Tannerite In The News (Bad)


PDA






damien
January 15, 2008, 03:33 PM
Tannerite was in the news yesterday. Someone did something very stupid and attracted a lot of attention...

(courtesy of keepandbeararms.com)

http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=492577


Big boom could land amateur bomb maker in huge trouble

It may have started as a goofy stunt, but tonight a 30 year old Red Wing area man is in hot water with authorities, after detonating a powerful bomb in back of his home yesterday afternoon. "When you can take a steel box, a dump truck box, turn it into scrap metal and send it 1/4 mile away... that's a bomb," reasoned Goodhue County Sheriff Dean Albers, whose detectives are investigating the case.

The suspect admits buying 100 pounds of an explosive material advertised as 'Tannerite' from an internet website. The compound is most commonly used by long range target shooters, who aim at 8 ounce cans and know they've hit their mark when they explode. The suspect's device was the equivalent of 200 of those cans. "He had placed it inside of a barell inside the bed of an old dump truck, and shot it it with a 50 caliber rifle from 300 yards away," explained Albers.

The blast was powerful enough to rattle windows at Treasure Island, and trigger a high alert at nearby Prairie Island Nuclear Powerplant. Hunks of metal were discovered more than a quarter mile away from the suspect's property. An officer who responded to the scene reports seeing another bombed out vehicle near the remains of the dump truck, suggesting it is not the suspect's first attempt at manufacturing an explosive device.

As disturbing to the Sheriff as what 'could' have happened, is the fact that such dangerous materials are just a mouse click away. "That you could go ahead and order 100 pounds of this, with the regulations out there, this day and age, you'd have thought someone would build a mechanism that would have detected someone's order this kind of amount."

KARE 11 contacted the manufacturer of Tannerite, who confirmed he shipped ten cases of the compound to the suspect. It is certian both the 30 year old man 'and' the Tannerite website will undergo increased scrutiny, as agents for the F-B-I, A-T-F, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, U-S Post Office, and the U-S Coast Guard have contacted the Goodhue County Sheriff. "I guess it's one of those things, you think you're doing it for a lark," said Albers, "You have to understand since 9-11 the impacts are alot greatedr than they used to be."

Both local and federal charges are possible in the case.


Obviously, this worries me:


It is certian both the 30 year old man 'and' the Tannerite website will undergo increased scrutiny.


On their website, they say Tennerite is 100% legal. How can the government do anything if it is legal? Or might there be a backhanded restriction like the one the CPSC imposed against Firefox:

http://www.fireworksfoundation.org/CPSC-Handel.aspx

The synopsis is that the Consumer Product Safety Comission convinced a judge to enjoin Firefox from selling otherwise legal explosive precursor chemicals based on the opinion of the CPSC that the chemicals are dangerous to the consumer, rather than technically illegal.

Should we worry? Order now? What do you think? Will BoomShot survive?

Manufacturer site:

http://www.tannerite.com

If you enjoyed reading about "Tannerite In The News (Bad)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
ReefBlue
January 15, 2008, 03:36 PM
That is a pretty expensive thing to do for one shot.....

Isn't it like 9 bucks per 1 lb target?


Might have to stock up. . .

Daemon688
January 15, 2008, 03:45 PM
Wow, that's not good at all. I was happy with the 6lb ones we were shooting and it would be a damn shame if this guy gets tannerite taken out of business.

scout26
January 15, 2008, 03:49 PM
It has been my understanding that Tannerite is not quite legal in Illinois.

From: http://www.isp.state.il.us/docs/projectileslist.pdf

In addition to the above prohibited projectiles, Section 24.1. (a) (3) and (a) (7) (iii) and Section 24.1.(a)
(11), unchanged by Public Act 92-0423, list the following as prohibited.
Section 24.1. (a) A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons when he knowingly:
(3) Carries on or about his person or in any vehicle, a tear gas gun projector or bomb or any object containing noxious liquid gas or substance, other than an object containing a non-lethal noxious liquid gas or substance designed solely for personal defense carried by a person 18 years of age or older.
(7) (iii) Any bomb, bomb-shell, grenade, bottle or other container containing an explosive substance of over one-quarter ounce for like purposes, such as, but not limited to, black powder bombs and Molotov cocktails or artillery projectiles;

Daemon688
January 15, 2008, 03:50 PM
This was in Minnesota.

