ATF Binary Exploding Targets ruling BATFE

[Patriot Man]

It seems as if we live in the gray state, almost everything is a gray area, designed so that the DOJ and local LEO/DAs can just randomly arrest us for almost anything having to do with guns/shooting/explosives. They won't rule, they just wait and then some local DA decides to have some fun and make an example of one of us. Very Orwellian.

Well said...

To the other's like Brandon, thanks for the clarification, you see Tannerite at the shows and never knew if that was legal or not (never used it myself), so it's obviously not worth the potential "fun" one might think this stuff would provide as target practice

[GW]

Bottom line for me is this: A big boom is not worth my freedom or gun rights.
Pass

[LBDamned]

Especially if it never went to trial.

sure seems as though there are were extenuating circumstances involved...

[LBDamned]

^^^ OMG!!! that many boogiemen?...

I couldn't resist

[blakdawg]

Given what's been said here, I'm not going to monkey around with Tannerite even though it looks like fun.

However, I note that the Tannerite website lists the following as authorized California dealers: (see http://www.tannerite.com/retail-stor...vice-near-you/ )

Shooters Paradise
1407 A
Yuba City, CA, 95993
530-673-4100

Old Cuyama Store
3045 California 166
Cuyama, CA, 93254
661-766-2720

Hi-Pass Sports
2435 B Alpine Blvd
Alpine, CA, 91901
619-445-4039

Alquist Arms
120 South Center Street
Turlock, CA, 95380
209-667-5463

Bright Spot Pawn
9075 Mission Blvd
Riverside, CA, 92509
951-360-1796

Kittles Outdoor Sports
888 Market Street
Colusa, CA, 95932
530-458-4868

Freys Gun Shop
312 Locust Street
Ridgecrest CA 93555
760-375-9690

[jj805]

wait, you're saying the hat was hung on "mixed"?...

When used as intended it's shot after mixed...

Now I'm REALLY curious... was this "lone" case of prosecution a set-up?... if the (supposed) violator was legal at one time with the product (unmixed) and suddenly prosecuted when mixed for use, that's very peculiar.

Of course I might be reading more into the situation than actually occurred... but since we can only go by what has been presented - it seems pretty accurate - no?

On the other hand... if this "lone" example was traveling with mixed product, it's not really relevant to anything in this thread - as most have acknowledged that transporting while mixed is a felony.

Still, I don't plan to use in in CA... however, there hasn't been any substantial legal argument (please refrain from the ad nauseam reference of "a guy" who got busted)...

Just sayin'

Especially if it never went to trial.

[LBDamned]

They stock mixed Tannerite?

If there's nothing to worry about, then identify the shops here. It can be the go-to list for customers and law enforcement.

Where's that Tannerite legal analysis again?

Crickets.

-Brandon

wait, you're saying the hat was hung on "mixed"?...

When used as intended it's shot after mixed...

Now I'm REALLY curious... was this "lone" case of prosecution a set-up?... if the (supposed) violator was legal at one time with the product (unmixed) and suddenly prosecuted when mixed for use, that's very peculiar.

Of course I might be reading more into the situation than actually occurred... but since we can only go by what has been presented - it seems pretty accurate - no?

On the other hand... if this "lone" example was traveling with mixed product, it's not really relevant to anything in this thread - as most have acknowledged that transporting while mixed is a felony.

Still, I don't plan to use in in CA... however, there hasn't been any substantial legal argument (please refrain from the ad nauseam reference of "a guy" who got busted)...

Just sayin'

[jlbflyboy172]

What ever. I'm done with this boring go nowhere thread. Carry on.

[wildhawker]

They stock mixed Tannerite?

If there's nothing to worry about, then identify the shops here. It can be the go-to list for customers and law enforcement.

Where's that Tannerite legal analysis again?

Crickets.

-Brandon

[jlbflyboy172]

Exactly. There are shops all over California that stock it.

[pieeater]

FWIW...
From talking to the Riverside County DA Investigator assigned to my work, the Riverside County DA's Office will prosecute possession of tannerite as a destructive device.

There is a shop down there that stocks it. What are they waiting for?

[jlbflyboy172]

I wish someone would clear this up with something more than dancing. Give us a case file(s) or something which we can look up ourselves. There's a whole host of options such as the product being used outside of legal boundaries.

I'm also reading it was plead down to a misdemeanor. That tells me that the attorney(s) and defendant acquiesced (for probably good reasons) but there was no felony trial which would ultimately determine it's validity. It also tells me the DA wasn't convinced he could get a felony to stick should the defendant bring all resources to bear.

If faced with a felony I can easily see where I might roll over for $15K and a misdemeanor even if there was reasonable expectation I would beat the felony in court. One is it's going to cost MUCH more than $15K to win and two, the risk (stigma, penalties imposed long after any fines/jail/prison, etc.) isn't worth the reward. This is an economical decision as much or more so than a legal decision.

Agreed.

[wildhawker]

No need to be rude. Without seeing evidence, which I have looked for and yes I have read the regs it is fair to see why there can and will be variances in interpretation and opinion. If it is so clear to you all why can't anyone point to some evidence. Easy to talk about but apparently difficult to substantiate. Sort of like an urban myth.

It's called confidentiality.

You'll probably want it, too, should you ever contact us for, say, a Tannerite arrest.

-Brandon

[JagerDog]

Hopefuly one of these years he will come forward and tell his story. Its been sold here for what 12 years now? A bunch of gunshops stock it and its sold at gunshows.

I wish someone would clear this up with something more than dancing. Give us a case file(s) or something which we can look up ourselves. There's a whole host of options such as the product being used outside of legal boundaries.

I'm also reading it was plead down to a misdemeanor. That tells me that the attorney(s) and defendant acquiesced (for probably good reasons) but there was no felony trial which would ultimately determine it's validity. It also tells me the DA wasn't convinced he could get a felony to stick should the defendant bring all resources to bear.

If faced with a felony I can easily see where I might roll over for $15K and a misdemeanor even if there was reasonable expectation I would beat the felony in court. One is it's going to cost MUCH more than $15K to win and two, the risk (stigma, penalties imposed long after any fines/jail/prison, etc.) isn't worth the reward. This is an economical decision as much or more so than a legal decision.

[jlbflyboy172]

Hey, sonny, I was the one that brought this up.

The individual is a good Calgunner that has done much for the movement.
The drama was in SoCal, and took $15+K of lawyering to get felony down to misdemeanor with 18 month firearms prohibition. And that option is not even really clearly presented in the law.

[The individual was in fact quite afraid of missing a possible OLL 'time window' back in 2006 in case that closed before his 18mos was up.]

The law is pretty clear, despite your apparent failure to read. And lack of a ruling by DOJ has nothing to due with legality.

No need to be rude. Without seeing evidence, which I have looked for and yes I have read the regs it is fair to see why there can and will be variances in interpretation and opinion. If it is so clear to you all why can't anyone point to some evidence. Easy to talk about but apparently difficult to substantiate. Sort of like an urban myth.