When is "black powder" not "black powder"?

[hso]

used for hand loading

That's the differentiation since many firearm uses have reserved language in regulation. In "plain language" it may not make sense to define something two different ways, but in regulatory language it is common to establish different definitions that govern regulation or exclusion.

So, if used in firearms it isn't regulated as an explosive under 13-31 A.3.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Black powder is a mixture of charcoal, sulfur, and a nitrate for oxygen.
Black powder for use in guns is usually about 75% postassium nitrate.
Blasting powder for moving rocks or tree stumps can be as little as 60% nitrate (kinda weak) and may be made with cheaper sodium nitrate which is too corrosive to use in guns.
Using firearms grade black powder for stump removal is unnecessarily expensive.

 

[Johnm1]

I believe that I have read all of the posts here and don't think this has been mentioned. Excuse me if it has.

The lawyers on this site have often cautioned us non lawyers that one has to be read and understand the law. Some law makers are actually lawyers some are not. But laws are written by people who may or may not know how to write a law. As I read the statute as written here I see the results of a debate. Whether that debate was in the mind of a single person who authored the law or on the floor of one of the houses. The intent was to classify black powder as a regulated substance. But it had the unintended effect of impacting other uses and an exception was included. However confusing this law appears on the surface it seems that this was well reasoned and written about as clearly as it could have been. I suspect that there are other laws that are more confusing based on a complicated set of circumstances that are still an honest attempt on the lawmakers part to implement a specific result. This is the reason laws are debated in our government.

It gets interesting when opponents of a proposed law intend to modify the meaning of a proposed law that will be passed despite their objections but has a chance of passing with the modifications. I bet we could find a lot of examples of laws that actually don't make sense to us as written.

Reading legal language is a skill and lawyers are trained to interpret it. I suspect it gets real confusing reading a law that was written by a non lawyer for a specific intent that wasn't debated and contains significant unintended consequences. Or maybe intended consequences.

Propose, debate, vote. But most importantly our lawmakers must read and understand what is being proposed. Anything else is poor lawmaking.

 

[misser]

I read the definitions as this:

Explosive” means any dynamite, nitroglycerine, black powder, or other similar explosive material, including plastic explosives. Explosive does not include ammunition or ammunition components such as primers, percussion caps, smokeless powder, black powder and black powder substitutes used for hand loading purposes.
Explosive does not include ammunition or ammunition components

Black powder is black powder but if it is used in ammunition....................... So it is the intended use and what it my be in.
If there were black powder loaded ammo, it would then not be "explosive"

Primers are indeed explosive. They require a Haz Mat form when shipped just as primers. but if the are put in an empty case (primed brass) they do not need a haz mat.

Down the global rabbit hole we go.

i would like to understand the ''test'' that was used to determine that primers are so dangerous that they need a special shipping . i can get cartages in the mail , no big deal .

 

[edwardware]

BTW: Rock of Ages attempted to use Pyrodex in their quarry. A person was killed and ROA was fined big time.

Because they failed to find or clear misfired (unexploded) Pyrodex from the last blast, and a torch operator found it instead. Not related to the statutory status of Pyrodex, but probably to it's chemical behavior.

 

[Jim Watson]

Remember, Dan Pawlak, inventor of Pyrodex, was killed when his pilot plant blew up.

There was a lot of development done in the late days of black powder before nitrocellulose with or without nitroglycerine took over as the type of smokeless we use now. I recall reading of Poudre Brugere, ammonium picrate + potassium nitrate; Amidpulver, ammonium nitrate + potassium nitrate + charcoal; Ammonpulver, ammonium nitrate + charcoal. The fascination lingered, there was Peyton's powder, ammonium picrate + nitrocellulose + nitroglycerine.

Period blasting powder was made like gunpowder but often using sodium nitrate instead of potassium nitrate. Sodium nitrate (Chile Saltpeter) was cheaper and more energetic than potassium nitrate, but more hygroscopic, so keeping your powder dry for a muzzleloader would have been a problem.

 

[Texasgrillchef]

i would like to understand the ''test'' that was used to determine that primers are so dangerous that they need a special shipping . i can get cartages in the mail , no big deal .

i agree I was thinking that the other day. If I buy primers by themselves they have to have special shipping and pay the hazmat fee.. yet if I buy full ammunition which includes the primer the powder and a projectile, it doesn’t require the hazmat fee, or special shipping.

all I can assume, and assuming isn’t a good thing I know. Is that somehow putting a primer in a casein, and the packaging makes it less likely to detonate then the packaging primers use now. Which only makes me wonder why we don’t just improve the packaging to make it safer?

