Buying black powder

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I spoke to an ATF agent once about black powder. When I explained to him that we were required to keep a film can full in a magazine and have a LEUP he said that there was an exemption. I explained that Washington said the exemption only allows keeping it without a magazine and LEUP for shooting, he said “There’s too much “Ra” in the bureaucracy!”
 
I spoke to an ATF agent once about black powder. When I explained to him that we were required to keep a film can full in a magazine and have a LEUP he said that there was an exemption. I explained that Washington said the exemption only allows keeping it without a magazine and LEUP for shooting, he said “There’s too much “Ra” in the bureaucracy!”
My agent specifically made sure I knew it was regulated for our purpose...

Sent from my Pixel XL using Rocketry Forum mobile app
 
I spoke to an ATF agent once about black powder. When I explained to him that we were required to keep a film can full in a magazine and have a LEUP he said that there was an exemption. I explained that Washington said the exemption only allows keeping it without a magazine and LEUP for shooting, he said “There’s too much “Ra” in the bureaucracy!”

My agent specifically made sure I knew it was regulated for our purpose...

Which is why, until someone is charged with using BP in a rocket, they plead "not guilty", and go through a trail and the court makes a legal ruling, there will never be a clear answer to whether we can use BP without a LEUP and a magazine. The ATF covers all their bases by including all "AP explosive mixtures" and similar wording on the LE list. As an example, they see anything made with AP as explosive, which is why the lawsuit was needed to remove APCP from the list. It's pretty much a he said she said situation until there is a court case and legal precedence.

My personal opinion is if an ATF agent charged a rocketeer with a single explosive violation for having/using BP in a rocket without a LEUP, the US Attorney would drop the case as not worth the time and expense to pursue and probably have the agent reprimanded for wasting valuable time and resources pursuing that case instead of cases that involve much more danger to the public. Kind of like a cop that writes a ticket to someone doing 57 mph in a 55 mph zone while people are doing 60 mph in a 45 zone the next street over. But then again, you can never be sure about small town speed traps or what the US government will do.....
 
Last edited:
This issue is the main reason I haven't delved into electronic deployment. Good read. I'm not clear though on what exactly is regulated. Is it the use, or posession? Both? Also what about taking BP across state lines? Any oddball laws against that?

Also this thread has sparked a genuine interest in me about old flintlock firearms.
 
Which is why, until someone is charged with using BP in a rocket, they plead "not guilty", and go through a trail and the court makes a legal ruling, there will never be a clear answer to whether we can use BP without a LEUP and a magazine. The ATF covers all their bases by including all "AP explosive mixtures" and similar wording on the LE list. As an example, they see anything made with AP as explosive, which is why the lawsuit was needed to remove APCP from the list. It's pretty much a he said she said situation until there is a court case and legal precedence.

My personal opinion is if an ATF agent charged a rocketeer with a single explosive violation for having/using BP in a rocket without a LEUP, the US Attorney would drop the case as not worth the time and expense to pursue and probably have the agent reprimanded for wasting valuable time and resources pursuing that case instead of cases that involve much more danger to the public. Kind of like a cop that writes a ticket to someone doing 57 mph in a 55 mph zone while people are doing 60 mph in a 45 zone the next street over. But then again, you can never be sure about small town speed traps or what the US government will do.....

there is a clear answer. It’s not legal. That is 100% clear. There is absolutely no murkiness.

I had a judge once give a talk before traffic court. One part of what he said stuck in my head. “I don’t want to hear about how everyone else was doing 65 in a 45, and only you got stopped. It’s like duck hunting, pick one”

whether enfocrement is likely, or likely to be effective is irrelevant. Using BP without a permit, aside from antique firearms, is not legal. Any argument otherwise is based in BS.


Now, to be nice and murky, I have no hesitation doing 65 in a 55 zone. I just don’t try to call it legal.
 
