PDA

View Full Version : Tannerite (il)legality challenged


killmime1234
08-05-2012, 4:54 PM
I've been hearing a lot of talk in off-topic by some of the more educated minds that tannerite is, and has always been illegal here on CA. This is the supporting PC:

Penal Code 16460
(a) As used in Sections 16510, 16520, and 16780, and in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 18710) of Division 5 of Title 2, "destructive device" includes any of the following weapons:
(6) Any sealed device containing dry ice (CO2) or other chemically reactive substances assembled for the purpose of causing an explosion by a chemical reaction.

Penal Code 18720
Every person who possesses any substance, material, or any combination of substances or materials, with the intent to make any destructive device or any explosive without first obtaining a valid permit to make that destructive device or explosive, is guilty of a felony, and is punishable by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 for two, three, or four years.

Penal Code 18710
(a) Except as provided by this chapter, any person, firm, or corporation who, within this state, possesses any destructive device, other than fixed ammunition of a caliber greater than .60 caliber, is guilty of a public offense.
(b) A person, firm, or corporation who is convicted of an offense under subdivision (a) shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a term not to exceed one year, or in state prison, or by a fine not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by both this fine and imprisonment.

So, I have two thoughts on this:
1.) it seems to me that tannerite that is in an open-topped container is still legal.
2.) furthermore, "sealed" is not defined. If you were to take common usage of the term, it could be required to have a level of permanence. I can't return an opened jar of pickles to the store because, even though the lid is screwed on it, it is no longer "sealed."

I'm curious your thoughts on this.

ptoguy2002
08-05-2012, 5:07 PM
http://archvillain.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/not-this-again.jpg

BigDogatPlay
08-05-2012, 5:32 PM
Mixing the two components creates a DD under California law, IMO. The small pre-made targets you can buy over the counter are one thing. Mixing up a couple pounds of the finished product yourself is something completely different.

Sealed, or to seal, is defined in the dictionary and those definitions are what a court will rely on for the meaning of the word

CSACANNONEER
08-05-2012, 5:33 PM
Let's leave this alone for now and put our time, energy and funds where they need to go at this time. Maybe, at some later date, we can tackle this topic.

curtisfong
08-05-2012, 5:36 PM
More importantly, when solid dry ice or LN2 turn into a gas, it isn't a chemical reaction.

This alone should tell you all you need to know about the stupidity of our legislators.

phrogg111
08-05-2012, 5:40 PM
More importantly, when solid dry ice or LN2 turn into a gas, it isn't a chemical reaction.

This alone should tell you all you need to know about the stupidity of our legislators.

I think they wanted to ban all chemical reactions AND only dry ice.

A sealed container with a bunch of baking soda and vinegar is still legal. :D

curtisfong
08-05-2012, 5:44 PM
The real problem though, is that a 2-liter bottle has a very very high bursting pressure. There are innumerable ways of building large pressures in a bottle, slowly.

If they truly wanted to keep people "safe", they would legislate the manufacture of bottles than can contain pressures higher than an arbitrarily "safe" number.

jaymz
08-05-2012, 5:55 PM
Sealed, or to seal, is defined in the dictionary and those definitions are what a court will rely on for the meaning of the word

"Trigger" (as in firearms), is also defined in the dictionary. There are many people here, with one in particular that stands out in my mind, that says having a certain rifle stock installed creates a "multi-burst trigger". I think that's 100% wrong, but my point is that dictionary definitions don't necessarily mean squat in a courtroom.

killmime1234
08-05-2012, 7:46 PM
I didn't realize I was going to open pandora's box.

Anyway, it just appears pretty black and white to me that unless tannerite were in a closed container, it would be legal. I can't think of any possible way that tannerite mixed in a topless container could constitute a constructive device under 16460.

Farrier-1
08-05-2012, 8:10 PM
Enough already

FLIGHT762
08-05-2012, 8:51 PM
I didn't realize I was going to open pandora's box.

Anyway, it just appears pretty black and white to me that unless tannerite were in a closed container, it would be legal. I can't think of any possible way that tannerite mixed in a topless container could constitute a constructive device under 16460.

It's not a destructive device, it's an explosive as defined in section 12000 of the California Health and safety code, therefore, Penal code section 18720 (possession of an explosive) would apply, not Penal code section 16460 as you are citing here.

wildhawker
08-05-2012, 9:02 PM
People have been arrested. Tannerite refuses to give us supporting evidence going to the product being legal in California. DOJ think's it's illegal. The DA's seem to think so, too.