I wonder if One were able to be pre-primer but not loads brass. Just primer and brass assembled. Would a hazmat fee and special shipping be required?

 

[Texasgrillchef]

I believe that I have read all of the posts here and don't think this has been mentioned. Excuse me if it has.

The lawyers on this site have often cautioned us non lawyers that one has to be read and understand the law. Some law makers are actually lawyers some are not. But laws are written by people who may or may not know how to write a law. As I read the statute as written here I see the results of a debate. Whether that debate was in the mind of a single person who authored the law or on the floor of one of the houses. The intent was to classify black powder as a regulated substance. But it had the unintended effect of impacting other uses and an exception was included. However confusing this law appears on the surface it seems that this was well reasoned and written about as clearly as it could have been. I suspect that there are other laws that are more confusing based on a complicated set of circumstances that are still an honest attempt on the lawmakers part to implement a specific result. This is the reason laws are debated in our government.

It gets interesting when opponents of a proposed law intend to modify the meaning of a proposed law that will be passed despite their objections but has a chance of passing with the modifications. I bet we could find a lot of examples of laws that actually don't make sense to us as written.

Reading legal language is a skill and lawyers are trained to interpret it. I suspect it gets real confusing reading a law that was written by a non lawyer for a specific intent that wasn't debated and contains significant unintended consequences. Or maybe intended consequences.

Propose, debate, vote. But most importantly our lawmakers must read and understand what is being proposed. Anything else is poor lawmaking.

Many mention or talk about the intent of a particular law that the legislature had at the time they passed the law.

I always like to counter, that the intent of the legislature that passes the law, especially one that has gone through many changes, and edits, that their can be MORE then just one intent. You could have what the Democrats have as the intent of the law, as well as the republicans intent, as well as all other independents and misc. parties. Especially when a legislature has a small majority control, or when house is controlled by one party and the senate controlled by the other. They each could have different intents on the effect of the law. Especially when it comes down to the details and exceptions.

This would be no different then the battles held in our court system over the laws themselves. If everyone agreed on the intent of the law, then they wouldn’t be challenged in court, or appealed as well. This is also one of many reasons why we have an appeals process and a Supreme Court. Sadly though the Supreme Court will hear cases it shouldn’t and fail to hear cases it should.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Many mention or talk about the intent of a particular law that the legislature had at the time they passed the law.

I always like to counter, that the intent of the legislature that passes the law, especially one that has gone through many changes, and edits, that their can be MORE then just one intent. ...

How do you come up with that sort of nonsense? You obviously have no clue how courts view questions of legislative intent.

In general courts will infer legislative intent from the plain language of the statute. Let's look at how courts in Texas view questions of legislative intent:

• Dyer v. Medoc Health Servs., LLC, 573 S.W.3d 418 (Tex. App. 2019), at 424-425:

  ....In conducting our analysis, "we ascertain and give effect to the Legislature’s intent as expressed in the language of the statute." Harper , 562 S.W.3d at 1 ; see also Travis Cent. Appraisal Dist. v. Norman , 342 S.W.3d 54, 58 (Tex. 2011) ("Legislative intent ... remains the polestar of statutory construction." (internal citations omitted) ). We construe the statute’s words according to their plain and common meaning, "unless a contrary intention is apparent from the context, or unless such a construction leads to absurd results." Youngkin , 546 S.W.3d at 680 ; see also Molinet v. Kimbrell , 356 S.W.3d 407, 411 (Tex. 2011) ("The plain meaning of the text is the best expression of legislative intent unless a different meaning is apparent from the context or the plain meaning leads to absurd or nonsensical results.")....

