ATF Binary Exploding Targets ruling BATFE

[jlbflyboy172]

[QUOTE=Maddog5150;8679997]at such a low post count, he obviously doesnt know the amount of work you and the calguns foundation have put in to inform us and fight for us

I know there are many that work hard for CA gun owners to help move laws in the right direction and inform us. But just because a person has a high post count does not make them immune to spreading false information or any more knowledgable than anyone else. Post count or lack thereof is not a measure of knowledge or understanding.

[ptoguy2002]

OK, lets look at this objectively:

-Use of Tannerite on Top Shot (or any other show) means nothing. They have lots of other stuff on that show that requires a LOT of paperwork to have / do. Mentioning that is irrelevant here.

-SouthCoastTargets does have a letter from Tannerite's lawyer with him in his booth. I've seen it and read it. It lays out their legal argument on why it is legal. They have claimed to send this to DOJ, from which they received no response. AFAIK, this letter hasn't been made public.

-Tannerite's legal argument comes down to whether the reaction is endothermic or exothermic (...release of gas AND heat...). Nobody can comment on the validity of that argument unless Tannerite releases the reaction (IE: 2 H2 + O2 → 2 H2O + E) and/or test data to back it up. This is part of the problem, IMHO, Tannerite says it is legal, but provides NOTHING to BACK IT UP. Attorney's generally are not chemists, so that legal letter means nothing without technical information to back up the legal letter.

-Tannerite advertises their targets as "Exploding Targets" per the attached photo. They also recognize that once mixed, it becomes an explosive as it under DOT rules. It looks like an explosive, acts like an explosive, and is explicitly advertised as an explosive, what are people (like the DA) supposed to think, that it actually isn't an explosive?

-As it stands, IF Tannerite's claims are correct (which is impossible for any third party to verify at this point), It MAY be technically legal, but you are going to spend a lot of money on attorney's proving it. And whether or not the jury believes you is going to come down to:
....1) The DA saying: "If it talks like a duck, quakes like a duck, and walks like a duck, it is a duck and you must convict.
....2) Your scientific "expert" trying to explain the science behind why it really isn't a duck.
Keep in mind your jury will be composed generally of people who are the impressionable, slighly more gullible type, and aren't independent thinkers or highly educated.

-One other thing to keep in mind, trying to remain objective, is that Tannerite is not the stuff you commonly see on videos where you get a huge fire ball. SouthCoastTargets had pointed out, those are not Tannerite, but other peoples products that obviously release heat.

-IMHO: I have a hard time believing that Tannerite doesn't release heat. It obviously releases energy. Considering energy, energy states, heat, combustion, expanding gases, etc.. in a closed system, Tannerite is playing semantics. These semantics can just as easily be reversed to be used against you.

[jj805]

Um it is a destructive device because it qualifies as "chemically reactive substances assembled for the purpose of causing an explosion by a chemical reaction" which is separate from and not dependent on the "explosive" definition connected to the health and safety code, and notice there is no requirement of "heat" to qualify as a DD there, is just needs to explode via a chemical reaction (endothermic reaction is a form of chemical reaction), which for some reason you are completely ignoring.

Please counter each one of these arguments if you disagree: (notice Bill points out that having the components not even mixed if there is intention of ever mixing them in the future is it's own felony, meaning even if your federal preemption theory is valid, you can still get busted while just driving on the freeway with it unmixed, or maybe you didn't have 100% of your stuff mixed when you get the LEO encounter, and then lose your gun rights across all 50 states for life with your felony conviction.)

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

From my reading of it, your customers can be busted on felony charges when they take 1 step away from your booth after making a purchase, while you may be safe behind the counter since you personally aren't intending on mixing it. All a cop would have to say to establish intent to mix them is, "hey, is that that cool tannerite stuff? Hey, when you mix that you're going to make sure you go way out into the desert where it is safe right?" and then bam customer talks themselves into a felony just by answering "yep that's my plan."