This issue is the main reason I haven't delved into electronic deployment. Good read. I'm not clear though on what exactly is regulated. Is it the use, or posession? Both? Also what about taking BP across state lines? Any oddball laws against that?
The law.
 
there is a clear answer. It’s not legal. That is 100% clear. There is absolutely no murkiness.

I had a judge once give a talk before traffic court. One part of what he said stuck in my head. “I don’t want to hear about how everyone else was doing 65 in a 45, and only you got stopped. It’s like duck hunting, pick one”

whether enfocrement is likely, or likely to be effective is irrelevant. Using BP without a permit, aside from antique firearms, is not legal. Any argument otherwise is based in BS.


Now, to be nice and murky, I have no hesitation doing 65 in a 55 zone. I just don’t try to call it legal.

In the case you state about speeding, I agree completely. There are plenty of cases about speeding and court rulings to fall back on, there is no question about court rulings. I don't know that any of that applies to use of BP. I don't know of any court that has ever ruled on the interpretation of the "recreational use" phrase. Until one does, there is no precedent. I know the majority say that use is only for antique firearms, but some ATF agents seem to see it differently. It really doesn't matter. Until a court actually rules on what the wording legally means, I still think it's "up in the air". I'm just not volunteering to be the one that spends the time and money in the court system to find out that the majority opinion was right.
 
In the case you state about speeding, I agree completely. There are plenty of cases about speeding and court rulings to fall back on, there is no question about court rulings. I don't know that any of that applies to use of BP. I don't know of any court that has ever ruled on the interpretation of the "recreational use" phrase. Until one does, there is no precedent. I know the majority say that use is only for antique firearms, but some ATF agents seem to see it differently. It really doesn't matter. Until a court actually rules on what the wording legally means, I still think it's "up in the air". I'm just not volunteering to be the one that spends the time and money in the court system to find out that the majority opinion was right.

you can not be serious. The wording is crystal clear.
 
Man nothin' gets the ol' forum hummin' like a black powder thread. Maybe a motor vs. engine thread.
I hope the op learned this: find the locals in your area, do what they do, and whatever you do don't talk about it in an open forum else The Man will getcha ! :wink:
 
I don't know of any court that has ever ruled on the interpretation of the "recreational use" phrase.

The orange book doesn't say recreational use. People cut the sentence short to fit the need they want but it actually says:

...intended to be used solely for sporting, recreational, or cultural purposes in antique firearms as defined in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(16) or in antique devices exempted from the term "destructive device" in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(4).

This means sporting purpose in antique firearms or recreational purpose in antique firearms or cultural purpose in antique firearms.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Rocketry Forum mobile app
 
How about obtaining BP the old fashioned way...fly years worth of AT motors and save those little vials of partial BP.

Not sure why people want to openly test the ATF on a public forum but it seems that several people here enjoy doing just that. Carry on and God's speed.
 
Last edited:
I don't know of any court that has ever ruled on the interpretation of the "recreational use" phrase. Until one does, there is no precedent. I know the majority say that use is only for antique firearms, but some ATF agents seem to see it differently. It really doesn't matter. Until a court actually rules on what the wording legally means, I still think it's "up in the air". I'm just not volunteering to be the one that spends the time and money in the court system to find out that the majority opinion was right.

First things first, IANAL.

I assume you are referring to 18 U.S. Code § 845 (a)
(5) commercially manufactured black powder in quantities not to exceed fifty pounds, percussion caps, safety and pyrotechnic fuses, quills, quick and slow matches, and friction primers, intended to be used solely for sporting, recreational, or cultural purposes in antique firearms as defined in section 921(a)(16) of title 18 of the United States Code, or in antique devices as exempted from the term “destructive device” in section 921(a)(4) of title 18 of the United States Code;

Reading it, and in other parts too, on can notice that the law, as written, consistently uses commas between the terms of a series, even including the Oxford comma. There is no comma between "purposes" and "in antique firearms". In casual language, this might not make a big difference, but in a formally structured text it does.

Reinhard
 
Last edited:
Back
Top