-Brandon

dantodd
08-05-2012, 9:47 PM
People have been arrested. Tannerite refuses to give us supporting evidence going to the product being legal in California. DOJ think's it's illegal. The DA's seem to think so, too.

-Brandon

Arrested, convicted and now a has a criminal record, at least one that I know of.

mmayer707
08-05-2012, 10:22 PM
They sell the stuff at my local gun shop. If you happen to shoot it, I would suggest you do it at a very out of the way place. Then, I really don't see a problem. Don't flaunt it and you should be fine.

tenpercentfirearms
08-06-2012, 6:49 AM
They sell the stuff at my local gun shop. If you happen to shoot it, I would suggest you do it at a very out of the way place. Then, I really don't see a problem. Don't flaunt it and you should be fine.

See my explanation here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=8909094&postcount=48) why this is a bad mindset to have.

I mean really, why stop with Tannerite? If Ten Percent Firearms started selling short barreled rifles, just keep them hidden out of the way, and don't flaunt them and you should be fine. I heard a gun dealer up north was selling machine guns. Don't flaunt them and you should be fine. Destructive devices? Don't flaunt them and you should be fine.

Either what you have is legal or it isn't. If you aren't 100% sure then you are either willing to put your rights and financial future on the line to prove it is or you are not.

I am in the are not category. My rights and financial future are not worth blowing up some lidless containers in a fire prone area. That is my decision and the rest of you will have to make your own.

strongpoint
08-06-2012, 3:15 PM
More importantly, when solid dry ice or LN2 turn into a gas, it isn't a chemical reaction.

a phase transition isn't a chemical reaction? legitimate question, but as i think about it, i suppose it dwells more in the realm of physics.


"Trigger" (as in firearms), is also defined in the dictionary. There are many people here, with one in particular that stands out in my mind, that says having a certain rifle stock installed creates a "multi-burst trigger". I think that's 100% wrong, but my point is that dictionary definitions don't necessarily mean squat in a courtroom.

your final point is certainly valid, but the example you cite causes confusion only because people think about it backwards. start with the definition, not the label: does a given device meet definition (x)? if so, then the law calls it (y) and it's illegal -- but the words that make up (y) aren't relevant to the definition. if the law in question doesn't define some specific term, THEN you turn to the dictionary for the common meaning.

killmime1234
08-06-2012, 5:48 PM
It's not a destructive device, it's an explosive as defined in section 12000 of the California Health and safety code, therefore, Penal code section 18720 (possession of an explosive) would apply, not Penal code section 16460 as you are citing here.

That is interesting. I had not heard that yet. You've got me thinking so I delved into the Health and Safety Code and found this:

HSC 12000
For the purposes of this part, "explosives" means any
substance, or combination of substances, the primary or common
purpose of which is detonation or rapid combustion, and which is
capable of a relatively instantaneous or rapid release of gas and
heat, or any substance, the primary purpose of which, when combined
with others, is to form a substance capable of a relatively
instantaneous or rapid release of gas and heat. "Explosives"
includes, but is not limited to, any explosives as defined in Section
841 of Title 18 of the United States Code and published pursuant to
Section 555.23 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and
any of the following:
(a) Dynamite, nitroglycerine, picric acid, lead azide, fulminate
of mercury, black powder, smokeless powder, propellant explosives,
detonating primers, blasting caps, or commercial boosters.
(b) Substances determined to be division 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, or 1.6
explosives as classified by the United States Department of
Transportation.
(c) Nitro carbo nitrate substances (blasting agent) classified as
division 1.5 explosives by the United States Department of
Transportation.
(d) Any material designated as an explosive by the State Fire
Marshal. The designation shall be made pursuant to the classification
standards established by the United States Department of
Transportation. The State Fire Marshal shall adopt regulations in
accordance with the Government Code to establish procedures for the
classification and designation of explosive materials or explosive
devices that are not under the jurisdiction of the United States
Department of Transportation pursuant to provisions of Section 841 of
Title 18 of the United States Code and published pursuant to Section
555.23 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations that define
explosives.
(e) Certain division 1.4 explosives as designated by the United
States Department of Transportation when listed in regulations
adopted by the State Fire Marshal.
(f) For the purposes of this part, "explosives" does not include
any destructive device, as defined in Section 16460 of the Penal
Code, nor does it include ammunition or small arms primers
manufactured for use in shotguns, rifles, and pistols.


