5 years more training before becoming an EOD TEAM LEADER.

Yeah, another gem clear as mud with caveats...

~Will