Nugilum
January 15, 2008, 03:55 PM
Does this go under the category of "Dee Dee Dee?" :rolleyes:

damien
January 15, 2008, 04:05 PM
It has been my understanding that Tannerite is not quite legal in Illinois.

From: http://www.isp.state.il.us/docs/projectileslist.pdf

In addition to the above prohibited projectiles, Section 24.1. (a) (3) and (a) (7) (iii) and Section 24.1.(a)
(11), unchanged by Public Act 92-0423, list the following as prohibited.
Section 24.1. (a) A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons when he knowingly:
(3) Carries on or about his person or in any vehicle, a tear gas gun projector or bomb or any object containing noxious liquid gas or substance, other than an object containing a non-lethal noxious liquid gas or substance designed solely for personal defense carried by a person 18 years of age or older.
(7) (iii) Any bomb, bomb-shell, grenade, bottle or other container containing an explosive substance of over one-quarter ounce for like purposes, such as, but not limited to, black powder bombs and Molotov cocktails or artillery projectiles;



The way I read this, you can order it and possess it. Tannerite is not an explosive until mixed. If you mix it in Illinois, you are in violation. It would make sense to use it in Wisconsin!

tenbase
January 15, 2008, 04:14 PM
What, you mean an evil 50 can't do that sort of damage all on its own??

spiroxlii
January 15, 2008, 04:21 PM
We can talk about the evil laws and lawmakers all we want, but let's not overlook the fact that this guy did something pretty dangerous and stupid. Not only could he have hurt himself or others (pieces of metal went over a quarter mile), but by performing such an ill-planned stunt purely for kicks, he has given a load of fuel to those who would impose further restrictions upon the rest of us, who are hopefully more responsible shooters.

damien
January 15, 2008, 04:27 PM
We can talk about the evil laws and lawmakers all we want, but let's not overlook the fact that this guy did something pretty dangerous and stupid. Not only could he have hurt himself or others (pieces of metal went over a quarter mile), but by performing such an ill-planned stunt purely for kicks, he has given a load of fuel to those who would impose further restrictions upon the rest of us, who are hopefully more responsible shooters.

I don't think anyone is defending him yet. What he did was take something that in small amounts is beneficial or at least "mostly" harmless and used a large amount of it to cause a problem. This can be done with blackpowder, smokless powder, gasoline, propane, and many other common unregulated chemicals also. No one says ban gasoline when someone uses it to burn down someone else's house.

I hope the same applies here, but since Tannerite is not as common as the above substances, I don't think Tannerite will get the same sort of pass. We shall see.

ArmedBear
January 15, 2008, 04:36 PM
The suspect admits buying 100 pounds of an explosive material advertised as 'Tannerite' from an internet website. The compound is most commonly used by long range target shooters, who aim at 8 ounce cans and know they've hit their mark when they explode. The suspect's device was the equivalent of 200 of those cans. "He had placed it inside of a barell inside the bed of an old dump truck, and shot it it with a 50 caliber rifle from 300 yards away," explained Albers.

Honestly, I think this makes the 'approved' use of Tannerite sound pretty innocuous. Most such articles are a lot heavier on the fearmongering than that.

Robert Hairless
January 15, 2008, 04:39 PM
On their website, they say Tennerite is 100% legal. How can the government do anything if it is legal?

Easy as pie: make it illegal.

Laws often are made in response to the behavior of stupid people who do or say stupid things. Makes sense to me.

damien
January 15, 2008, 04:44 PM
Honestly, I think this makes the 'approved' use of Tannerite sound pretty innocuous. Most such articles are a lot heavier on the fearmongering than that.

I agree, this local paper is mostly unbiased and isn't fearmongering. Wait until the NY Times gets ahold of it. It will be called the largest explosion planned by a domestic terrorist since Oklahoma City. Hopefully they won't.

Easy as pie: make it illegal.

I don't know that it is as easy as pie right now. Congress is pretty gridlocked. Which is good. I think it will simple be regulated to death. Read the CPSC example I posted.

scout26
January 15, 2008, 05:10 PM
My bad, I saw damien's location as DeKalb, Il and thought it was near there that idiotboy set off his 100 lbs of Tannerite. Nice to know that idiotboy is in Minnesota. The Anti-gunners here would be going nuts about now.

