Bobson
Member
The term practical ownership means nothing more than legal ownership, as far as I'm concerned. Therefore, I assume you mean practical [civilian] use; and I can't imagine a single one. Care to enlighten me?
Destructive Devices: How About a Form 1 for a Pipe Bomb?
- Thread starter xquercus
- Start date
- Status
MD_Willington
Member
Not correct - Since the end of July 2011 we have been able to legally use suppressors in WA State.crazy-mp said:
April 11, 2011 - Governor signed. - Effective date 7/22/2011.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1016
One way you can exercise your healthy curiosity for things that go BOOM:
If one wants to play with explosives and has a suitable magazine, then obtain an FEL, otherwise, you could do as I did, become an Employee Possessor and use the fun stuff at the FEL's location...
Yep - we have fun in Idaho !
www.boomershoot.org
AlexanderA
Member
A Molotov cocktail is simplicity itself: fill a bottle with gasoline, stick in a rag for a wick, light, and throw. Realistically, why would anyone bother with a Form 1 for this? You make it, 5 minutes later you use it, and it's gone. After all, the ingredients -- the bottle, the gasoline, the rag, the matches -- are all perfectly innocuous and legal until the moment they're assembled. Actually, the key ingredient is the knowledge to make it, and that's locked away safely inside your head. (The same reasoning, to a lesser extent, also applies to pipe bombs.)
Now, if these things are used in an arson or other crime, the failure to file a Form 1 make it a federal offense. So that's what we're really talking about -- a prosecutorial tool. If you make a Molotov cocktail and set it off out on your farm just for kicks, who's to know?
I was at Knob Creek in October. Gasoline in containers were used as targets, set off by incendiary rounds. Were these untaxed "destructive devices"? (Because they're functionally the same as Molotov cocktails?) Apparently not, because there were ATF agents there and they didn't say anything about it.
Sometimes we get carried away with the legalities, and lose sight of the practicalities.
jmorris
Member
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2005
- Messages
- 24,162
Reading the above I can't help but think, some fireworks are "bombs" without a cap on top.
Concept aside, I would just get the proper license for construction, deconstruction, mining or geoseismic research...you get the point. Then you have a lot more fun stuff to play with.
In the "order" section at the site below it says something about a form 37
http://vetrivelexplosives.com/
Concept aside, I would just get the proper license for construction, deconstruction, mining or geoseismic research...you get the point. Then you have a lot more fun stuff to play with.
In the "order" section at the site below it says something about a form 37
http://vetrivelexplosives.com/
RhinoDefense
Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2010
- Messages
- 883
Integrity. There are a lot of things one could do illegally with weapons. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
JustinJ
Member
Are molotov cocktails considered destructive devices by a specific legal definition or by some type of interpretation? Just curious.
RhinoDefense
Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2010
- Messages
- 883
27 CFR 478.11
Emphasis mine. Molotov cocktails are an incendiary, thus a destructive device.
Emphasis mine. Molotov cocktails are an incendiary, thus a destructive device.
JustinJ
Member
Gasoline, alcohol and lighter fluid are incendiaries. It says an incendiary bomb so the question is what is the definition of a bomb. Classifying a molotov as such seems problematic without oil lamps falling into the same category. They don't have fuses and are ignitied by the ground or other object they strike instead of by some internal component. I'm not saying they aren't destructive devices but that statute doesn't seem adequate to categorize them as such.
This
At my last job at a geoengineering company I looked into the legal requirements for us to purchase, store, and use PETN. There were of course a lot of hoops to jump through, but with a legitimate use (as we had) it seemed completely doable. I ended up going with a contractor to do the work as the transportation and storage logistics for use at a remote location were a PITA. The fire chief of Charlotte NC even signed off on the work (it was to be in the city limits). Alas, the project fell apart and we never got to "play".
Oh well, all of our bang would have happened 50-100 feet below ground and may well have been a let down after all the buildup of getting to "play" with plastic expliosive. Still had fun researching and designing the shape charges though. I'm pretty sure those months of research landed me on every watch list on the planet.
JustinJ
Member
If a person wishes to blast a few tree stumps or clear out a rock ledges with dynamite will they end up having to pay the $200 tax stamp for a destructive device? And will it be per stick? I saw some yahoo on Utube who did some majic trick in which he stood on a steel plate as he set off dynamite beneath it. If he had access to dynamite i can't imagine it would be that hard to acquire.