Seems pretty cut and dry that it's illegal. Except... there is an exemption in HSC 12001:


12001
This part does not apply to any of the following:
(a) Any person engaged in the transportation of explosives
regulated by, and when subject to, the provisions of Division 14
(commencing with Section 31600) of the Vehicle Code.
(b) Small arms ammunition of .75 caliber or less when designated
as a division 1.4 explosive by the United States Department of
Transportation.
(c) Fireworks regulated under Part 2 (commencing with Section
12500) of this division, including, but not limited to, special
effects pyrotechnics regulated by the State Fire Marshal pursuant to
Section 12555.
....

HSC 12511
12511. "Fireworks" means any device containing chemical elements
and chemical compounds capable of burning independently of the oxygen of the atmosphere and producing audible, visual, mechanical, or
thermal effects which are useful as pyrotechnic devices or for
entertainment.
The term "fireworks" includes, but is not limited to, devices
designated by the manufacturer as fireworks, torpedoes, skyrockets,
roman candles, rockets, Daygo bombs, sparklers, party poppers, paper
caps, chasers, fountains, smoke sparks, aerial bombs, and fireworks
kits.


Tannerite can be detonated in a container sealed off from the atmosphere and it does produce audible and visible effects for the purpose of pyrotechnics or entertainment. I think that, legally speaking, tannerite is a firework. Granted fireworks are illegal in most CA counties, but I can't see it being define as an explosive. That's not to say that a court has not disagreed with me, as it sounds like there are several that have. Just my $.02.

stix213
08-06-2012, 6:04 PM
Refute Bwiese's legal-fu, and be prepared to beat your local DA with your own self funded legal defense, or accept it is illegal

{extracted from another post, really more relevant here }

Tannerite keeps rearing its ugly head on these forums. Tannerite is a (purportedly Federally legal) compound that makes big booms.

I note no legal material quoted by Tannerite deals with California legal issues. And Tannerite is from an Oregon dude who probably has no idea of our laws & restrictions.

I'm pretty confident that anything that goes boom, with some notable exceptions for 'safe & sane' fireworks and gunpowder for reloading, is most likely a no-no. Hell, CA even bans putting dry ice and water in a bottle as an explosive device!

Here's the relevant Penal Code stuff - look at underlined/bolded areas:


12301PC (a) The term "destructive device," as used in this chapter, shall include any of the following weapons: (1) Any projectile containing any explosive or incendiary material or any other chemical substance, including, but not limited to, that which is commonly known as tracer or incendiary ammunition, except tracer ammunition manufactured for use in shotguns.

(2) Any bomb, grenade, explosive missile, or similar device or any launching device therefor.

(3) Any weapon of a caliber greater than 0.60 caliber which fires fixed ammunition, or any ammunition therefor, other than a shotgun (smooth or rifled bore).... {snipped as not relevant to Tannerite issue}

(4) Any rocket, rocket-propelled projectile, or similar device of a diameter greater than 0.60 inch, or any launching device therefor, {...snip...} except those devices as are designed primarily for emergency or distress signaling purposes.

(5) Any breakable container which contains a flammable liquid with a flashpoint of 150 degrees Fahrenheit or less and has a wick or similar device capable of being ignited, other than a device which is commercially manufactured primarily for the purpose of illumination.

(6) Any sealed device containing dry ice (CO2) or other chemically reactive substances assembled for the purpose of causing an explosion by a chemical reaction.

(b) The term "explosive," as used in this chapter, shall mean any explosive defined in Section 12000 of the Health and Safety Code.


So CA Penal code sec. 12301(a)(6) would readily describe any combinations of chemicals in a container, producing a large amount of gas/heat in a very short time span, as a 'destructive device'. Perhaps if it were an open container that might help - but if you were popped after the explosion, it gets hairy.

CA 12303PC sets up general prohibitions for possession of destructive devices:

12303PC Any person, firm, or corporation who, within this state, possesses any destructive device, other than fixed ammunition of a caliber greater than .60 caliber, except as provided by this chapter, is guilty of a public offense and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a term not to exceed one year, or in state prison, or by a fine not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or by both such fine and imprisonment.