.50 cal Aircraft Shooting Down Sniper Rifle !!!! Illegal Explosives Terrorists weapons of choice

Fear, Panic, Chaos !!!!

:banghead::barf::banghead::barf::banghead::barf:

Richmond
January 15, 2008, 05:36 PM
Nice to know that idiotboy is in Minnesota. The Anti-gunners here would be going nuts about now.

Well, maybe nice for you - I live right downriver from Red Wing, so I am less enthusiastic about having an eejit next door. :what:

Humor aside, it probably is better that this happened in southern MN, in a fairly rural county about 70 miles south of Minneapolis. This is an area I would descibe as pretty "middle of the road" about firearms, and is still prime hunting country for deer, small game and fowl. Hopefully, the reaction will be more what I hope for - grossly negligent use of firearms and tannnerite, rather than outrage over the tools.

PILMAN
January 15, 2008, 06:07 PM
Is tannerite legal in Florida?

CJ
January 15, 2008, 06:09 PM
Curious about the rifle used. Last article I was reading was about the huge fuss reporters made about at .50 caliber rifle getting themselves all worked up...when it turned out it was a black powder rifle that had been found.

Of course, anyone buying 200 lbs. of tannerite probably has enough for a .50 anyway...

rino451
January 15, 2008, 07:44 PM
I predict that the incident will lead to a felony conviction - or at least an attempt at one. Then the lefties can say that there is a record of a .50 actually used (vs. present) in the commision of a felony. Then say good-bye to your .50's.

Just a guess though. Wait until the v-p-c get wind of the use of a .50...

damien
January 15, 2008, 07:53 PM
Actually, I wonder now if this was illegal at all. It was a larger explosion than normal, for sure, but it sounds like he damaged a shot up target (a truck) that was his, on his own property. The actual damage off his property was some rattled windows and a nuclear plant put itself on alert. Not really any physical damage. I don't know the law in Minnesota, but this may be very stupid, but not illegal.

hankdatank1362
January 15, 2008, 07:56 PM
The suspect's device was the equivalent of 200 of those cans. "He had placed it inside of a barell inside the bed of an old dump truck, and shot it it with a 50 caliber rifle from 300 yards away," explained Albers.


God I hope he puts the video of it on Youtube!

Zoogster
January 15, 2008, 08:19 PM
Curious about the rifle used. Last article I was reading was about the huge fuss reporters made about at .50 caliber rifle getting themselves all worked up...when it turned out it was a black powder rifle that had been found.

That is even scarier. That means the guy was likely fairly close when he shot it. If it was launching shrapnel as far as they say, he was likely in the radius of the shrapnel and just got lucky.

All things eventualy have incidents like this happen. Some individual always wants bigger and bigger. Have to out do thier last best one each time. Eventualy it gets out of hand.
Things in a ready to go format don't weed out the people that can't do a little thinking first.
That means the only barrier left on idiots is cost. If it is too affordable then you are sure you have trouble.

Tannerite precursor chemicals might be legal, but making an explosive device is often illegal.
That essentialy means making any reactive target can be interpreted as a felony offense. It is just not often enforced that way, but if it is in an enclosed container that ruptures from detonation you have created an explosive device.

Technicaly many fireworks could be considered an explosive device as well. Whether it is a paper container or a metal container exploding, it is still an explosive device reading the law. It is just not interpreted that way by those enforcing it, but there is quantity limitations.


In fact one of the only things given exception to the explosive laws is ammunition. Many other things that go boom are illegal explosives per statute, and without a license or for use in things like oil drilling, construction, etc can be prosecuted.

However when enough people do something that it becomes commonplace and accepted, like use tannerite, people often stop realizing it is technicaly illegal.
Being perfectly legal to sell as seperate chemicals does not mean it is legal to mix, put in an enclosed container, and blow it up. Many much more powerful explosives can be made from legaly sold chemicals.
So since it is technicaly illegal, that means they could charge this guy, and anyone else regardless of the size of the explosion. Big explosion, tiny explosion, still illegal manufacture and use of an explosive without the proper license and arguably in a reckless manner.

I hate to see everything outlawed because people go overboard, but my understanding is the use of this material is already a crime and is just not enforced.
In fact anything intentionaly made that explodes in a container could be interpreted as an explosive or explosive device, and manufacturing it... (mixing the tannerite components with the intent of using it as an explosive reactive target is manufacturing the explosive.)

