Jump to content

M117 Booby Trap Simulator


Spathologist

Recommended Posts

I recently "inherited" a couple of cases of these things.

 

I broke one out after a few, ummm...refreshments...I won't be doing that in a residential area again.

 

Those red letters at the top of the instructions page aren't just a standard legal disclaimer. I spent part of this morning buying replacement glass for the house.

 

I really wish I had had a video camera rolling, it's all fun and games until someone loses a hand. :rolleyes:

post-1047-1194361099.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
Live and learn, or join the Darwin Awards list. thumbsup.gif

BKW

 

When I was a kid, we lived on the Rota Spain naval air station (my dad was in the Navy). There was a wooded area in the middle of the base where the CBs and the marines did periodic training and manuevers. This area also had the boys and girls scout camps for the kids on the base. One weekend during a boy scout camping trip, one of my buddies (who was about 13) was running through the woods and saw one of these things set up on a tree. As he ran by, he grabbed it and it went off in his hand. He lost his whole hand and most of his forearm when it went off! You dont want to screw around with these buggers!

 

Most of this area was off limits to us, but we were always going into the area looking for neat stuff left behind by the CB or marines.

 

After the kid lost his arm, I remember EOD coming the school to try to explain why we shouldnt play in the woods and what to look out for...it just made us want to sneak in there even more. At one point, I had a brown paper bag full of the blank M16 rounds (many of them still 'live") that we dug up out of the ground, a handfull of flares, and some "odds and ends" that caused my dad to become dangerously excited when he found my stash in the garage.

 

The funny thing, is that a few years later, we ended up at Subic Bay, Philippines and I got a summer job working at the naval magazine at Cubi Pt. Sadly, they kept a pretty sharp eye on what we were allowed to "work" with while I was there.

 

Patrick

Link to post
Share on other sites

Might be better to take them to EOD and have them deact. These may have a potassium chlorate compound instead of flash powder. I'll look it up if there is any interest. Here is one from 1965. Looks like there is lttle change except the color. The charge is in the smaller tube. It is pretty small but makes a loud bang.

 

Maybe we should put the pics on the pyrotechnic page that was up for a while.

 

525506.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
Those red letters at the top of the instructions page aren't just a standard legal disclaimer. I spent part of this morning buying replacement glass for the house.

 

You do seem to like things that roll, bounce and explode! LOL..don't we all!

 

This particular item (or one like it) makes me personally cringe. I saw a very bad training accident involving one of these. It was ROTC Senior Summer Camp at Ft. Bragg in 1976. We were running through the woods on some crazy assault exercise. One of the lane graders ignited one of these and for safety purposes threw it to the base of a tree. Wouldn't you know some eager cadet trainee decided to use the same tree for cover and hunkered down right on top of this thing.

 

It went off an blew a hole in his leg. We were darned lucky it did not puncture an artery. It did blow the trouser leg right off of him. Of course, every thing came to a halt. They did a very efficient job of containing his wound and medevacing him out of there.

 

I have had a very healthy respect for ordnance ever since, including "training munitions". I later got knocked unconcious by a CS grenade received in the center of my forehead, but that is another story....

 

From what I heard the cadet got patched up, but he was out for the rest of Summer Camp. For those who did not have this experience, this meant that if he was still crazy enough to pursue a commission in the US Army he would have to come back NEXT summer and start the training cycle all over again. Short of getting killed or maimed, it was the biggest fear we all had. We all counted down the days, hours and minutes until we had put in enough time to get credit for the training camp... healthy or wounded!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The booby trap "flash" simulator has ZERO (i.e NONE!) SECONDS delay. Pull the string and it explodes. Period. There's no pulling the string and tossing it to the side, etc. It explodes immediately. "Flash" is a misnomer, unless you see one explode in the dark.

 

There is a booby trap simulator "whistle" that doesn't explode, but rather, as the name says, whistles. It also activates immediatly when the string is pulled. If you hold it in your hand and pull the string, it will burn the "Hello Pete" out of you.

 

That is why they both come with a box full of hardware and a set of comprehensive instructions. Follow the instructions and they work very well, just like the manufacturer (and the military) intended.

 

The two simulators that have delays are the grenade simulator and the arty simulator. They are both white, cylindrical and made of pressed cardboard with pull ignitors on the sides. The main difference between those two is the size and that the arty simulator has a whistle before it explodes. Those are the ones you're probably trying to recall in anecdotes about someone throwing a simulator. Both of those are intended to be hand-thrown, unlike the two shown in this post.