We have some 'escalator' penalties for transportation - could include driving your Tannerite around in certain situations:

12303PC. Every person who willfully does any of the following is guilty of a felony and is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for two, four, or six years:
(a) Carries any explosive or destructive device on any vessel, aircraft, car, or other vehicle that transports passengers for hire.
(b) Places or carries any explosive or destructive device, while on board any such vessel, aircraft, car or other vehicle, in any hand baggage, roll, or other container.
(c) Places any explosive or destructive device in any baggage which is later checked with any common carrier.

Plus, there's reduced wiggle room in court:

12311PC. No person convicted of a violation of this chapter shall be granted probation, and the execution of the sentence imposed upon such person shall not be suspended by the court.

Finally, we have treatment of "constructive possession" of the precursor compounds:

12312PC. Every person who possesses any substance, material, or any combination of substances or materials, with the intent to make any destructive device or any explosive without first obtaining a valid permit to make such destructive device or explosive, is guilty of a felony, and is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years.

Thus, having unmixed Tannerite precursor binary components is likely just as bad an offense as actually having mixed Tannerite!

Y'all've been warned.




http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=62011

Capybara
08-06-2012, 6:07 PM
This reminds me of the Slide Fire arguments. People want so badly to believe that something fun would be legal in California. I agree with the brilliant legal minds who post here, would not be worth challenging or finding out if your local DA needs a new showboating opportunity to justify his paycheck.

curtisfong
08-06-2012, 6:10 PM
Bottom line: if it is fun, it is banned in CA.

killmime1234
08-06-2012, 7:18 PM
Refute Bwiese's legal-fu, and be prepared to beat your local DA with your own self funded legal defense, or accept it is illegal






http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=62011

I completely agree with Bill's assertion above. He says that tannerite in a (sealed) container is a DD. You'll note that his exact words:

So CA Penal code sec. 12301(a)(6) would readily describe any combinations of chemicals in a container, producing a large amount of gas/heat in a very short time span, as a 'destructive device'. Perhaps if it were an open container that might help - but if you were popped after the explosion, it gets hairy.

The actual penal code is actually more specific and says that it must be in a "sealed" container. I still maintain that if it is in an open-topped container, then it cannot be a DD per 12301.

Also, please everyone who believes that I am arguing this because "I just want to have in CA oh so bad," I am not. I've never blown the stuff up myself. I probably never will. My motivation for this thread is that I saw on another thread which code is believed to make tannerite illegal and I disagree with that conclusion. I really have no personal interest in it being legal or illegal. I'm sure there are many people who do want it to be legal much more so than myself so I'm trying to point out why they should maybe stop and question the nay-sayers.

FLIGHT762
08-06-2012, 9:12 PM
The only issue in your theory of Tannerite being a firework is Tannerite by definition is a Binary Explosive:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_explosive


Your Attorney can explain all of the references you've cited here to the Jury.

Good luck.

corrosively_armed
08-06-2012, 9:25 PM
I have yet to see in this thread why it was made illegal. Has someone killed themselves or someone else with it or have they destroyed property? You can't remotely detonate it without a gunshot or assumeably a blasting cap. You aren't lighting it with a fuse which creates a dangerous indeterminate time which was something that got firecrackers banned. It's only exploded from a distance as part of target shooting. I could see it banned in fire danger areas of course but I could see all shooting banned in fire danger areas... Although frankly those restrictions are a stretch as I have seen videos of tracer rounds fired into tanks of gasoline without any ignition.

stix213
08-06-2012, 10:28 PM
I completely agree with Bill's assertion above. He says that tannerite in a (sealed) container is a DD. You'll note that his exact words:



The actual penal code is actually more specific and says that it must be in a "sealed" container. I still maintain that if it is in an open-topped container, then it cannot be a DD per 12301.

Also, please everyone who believes that I am arguing this because "I just want to have in CA oh so bad," I am not. I've never blown the stuff up myself. I probably never will. My motivation for this thread is that I saw on another thread which code is believed to make tannerite illegal and I disagree with that conclusion. I really have no personal interest in it being legal or illegal. I'm sure there are many people who do want it to be legal much more so than myself so I'm trying to point out why they should maybe stop and question the nay-sayers.

You must have skipped the "constructive possession" part of his argument then, which has always been the most convincing to me.