I am sure some people will come along and say it is perfectly legal because it is legaly sold and the manufacture says it is legal, and they have seen it legaly used dozens of times at events with law enforcement officers in attendance.

Well for a similar argument I will refer you to http://www.pyramydair.com/site/articles/silencers/
airgun "silencers". They are illegal, yet rather common, and sold by many manufacturers. That does not mean you cannot be charged with a felony offense at any time for possessing one. Thier manufacturers will assure you they are perfectly legal, that you can use them as you wish as long as you don't use them on a firearm because a silencer is defined as "a device intended to muffle the report of a firearm", and they are not designed or intended for use on a "firearm" so not "silencers". That is true.

Yet they can be attached or adapted for use on a firearm and by definition they could be illegal silencers per ATF regulations if law enforcement simply declare you in violation. Being charged for having an illegal unregistered and unserialized silencer, and having such a device as evidence against you would be a pretty tough case to fight. Your whole argument would be that the very device they have is not legaly what they say it is (and can function as) because you didn't intend it for use on a firearm. I don't know of anyone who has won that argument.


If your argument was you were using Tannerite as a reactive target, that shows you intended to use it as an explosive. The law does not say you have to have any malicious intent for it to be illegal. Simply intending for it to explode makes it illegal. Making explosives to blow things up for fun, even the harmless reactive target is not to my knowldege legal.
It was not manufactured by someone with a license if you mix the two parts together yourself and don't have a license. That is the point at which is was manufactured.

If you were taken to court with exploded items or targets as evidence, pictures of mixed, and evidence of unmixed compounds, and charged with manufacturing explosives I honestly don't see how you would not be guilty.
"I legaly bought it on the internet for that purpose" would be a hollow argument. Legaly purchasing chemicals no matter how they are advertised does not excuse committing illegal actions by you at a later date even if simply using them as advertised.
You can purchase everything necessary to do many many illegal things. Parts to convert firearms to full auto are sold for that purpose in magazines. Doing so (or even possessing the parts to do so and having such a firearm) is illegal. Would you argue you legaly purchased it?

Being able to legaly purchase the parts or components to create something does not mean you can legaly create it. If tannerite was legal to mix and put into a container before causing it to explode, then a pipe bomb would be legal as well. If a pipe bomb is legal then making grenades is legal, yet they are not and get the feds involved rather quickly.

damien
January 15, 2008, 08:43 PM
Tannerite precursor chemicals might be legal, but making an explosive device is illegal.

You did a lot of talking up there but no linking. What is the statute on this? Does this mean blasting on your own rural property is technically illegal also?

This is done openly, at Boomshot. Would the feds really give them a pass at doing it as openly as that?

Zoogster
January 15, 2008, 10:21 PM
You did a lot of talking up there but no linking. What is the statute on this? Does this mean blasting on your own rural property is technically illegal also?
I don't claim to have researched all the laws regarding blasting. There is numerous laws and doing so would be a big undertaking. For example here is a code from the Occupational Safety & Health Administration (http://www.osha.gov/)
GENERAL PROVISIONS - ß1926.900
...Smoking, firearms, matches, open flame lamps, and other fires, flame or heat producing devices and sparks shall be prohibited in or near explosive magazines or while explosives are being handled, transported or used.

So if done by people that need to comply with such regulations it would appear having and using firearms around explosives is not legal.
Is your rural property a farm? Are people earning a living on that property as part of thier employment?

There is some federal and numerous state level restrictions on depending on location for blasting.

As for BATF regulations?
http://www.atf.gov/explarson/07explist-fedregister.pdf
Tannerite is listed as an explosive on that list. It would be included in the "ammonium nitrate explosive mixture"/"ammonium perchlorate explosive mixture" in that list.

Is private use of explosives without a license legal in your area? What makes a pipe bomb illegal and not tannerite? Black powder is on that list, and putting black powder in a container and causing it to explode for recreation is generaly illegal, but doing the same with an ammonium nitrate/perchlorate based mixture of tannerite is legal? Huh?
Researching the ATF regulations is a real pain, most of them have to do with commercial purposes, transporting, selling etc
Few hard and fast rules on what is legal as a private individual with no licenses, you have to read through a lot of info.

Here is some notices:http://www.atf.gov/explarson/notices/notice_968.pdf
on 4416 you will see that consumer fireworks are listed as 50mg or less of explosives for ground use or 130mg or less for aerial use. More than that is classified differently. But again that is for legal sales to the public, transport, and other purposes in commerce.