A lack of injuries from this product so far is probably the only reason there hasn't been a crack down. I'm not a lawyer either, so why do I know more about this than the guy selling it? (answer: I spend way too much time here)

IANAL. but my take on the sealed container part that was stated in 12301PC(a)6 is that the container needs to be an integral part of the explosive by becoming a pressure vessel. Tannerite dose not need a pressure vessel to explode. Also if, and I mean IF, Tannerite is preemted by federal law, then CA can't do much about that since the ATFE has said it is ok, per the OP.

[Josh3239]

Swing and a miss. 1) FUD is fear, uncertainty and doubt. How am I spreading that by mentioning a personal anecdote and the fact that Top Shot uses it? I am not. And it is a fact that Top Shot uses it, I used the stuff, it is a fact that it is sold all over the state and it is a fact that any prohibition on it, if there is one, is not enforced by the DOJ. Not unlike the whiners including some senior people on this board who for years protested the bullet button. Learn the definition before using the word. 2) I didn't say they didn't have their permits in order, I was talking about tannerite guy. Your link to register an explosive device is a dud, this entire thread is about the ATF's ruling that such a permit is not needed for this stuff, if by the ATF's own definition it is not a destructive device, then why would they issue a permit for it? (FUD much)

The issue isn't the ATF, it is the CA DOJ. Read.

So much FUD in this post! Trust me, they have all their permits lined up. For a $200 permit they are not going to screw around and you need one for:
A) Manufacture
B) Importer
C) Dealer
D) User ($100)
and a temporary one is available for $25. Renewals are half the original rate.
BATFE explosives permit

[mud99]

Tannerite is aluminium powder and ammonium nitrate. Not some sort of magic chemical reaction.

IMO, it isn't an "explosive" even when mixed (despite what the ATF says). You could wash the aluminium powder off of the ammonium nitrate, it hasn't become a single substance, and therefore it could not possibly have been "manufactured", as it is still two distinct substances which happen to be in close proximity.

When you shoot it, the two substances get smashed together at high speed, causing a chemical reaction which creates a boom, and I would posit that at that point it might legitimately be considered an explosive.

As to a few Tannerite talking points:
-Tannerite most certainly does create heat. Ignoring the chemical reaction which may or may not produce heat, the movement of the substance through the air definitely creates some amount of heat.
-Tannerite when mixed as directed does not create any sort of a flame
-Tannerite can ignite things around it
-If you mix too much Aluminum powder in, it appears that the extra Aluminum will ignite, and this might be why people claim that it can burn.
-They sell it as an "exploding" target.
-It looks like an explosive.
-It acts like an explosive.
-BATFE says it's an explosive.
-It has a ammonium nitrate, well known as a piece of most explosives.
-California has laws against explosives.
-No court will have any sympathy on you.

The only things that might help you in court are:
- Hard to actually gather evidence when it's been blown to pieces
- The manufacturer said it was legal
- I wasn't using it to as an explosive (i.e. I didn't use it blow microwaves 50 feet into the air)

[shadowofnight]

I'm telling you that DOJ hasn't cared because it wasn't on their radar.

Recent arrests make that no longer true.

In any case, some people are going to have very costly criminal defenses to mount. I suspect that it will be something of a miracle if they don't end up as felons and lose their rights for life.

-Brandon

Thats all I need to hear to stay away from the stuff.

Lets just hope they dont ban banging metal in this state, those old metal targets can cut you and have lead all over their surface.

[bwiese]

California state laws are far more restrictive than federal laws.

Yup. CA is separate from Fed law. Touting ATF crap has not much relevance in CA.

Tannerite = Felony in CA. Contrary to what friggin' Dan Tanner said.

1. He never responded to my request for supporting documents he has from a "competent" CA agency (really, DOJ) showing exemption.

While a 1" square target might get off, guys with 1gal jugs blowing sky high are just waiting for a bust.


2. There has been at least one Tannerite arrest/conviction. It took around
$15k of competent lawyering to get the charges down to misdemeanor.

[bwiese]

Tannerite is aluminium powder and ammonium nitrate. Not some sort of magic chemical reaction.

IMO, it isn't an "explosive" even when mixed (despite what the ATF says). You could wash the aluminium powder off of the ammonium nitrate, it hasn't become a single substance, and therefore it could not possibly have been "manufactured", as it is still two distinct substances which happen to be in close proximity.