  
  
• Youngkin v. Hines, 546 S.W.3d 675 (Tex. 2018), at 680:

  .... We begin our inquiry with the threshold question of whether the Act applies to the case before us. We review issues of statutory interpretation de novo. City of San Antonio v. City of Boerne , 111 S.W.3d 22, 25 (Tex. 2003). "In construing a statute, our objective is to determine and give effect to the Legislature's intent." Id. ; see also TEX. GOV'T CODE § 312.005. The "surest guide to what lawmakers intended" is the enacted language of a statute, Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Summers , 282 S.W.3d 433, 463 (Tex. 2009) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted), which necessarily includes any enacted statements of policy or purpose, see, e.g. , Cadena Comercial USA Corp. v. Tex. Alcoholic Beverage Comm'n , 518 S.W.3d 318, 329 (Tex. 2017) ; Greater Hous. P'ship v. Paxton , 468 S.W.3d 51, 62 (Tex. 2015). Moreover, legislative intent derives from an act as a whole rather than from isolated portions of it. City of San Antonio , 111 S.W.3d at 25. "[W]e construe [a] statute's words according to their plain and common meaning, unless a contrary intention is apparent from the context, or unless such a construction leads to absurd results." City of Rockwall v. Hughes , 246 S.W.3d 621, 625–26 (Tex. 2008) (citations omitted).....

  
  
• Silguero v. CSL Plasma, Inc., 579 S.W.3d 53 (Tex. 2019). at 59:

  ....In interpreting statutes, we must look to the plain language, construing the text in light of the statute as a whole. See id. at 411 (citation omitted); see also Janvey v. Golf Channel, Inc. , 487 S.W.3d 560, 572 (Tex. 2016) (citation omitted). A statute's plain language is the most reliable guide to the Legislature's intent. See Sullivan v. Abraham , 488 S.W.3d 294, 299 (Tex. 2016) (quoting Prairie View A&M Univ. v. Chatha , 381 S.W.3d 500, 507 (Tex. 2012) ). The statutory terms bear their common, ordinary meaning, unless the text provides a different meaning or the common meaning leads to an absurd result. See Fort Worth Transp. Auth. v. Rodriguez , 547 S.W.3d 830, 838 (Tex. 2018) (citation omitted). This Court may not impose its own judicial meaning on a statute by adding words not contained in the statute's language. See Lippincott , 462 S.W.3d at 508. If the statute's plain language is unambiguous, we interpret its plain meaning, presuming that the Legislature intended for each of the statute's words to have a purpose and that the Legislature purposefully omitted words it did not include. See id. at 509 (citation omitted); Janvey , 487 S.W.3d at 572 (reviewing a certified question and explaining that the Court's "primary objective in construing a statute is to ascertain and effectuate the Legislature's intent without unduly restricting or expanding the statute's scope" (citation omitted)). The statutory words must be determined considering the context in which they are used, not in isolation. See Greater Hous. P'ship v. Paxton , 468 S.W.3d 51, 59 (Tex. 2015) (citations omitted)....

  
  
• Gunn v. McCoy, 554 S.W.3d 645 (Tex. 2018). at 672:

  ....Our primary goal in statutory construction is to give effect to the Legislature's intent. Tex. Lottery Comm'n v. First State Bank of DeQueen , 325 S.W.3d 628, 635 (Tex. 2010). We rely on the plain meaning of the text as expressing legislative intent unless a different meaning is supplied by legislative definition or is apparent from the context, or the plain meaning leads to absurd results. Id. ....

Not long ago I suggested that you need to learn how to do actually legal research instead of just making stuff up. I provided you with some resources to help you get started.

 

[Texasgrillchef]

How do you come up with that sort of nonsense? You obviously have no clue how courts view questions of legislative intent.

In general courts will infer legislative intent from the plain language of the statute. Let's look at how courts in Texas view questions of legislative intent:

• Dyer v. Medoc Health Servs., LLC, 573 S.W.3d 418 (Tex. App. 2019), at 424-425:
  
  
• Youngkin v. Hines, 546 S.W.3d 675 (Tex. 2018), at 680:
  
  
• Silguero v. CSL Plasma, Inc., 579 S.W.3d 53 (Tex. 2019). at 59:
  
  
• Gunn v. McCoy, 554 S.W.3d 645 (Tex. 2018). at 672:

Not long ago I suggested that you need to learn how to do actually legal research instead of just making stuff up. I provided you with some resources to help you get started.

I wasn’t referring to the way the courts view legislative intent. More to the actual real intent of the legislative desires (intent). After talking with many different senators on a state and federal level and their comments of what their intent was in passing the law and what actually was passed aren’t always aligned with each other. One Te as Senator once told me, that the intent of the law that was passed and the effect it actually had on the public was not their intent. They had to go back and make changes to that law when they met in the next legislature. Which for Texas is every other year. That’s why I made the comment I did.