MasterSergeantA
Member
Until 9/11 all you needed to buy dynamite (the commercial kind) in Arizona was a valid driver license. Haven't checked recently to see how much that has changed. But you did NOT need to do any other kind of form to get the stuff. I presume there are more wickets to go through these days, but I know you can still get it and I don't believe a Form 1 or 4 is involved.
xquercus
Member
Certainly. Legal ownership is precisely what I mean. While I have no interest in owning a pipe bomb, I started this thread because a pipe bomb was somewhat unique and I'm interested in discussing how one might legally make one. There is a plethora of information available on the process to legally make a short barreled rifle, transfer a machine gun, make or transfer a suppressor, etc, but there is very little information available on how one would go about making a legal explosive destructive device and then legally storing it. It's just an interesting area of discussion. Having read the ATF's Guide to Firearms Laws and the "Orange Book" cover to cover on several occasions, I still don't have a clear picture of how explosive Destructive Devices are regulated.
The reason I asked specifically about a pipe bomb is that it's something that any reloader could make after a quick trip to Home Depot for the pipe. Smokeless powder and safety fuse easy to come by without an explosives end user license. While I believe that purchasing smokeless powder and safety fuse with the purpose of constructing a pipe bomb *would* require an end user license (because one's intended use is non-sporting), deciding to make a pipe bomb from powder and fuse one has already acquired would not be prohibited. I'm not sure though.
I'm also interested in the storage aspect. The orange book is very specific about what needs to be stored in an ATF approved magazine. I'm not really interested in what is wise or what isn't wise -- just what the law says. I think a pipe bomb (as any other explosive) would need to be stored in a magazine. I'm a bit on the fence though because a pipe bomb on a form 1 is in fact a firearm. We don't store firearms in magazines. We don't even store reloading powder or safety fuse in magazines. That we don't is, I believe, because of specific exemptions in federal explosives law. In fact, if one has two cans of smokeless powder -- one can intended for reloading rifle cartridges and another for making pipe bombs (on a form 1) -- the former can be stored in the bedroom closet while the latter would have to be stored in an approved magazine.
In any case, I'm not sure about any of this. While I appreciate everyone's feedback on this thread, it's really devolved away from the original topic of legally making a pipe bomb with smokeless powder and fuse.
xquercus
Member
No. Presumably you are talking about sticks of dynamite. A stick of dynamite is not an destructive device in and of itself as it is not designed as an anti-personnel device. If one intends to use a stick of dynamite in an anti-personnel role, I believe it then becomes a destructive device in the eyes of the ATF. It would then require a serial number and a tax stamp. For the purchase of dynamite an end user license is required -- even for non-commercial use -- although this appears to be a post 9/11 change.
Of course, I don't know how one is supposed to transport it from the dealer to the use site because I would think certain DOT and magazine storage regulations would apply but I'm not sure. Considering that federal explosives laws deals almost entirely with the commercial use of explosives, one might expect an exemption to storage in a portable magazine while on the road. I haven't found such an exemption though. I might be there, I just haven't seen it.
As an alternative one could buy a binary explosive, the most well known on this board being Tannerite. By making the explosive on site you avoid the entire transportation and storage issue. As far as I can tell, there is no prohibition against making an explosive. Whether it's mixing up a binary explosive or making PETN, if one can do it without having to buy, store or transport any other material regulated as an explosive, no license is needed. Of course, it has to be used right away to avoid the storage issue.
Then again, I really don't know what I'm talking about as this is just what I've absorbed from reading a *lot* of federal statutes without the benefit of seeing much case law (which is a whole 'nother ball of wax). I may have an incomplete picture. I have no personal practical experience with explosives -- just an interested in the related laws and regulations.
Master Blaster
Member
One note others have not mentioned, while you may be able to manufacture an explosive device under federal law, state law may be different and outright prohibit the sale manufacture or possession of such a device.
JustinJ
Member
I don't know how binaries like tannerite are exempt but manufacture of PETN and most other explosives is a big federal no-no without proper licensing. Many of the required chemicals are controlled in a similar manner to to drug manufacturing chems.
xquercus
Member
I don't believe this is true. Or, at least, I'm not aware of a law or regulation which prohibits the manufacture of an explosive for personal non-business use. Looking through the orange book, the licensing requirements are generally qualified by phrases such as "a person engaged in the business...". That is, I really don't believe a manufacturers license is required unless one sells the product or use it in ones own business. If one want to make <insert explosive here> to blow up tree stumps or just to perfect ones chemistry, I don't believe that requires a license. On the other hand, transporting and storing explosives are *always* subject to regulation -- whether or not the explosive is used in the course of business. My understanding is that Tannerite generally does not require a manufacturers license for this very reason. The explosive is manufactured on site and never transported nor stored. As soon as one charges a fee to shoot tannerite targets, a manufacturers license would be required as the manufacturer is clearly engaged in a business. I could very well be wrong here and would appreciate a properly cited correction if so.