I am not a lawyer, but ammonium perchlorate and ammonium nitrate mixtures can be very powerful, in fact with a couple additions little different than the explosives used in the Oklahoma City incident, most of which were ammonium nitrate based.
A large number of commercial explosives are predominantly ammonium nitrate.

So making an impact sensative mixture and putting it in a container with the intent of causing it to explode is legal, but doing the same with lower explosive velocity black powder is often punished as a crime?
That does not pass the legal scrutiny test and seems to be allowed on a discretionary basis, ie illegal at will.

I could spend hours researching it and finding statutes to support my opinion (which is all most laws are, interpreted opinions which are validated or invalidated through higher court rulings/opinions) but it would be a lot of work and I have no problem with you thinking it is legal, I however feel it is too big of a grey area, and can be interpreted as illegal, and is definately illegal at the state level some places.

There might also be a big grey area between what you can legaly do for agricultural and construction purposes, and what you can do for recreational purposes. Blowing up a rock or stump to clear it might be legal (requiring more or less permits depending on location), but blowing up a bottle of explosive by shooting it for recreation is different.
If you can legaly detonate large quantities of explosives with bullets for recreation why not with fuses, electronics etc?
If you can is it subject to size limitations under the regulations regarding consumer fireworks (50mg)? Or is it different for private use?

It is a big grey area that spells trouble to me, leaving the discretion of felony prosecution to LEOs.
It is also illegal in my state at the state level. So not worth the time and effort at the moment to pursue it further.

Do as you want, many people obviously use it without being prosecuted.

Matt304
January 15, 2008, 11:37 PM
Zoogster,

Ok, those messages didn't say a whole lot about specifics.

I can recall reading the ATF regulations at the ATF site just a few months ago. Now they have removed the webpage referring to these specific blasting laws. Go figure. The page was here: http://www.atf.gov/explarson/fedexplolaw/index.htm

Anyways, Federal law stated that no, there is not a license or permit required for rural personal use or manufacture of explosives. The time when a permit became required is either when A) you are transporting those on public roadways or B) you are manufacturing the explosives for commercial use or sale C) performing commercial blast work or D) storing them mixed for later use. But it's the same reason you can make 20lb ammonium perchlorate composite rocket motors as a hobby on your own land if you do not transport and you get a waiver to fly it. Once you transport then you need the permit and certified magazine.

In IL where I live, we would need two types of blasting permits if I recall to even farm blast. One was a $75 test, the other is an actual permit for storage and was around $200. To make rocket motors over 62.5g propellant weight of composite propellant is considered a low-explosive production, so you would need an LEUP here in IL for storage. (More garbage, ammonium perchlorate propellant is less dangerous than a box of wood strike matches, but that's another issue.) Each state is different in how they regulate explosives. But at the federal level, it was made clear by the document that farmers could indeed blast a boulder with a sack of ANFO if they pleased and their state had no addition requirements. Of course then you get into blast vibration requirements and air blast requirements etc. That would have probably put this man at fault for a misuse at 200lbs or whatever he did.

I find it bogus that a nuclear powerplant went into hazard mode or whatever. A 200lb blast pressure at 400 yards is probably similar to a good lightning strike at 100ft in sound pressure. So what the heck does the nuclear plant do when it storms outside?

This will be an interesting case to follow to say the least, but they will nab him on something I'll bet.

Wes Janson
January 16, 2008, 12:00 AM
Ignoring the facts of this particular case, is there any particular reason why the recreational useage of explosives on isolated, private property should be illegal?

herohog
January 16, 2008, 12:04 AM
it was "isolated" to 1/4 mile away... I'm not sure if his property extended that far... :confused:

GlowinPontiac
January 16, 2008, 01:48 AM
if the shrapnel stayed on his property then i see no problem with this other than him being only 300yds away from the blast.
anyways darwin will probably take care of this guy soon enough.......

Gingerbreadman
January 16, 2008, 02:58 AM
it was "isolated" to 1/4 mile away... I'm not sure if his property extended that far...

It depends on where he lives. If he did this in a rural area near Red Wing, it is totally possible.

Case and point: If the house I am posting this from right now blew up and sent parts 1/4 mile away, nothing would even make it to the road. From my perspective, 1/4 mile is not that far.

