Legality of Binary Targets (aka "Tannerite") (NOT legal 'mixed' in CA - DD)

[Tincon]

Originally Posted by Josey Wales

You really think someone will get prison time for using a product as listed on the container, legally sold in this state?

Yes. Maybe you missed this part:

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.

"I bought it in a store" is not really a legal defense.

[jaymz]

Anyone have any luck finding the "Tannerite v. Riverside Co." case?

[MaHoTex]

Originally Posted by Tincon

"I bought it in a store" is not really a legal defense.

Maybe I am just a simpleton, but it sure seems that any sane person would be able to see it clearly. A "normal" family man goes into Dick's sporting goods store to pick up some items for weekend trip shooting with his boys, sees this cool shot indicator and buys it. Hell, I am not from this f'd up state and if I did not visit this forum I would have not even thought twice about buying the stuff and taking it to the range. We used to take our guns and go shoot in the neighborhood, it was not a big deal. We would shoot all kinds of stuff because..... it was fun. That is it, just good clean fun.

The fact is MOST people do not know this stuff is illegal. The typical BS responses around here saying "a quick search" is stupid.

If the stuff is illegal when used as directed it should not be sold. If it is sold, it is reasonable to assume it will be legal to use. If this idiotic state is going to make felons out of fathers taking the kids shooting they need to go after the manufacturer and the stores selling it.

Maybe that is not a legal defense, but, really, it should be.

It is really simple to grasp the concept and only involves basic reasoning. I hate this state. I really do.

ETA:
"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. "

So by this I can assume a store is an entity and not a person so they can skirt the law because, well, they are not a person.
Complete and total BS. If they are going to go hang the family man for buying an illegal product, they need to hang the store owner selling the crap too.

[BumBum]

Originally Posted by jaymz

Anyone have any luck finding the "Tannerite v. Riverside Co." case?

From what I can tell, it doesn't exist. If it does, then Dena should post a case number and the court it was filed in, at the very least. Case number searches in the proper court are much more reliable than name searches.

I'm an attorney and I have accounts with both PACER (Federal Court) and the Riverside County Court - both require payment for name searches. I searched both, and there were 3 cases that popped up with Tannerite as a Defendant in federal court, and nothing in Riverside County.

Myself, I'm interested in seeing what an "operating outside the law" complaint against a governmental entity looks like.

[desrt2]

Originally Posted by Dr.Lou

In California, if you have to ask if something is "illegal" it probably is. I can't believe lane splitting on a motorcycle is legal in California...

Lane splitting is not illegal because there is an absence of the law stating that 2 vehicles cannot occupy the same lane side-by-side.

So it's not that it's legal, it's neither forbidden or commanded by law.

There are catch-all laws though such as reckless driving and not "driving in a safe and prudent manner."

I lane split. I won't get into the pro/con argument. It's about as passionate as pro/anti 2A and honestly, I won't win the argument.

And when you see the message on the highway LED boards that say, "Watch out for motorcycles. Share the road," keep an eye out for us. A decent amount of motorists move over for me. Could be that's because my bike is the same model as the CHP. The rest are either motorcycle owners or aware drivers.

[Some Velvet-Fisted Brute]

Originally Posted by MaHoTex

Maybe I am just a simpleton, but it sure seems that any sane person would be able to see it clearly. A "normal" family man goes into Dick's sporting goods store to pick up some items for weekend trip shooting with his boys, sees this cool shot indicator and buys it. Hell, I am not from this f'd up state and if I did not visit this forum I would have not even thought twice about buying the stuff and taking it to the range. We used to take our guns and go shoot in the neighborhood, it was not a big deal. We would shoot all kinds of stuff because..... it was fun. That is it, just good clean fun.

The fact is MOST people do not know this stuff is illegal. The typical BS responses around here saying "a quick search" is stupid.

If the stuff is illegal when used as directed it should not be sold. If it is sold, it is reasonable to assume it will be legal to use. If this idiotic state is going to make felons out of fathers taking the kids shooting they need to go after the manufacturer and the stores selling it.

Maybe that is not a legal defense, but, really, it should be.

It is really simple to grasp the concept and only involves basic reasoning. I hate this state. I really do.

ETA:
"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. "

So by this I can assume a store is an entity and not a person so they can skirt the law because, well, they are not a person.
Complete and total BS. If they are going to go hang the family man for buying an illegal product, they need to hang the store owner selling the crap too.

I'm on my phone now so it would be a pain to snip the quote down to the pertinent part. Looking through CPC 1800 and CHSC 12000, it looks as though selling it is illegal, too, but probably only a misdemeanor. DA's, therefore, do more for their careers by *not* pursuing prosecution of sellers.