Falstaff
08-06-2012, 10:39 PM
The real problem though, is that a 2-liter bottle has a very very high bursting pressure. There are innumerable ways of building large pressures in a bottle, slowly.

If they truly wanted to keep people "safe", they would legislate the manufacture of bottles than can contain pressures higher than an arbitrarily "safe" number.

Not really, I've actually tested them, they pop at around 150-175 psi
I used to fill them with air pressure (after inserting shraeder valve in cap) and shoot them with pellet gun (poor man's reactive target heh) The old 7up bottles that had the green cup on the bottom could hold almost 200psi

GrizFyrFyter
08-06-2012, 10:41 PM
From my understanding of the chemical reaction that causes tannerite to explode and a VERY thorough understanding of fire behavior, a bullet hitting a rock is the only fire danger.

Sent from my Nexus 7

Falstaff
08-06-2012, 10:42 PM
Where is this mythical "tried, convicted now with criminal record" tannerite guy that gets trotted out in every tannerite thread? Should be public record, no?

IrishPirate
08-06-2012, 10:44 PM
a phase transition isn't a chemical reaction? legitimate question, but as i think about it, i suppose it dwells more in the realm of physics.


no, it's not. It's a phase transition. Same chemical compound, just in a different physical state. Ice melting on the sidewalk is not a chemical reaction, but pouring salt on ice to make it melt is a chemical reaction.

not physics, just basic chemistry

(6) Any sealed device containing dry ice (CO2) or other chemically reactive substances assembled for the purpose of causing an explosion by a chemical reaction.

They make it sound like CO2 is some dangerous compound...makes me wonder if i could get them to try to ban dihydrogen monoxide in some way.

Falstaff
08-06-2012, 10:45 PM
If black powder was used in the exact same way tannerite is, would that be illegal?
If so, would that make it illegal to sell BP in CA?

Falstaff
08-06-2012, 10:47 PM
n...makes me wonder if i could get them to try to ban dihydrogen monoxide in some way.

9 outta ten 'mericans are so ignorant that if you asked them to sign a petition bannin dihydrogen monoxide "because its such a scary nasty chemical" they would do it. We truly live in Idiocracy now...

killmime1234
08-07-2012, 6:00 AM
You must have skipped the "constructive possession" part of his argument then, which has always been the most convincing to me.

Yeah, I did take note of that. I could see that being a conviction. However, if someone were convicted of constructive possession of tannerite and a "container that can be sealed," it'd be akin someone being convicted of constructive possession of a DD because they own both a gas can and some fertilizer; possible, yes. Likely? I think not.

Mesa Tactical
08-07-2012, 6:40 AM
The actual penal code is actually more specific and says that it must be in a "sealed" container. I still maintain that if it is in an open-topped container, then it cannot be a DD per 12301.

Also, please everyone who believes that I am arguing this because "I just want to have in CA oh so bad," I am not. I've never blown the stuff up myself. I probably never will. My motivation for this thread is that I saw on another thread which code is believed to make tannerite illegal and I disagree with that conclusion.

Anyone who has been around Calguns for more than a few months should realize that non-lawyers are not very good at predicting how this or that code will be interpreted in a courtroom.

Something I find myself saying quite a lot these days is, "Never confuse what ought to be with what is." So you have read the Penal Code and you have determined after a syntactical analysis that Tannerite is legal. However, we know of one or two convictions in California for possession of Tannerite. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, the stuff is illegal here, no matter what you or I think the Penal Code says.

Once someone is convicted that should pretty much end the arguments, shouldn't it?

It's like all the handwaving around here about what the Second Amendment means. Well, the final arbiter of the meaning of the Second Amendment is the Supreme Court of the United States, and you can therefore find out exactly what it means by reading the recent Heller and McDonald decisions. There is still room for discussion concerning carry, etc, but in the end it is all academic: SCOTUS has said it protects a fundamental right, but some regulation is still permissible. Putting your fingers in your ears and singing "La la la, I can't hear you," or ranting impotently about "What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand" doesn't change the facts.

Where is this mythical "tried, convicted now with criminal record" tannerite guy that gets trotted out in every tannerite thread? Should be public record, no?

Yes, if someone would simply reference the convictions, maybe everyone would stop arguing about this.

Renaissance Redneck
08-07-2012, 7:08 AM
but pouring salt on ice to make it melt is a chemical reaction.
.