Richmond
January 16, 2008, 05:02 PM
Here is a video of the news report from KARE 11 - includes some footage of the mangled dump truck bed as well as aerial footage of the field where it was set off. Also, interview with Sheriff and the like.

http://www.kare11.com/video/player.aspx?aid=60825&sid=492577&bw=hi&cat=2

thexrayboy
January 16, 2008, 07:22 PM
Yes this guy did something dangerous and stupid. And he used a legal product to do it. Of course now their will likely be calls to ban tannerite because it can be used stupidly and cause danger. While we are at it
we need to ban automobiles and countless other things that can and are
used stupidly and dangerously.

Of course the rational and logical approach would be to deal soley with the stupid people. That of course makes sense and as such is not considered an
acceptable solution.

chris in va
January 16, 2008, 07:35 PM
Holy cow. I've seen what a 2 liter bottle will do, couldn't imagine 100 pounds of the stuff. Heck a 1# bottle will shove three empty propane tanks 30' in all directions.

george29
January 16, 2008, 09:01 PM
Some people really need to join the military and go blow things up for real for free, and get paid to do it. It's people like this that cause us all the grief we now have with all the overlapping idiotic bumf*ck gun laws. More proof if one was needed that we don't have enough abortion clinics in this country. In this age of technology where one person and a computerized robotic mechanized machine does the work of two thousand people, we really have very little use for those that are a beer short of a six pack, unless they volunteer to replace the Rats and Monkeys of the testing laboratories.
I may not be a very good contributor to society, but I do know how to be discrete and not cause problems to others.

Adventurer_96
January 17, 2008, 01:04 AM
KARE 11 contacted the manufacturer of Tannerite, who confirmed he shipped ten cases of the compound to the suspect.

Doesn't anyone else find this quote a little disturbing?

I don't like the idea that vendors pony up that kind of information so freely. Call me crazy.

flynlr
January 17, 2008, 05:02 AM
Quote:
KARE 11 contacted the manufacturer of Tannerite, who confirmed he shipped ten cases of the compound to the suspect.
Doesn't anyone else find this quote a little disturbing?

I don't like the idea that vendors pony up that kind of information so freely. Call me crazy.

crap thats not good news.

precisionshootist
January 17, 2008, 05:30 AM
Actually, I wonder now if this was illegal at all. It was a larger explosion than normal, for sure, but it sounds like he damaged a shot up target (a truck) that was his, on his own property. The actual damage off his property was some rattled windows and a nuclear plant put itself on alert. Not really any physical damage. I don't know the law in Minnesota, but this may be very stupid, but not illegal.


+1

Might not have been the best of ideas but I donít see where he did anything overtly illegal. This should be the attitude of law enforcement but I can assure you itís not. We have way too many laws and way too many avenues for the police/DA to charge law abiding citizens with felony criminal offences. The police donít like his behavior so they will use the system to make him a criminal.


As disturbing to the Sheriff as what 'could' have happened, is the fact that such dangerous materials are just a mouse click away. "That you could go ahead and order 100 pounds of this, with the regulations out there, this day and age, you'd have thought someone would build a mechanism that would have detected someone's order this kind of amount."


What I find disturbing is Sheriff Dean Albers mind set. What he is really saying is I canít believe this stuff is legal, I canít believe Americans are free to order this stuff online, I CANíT BELIEVE I DONíT HAVE THE POWER TO JUST HALL THIS GUY OFF TO JAIL. That is whatís truly disturbing about this story.


It is certian both the 30 year old man 'and' the Tannerite website will undergo increased scrutiny, as agents for the F-B-I, A-T-F, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, U-S Post Office, and the U-S Coast Guard have contacted the Goodhue County Sheriff. "I guess it's one of those things, you think you're doing it for a lark," said Albers, "You have to understand since 9-11 the impacts are alot greatedr than they used to be."

Both local and federal charges are possible in the case.