 

There are also many other explosives effects simulators, but they all have one thing in common, they create a violent, explosive effect. If used improperly, even by smart a** ROTC instructors and others who should know better, they can and do hurt people. When used improperly by people who don't have a clue, they're almost sure to do some harm to someone or something.

 

Be careful out there in collecting land.

 

Mike

Link to post
Share on other sites
You do seem to like things that roll, bounce and explode! LOL..don't we all!

You left out fire and smoke LOL I need to pull out some more flares and flare pistols.

 

As a note, the simulator shown is deactivated as is the M116A1 grenade simulator in the other thread. The artillery simulators have a LOT of flash powder and make a big boom. I would not want a live one in my house. I do wish I had kept an inert one. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Might be better to take them to EOD and have them deact.

 

So they can have all my fun? thumbdown.gif

 

These may have a potassium chlorate compound instead of flash powder.

 

They have 2.5 grams of flash powder, according to spec, which would definitely make them illegal to possess in the US, but it's still less than what a M80 gunfire sim packs, IIRC. [For the record, I am not in the US.]

 

For some reason I had it in my head that this was of a type that whistles and then gives a large POP. I was more than a safe distance away when I pulled the cord and set it off, but I had it nailed to one of the balcony supports on the back porch. Cracked a few panes in the back windows, it did, and woke most of the neighbors...and set off a car alarm...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I meant to say instead of "black powder". Most of the "flash powders" have potassium perchlorate and powdered aluminum. I am not surprised it is a "flash powder". The potassium perchlorate oxidizers have a lot of energy as you noticed.

 

So they can have all my fun?

Sorry, what was I thinking? Just trying to save your fingers. :lol: Surprisingly I still have most of mine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"The two simulators that have delays are the grenade simulator and the arty simulator. They are both white, cylindrical and made of pressed cardboard with pull ignitors on the sides. The main difference between those two is the size and that the arty simulator has a whistle before it explodes. Those are the ones you're probably trying to recall in anecdotes about someone throwing a simulator. Both of those are intended to be hand-thrown, unlike the two shown in this post."

 

You are correct. The device that was used in the unfortunate incident was most lik a grenade simulator rather than a booby trap. It was thrown by hand, and as I recall it did not have a whistle to give warning. If it had, the unfortunate cadet probably would have reacted by rolling off of it. As I recall, it just blew up under him.

 

In defense of the lane grader who threw it, people were running all over the place in this exercise. He had actually thrown it away from the general direction that the platoon was moving in. But then these things started going off all over the place and people were scattering. The kid zigged when he should have zagged.

 

That same summer camp we had some more excitement when one of our cadets lost her grip on the spoon of a live grenade after the pin had been removed on the grenade range. Fortunately the E-5 that was in the pit was watching her like a bird dog and he caught the upward movement of the spoon. He grabbed the grenade with both hands and shoved it down the sump of the training pit. He then grabbed the female cadet, threw her to the ground away from it and himself on top of her. (Keep in mind this was 1976 before women were integrated into the Army to the level they are today.) Before she could figure out what was going on the thing blew up in the safety pit below her. I believe he was later commended for his actions. The cadet, while chastised, finished her training and was later commissioned. We were all double checking ourselves after that one!

Link to post
Share on other sites
lost her grip on the spoon of a live grenade

Simulators and pyrotechnics are dangerous but real HE pushes the risk up several orders of magnitude. There are some people, both men and women who should never be given the opportunity to handle a live grenade even with proper supervision. People who know what they are doing get hurt and killed.

 

Fortunately the E-5 that was in the pit was watching her like a bird dog

He should be commended for his actions as much as if he did this in combat. Everyone should have lined up and thanked him in person. The young lady should still be sending him thank you notes.

 

I put a pic of the M116A1 simulator on the pyro thread last Jan and tried to revive the thread with the M117.

http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/ind...20&start=20

I have a whole box full with the packaging, all deact, if anyone wants to see it for the memories.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a freind in the army that pulled the string on one of those while riding in the back of a pick up truck trying to show off, he was "non infantry type" and had never used them before, he was lucky that he wore glasses but it did burn his face and hands some and the metal piece that you can see in the picture that is used to nail the device to a tree hit him in the nutt's pretty hard.

Link to post
Share on other sites
They have 2.5 grams of flash powder, according to spec, which would definitely make them illegal to possess in the US, but it's still less than what a M80 gunfire sim packs, IIRC. (For the record, I am not in the US.)

