ATF Binary Exploding Targets ruling BATFE

[FLIGHT762]

I don't care if no one ever gets busted for Tannerite because no one ever gets prosecuted for it. I can read the Penal Code and I am not an idiot. The case against Tannerite is pretty strong and is not worth me going to prison and losing my gun rights forever over. No one is probably going to come after you for your Tannerite stash. However, when they do come after you for something else and they do not find what they are looking for, they are going to find your Tannerite and use that instead.

Yeah I might be being a little egotistical, but I would be a great target to prosecute. No thank you. I even took the black paint off the tips of my airsoft guns I painted back in 2000 or so. I am not getting strung up on some BS charge when they raid me thinking I am doing something wrong that I know I am not.

Winner ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Every time this Tannerite subject comes up, there's all of this denial that it's illegal in this State.

When I read the P.C. and related codes, it's clear to me that Tannerite is illegal in this State.

I had lunch with Supervisor of our County Sheriff's Bomb Squad and asked him about the legality of Tannerite in California. He replied to me it is illegal. Good enough for me.

Some may get away with the small, packaged, stick on Tannerite targets, but the larger amounts and mixing it, you're looking for legal trouble that could cost you your gun rights. It's just not worth it to me.

[tenpercentfirearms]

I don't care if no one ever gets busted for Tannerite because no one ever gets prosecuted for it. I can read the Penal Code and I am not an idiot. The case against Tannerite is pretty strong and is not worth me going to prison and losing my gun rights forever over. No one is probably going to come after you for your Tannerite stash. However, when they do come after you for something else and they do not find what they are looking for, they are going to find your Tannerite and use that instead.

Yeah I might be being a little egotistical, but I would be a great target to prosecute. No thank you. I even took the black paint off the tips of my airsoft guns I painted back in 2000 or so. I am not getting strung up on some BS charge when they raid me thinking I am doing something wrong that I know I am not.

[760knox]

California state laws are far more restrictive than federal laws.

Tell that to all of the pot smokers....

[LBDamned]

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.

just curious... why is this the "one" example always referenced?...

I'm not a proponent of the use (in CA)... but I do understand opposition's flak since there isn't more evidence of convictions... I've seen/read this same example in almost every Tannerite thread... but other than this reference there has only been loose mention of others (never specifics or even remote details)...

Again, I'm not suggesting Tannerite is legal, should be legal or will be legal in CA... I'm simply expressing a seemingly obvious concern that some imply factual examples, but only ever reference one.

[LBDamned]

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.


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.

the issue is whether or not Tannerite meets those definitions... I'm not stating an opinion - but your post is not a revelation, but in fact what the controversy is over.

[Quiet]

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.


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.

[wildhawker]

And lack of a ruling by DOJ has nothing to due with legality.

Exactly. Especially when you consider that the previous and current AG's will not issue legal opinions on firearms, materials, and devices at all.

-Brandon

[odysseus]

It is one thing to say do it at your own risk because there is no really clear known ruling. It is another thing to declare it illegal with the absence of that ruling from the CA DOJ.

58 DA's.

[bwiese]

Evidence please. Without it sure sounds like FUD to me. It is one thing to say do it at your own risk because there is no really clear known ruling. It is another thing to declare it illegal with the absence of that ruling from the CA DOJ.

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.

[wildhawker]

Evidence please. Without it sure sounds like FUD to me. It is one thing to say do it at your own risk because there is no really clear known ruling. It is another thing to declare it illegal with the absence of that ruling from the CA DOJ.

Yep, the leaders of California gun rights who deal with criminal defenses of firearms issues on a regular basis and run a [the] Hotline are all saying something happened - it must be FUD.



-Brandon

[jlbflyboy172]

There has been a calgunner who got convicted for Tannerite. Bwiese mentioned something about it last year. Just because you don't want to hear it doesn't make it 'Fud'.

Evidence please. Without it sure sounds like FUD to me. It is one thing to say do it at your own risk because there is no really clear known ruling. It is another thing to declare it illegal with the absence of that ruling from the CA DOJ.

[Capybara]

Not worth going to prison over.

[Fjold]

My personal philosophy is never give them Probable Cause.

[LBDamned]

There wasn't.

The number is greater than 1.

-Brandon

10-4... I figured the mention of "A" Calgunner" and "The" case is over, indicated a solos occurrence.

[wildhawker]

I don't advocate the use (in CA), but...

"A" CalGunner convicted vs many, many, many that apparently have used and not convicted makes me wonder if there wasn't more to the lone calgunner's situation?

There wasn't.

The number is greater than 1.

-Brandon