He might as well have told the truth and said, Well there was no real harm done, but I don't like this stuff so donít worry weíll investigate until we can find a serious charge to get him on.

cata
January 17, 2008, 08:55 PM
This is just crap! The charges of Felonies against this guy are absolute BS, Did the local PD mix up the regs? Charges include acting with gross disregard for human life and destruction of property with an explosive or incendiary device ó both felonies. His Property His Possessions???? *** is going on! I can't beleive this crap. The only thing he could face maybe a law for possession of a binary explosive as a fourth Degree felon for a prior domestic the other two charges are a BIOS opionion on the law enforcement of that area. Here I am in MN and all I can think about is I just got back from Iraq and this guy had no intentions of attacking the Nuclear Power Plant or Blowing up a target to hurt or kill someone or cause damage to property other than his own for entertainment purposes with spectators that wanted to see a show, a legal form of explosive that doesnt even catalyst right when you mix up to much of it causing a waste of product that does more damage to your pocket book. Another good question is *** is infringing your rights on the 2nd amendment, It's not this guy who had a target shoot on his property with firends that wanted to be there, It's the people who want the perfect dream world life, The land of scared and pondering conservatives who point guilty on the idea not understanding the actions intended.

Wes Janson
January 18, 2008, 03:06 AM
Typical media stupidity response. Oh noes! something scary out there, why haven't we been protected from it yet?! Add in the interview with the random idiot on the street, and the pissed off local authorities, both wanting to know why people are allowed such dangerous things...so typical and still so utterly stupid.

Sheldon J
January 18, 2008, 05:15 PM
And yet another redneck with way too much time and money on his hands makes a real bad decision.

CNYCacher
January 18, 2008, 09:38 PM
Holy crap 1/4 mile! :rolleyes:

1/4 mile in yards is roughly 400 yards. We already know he shot it from 300 yards away on his own property, so I am going to bet his property is at least 400 yards deep because I doubt he shot from his front yard past the house to the back yard.

Given that his property is 400 yards+ deep, and he is the kind of guy who can afford a .50, and can afford to shoot 100lbs of tannerite at a time, it is not that far of a stretch to imagine there are no other houses around for at least 1/4 mile.

Richmond
January 19, 2008, 02:27 PM
he is the kind of guy who can afford a .50

I think from the news reports it was a .50 blackpowder, not a .50 centerfire.

Although he can afford way too much tannerite.:what:

Crunker1337
January 19, 2008, 04:49 PM
I'm not going to discuss the politics or legality of this... but doesn't it strike you as dangerous? He shot it from 300 yards away, and shrapnel was found 440 yards away. This could have ended up much worse.

Lucky
January 19, 2008, 05:00 PM
what's the big deal with stuff going 450 yards? If it doesn't affect other people it's none of their business. Simple principle.

If he disturbed neighbors with excessive noise and rattling their windows it's a problem. But that's probably exaggerated, small 'bomb', large distances. He was shooting 300 yards with a .50, if they aren't disturbed by that a bigger boom once in a while shouldn't matter.



You have to admit, the more you think about it the more it seems they NEED a range that caters to exactly these activitites... Hmm Bob's explosive target agency... You know you'd go at least once to try it.

larry_minn
January 20, 2008, 01:13 AM
Up until they decided a BRIBE was required to have a explosives permit I had one. (IIRC i have had one since I was 22) There used to be NO CHARGE for pemit. (or for carry pemit) Then when MN got uniform carry law its $100 for carry and $35 for explosives permit (to be honest the fee is for background check) Thing is I was renewing both on same day. "That will be $135" Neither background check is valid for anything else. :( :(
Thing is he could have shot a (almost empty) LP tank and it would have done more damage. (almost empty fuel tanks are worse then full ones)
Or as local did in this area. He took a old basement and dumped lumber/scrap tree branchs/other scrap wood. He got a permit to burn it. He decided it needed something to get it going. He has some old dsl fuel that is long past useable. Hand sprayer and sprays it over wood. (I have done that myself) Then he has some old 20lb LP tanks (without OPD valve) that are mostly empty. He cracks valve and tosses them in .(I have not done that) :) Seems he has some old paint thinner/maybe some old gas thats like varnish and that gets tossed in. (kinda seemed anything he thought was combustible got tossed in don't it?" :)

Well its a dead calm day. All this stuff is in a hole. This guy does ONE thing smart. He realizes it might not be safe to light it directly. He makes a remote ignition source. (Think Russian drink) and tosses it in. BOOM Blows him back, cracks windows fairly far away, people calling 911 (who don't know anything/even WHERE the blast came from)
No charges.