Irrelevant to the thread, I know, but that is NOT a chemical reaction. A chemical reaction has occurred when one compound, element, or molecule changes into another. (For instance, if you combine hydrogen and oxygen, you get water). Add salt to ice (which is frozen water), all you have is STILL salt and water (though the melting point of the water has changed by the addition of the salt). Just FYI. :)

killmime1234
08-07-2012, 8:19 AM
Anyone who has been around Calguns for more than a few months should realize that non-lawyers are not very good at predicting how this or that code will be interpreted in a courtroom.

Something I find myself saying quite a lot these days is, "Never confuse what ought to be with what is." So you have read the Penal Code and you have determined after a syntactical analysis that Tannerite is legal. However, we know of one or two convictions in California for possession of Tannerite. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, the stuff is illegal here, no matter what you or I think the Penal Code says.

Once someone is convicted that should pretty much end the arguments, shouldn't it?

It's like all the handwaving around here about what the Second Amendment means. Well, the final arbiter of the meaning of the Second Amendment is the Supreme Court of the United States, and you can therefore find out exactly what it means by reading the recent Heller and McDonald decisions. There is still room for discussion concerning carry, etc, but in the end it is all academic: SCOTUS has said it protects a fundamental right, but some regulation is still permissible. Putting your fingers in your ears and singing "La la la, I can't hear you," or ranting impotently about "What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand" doesn't change the facts.



Yes, if someone would simply reference the convictions, maybe everyone would stop arguing about this.

Very well put. Until I started this thread, I actually had not seen the stories where people had been convicted. I was under the assumption all this "it's illegal!" talk was just heresay based on some non-lawyers' conclusions.

corrosively_armed
08-07-2012, 5:40 PM
Why was it banned though?

wildhawker
08-07-2012, 5:49 PM
Where is this mythical "tried, convicted now with criminal record" tannerite guy that gets trotted out in every tannerite thread? Should be public record, no?

It is, but we're not going to help you out good people who could be adversely affected by such outing.

However, I'm still waiting for Tannerite to get back to our request to them for evidence and legal analysis sent by Jason Davis on our behalf.

-Brandon

dantodd
08-07-2012, 5:54 PM
Where is this mythical "tried, convicted now with criminal record" tannerite guy that gets trotted out in every tannerite thread? Should be public record, no?

I now him personally and so does BWiese. If neither of us has adequate credibility then you probably aren't paying attention.

If the person in question wants to out him/herself then fine but since that hasn't happened I. A y of these threads I am going to assume the person doesn't want their identity to be released and I will respect that. If you desire to search all of the criminal records in all counties in CA since tanneries was introduced feel free but I would still ask that you not publicly out the person.

jaymz
08-08-2012, 4:19 AM
It is, but we're not going to help you out good people who could be adversely affected by such outing.

However, I'm still waiting for Tannerite to get back to our request to them for evidence and legal analysis sent by Jason Davis on our behalf.

-Brandon

I would think that a felony DD conviction is as adverse as you can get. Besides, unless his screen name is in the court docs, unless you already know who he is, (which means you'd likely know of the conviction), you wouldn't know who he is.

wildhawker
08-08-2012, 5:09 AM
I would think that a felony DD conviction is as adverse as you can get. Besides, unless his screen name is in the court docs, unless you already know who he is, (which means you'd likely know of the conviction), you wouldn't know who he is.

Lots of assumptions in this post. However, I believe that I've stated here and elsewhere that I personally know of this person's Tannerite-related legal matters.

-Brandon

corrosively_armed
08-08-2012, 6:28 AM
What could someone have done with the stuff though to have gotten in trouble with the law? You can't use it as a normal explosive as far as I know so how could it be used illegally?

the86d
08-08-2012, 6:39 AM
Should I then stop with my Mentos and Diet Coke experiments?!?!?!

(Or just keep them all under the stairs, and not talk about my stash of these two items?)

383green
08-08-2012, 6:58 AM
What could someone have done with the stuff though to have gotten in trouble with the law?

Merely being observed by law enforcement to have it in their possession is enough to get a felony charge.

You can't use it as a normal explosive as far as I know so how could it be used illegally?

You can't use it as a normal explosive in exactly the same way that you can't use C4, sensitized ammonium nitrate or TNT as a normal explosive. All of them require an energetic initiator to detonate, such as a blasting cap or in some cases a bullet impact. But possession of any of them is restricted by law whether you have a practical means to initiate them or not.