I do not disagree with how courts view legislative intent, however, you have to admit that if people didn’t question the intent, then the courts would never have to issue a ruling or a statement about intent. So Obviously people question the intent and have disagreements over legislative intent.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I wasn’t referring to the way the courts view legislative intent. More to the actual real intent of the legislative desires (intent)....

Which is completely irrelevant to a serious discussion of what a law means and how it applies. No doubt each legislator can claim a different, personal intention for voting for or against any particular bill, especially if any important constituent is critical of the legislator's vote.

As the Texas Supreme Court noted in Travis Cent. Appraisal Dist. v. Norman, 342 S.W.3d 54 (Tex. 2011). at 58:

....Legislative intent, we have said, “remains the polestar of statutory construction,” Barfield, 898 S.W.2d at 292,...

But that's legislative intent, i. e., the intent of the legislature as a body, not the intent of any legislator. What any particular legislator might have intended when he voted for a particular law has no bearing on how a court might interpret and apply the law.

...That’s why I made the comment I did....

And your comment had nothing meaningful to contribute to a serious discuss of what a law might mean and how the law might be applied.

Law does not exist in a vacuum. Law, including constitutions, statutes, regulations, and decisions of courts of appeal, is a tool used by courts to decide the the issues brought to court for resolution. While the parties may argue what the law is that is applicable to the case, it's up to the court, in the exercise of its judicial function to decide what law actually does apply and how it applies to the facts to decide the outcome. As the Supreme Court ruled back in 1803 (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 2 L. Ed. 60, 1 Cranch 137 (1803), 1 Cranch at 177):

...It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.....

In real life in the real world if courts aren't deciding matters using what you think the law is, your understanding of what the law is is wrong. The opinions of courts on matters of law affect the lives and property of real people in the real world. Your opinions and $2.00 will get you a cup of coffee. The fact is that no one cares about your opinions, and the world is going about its business, and will continue to do so, without regard to your opinions

...you have to admit that if people didn’t question the intent, then the courts would never have to issue a ruling or a statement about intent. So Obviously people question the intent and have disagreements over legislative intent.

No, I don't have to admit that. I don't have to admit that because it's not true. And it's not true because you have no clue as to how the legal system works, nor how courts decide issues.

It's not a matter of anyone "questioning" legislative intent. As noted above, it's up to the court to decide what the law is that applies to the matters in dispute in any case before the court. The opposing parties will each urge the court to decide those matters of law in ways that best serve the interests of their respective sides. Legislative intent will often be an element of those arguments.

But that is still legislative intent -- not the intentions of any particular legislator.

 

[DocRock]

Many mention or talk about the intent of a particular law that the legislature had at the time they passed the law.

I always like to counter, that the intent of the legislature that passes the law, especially one that has gone through many changes, and edits, that their can be MORE then just one intent. You could have what the Democrats have as the intent of the law, as well as the republicans intent, as well as all other independents and misc. parties. Especially when a legislature has a small majority control, or when house is controlled by one party and the senate controlled by the other. They each could have different intents on the effect of the law. Especially when it comes down to the details and exceptions.

This would be no different then the battles held in our court system over the laws themselves. If everyone agreed on the intent of the law, then they wouldn’t be challenged in court, or appealed as well. This is also one of many reasons why we have an appeals process and a Supreme Court. Sadly though the Supreme Court will hear cases it shouldn’t and fail to hear cases it should.

You are, of course, correct. Individual legislators and the two parties, as well as caucuses within those parties, have various interpretations, understandings, and intents in developing and passing legislation. Frequently, their stated intent does not even reflect their actual intent. But, as much as I grudge having to endorse Frank's unnecessarily rude, bullying, and consistently supercilious tone, he is right that none of those intents matter once law is passed and a court subsequently has to review legislative intent which, in his inimically pedantic manner, he describes correctly above.

 

[grter]

I am thankful for people like Frank because well meaning inaccurate legal advice can lead to confusion which in turn can have terrible consequences for people in legal trouble even innocent people.

I like the fact that the legal forums here unlike the other regular discussion forums on The High Road have a strict requirement that everyone does their homework before presenting their opinion as being fact pertaining to the law.

Frank takes his time to share his knowledge and experience in law and has to often tolerate non professionals barking at him about how they know he is wrong and their best guess at how things should be must be right.

There are not many Franks around and I remember reading posts on other forums where members were presenting untruthful opinions on how the law works that was downright scary.

I feel much safer with people like Frank around.