ETA: CHSC 12120. Illegal to sell explosives without permit.

[MaHoTex]

Originally Posted by chainsaw

Agree. A reasonable store should not sell it. The legally can sell it, but doing so is irresponsible.

<a bunch of good stuff snipped>

The reason that stores can legally sell it is that you have to read the code carefully. Look where it says "with the intent to make any destructive device or any explosive". The store (or the guy in the store) has no intention to mix the material, nor to make an explosive. Their intention is to sell the stuff, make some money on that, make their customer happy, and such.

This needs to be repeated over and over. The illegal act here is to mix the components to make an explosive. The ingredients, in and of themselves, are not illegal, nor is the possession or sale of the unmixed ingredients.

And all of this it notwithstanding laws about conspiracy, aiding and abetting. I' wonder whether a DA could find that the store (or rather its employees) is in a conspiracy with the buyer to violate PC 18720, if they can prove that the store knows that the end user will use it in an illegal fashion. The same applies to the manufacturer or importer.

Ok, so explain how possession by a purchaser and possession by Dicks sporting goods is different (See Post #169 Above) when in the context of the post by Patrick who apparently is a LEO.

"...if I stop you for a brake light out and happen to notice some Tannerite in your back seat, I'm witnessing a felony and have to take action. "

The exact same box sitting on the shelf at Dicks is just fine and dandy, but as soon as I buy it and put it in my car it somehow is illegal.
If I am just transporting it to the Gun Show to sell it, now am I ok? What is LEO Patrick going to hook someone up for? With your argument, not a thing.

ALSO, I will add, Riverside County issued a statement saying possession of the components is a crime. NOTHING about intent... only simple possession BEFORE and AFTER they are mixed. Here is the exact statement from RCSO, "Exploding targets are illegal to possess in California before they are mixed, as well as after the components are mixed together."

Either it IS illegal, or it IS NOT illegal. Why is this state so messed up... it drives me crazy. I wish I drank.

[Baboosh]

How is it illegal if not mixed? What if you stored them in two different containers?

That's like saying I can be arrested because I was driving with a gas can in my car and a lighter.

[Artema]

Originally Posted by Baboosh

How is it illegal if not mixed? What if you stored them in two different containers?

That's like saying I can be arrested because I was driving with a gas can in my car and a lighter.

Or like saying you're carrying a weapon without committing a crime... oh wait.

[ke6guj]

Originally Posted by Baboosh

How is it illegal if not mixed? What if you stored them in two different containers?

That's like saying I can be arrested because I was driving with a gas can in my car and a lighter.

I think intent has something to do with it. If you had a full gas can in the back of you truck, a glass bottle, and a rag, that could make a molotov cocktail, but maybe not since you also had a lawnmower in the back.

But if you had a bag of ammonium nitrate with a can of Diesel along with the directions to make ANFO, that would probably show intent.

If you had the ingredients to "Tannerite" in containers that explained that it is to be mixed a certain way to make an exploding target, that is easier to show intent than by just having raw ingredients for "something".

[Some Velvet-Fisted Brute]

I just wanted to add some linkage to augment my previous post regarding legality of sales: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/di...le=12120-12124

[Tincon]

Originally Posted by MaHoTex

Either it IS illegal, or it IS NOT illegal.

Unfortunately that often just isn't how the law works. Whether an act is legal or not may well be determined by what 12 random people off the street decide the "intent" was.

When you have a package like that of Tannerite (image below) which describes "BINARY EXPLODING TARGETS" and gives the steps for making the explosive along with the pronouncement that a "mixing container" in included, intent is not going to be difficult for the DA to prove.

[Capybara]

Amazed we are still talking about this, very simple. If you live in California, don't have anything to do with it. Problem solved.

[Big Jake]

I still have about fifteen small containers sitting on my shelf in the garage and this thread has me so paranoid I'm thinking I want to throw it out. Jeez!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

[Tincon]

yeah I'd probably not post about it (or have it). That's not paranoia, that's smart.

[MaHoTex]

Tincon,
Can you comment/reply to my post #209 please? I know it was in response to Chainsaw, but I am interested in your input/thoughts. Edit to clarify: (Besides the small part you commented on.)

Also, to ensure there is no miscommunication here, I do not have nor have I ever had nor used Tannerite. I really have no skin in this game, I am just having a hard time grasping how it can be legal for a store to have it and illegal for me to have it.

[vintagearms]

Originally Posted by Capybara

Amazed we are still talking about this, very simple. If you live in California, don't have anything to do with it. Problem solved.

Exactly.

[Tincon]

Originally Posted by MaHoTex

Ok, so explain how possession by a purchaser and possession by Dicks sporting goods is different (See Post #169 Above) when in the context of the post by Patrick who apparently is a LEO.