Just possessing a destructive device or explosive without meeting any of the exemptions (like special licensing) is illegal. You don't actually have to do anything with it, or even have the intention of ever doing anything with it, to get a felony conviction and lose your 2A rights for the rest of your life.

Ten Rounder
08-08-2012, 8:12 AM
It is on the shelf in the gun store in Martinez, looked like several cases, you know, where zak works

corrosively_armed
08-08-2012, 6:38 PM
You're missing the point. This stuff requires you shoot it which is pretty impractical if you want to commit mischief. Normal explosives can be detonated with blasting caps etc. Can this be set off with blasting caps??

Merely being observed by law enforcement to have it in their possession is enough to get a felony charge.



You can't use it as a normal explosive in exactly the same way that you can't use C4, sensitized ammonium nitrate or TNT as a normal explosive. All of them require an energetic initiator to detonate, such as a blasting cap or in some cases a bullet impact. But possession of any of them is restricted by law whether you have a practical means to initiate them or not.

Just possessing a destructive device or explosive without meeting any of the exemptions (like special licensing) is illegal. You don't actually have to do anything with it, or even have the intention of ever doing anything with it, to get a felony conviction and lose your 2A rights for the rest of your life.

corrosively_armed
08-08-2012, 6:43 PM
If it's a gun store then that means they get inspected by the doj and the atf both of which would have seen the stuff unless they hide it or something. I suspect the guy that got busted was either doing something else that got him in trouble or he was being so blatantly unsafe with the stuff that people got nervous. Obviously you wouldn't use it at a public range. You'd destroy their target stands for one thing. Plus the sound would probably make anyone nearby nervous. It looks like a use in the middle of nowhere thing. To me it's unattractive because of the expense. Cabelas even sells the stuff. So does sportsmans guide etc etc.

Saw a video on youtube the other day of the latest craze to replace the dry ice and water in a bottle thing which was chlorine and milk. I'm not sure if it was an exothermic reaction or what. I assume the chlorine reacts with the calcium in the milk.

It is on the shelf in the gun store in Martinez, looked like several cases, you know, where zak works

383green
08-08-2012, 6:53 PM
I think it is you who is missing the point: Mere possession of explosives and destructive devices is restricted by CA law. Neither practicality nor intent is relevant. Tannerite appears to me to meet CA's definitions of explosives and/or destructive devices, and it appears that there have been at least two successful prosecutions of people for possession of it. What's so complicated about this?

I'm no explosives expert, but I suspect that a substance which detonates when struck by a hot, fast-moving bullet will also detonate when exposed to the much hotter, much faster-moving shockwave emitted by a blasting cap. Furthermore, Wikipedia states that the primary ingredient in Tannerite is ammonium nitrate. While that ingredient has mundane applications such as a common fertilizer, it is also a high explosive when sensitized by addition of other ingredients or by forming it into pellets with particular physical properties (according to what I've read online). So, yes, I'm pretty confident that mixed Tannerite would detonate if initiated by a blasting cap.

383green
08-08-2012, 6:57 PM
Oh, and one other point: Normal high explosives commonly need something like a blasting cap to be initiated, while Tannerite detonates when struck by a bullet. That means that prepared Tannerite is more sensitive than normal explosives. It is my understanding (again, not based on actual experience) that many common high explosives like C4 will not be initiated by a bullet strike, because a bullet strike isn't energetic enough.

corrosively_armed
08-08-2012, 9:03 PM
C4 is apparently quite tame. Some relatives who were in the army, one of whom was in the 101st airborne in vietnam said they used to use it as a fuel to heat their food. You could literally just light the stuff apparently.

My point on tannerite is that usually things are banned because of a knee jerk reaction to some event. What was the event in this case?? Did someone shoot the stuff while standing too close or with bystanders around?

Dynamite is another weird beasty. A few years ago there was a situation in san jose where a widow upon her husband's death discovered he had a stash of dynamite in the garage. He had been a mining engineer. The authority figures showed up, discovered it was really dynamite and that it had decayed badly and was separating. THey evacuated the neighborhood. Someone decided the best way to solve the problem was burn down the garage. Which is what they did. Apparently you can burn nitroglycerine you just can't shock it. Who'da thunk it?

dantodd
08-08-2012, 9:09 PM
My point on tannerite is that usually things are banned because of a knee jerk reaction to some event. What was the event in this case?? Did someone shoot the stuff while standing too close or with bystanders around?


