ATF -- Individuals and reloading: Reporting of Powder Possession

A

Aguila Blanca

Staff
Good grief!

The good news is that smokeless powder is not an explosive, it's classified as a "propellant." Black powder is an explosive.

Not sure, but I believe primers are considered to be explosives. But fire and building codes have provisions addressing hazardous substances, and for each class of hazardous material there are minimum quantities that are allowed to be stored on a premises before the hazardous materials storage regulations kick in.
 
B

Bob Willman

New member
I did not read every word, but I saw no reference to the quantity of explosives. There are many references to "any person who stores explosives" so I would assume that 1 horn of black powder or 1 primer would require reporting.
It also uses the term "Executive Order.

NRA Benefactor Member
 
4

44 AMP

Staff
Smokeless powder is classified as HAZMAT 1.3/1.4 Explosive.
Click to expand...

If that is so, it is a fairly recent change. (and not one that I feel is for the better). I left that part of the industry that deals with worker right to know and HAZMAT shipping, packaging and storage about a decade ago, but prior to that time, and since about the beginning of HAZMAT regs, smokeless powder was always classified as a "flammable solid" and NOT an "explosive".

Primers were explosives, and black powder is an explosive, but smokeless powder never was. IF it has been reclassified as an explosive now, I wonder what justification there could be, for that??

Do be aware that there are (or at least were, back in my day) differences between HAZMAT regulation for use and storage and DOT regulations for shipping.
 
G

gc70

New member
From the AFT's website: Is smokeless powder designed for use in small arms ammunition subject to the explosives storage requirements?

Smokeless powders designed for use in small arms ammunition are exempt from regulation under 18 U.S.C. Chapter 40 and the regulations in 27 CFR Part 555. Packaging that readily identifies the smokeless powder as being designed for use in small arms ammunition may help in determining whether it is entitled to the exemption. Smokeless powder designed for use other than in small arms ammunition, and explosive products such as squibs, fireworks, theatrical special effects, or other articles that may contain smokeless powders, are regulated and must be stored pursuant to the regulations at 27 CFR 555, Subpart K – Storage.
Click to expand...
 
A

Aguila Blanca

Staff
4

44 AMP

Staff
I took the link, and read the information, but did not download the file and go through it with a fine tooth comb. If you have, and found mention of handloaders powders primers etc., please point it out for discussion here.

What I got from the linked page was the ATF is NOT requesting data be reported to them directly. What they seem to want to change is the reporting requirement to your local fire marshal (or whatever title is responsible for fire safety regulation and compliance) to an annual report.

The sole focus of the linked document is on commercial/business storage, not private residential storage. No mention of minimum quantities and reporting based on that.

Specific mention was made that fire safety authorities must be informed of explosive type, storage container type and "magazine capacity", and keeping record of such notification for 5 years.

ON THE SURFACE it seems to be something that will not affect hobbyist reloaders. HOWEVER, as I said, I have not done a complete line by line examination of the entire document, and there could be something in there that shouldn't be.
 
M

mehavey

New member
From Aquila's link:
ATF-HAZ-Cat.jpg


Something is vey topsy-turvy when Black Powder is designated Cat-4 (flammable solid) rather than CAT-1 (explosive).

On the other hand, methinks being one is not exclusive to it being both,
and then requiring handling IAW the more dangerous of the two depending
on circumstance.

I do know when shipped, smokeless goes as Cat 1.3 or 1.4.

.
 
Last edited:
4

44 AMP

Staff
Shipping is a different category, as are transport, and storage. Each one may have different rules, and also don't completely rule out the possibility of an error (misprint or mistake) when they reference different materials in different categories. Uniformity of regulation is not their strong suit, it seems.

Here's an interesting tidbit I discovered some years back, loaded ammunition (up to a set amount, 60 rnds I think) can be transported on board commercial passenger aircraft, but blanks cannot be.

That might have changed, lots has, recently....
 
A

Aguila Blanca

Staff
mehavey said:
Something is vey topsy-turvy when Black Powder is designated Cat-4 (flammable solid) rather than CAT-1 (explosive).
Click to expand...
Hence my statement about the government creating confusion and FUD (fear, uncerainty, and doubt). The gummint knows that if they create enough confusing laws and regulations, eventually they'll be able to find a reason pretext to arrest anyone. They don't want us to know or understand the laws -- that's how they hope to control us.

A decade-plus ago, an assistant attorney general assigned to work with our state police compiled a collection of pretty much every state (our state, not all states) and federal law touching on firearms. It was printed up as an 8-1/2" x 11", staple-bound booklet that was intended as a reference for police departments. However, since it was produced by a government employee on government time, it was a public document and some copies made it out into private hands. At one time I had printed copies of three or four editions, but those have disappeared. I still have PDF copies of the 2012 and 2015 editions.

2015 is the most recent edition, and both state laws and federal laws have changed since then. The attorney who was responsible for the guide retired several years ago. I was able to track him down at his retirement home in Georgia. He told me that he had wanted to do one more update before retiring, but he was told not to do so. Apparently (according to him) the governor's office and the AG didn't want to populace to have easy access to looking up the laws we have to live under.

We need to keep that in mind. Our governments are supposed to represent us, but more often they see their role as persecuting us.
 