 

No, they wouldn't be illegal to possess any more than typical fireworks here in the US. Granted, some states prohibit fireworks without a license) but under federal law/regulations, there's nothing to prohibit them that I'm aware of. They certainly don't fall within the purview of the '34 NFA, and I am not aware of any other part of the US Code that would regulate something like this, especially with such a small amount of powder in it. (If there is, I'd like to have someone point out the relevant statute to me, as I have several of these in my collection.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
No, they wouldn't be illegal to possess any more than typical fireworks here in the US. Granted, some states prohibit fireworks without a license) but under federal law/regulations, there's nothing to prohibit them that I'm aware of. They certainly don't fall within the purview of the '34 NFA, and I am not aware of any other part of the US Code that would regulate something like this, especially with such a small amount of powder in it. (If there is, I'd like to have someone point out the relevant statute to me, as I have several of these in my collection.)

 

Here's what I found quick; I forgot the code number but the limit of 50 mg of pyrotechinic was put in place before the 1976 bicentennial. I looked it up after getting into a tiny bit of trouble for firing off M80s in Alabama.

 

http://www.fireworksland.com/html/m80.html

 

Up until 1966, large firecrackers such as M-80s and cherry bombs were legal in the United States, and anyone could buy them and shoot them off. If you look through old fireworks catalogs from the 1930s, '40s and '50s, you will see these and even larger firecrackers advertised, all of them perfectly legal at that time. But it all ended in 1966. The Child Protection Act, passed by the U.S. Congress in 1966, specifically banned these devices. In 1976, the federal regulations were rewritten specifying a limit of 50 milligrams of pyrotechnic composition for any firecracker sold to the public in the United States, and that limit is still in effect today. It doesn't matter what they look like or what they are shaped like - ground firecrackers can only contain 50 milligrams of pyrotechnic content per cracker. (Aerial "reports," which are contained within aerial devices such as rockets and shells, can contain up to 129.6 milligrams of composition per report.)
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the link, Varangian. However, I'm still not convinced. (I'm not saying the M117 boobytrap simulators are illegal to possess, just that in my searches I've found nothing to indicate such.) No offense (either to you or the author of the website you referenced.) The web site you referenced seems to apply only to fireworks, and it appears to me that there’s a distinct difference between the M117 and fireworks. As such, I’m still under the impression that the M117 boobytrap simulator is not prohibited under federal law. As far as it being lumped into a prohibited category as a "firework" a reading of the law doesn't support that. Here’s why:

 

Your link refers the reader to an assessment about M80 and Cherry Bomb firecrackers and points out that simple possession of either a real Cherry Bomb or a real M80 is prohibited under federal law (the web site’s author references the Child Protection Act 1966.) For the record, the Child Protection Act 1966 modified/amended the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (15USC CH30) by banning toys and other children's articles that contained hazardous substances (including lead paint, as Walmart and Mattel were recently reminded.) 15USC CH30 1252(f)(1)(A)(v) and (vi) define a hazardous substance as one that is (v) is flammable or combustible, or (vi) generates pressure through decomposition, heat, or other means, if such substances or mixture of substances may cause substantial personal injury or substantial illness during or as a proximate result of any customary or reasonably foreseeable handling or use, including reasonably foreseeable ingestion by children.

 

15USC CH30 1252(q)(1)(A) takes it a bit further by defining a "banned hazardous substance" as (A) any toy, or other article intended for use by children, which is a hazardous substance, or which bears or contains a hazardous substance ... or (B) any hazardous substance intended, or packaged in a form suitable, for use in the household, ... on the basis of a finding that, ... the degree or nature of the hazard involved in the presence or use of such substance in households is such that the objective of the protection of the public health and safety can be adequately served only by keeping such substance, ... out of the channels of interstate commerce:

 

Certainly, the regulation of fireworks can be easily made to fall under this law. But strictly under these circumstances, firearms’ ammunition would also be a prohibited hazardous substance.

 

Digging into fireworks and explosive regulations also takes us to 18USC CH39 which deals with transportation of fireworks into states that prohibit fireworks. Section 836 doesn't specifically define "fireworks" and instead relies on the individual state's definition. It states, In the enforcement of this section, the definitions of fireworks contained in the laws of the respective States shall be applied

 

Likewise, 18USC CH40 covers the importation, manufacture, distribution, and storage of explosives. As such, it also defines “explosives.” Sections 841© and (d) contain the relevant definitions and define “explosive material” and “explosives” as blasting agents, and detonators … any chemical compound mixture, or device, the primary or common purpose of which is to function by explosion- the term includes, but is not limited to, dynamite and other high explosives, black powder, pellet powder, initiating explosives, detonators, safety fuses, squibs, detonating cord, igniter cord, and igniters. And to cover other exigencies, The Secretary shall publish and rise at least annually in the Federal Register a list of these and any additional explosives which he determines to be within the coverage of this chapter.

