UhClem
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2009
- Messages
- 2,052
- Reaction score
- 443
I periodically check various web sites to see if the ATF is up
to anything new. Today I found a very interesting item on the Institute of
Makers of Explosives web pages.
They have posted a copy of a letter sent from the DOJ to Vice President Dick
Cheney and the Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert. The following URL is for the
IME news release and has a link to a copy of the letter:
https://www.ime.org/site/shownews.asp?IdSection=1&IdNews=71&newstype=1
This includes the reviled "not less than $0.02 per pound" explosive fee. Since
the retail price of the most used explosive (millions of pounds each year) is
less than $0.20 per pound, this amounts to at least a 10% tax on these
explosives. Fortunately, this proposal was looked on unfavorably in the House
and Senate committee reports on the budget earlier this year so it isn't likely
to get very far. Although the Senate report indicated more annoyance with
including the money in the budget well before it could be collected than with
the fee itself.
"Proposed Fees to Fund Existing Law Enforcement Operations- The Committee is
disappointed by the Department's proposal of a $120,000,000 legislative fee on
the explosives industry and a permit fee on users to fund existing base
operations and programs of the ATF. The Committee understands the legislative
proposal for the fee has yet to be transmitted to Congress and that if this fee
were enacted today, it would take 2 years to put the regulatory structure in
place before any funds could be collected. The Committee finds it is
irresponsible to budget for ongoing fiscal year 2006 law enforcement operations
with funds that do not exist. These types of creative financing schemes create
significant problems for the Committee and could ultimately lead to a disruption
to the Department's law enforcement programs. "
Much more interesting is that the DOJ is also proposing to add language to the
federal law that would allow them to exempt certain explosive materials. It
looks like someone at ATF/DOJ has figured out that some of the exemptions
provided by the ATF at 27 CFR 555.141 are _not_ authorized by any provision in
the law at 18 USC Chapter 40. The wording of the proposed change is:
(d) Except as provided by section 846(c) of this Title, the Attorney General may
exempt from all or part of the provisions of this chapter explosive materials or
devices containing explosive material when a determination is made by
regulation, that the explosive materials or explosive devices--
(1) are of a type that does not pose a threat to public safety; and
(2) are unlikely to be used as a weapon.
(Note that 846(c) would contain the new per pound fee. They may exempt them from
some things but they want to be sure and get the money.)
The exemptions at 27 CFR 555.141 not covered by the exemptions in the law at
18 USC 845(a) are:
1) consumer fireworks
2) gasoline, fertilizers, propellant actuated devices....
3) industrial or laboratory chemicals...
(See: https://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_05/27cfr555_05.html and
https://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000845----000-.html )
Add to this list _all_ of the proposed exemptions in NPRM 968.
I am concerned with the "threat to public safety" standard. Many cities already
consider consumer fireworks such a threat to public safety that mere possession
is banned. Gasoline is routinely used in destructive devices that are a threat
to public safety. Fertilizers are used in improvised explosives with a couple of
notable cases. I doubt if any of these could meet the proposed standard.
This proposal brings up the question of just how good are the current
exemptions? Do they really exist? If this proposal isn't passed will the ATF
remove the exemptions? Stop honoring them? Pick the ones they like? Could it be
this is delaying ATF's promised/threatened PAD clarification?
I note that in the cover letter automotive airbags are given as an example of a
"propellant actuated devices". This is odd because past ATF explosive
newsletters have made it clear that airbags can be exempted after the
manufacturer applies for an exemption as a "special explosive device" under 27
CFR 555.32. A category of exemption that also doesn't exist in the law.
to anything new. Today I found a very interesting item on the Institute of
Makers of Explosives web pages.
They have posted a copy of a letter sent from the DOJ to Vice President Dick
Cheney and the Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert. The following URL is for the
IME news release and has a link to a copy of the letter:
https://www.ime.org/site/shownews.asp?IdSection=1&IdNews=71&newstype=1
This includes the reviled "not less than $0.02 per pound" explosive fee. Since
the retail price of the most used explosive (millions of pounds each year) is
less than $0.20 per pound, this amounts to at least a 10% tax on these
explosives. Fortunately, this proposal was looked on unfavorably in the House
and Senate committee reports on the budget earlier this year so it isn't likely
to get very far. Although the Senate report indicated more annoyance with
including the money in the budget well before it could be collected than with
the fee itself.
"Proposed Fees to Fund Existing Law Enforcement Operations- The Committee is
disappointed by the Department's proposal of a $120,000,000 legislative fee on
the explosives industry and a permit fee on users to fund existing base
operations and programs of the ATF. The Committee understands the legislative
proposal for the fee has yet to be transmitted to Congress and that if this fee
were enacted today, it would take 2 years to put the regulatory structure in
place before any funds could be collected. The Committee finds it is
irresponsible to budget for ongoing fiscal year 2006 law enforcement operations
with funds that do not exist. These types of creative financing schemes create
significant problems for the Committee and could ultimately lead to a disruption
to the Department's law enforcement programs. "
Much more interesting is that the DOJ is also proposing to add language to the
federal law that would allow them to exempt certain explosive materials. It
looks like someone at ATF/DOJ has figured out that some of the exemptions
provided by the ATF at 27 CFR 555.141 are _not_ authorized by any provision in
the law at 18 USC Chapter 40. The wording of the proposed change is:
(d) Except as provided by section 846(c) of this Title, the Attorney General may
exempt from all or part of the provisions of this chapter explosive materials or
devices containing explosive material when a determination is made by
regulation, that the explosive materials or explosive devices--
(1) are of a type that does not pose a threat to public safety; and
(2) are unlikely to be used as a weapon.
(Note that 846(c) would contain the new per pound fee. They may exempt them from
some things but they want to be sure and get the money.)
The exemptions at 27 CFR 555.141 not covered by the exemptions in the law at
18 USC 845(a) are:
1) consumer fireworks
2) gasoline, fertilizers, propellant actuated devices....
3) industrial or laboratory chemicals...
(See: https://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_05/27cfr555_05.html and
https://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000845----000-.html )
Add to this list _all_ of the proposed exemptions in NPRM 968.
I am concerned with the "threat to public safety" standard. Many cities already
consider consumer fireworks such a threat to public safety that mere possession
is banned. Gasoline is routinely used in destructive devices that are a threat
to public safety. Fertilizers are used in improvised explosives with a couple of
notable cases. I doubt if any of these could meet the proposed standard.
This proposal brings up the question of just how good are the current
exemptions? Do they really exist? If this proposal isn't passed will the ATF
remove the exemptions? Stop honoring them? Pick the ones they like? Could it be
this is delaying ATF's promised/threatened PAD clarification?
I note that in the cover letter automotive airbags are given as an example of a
"propellant actuated devices". This is odd because past ATF explosive
newsletters have made it clear that airbags can be exempted after the
manufacturer applies for an exemption as a "special explosive device" under 27
CFR 555.32. A category of exemption that also doesn't exist in the law.