For one thing, Dicks probably does not have the intent to make the explosive (combine the two chemicals). But it certainly does seem like they have reason to know that the buyer plans to combine them. If the buyer clearly commits a crime by buying the product, then the seller probably has some criminal liability as well (under various legal theories). I would certainly not want to have that stuff in my store.

I'm not sure anyone is saying that selling the stuff is significantly "more legal" than owning or buying it. If they were I would have to disagree, although the case against the seller would be slightly more complicated.

Originally Posted by MaHoTex

ALSO, I will add, Riverside County issued a statement saying possession of the components is a crime. NOTHING about intent... only simple possession BEFORE and AFTER they are mixed. Here is the exact statement from RCSO, "Exploding targets are illegal to possess in California before they are mixed, as well as after the components are mixed together."

Intent can be implied by actions. So if you own a product that can be made into an explosive (along with the "mixing container"), and it has the label I posted an image of above, intent seems pretty clear, absent some other explanation.

Note that the statement is not: "Possession of any combination of chemicals which could be combined to form an explosive, absent any further intent, are illegal to possess in California before they are mixed, as well as after the components are mixed together."

Rather, the statement is, "Exploding targets are illegal to possess in California before they are mixed, as well as after the components are mixed together." I think that the implication of the words "exploding target" is that there is criminal intent to possess explosives.

[MaHoTex]

Thank you both Chainsaw and Tincon for the explanation. It makes my head spin thinking about it all. It sure makes something simple seem complicated.

[REH]

It’s certainly scary that a DA can have you arrested for intent. Sure we can fill an entire form with examples of possible intent. My point is, with that kind of power it can and has been abused, by overzealous DA’s without reimbursement to the defendant when found not guilty. This only encourages the DA's to continue this type of activity.

[Novaholic]

Enjoy!

http://www.guns.com/2013/08/17/man-g...omputer-video/

[The Gleam]

Originally Posted by Big Jake

I still have about fifteen small containers sitting on my shelf in the garage and this thread has me so paranoid I'm thinking I want to throw it out. Jeez!

If I already owned some I wouldn't throw it away; I would just save it for a rainy day to use in another state where legal.

But you can bet that sure as there is money in my wallet, I won't be parting with it to buy any of this stuff, Tannerite brand or not. Nothing in this thread INCLUDING Tannerite's input from their spokesperson has put me at ease about its legality, nor has this thread given me faith in the company as being helpful or forthcoming about CA issues. Actually, just the opposite.

The only explosive thing Tannerite has done in this thread... is backfire with a bang.

[Some Velvet-Fisted Brute]

Originally Posted by chainsaw

Some velvet fisted brute asks about HSC 12120 and HSC 12000. It doesn't apply here. The stuff the store stocks and sells it not an explosive. It only becomes an explosive after mixing. That's why the store can sell it without running afoul of explosives licensing law. He mentions PC 1800, which I can't find.

Not asking, telling. It *is* an explosive. It even says "explosive" on the packaging. I don't like to divulge personal information, but I will say I have multiple degrees in physical sciences, including chemistry. I've read the patents. The mixed binary compound is very similar to what is used in the Daisy Cutter. California law provides for constructive possession of explosive components and possessing exploding targets in a kit form is more than enough to provide probable cause for an arrest on the suspicion of constructive possession of explosive materials without a permit. HSC 12000 provides requirement on what information must be recorded for the sale of these materials to be legal (for one, if no permit was gathered and recorded, the seller is violating th law). CPC 18000 covers destructive devices. Particularlary 187xx. My belief on the matter is rather cynical: that selling has not been clamped down upon by LE because it's only a misdemeanor. Using it (or possessing it to use) can be pressed as a felony. Users are less likely to be able to afford a strong defense, felonies look better on a DA's conviction record, and those convicted become prohibited persons. If it were truly a matter of protecting th people from an overly dangerous product (which I *don't* believe Tannerite or most of its competitors are) then the authorities would clamp down on sellers. The laws are there to afford for it.

[Dantedamean]

Originally Posted by chainsaw

I disagree. Possessing the unmixed parts is legal, if one doesn't have intent to create an explosive from them. In the same fashion that it is legal to possess fertilizer and aluminum powder.

A gun store that has no intent to create an explosive is, as far as I know, not breaking any law. It does not need a license, just like your local home center doesn't need a license to sell ammonium nitrate. The intent of the gun store (or its employess) is not to create an explosive, or to make it explode, but to sell the non-explosive components. The situation with a store selling dynamite is entirely different, as that material is already an explosive.