 

That said, let’s remember that explosives themselves are not necessarily prohibited as any black powder shooter or cartridge reloader well knows. And while the author of the website may be correct that the Cherry Bomb and M80 fireworks may be specifically listed, by name, as prohibited, that also doesn’t mean that other fireworks are prohibited. (Speaking of the specific naming of the M80 and Cherry Bomb as being prohibited I’m betting it’s likely to be found in the 1966 Federal Register, as it is not listed in the laws referenced by the web site’s author, nor is it listed in either 18USC CH39 or CH40. The same for the quoted amount of flashpowder…that’s probably listed in the relevant area of the CFR.)

 

Realistically then, what’s at issue is both the amount of explosive material involved and the intended use of the explosive material in question. And regardless of the amount of flashpowder permitted to be used in fireworks sold/manufactured/possessed in the US by unlicensed individuals, this still doesn’t equate to a prohibition on the M117 boobytrap simulator. At issue with the M117 boobytrap simulators is whether the M117 boobytrap simulator a firework. And if it is a firework, what is the likelihood that it’s intended for children or that a child will likely handle one?

 

In other words, “fireworks” is not defined under federal law. Likewise, the M117 boobytrap simulator isn’t a firework, either according to federal law, or (I’m making an educated guess) under military nomenclature.

Link to post
Share on other sites

With 10 years and $250,000 at stake, I personally wouldn't push it.

 

These things are fun, but not 10-years'-worth-of-prison-love fun...

Link to post
Share on other sites
With 10 years and $250,000 at stake, I personally wouldn't push it.

 

These things are fun, but not 10-years'-worth-of-prison-love fun...

 

 

Huh? Where did that penalty come from? It sure didn't come from the law that supposedly prohibits the M117 simulator (1966 Child Protection Act/15USC CH30.) But even if it did, the criminal penaty for violating 15USC CH30 (1966 Child Safety Act...the same act that allegedly prohibits the M117 boobytrap simulator) is a misdemeanor conviction with a fine of up to $500 and up to 90 days imprisonment for a first offense; for subsequent violations/convictions it's a fine of not more than $3000 and not more than one year imprisonment.

 

Violation of 18USC CH40 (importation, manufacture, distribution, and storage of explosives) carries a penalty of $10,000 max. fine and/or a maximum of 10 years imprisonment. And again, you've yet to show me where in that particular law the M117 fits.

 

It appears the penalty you cited for possession of an M117 boobytrap simulator is that of an NFA violation (1934 National Firearms Act/26USC CH53.) Even then though, there's nowhere in the '34 NFA that the M117 simulator fits in. The closest thing that would bear a remote resemblence would be as adestructive device. However, it's not a destructive device under the federal definition. Likewise, it's not a firework under federal law. Unless specifically listed as a prohibited item somewhere in the federal register or the CFR, I see nothing that indicates these things are no more regulated than a one-pound can of black powder and no different than the agricultural "bird bombs" used to drive off migratory fowl and pirds of prey. No offense intended in the least, but your knowledge and understanding of US law leaves a lot to be desired.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Huh? Where did that penalty come from? It sure didn't come from the law that supposedly prohibits the M117 simulator (1966 Child Protection Act/15USC CH30.) But even if it did, the criminal penaty for violating 15USC CH30 (1966 Child Safety Act...the same act that allegedly prohibits the M117 boobytrap simulator) is a misdemeanor conviction with a fine of up to $500 and up to 90 days imprisonment for a first offense; for subsequent violations/convictions it's a fine of not more than $3000 and not more than one year imprisonment.

 

Violation of 18USC CH40 (importation, manufacture, distribution, and storage of explosives) carries a penalty of $10,000 max. fine and/or a maximum of 10 years imprisonment. And again, you've yet to show me where in that particular law the M117 fits.