That argument has zero legal merit. It's a conglomeration in one location that goes 'boom'. Period.

Remember this is a friggin' state that bans putting dry ice + water in a closed jug and declares it a felony.

[bwiese]

Well from those definitions gun powder, primers and bullets should all be illegal too then. They all cause an explosion.

There are specific exemptions for ammo for firearms & relevant materials.

[stix213]

IANAL. but my take on the sealed container part that was stated in 12301PC(a)6 is that the container needs to be an integral part of the explosive by becoming a pressure vessel. Tannerite dose not need a pressure vessel to explode. Also if, and I mean IF, Tannerite is preemted by federal law, then CA can't do much about that since the ATFE has said it is ok, per the OP.

Is there case law or DOJ opinion that sealed also requires pressure for the chemical reaction? Because pressure is never mentioned in the code.

You also skipped the constructive possession felony, when Tannerite is in its unmixed state, that the vendor here himself says in that state isn't covered by the federal preemption (if that in itself isn't fictitious). Using tenpercentfirearms above example on how a bust may likely go, in that example you wouldn't be transporting in the mixed state, but in the unmixed state. Still smells of a felony if an officer who encounters this stuff is actually aware of what they have got and the law regarding it.

[bwiese]

For all those claiming preemption by Fed law I challenge you to show me that specific preemption and/or why CA law would NOT apply separately.

Otherwise, hell, I could get my SBR tax stamp and tell CA DOJ to go fly a kite.

It doesn't work that way.

[huntercf]

I would love to use this stuff, I see it sold at gun stores and gun shows but knowing CA and how they like to make felons out of nothing I will keep my distance. I think the same arguments are being made here as with the slidefire stock, the BATFE says they are legal to use and own BUT CA has made a habit out of banning items that the feds say are legal. It is ok to own NFA items in free states but not here, +10 mags are legal elsewhere but not here (in certain BB guns), the feds no longer ban "assault weapons" but CA has their own ban, etc, etc, etc. Just because they are sold all over CA doesn't make them legal, some LEO's may be ok with them if they see you use them because they think they are cool as well and other LEO's may call for the bomb squad if they catch you with them. In CA it is a crap shoot at best, sometimes you will win but it only takes once to lose and that one time you will have went all in.

[jj805]

Is there case law or DOJ opinion that sealed also requires pressure for the chemical reaction? Because pressure is never mentioned in the code.

If you put dry ice and water in a 2 liter soda bottle and leave the cap off, you get fog, no boom. If you put the cap on and seal the 2 liter bottle, you get a boom. Ask yourself why.

[LBDamned]

I'm going to throw my $.02 in and say that I've used Tannerite, I was told it is not flammable, I stuck a can in the back of a zombie bleeding target, shot it with a 30.06 at about 150 yards, target blew up in a ball of fire. Putting out the fire from the fragmented burning pieces was a PITA, glad it wasn't windy.
Since there were multiple fragmented pieces of burning material from the zombie target, it is readily apparent that it wasn't just the lead bullet hitting the metal lid of the tannerite that sparked a fire or some other such nonsense.

I beg to differ that it does not produce "a rapid release of gas and heat" and is, therefore, legal on that basis.

as scary and pita that must have been... it's sounds awesome! Video would be great!!!

[ptoguy2002]

....aluminium powder.....ammonium nitrate. .....chemical reaction......explosive.....ATF says....shoot......target....blown to pieces
.

This thread has enough key words now I'm sure its been flagged by DHS for further review....Hi guys !

Slow day at work..
Information Tanner's patent:

A binary exploding target package, said package including: a first, target container and a second container; one of said first and second containers containing an oxidizer composition, and the other of said first and second containers containing a catalyst composition; said oxidizer composition including ammonium nitrate in an amount between about 50% and 100% by weight, and ammonium perchlorate in an amount between 0% and about 50% by weight; said catalyst composition including aluminum powder and minor amounts of titanium sponge and zirconium hydride; said target container being sized to receive a mixture comprised of all of said oxidizer composition and all of said catalyst composition.

The preferred catalyst composition includes a major amount of explosive grade aluminum powder,

All the DA has to do is read Tanner's own patent...