4

44 AMP

Staff
I forget who's "rule of logic" it is, but there is one that basically states that one should not assign malicious intent to acts that can be explained by simple ignorance or carelessness, absent other evidence.

Everything the govt screws up is not an evil plot to gain further power or increased control, despite often appearing it is.

Sometimes it can be as simple as a cut & paste error revising a document. Sometimes that kind of thing is a no never mind, but sometimes it can be of vital importance, and sometimes the proofreaders miss things. Been there, done that and dealt with the results, more than once over the years.

I am not saying that there are no times the govt deliberately and intentionally creates confusing or contradictory rules and regulations, so that they remain the sole authority and arbiter of what their rules mean. Only that everytime you find something like that isn't always, automatically malicious intent.

They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and that may very well be true, but that doesn't change the fact that it is still the road to hell....
:rolleyes:
 
A

Aguila Blanca

Staff
^^^ I wish I could be as charitable toward the feral government as you are, but I can't.

A number of years ago I had to cancel a contract with a local municipal, federal-funded, public housing agency over an uninsurable clause in the HUD standard contract for consultants. The crux of the issue was that the contract included a lot of boilerplate conditions such as "highest standard of care," when professional liability insurance is written on the basis of the "ordinary" standard of care. Nobody in the world knows what the highest standard of care is, so insurance companies said if we agreed to that in a contract, our insurance wouldn't cover it. BUT ... HUD required that we be insured for $1 million in professional liability.

Catch-22.

Our national professional society learned that HUD was in the process of revising the standard contract, so we arranged for a task force committee to meet with the folks in HUD who were in charge of the revision process. I was on the committee that met with the folks at HUD. They happily made note of every single thing we pointed out that was NOT COVERED by professional liability insurance. When we asked if we could see a draft of the proposed new contract so we could offer our comments on it, they said they couldn't show it to us.

We felt that we had made our points, so we all went home to await the new contract. When it finally came out several months ago, it included EVERY SINGLE THING we had informed them was NOT insurable -- and it still required a minimum of $1 million in professional liability insurance.

Sorry, but that wasn't ignorance and it wasn't a proofreading error. They knew excatly what they were doing. It was intentional, and it was evil.
 
H

HiBC

New member
Post #1 was not much more than a naked link. For practical purposes it seems a drive by to me.
I don't click every link presented to me.

I don't doubt there are regs around the commercial stocking, storing,and shipping of smokeless powder.
Thats why we have to pay hazmat fee to order components. That part is nothing new.

I just don't have extra energy to get my innards knotted up over nothing.

I don't want to discuss unfounded fears or opinions.

I'd be interested in knowing any new legal facts that pertain to non-commercial home reloading with smokeless powder.

I am interested in compliance with the law.
 
4

44 AMP

Staff
Read the Smokeless powder MSDS:
Click to expand...

Just make sure you have the correct MSDS type forms for the material you have on hand.

This was one of the major hassles I had to deal with doing chemical management. Product names and labeling can and have changed faster than the MSDS information sheets.

Our rules required the identifying information on the product container to be an exact match for the information on the MSDS sheets. This is, of course, a sensible requirement, but it can complicate things, especially when one has a "barracks lawyer" type on the crew throwing down a stop work on a project when there is some small discrepancy HE didn't understand, or agree with.

One example we had to work, and get several MSDS editions to meet the requirements was a simple product, a floor sweep compound. But because we had bags labeled "Clean up" Clean up III", Clean up IV", and Clean up Taft" we had to get separate MSDSs for each one, despite them being chemically the same, and made by the same people.

In another, and extreme example of nit pickiness, was Torque Seal. Our "spoiler" guy threw a stop work on a project because of the fact that the tube of Torque Seal did not have the maker's address on it. The produce came 12 (1oz) tubes to a box, and the BOX had the required maker's name and address on it, but each individual tube only had the name, not the address.

Since that guy did not raise any issues in pre job planning, but waited until we were in the field and part way through the work to raise his objections and stop work, no one was very happy, and he did get sent home for the day.

Other points to consider about MSDSs is, are they even called that these days?? Shortly after I left that part of the industry I heard how they were all going to be revamped, get new names, and (worse) the hazard rating scales were going to be changed. In fact, the rating system was to be reversed, so that where before on a 1-4 scale, 4 was the greatest hazard, they were going to be changed so that 1 was the worst and 4 the least.

Also be aware that the chemical hazard rating 1-4 may be DIFFERENT than the NFPA fire code rating 1-4.

As I've said before, I've been out of that loop for a while, and have no idea how they have buggered up the paperwork in the years since, but I'm confident they have, in new and different ways than the ways they had it buggered up when I worked with it regularly.

So, when referring to various documents, standards and ratings, use due diligence to determine if what is being used to define things meets the current requirements to be valid.

Also be aware that while the information on MSDS sheets is required by law to be there, there was (and likely still is) no required standard format the information has to be in. And even if there is, materials made in other countries data sheets probably will be in their format, not ours.
 
D

DaleA

New member
I forget who's "rule of logic" it is, but there is one that basically states that one should not assign malicious intent to acts that can be explained by simple ignorance or carelessness, absent other evidence.
Click to expand...

Hanlon's Razor is an adage or rule of thumb that states: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

It seems we're going to where laws and rules and regulations just mean whatever those in power want them to mean. This is beyond depressing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top