 

It appears the penalty you cited for possession of an M117 boobytrap simulator is that of an NFA violation (1934 National Firearms Act/26USC CH53.) Even then though, there's nowhere in the '34 NFA that the M117 simulator fits in. The closest thing that would bear a remote resemblence would be as adestructive device. However, it's not a destructive device under the federal definition. Likewise, it's not a firework under federal law. Unless specifically listed as a prohibited item somewhere in the federal register or the CFR, I see nothing that indicates these things are no more regulated than a one-pound can of black powder and no different than the agricultural "bird bombs" used to drive off migratory fowl and pirds of prey. No offense intended in the least, but your knowledge and understanding of US law leaves a lot to be desired.

 

Well, I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on the internet.

 

I used to have a Class 7 SOT, and during one of my annual inspections the agent noticed a box of M80s in the vault. He informed me that I needed to get rid of them, because if they were there on the next inspection he would bust me for an explosives violation. Inclined to take the man at his word, I then had a run-in with the local LEO element while blowing them up at a private range, but fortunately that was easily ironed out.

 

And in the end, *you* do not get to decide if the simulator does or does not fit in any of the above categories you laid out. The prosecutor does, with info given him by whoever investigates. I'm sure you believe in your interpretation of the laws, but your belief matters squat. What matters is what the prosecutors and investigators believe, and in my personal experience they appear to take exception to your interpretation.

 

Every one of the laws you quote above carries jail time as a possible consequence, and also possible loss of firearm rights. As much as I like watching things blow up, there's not a one of the devices that's worth risking a day of my freedom to watch it go bang. Nor are they worth the legal fees that would be incurred to fight off being sent to jail. I, personally, will take the safer path and stay out of situations where, as you note, my knowledge and understanding leave much to be desired.

 

I sincerely hope that you never have to test your legal theories, and if you are not so fortunate, then I hope someone listens to you.

 

[ETA: The difference is that bird bombs are launched devices, not ground devices, and have higher allowed pyro content.]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, once and final... M80 are fireworks under state laws. They do not fit into the defintion of an NFA-controlled device. M117 simulators likewise do not fit into the defintion of an NFA-controlled device. And while both are explosives, one is prohibited by law. On the other, the law is silent. (And the way US law works is that it's generally prohibitive in nature, which means that everything is legal unless it's stated as illegal.)

 

You keep saying M80s and other fireworks containing in excess of 50 mg of flash powder are prohibited. No one is disputing that, least of all me. However, you seem to have a hard time grasping the fact that an M117 simulator is not a firework. Finally, flash powder is commerically available an generally uregulated in small amounts up an ounce.

 

The bottom line is that the issue isn't the legality of flashpowder (leagal), or possession of fireworks with more than 50mg flashpowder (illegal.) The arguement hinges on whether or not the M117 simulator is illegal because it's a firework (it's not) or because it contains 2.5 grams of flashpowder (which doesn't make non-fireworks illegal.) If was simply a case of possessing more than 2.5 grams of flashpowder, photographers and magicians would be in violation of federal law as well.

 

Consider the following, plain-language flow chart:

+Fireworks are explosives.

+Fireworks are regulated under 15USC CH30

+Per 15USC CH30 there is no federal definition of a "firework."

+The M117 simulator is not a "firework" under federal definition.

+The M117 is an explosive.

+Explosives, although regulated, are not illegal.

+The M117 is not an NFA-defiined/controlled destructive device.

+Possession of an M117 simulator is not an NFA violation (and does not carry the 10 years/quarter-million dollar fine you cited.)

+The M117 simulator contains flashpowder.

+Flashpowder is defined in 27CFR 555.11 s "An explosive material intended to produce an audible

report and a flash of light when ignited." (Most fireworks grade flash powder is a mixture of potassium perchlorate and aluminum powder.)

+It is against federal law to use flashpowder in any manner other than as intended, under 27CFR 555.

+"Possession" and "use" are two different concepts.

+Using an M117 simulator as intended is not illegal under federal law.

+Flashpowder is not illegal

+Flashpowder is commercially available in small quantities.

+Using flashpowder as intended is not ilegal.

QED, possession of an M117 simulator is not a violation of federal law.

 

For one final piece of food-for-thought, let's also consider your statement about the maximum limit of an item containing 2.5 grams of flash powder. If 1 gram equals 15.4323584 grains, then 2.5 grams equals 38.6 grains...about the same amount of powder as one would find in a centerfire rifle cartridge. Flashpowder is considered a "low explosive", meaning it burns not faster than approximately 400 meters per second/1300 feet per second...about the same speed as FFFg blackpowder. Thus, flashpowder is no more explosive than blackpowder. A .45-70 cartridge contains 70 grains of black powder...twice as much as your stated amount, or, in plain terms, 4.5 grams.