Gossettc68
January 20, 2008, 01:36 AM
In a answer to this question:

Quote:
In addition to the above prohibited projectiles, Section 24.1. (a) (3) and (a) (7) (iii) and Section 24.1.(a)
(11), unchanged by Public Act 92-0423, list the following as prohibited.
Section 24.1. (a) A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons when he knowingly:
(3) Carries on or about his person or in any vehicle, a tear gas gun projector or bomb or any object containing noxious liquid gas or substance, other than an object containing a non-lethal noxious liquid gas or substance designed solely for personal defense carried by a person 18 years of age or older.
(7) (iii) Any bomb, bomb-shell, grenade, bottle or other container containing an explosive substance of over one-quarter ounce for like purposes, such as, but not limited to, black powder bombs and Molotov cocktails or artillery projectiles;

Tannerite is not a bomb. As that section of the statute reads it is pointing to destructive devices. " Any bomb or explosive substances for like purposes ".

Tannerite would not fall into that catagory due to the nature of the product. It's a shot indicator, not a bomb. Take car manufactures for example, airbags have a explosive device in them. The companies//people who manufacture airbags have to be federally licesenced with the ATF to manufacture them...Like Tannerite has to be for the Targets. But the public can posses airbags without any licensing because the end result of said product is not built to use as a destructive device. Same with the targets. They are not pipe bombs or molotav cocktails.

I would need to read other statutes of Illinois law before I can make a decent judgment call. But given the information I read in a earlier post I would say that yes, Tannerite is legal in Illinois. I would recommend that you use it ONLY as a shot indicator however.

If you guys have any questions I can help ya with please let me know.

Charles Gossett
Support@survivalops.com
www.survivalops.com

inkhead
January 20, 2008, 03:26 AM
If this was "treasure island" here in San Francisco, it's the small crappy island with all day fog, that is in the middle of the bay bridge! This makes me angry, so idiot screwing it up for the rest of us... sigh..

I can do the same thing with gas.. which is probably easier to obtain.. It's also very easy to build a fertilizer bomb, much easier than ordering this stuff off the internet..

Biker
January 20, 2008, 10:15 AM
You ever hear of *Carnivore*?

Biker;)

wuchak
January 20, 2008, 10:47 AM
In the news video they said the guy made a video of the explosion but the FBI won't release it. It shouldn't take too long to hit YouTube.

He might have overdone it a tad on the Tannerite but other than noise there was no part of his experiment that went off his property according to the news.

Gossettc68
January 20, 2008, 02:34 PM
Here is the video of the 100 pound charge.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3a7_1200611038

And from what I understand now all those outragous charges have been reduced down to public nuisance. The folks at the power plant are not making a big deal. They got to test there emergency response time. And they liked the end result.

The media is just making a mountain out of a molehill as usual. But this issue at hand is dwindling down to size.

kcmarine
January 20, 2008, 03:30 PM
Hm... I don't know if he can really be charged on the explosion itself. He could be cited for a noise complaint, or if he has projectile laws in his area, for the shrapnel. They could also get him on negligence. But if they wanted to get him good, they'd have to get him on something related to the truck itself. If the truck is new, and he leased it, or it was somehow someone else's truck, they could get him for the destruction of rental or leased property, especially if he was somehow behind on payments. Another way to get him would be to prove that he destroyed the truck to collect the insurance on it, but my guess is that that will be impossible to prove because of the way he went about in the destruction of his truck.

My guess is that this won't get too far. The big Anti's on the coasts don't care too much about news like this. They care about tragedies that they can manipulate.

And if things are still going the way they are with Chinese goods, the CPSC might be too busy to care.

Remember, this is one incident. Maybe the people on this board should make sure they dont cause any more.

Gossettc68
January 20, 2008, 06:19 PM
Actually, It was a truck bed, not the truck itself.

From what I understand the vehicle wreckage that was shown on the news was a car he had blown up with 30 pounds of tannerite before he blew up the truck bed.

kcmarine
January 20, 2008, 09:19 PM
Hm... That does change the situation a bit.


But if I were the authorities... I wouldn't bother charging the guy. I mean... as a pyro, what more can he do? He's reached the zenith. The guy set off the friggin' safety features on a nuclear powerplant. After that kind of show, setting off a car alarm or two just won't cut it anymore.:D:D:D


And he's probably too broke from spending all of that money on the Tannerite (that stuff isn't cheap) to buy more explosive goodies.

If you enjoyed reading about "Tannerite In The News (Bad)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!