Tannerite wasn't specifically outlawed it simply falls under the existing definitions. I know that dry ice soda bombs were recently added but I am not familiar with the legislative history of the statute so I don't know if Tannerite was covered before the last revision.

jaymz
08-08-2012, 9:14 PM
Lots of assumptions in this post. However, I believe that I've stated here and elsewhere that I personally know of this person's Tannerite-related legal matters.

-Brandon

Yes Brandon, there are lots of assumptions. But seeing how there aren't any actual details available, that's all anyone can do. I don't doubt for one minute that you have personal knowedge of the Tannerite-related legal matters. What I do doubt, is that it was a simple case of setting up the Tannerite and shooting it. Was it a super-sized batch? Was he blowing stuff up? Close proximity to residential or commercial areas? Was he a dick when L.E. arrived? It's possible to divulge enough details to convince the non-believers without compromising the identity of the convicted person. I respect your opinions on all things 2A. You seem like a really intelligent, stand-up guy. But being secretive about stuff like this chips away at credibility. People start to think "what's he hiding" and "why should I blindly follow"? Especially the noobs that don't know about your efforts behind the scenes.

curtisfong
08-08-2012, 9:20 PM
Used to make tannerite in college. And set off LN2 and dry ice bottles.

The whole thing is beyond stupid.

Theseus
08-08-2012, 9:23 PM
Mixing the two components creates a DD under California law, IMO. The small pre-made targets you can buy over the counter are one thing. Mixing up a couple pounds of the finished product yourself is something completely different.

Sealed, or to seal, is defined in the dictionary and those definitions are what a court will rely on for the meaning of the word

Unless you need the definition of private property. :banghead:

Sent from my Razr Maxx using Tapatalk 2

OlderThanDirt
08-08-2012, 9:28 PM
no, it's not. It's a phase transition. Same chemical compound, just in a different physical state. Ice melting on the sidewalk is not a chemical reaction, but pouring salt on ice to make it melt is a chemical reaction.

not physics, just basic chemistry



They make it sound like CO2 is some dangerous compound...makes me wonder if i could get them to try to ban dihydrogen monoxide in some way.

A lot of people have died due to excessive exposure to dihydrogen monoxide. The only problem with banning it is that there isn't any safe way to store all of it. You could dump it in the ocean, but the environmentalists would go ballistic like they do with ships dumping ballast dihydrogen monoxide due to the potential for invasive species.

tenpercentfirearms
08-09-2012, 8:12 AM
If it's a gun store then that means they get inspected by the doj and the atf both of which would have seen the stuff unless they hide it or something.

That is the absolute worst justification for anything in the world. There are thousands of gun stores in CA that have never been inspected. Not to mention just because the ATF and DOJ don't want to put you out of business for Tannerite as it would reduce their DROS revenue, doesn't remove the Penal Code you can be charged with for possessing it.

We acknowledge that it isn't on people's radars and its sales in California appear to make it be legal. However, no way in hell am I taking that risk. If you personally decide to do so, that is fine. Some people already have and lost. Good luck.

corrosively_armed
08-11-2012, 5:32 PM
I suspect that the same place and conditions under which whomever used this stuff got in trouble would be the same place and conditions that firing any sort of firearm would get you into trouble or at least attract undesired attention.

There seems to be a lot of fear, uncertainty and doubt spread about this stuff.

doginmirror
08-11-2012, 10:02 PM
[QUOTE=
Saw a video on youtube the other day of the latest craze to replace the dry ice and water in a bottle thing which was chlorine and milk. I'm not sure if it was an exothermic reaction or what. I assume the chlorine reacts with the calcium in the milk.[/QUOTE]

both are base items so no reaction lol

corrosively_armed
08-12-2012, 6:58 AM
google it. lots of videos of people doing it. I think the sugars in the milk are what cause the reaction. just a guess.

lbiland
10-11-2012, 4:20 PM
Then by California definition, a Colman lantern is a destructive device. A propane tourch is a destructive device. Even your car is a destructive device. I think intent is what defines this law. I shoot to hear a bang not see destruction. It has to come down to the definition of your intent! So, where does intent fit in?