 

If it means anything to you, I also have an FFL (and have for years) but that has nothing to do with the price of rice in China, so I don't equate the fact that you once held an FFL/SOT as being able to understand law or knowing the ins and outs of explosives' law. Besides, an 07 SOT a manufacturer of NFA devices other than destructive devices. And while the prosecutor is entitled to interpret the laws, so is the defense. One final piece of legal theory that's often overlooked, but is crucial is the concept of "intent." Is the defendent's intent in possessing something a criminal intent, or a benign intent. (A good example fo ths is the old Uniform Machinegun Act which states that having a ammo for teh MG in teh same proximity constituted an agressive purpose, however, if an MG was registered, it wsan't possessed for a purpose "manifestly aggressive."

 

Yes, your BATF inspector is correct that you would be in violation for possessing those M80s in your safe. But that's because the M80s are unlawful to posses both by name and by the fact that they're a firework that contains more than 50 mg of flashpowder, per 15USC CH30. He isn't going to say your box of .45-70 cartridges are unlawful because they are not fireworks. Neither is an M117 simulator.

 

EOM

Link to post
Share on other sites

These things are great. We wired about 12 of them to one door during a training exercise in a mock town. Needless to say some young LT couldn't hear well for the rest of the day.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like to get involved in legal discussions as laws rules and regs are changing quickly in this field. I have never seen a prosecution for a simulator, unless it was used as a weapon or for fireworks as Bill in Va describes.

 

Throw a simulator at somebody and or modify them with intent to harm and you better take your toothbrush to court. You will not be going home for a long time. Intent/use can change the whole situation. Several have been prosecuted for this.

 

The first M80s were gun fire simulators, most M80s are fireworks. This is confusing as I think some states statutes specifically say M80s are fireworks.

 

I'll show a pic of a deact M80 if any younger guys have not seen one. Unfortunately I do not have a marked one. I have never seen a mfg or lot number on one, just "M80, gun fire simulator" Any of you active duty guys know if they are still being made? Has anyone ever seen one marked with mfg or lot number?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, rather than continue a discussion neither of us are qualified to argue, Bill, I've sent an enquiry to the ATF. I'll post their response, if any.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, rather than continue a discussion neither of us are qualified to argue, Bill, I've sent an enquiry to the ATF. I'll post their response, if any.

 

Varangian, you have no idea of what my qualifications are, so why the smart-rump remark? I know nothing about you or your background other than what you care to tell us. You say you once were an 07/02 FFL/SOT. I can accept that as I have no reason not to. What's so hard about acccepting what someone else tells you? Just because you don't understand something or because someone with less of a post count than you disagress with you is no reason to automatically assume you know more than the other person.

A bit of advise for you though: If you do send an inquiry to the BATF, make sure it goes to the right department. (It isn't going to do you any good to send it to Tech Branch of the NFA Branch.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Varangian, you have no idea of what my qualifications are, so why the smart-rump remark? I know nothing about you or your background other than what you care to tell us. You say you once were an 07/02 FFL/SOT. I can accept that as I have no reason not to. What's so hard about acccepting what someone else tells you? Just because you don't understand something or because someone with less of a post count than you disagress with you is no reason to automatically assume you know more than the other person.

A bit of advise for you though: If you do send an inquiry to the BATF, make sure it goes to the right department. (It isn't going to do you any good to send it to Tech Branch of the NFA Branch.)

 

No smart-rumpiness intended. It has nothing to do with post count, or anything like that. When it comes to legal matters, I've just had far too much experience with soldiers who find a copy of the UCMJ and instantly fancy themselves JAG officers.

 

Leavenworth is full of them.

 

Normally, I don't care one way or the other, apart from the temporary disruption they cause, since they usually only hurt themselves. But this place has a fair amount of traffic of people from all walks of life around the globe, and you are presenting what appears to me to be legal opinion and advice in a forum somewhat larger than a barracks.

 

Are you a lawyer? If you are, will you be defending free of charge anyone who gets into trouble from following your advice? If you are not a lawyer, then your opinion on what you've drug up on the internetz is just that...your untrained opinion.

 

In my field I speak with some authority, but law is not my field. If I have a question pertaining to law, I ask those whose field it is. I can't imagine what objection you would have to my not taking your opinion at face value and asking someone whose job it is to know the answer to the relevant question. If you are indeed someone who is a trained legal expert with knowledge of explosives law and BATF policy on military pyrotechnics, then please accept my apologies.

 

Otherwise, I suggest we wait and see what the pros have to say.

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.