OK, PETN is a horrible example for a number of reasons. Let's replace PETN with dynamite. The skill to make nitroglycerin requires two semesters of chemistry (no organic needed) and, with the exception of nitric acid, all of the ingredients are easy to obtain. Nitric acid is trivial to make from just about any inorganic nitrate salt and can be concentrated with $100 worth of glassware. Sawdust certainly isn't regulated.
Now that we are back in the realm of possibility, what about one using legally homemade dynamite (requiring no license as one is not engaged in a business) to make a legal form 1 pipe bomb...
Other than comments on the utter ridiculousness and of this and how dangerous this would be (we aren't actually doing this -- it's just a discussion), I'm interested on any ideas whether or not this would be possible. Citations appreciated, of course!
JustinJ
Member
Look under "unlawful acts"
http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-5400-7.pdf
With the exception of nitric acid the other ingredients can not be banned because their every day use is far too common. Purchase of nitric acid is probably specifically unatainable because of its use in explosives manufacture with no other application outside of industry. Glassware is generally highly controlled and illegal to obtain in many states primarily due to methamphetamine.
Yes, a person with two semesters of chemistry can make nitroglycerine. But to make it with an acceptable chance of survival is a whole other story. It is in fact an extremely dangerous compound to synth even for a real chemist. The right temperature range for reaction is way too close to the explosive temperature.
On a side note, nitroglycerin is extremely stable at low temperatures albeit not a condition for practical use.
xquercus
Member
Which particular section of section 842 "Unlawful Acts" prohibits an individual, not associated with any business activity, from making or manufacturing an explosive? Note that the first paragraph states "It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in the business of... manufacturing... explosive materials without a license." Federal law regulates the manufacture of explosives that enter commerce through the licensing process. It does not prohibit a non-licensee from making explosives which do not enter commerce. It certainly regulates transportation, storage, and trade of such explosives, but it does not prohibit making them.
Certainly, I could be overlooking something. I'll also concede that while I've read the orange book forward and backwards, I've little experience with case law or any ATF rulings which haven't been published on the ATF web site (if there are any).
In any case, how is it that you read the section on "Prohibited Acts" that you come to the conclusion that, in the absence of any business activity, non-licensees are prohibited from making explosives?
Not that it is pertinent to the form 1 discussion but nitric acid is definitely not unobtainable or even controlled to the best of my knowledge. It's not a drug precursor (that I know of) so it's not DEA scheduled nor is it on the ATF's list of explosives. It's just generally difficult to get. I'm into amateur microscopy and the places I order my dyes from usually have nitric acid in stock. United nuclear has it right now -- a half litre of 70% for about $50 (plus shipping and hazmat).
I think the glassware issue has really been blown out of proportion. A couple of specific states, Texas comes to mind, have made possession of certain types of glassware, along with certain drug precursors, a crime. I think it's simply an extension of the "intent to manufacture" line of prosecution. As far as I'm aware, lab glassware is not controlled, regulated, or taxed any differently than a pyrex mixing bowl from the supermarket. I recently placed an order for some glassware as I have to now make my own Lugol's solution (a dye) as it's no longer commercially available. It contains iodine which is now a drug precursor and a controlled substance (DEA listed chemical). So now one has to buy their own iodine (purchase limits apply), and make your own Lugol's. Anyway, my personal experience purchasing glassware as recently as this past spring is that it's no different than ordering a book on amazon -- at least in my state. Of course, it didn't contain anything like fractionating column or a separatory funnel, but it included several nice pieces.
Oh, I agree, it's not a practical option for a sane person. The whole idea of making a pipe bomb on a form 1 is crazy as far as I'm concerned. None the less, I want to separate what's safe sane from what is legal. I want to focus on whether one can legally make a pipe bomb on a form 1, in any way possible (sane or not), without any further licensing.
JustinJ
Member
Actually, it appears you are right. Number 37 under questions and answers says "persons who manufacture explosives for their personal, non-business use are not required to have a manufacturer's license"
Huh, i'm surprised.
I was using WA state as an example, of how something may be legally possessed but not used. Many states changed NFA laws this year...
- Status
Similar threads