I think in theory it would even be legal for a end user to buy Tannerite, if they have no intent to mix it and make it explode. For example, I might buy it because my local garden store has run out of fertilizer, and spread it on my petunias. A local cop might still arrest me, and a local DA might still charge me, but if I had really good evidence to demonstrate that it is intended for gardening (or home decoration with the metal dust or similar non-explosive uses), it seems that I would get off.

The thing that many posters here repeatedly ignore is that (AFAIK) Tannerite is illegal to possess in California if the possessor has the intent to mix it into an explosive, in particular if they have the intent to make it into an exploding target, in particular if they have already shot at it and exploded it.

I haven't read the constructive possession laws regarding explosives, however the constructive possession laws for NFA items don't care about intent. If I buy a short barreled AR upper with the intent on never using it on my rifle lower and I don't have a pistol lower available, it's illegal.

Even taking your argument at face value, the two components are sold for mixing to make an explosive, it's advertised as components for explosives. Just because there may be other uses for those items seems irrelevant. That would be like selling a AR pistol upper with a rifle lower as separate components, both have legal uses however you're still in constructive possession of an unregistered NFA item.

[Tincon]

Grain dust or even flour can explode in sufficient quantities under the right conditions (no PhD but I have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express). It isn't illegal to buy a sack of flour. The point is this stuff is advertised and packaged as an unmixed binary explosive. The intent of the purchaser is clearly implied. As such both the buyer and the seller risk prosecution (see Penal Code s 182; CALJIC 3.01; Penal Code s 21a).

[Some Velvet-Fisted Brute]

Here's the text to CHSC 12000:

HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE

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:

To say exploding targets are not explosives is to say that they are not composed of substances "when combined ... form a substance capable of a relatively instantaneous or rapid release of gas and heat."

All the shot-indication properties are due to the formation of a vapor/dust cloud and thunderous report. Chemically speaking, these are both secondary results of "a relatively instantaneous or rapid release of gas" or, in plainer terms, exploding. The marketing materials refer to them as binary exploding targets. If they were not explosives, they would just be targets.

[Spyder]

Originally Posted by chainsaw

...If they simply list all the known ones (say dynamite, TNT, ..., to quote Ozzie Osbourne)

Wouldn't that be Bon Scott?

[BroncoBob]

The question is..... is it worth 10's of thousands of dollars in defense, court costs and the loss of your rights to own a firearm? That is what you have to ask yourself.

[bwiese]

Chainsaw,

A past Tannerite defendant - who managed not to lose his gunrights permanently - indicated he was questioned for quite some time by ATF guys. The ATF people were not interested in him per se, but were specifically interested in how Tannerite was sold/marketed, materials, verbal communications, etc.

[Capybara]

I predict Tannerite and all other binary explosives will soon become illegal nationally, I have read rumblings about it on many other sites that have nothing to do with California.

Sure, there is the intent thing and that the components are not illegal but we are living in the post Boston Bombing era, the politicians and lawmakers will figure out a way. I am sure that however they ban or regulate it, it will infringe on our civil rights.

[el chivo]

so how do you get a permit?

[Nookieaki]

Bengal, i will be making a donation soon brother. Reading about your situation, sends chills down my back. Best of luck to you.

[Venomns]

Donated MADE. All this bickering about it and lets just help out fellow enthusiasts and VETERANS! Will help a pay for the judgement at least. Sorry it couldn't be more....

And I am sorry. It is sold over the counter and nothing says ILLEGAL IN CALIFORNIA etc. If it is illegal here, it shouldn't be sold here. Period!

[Bengal]

Originally Posted by Venomns

Donated MADE. All this bickering about it and lets just help out fellow enthusiasts and VETERANS! Will help a pay for the judgement at least. Sorry it couldn't be more....

And I am sorry. It is sold over the counter and nothing says ILLEGAL IN CALIFORNIA etc. If it is illegal here, it shouldn't be sold here. Period!

Thank you but more importantly, spread the word to everybody! I feel that this is just the beginning.

[Bengal]

Originally Posted by Nookieaki

Bengal, i will be making a donation soon brother. Reading about your situation, sends chills down my back. Best of luck to you.

Thank you

[Chunky_lover]

ive recently seen videos on this stuff
seen it for sale on ebay
then spent 10 min searching here, reading up
see its illegal to use here


just saved myself $60,000 + in legal fees

[CriticalEnmity]

Title says it all. I'm a bit confused on whats up with the whole tannerite ordeal. Can you still get it? can you shoot it, etc..

[Sleighter]

It's never been legal to shoot. Once you mix the binary ingredients you've created a "destructive device" which is a felony.

[fighter4cage]

Nothing is Legal in this Damn state..

[CriticalEnmity]

Really? Usually people go to the desert here and shoot it with no problems I remember it used to be legal to ship or something.