ATF REPLY: ref: 'Selling Black Powder'

[roundball]

OK Ladies...here's the ATF's Email reply regarding license requirements to sell a can of BP or split a case of BP with fellow hunters / shooters:
===============================================
FROM:
TO: xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (roundball)
CC: "Barker, Betsy M."


RE:
Clarification of "selling" the occasional can of black powder to a fellow hunter if he's run out

Thursday, September 18, 2008 2:27:02 PM

Example #1
From time to time over the years there’s always the occasion where a fellow Flintlock shooter will show up at the range and realize he’s forgotten his powder, left it back at the house, etc”¦and someone will usually have an extra can in their shooting box and let the guy have it at whatever the cost was.
Yes ”“ whenever black powder is sold the distributor must have a license to deal in explosives as required by 27 CFR 555.41 ”“ 43.

Example #2
With all the shipping and handling fees, plus the HazMat fees, by far one of the least expensive ways to buy black powder is to buy it by the 25lb case. (25 1Lb cans) And again, among the group of us in this little Flintlock shooting fraternity, every now and then somebody will be needing to order some more black powder, but not wanting the whole 25 lbs in a case, its not uncommon for 2-3 guys to agree to use all 25 cans but only one guy places the order of course, then they simply spilt up the cost according to however many 1lb cans each guy wanted.
I would not interpret this as selling because there is a prior arrangement to split the order once received and one person is just ordering it for convenience purposes.
If an individual gets a portion of the order and then turns around and sells it to another individual then they would need a dealer’s license.

 

[bingo1952]

I would say that is a pretty straightforward explanation. I guess you'll just have to give the fellow enough to get him through the days shooting and hope you get repaid in kind.

 

[Poor Private]

I guess I can't sell my extra then at any Civ war events. I guess I better go to civil war forums and advise them.

 

[roundball]

I guess I can't sell my extra then at any Civ war events. I guess I better go to civil war forums and advise them.

What you do is one thing of course.
What I posted was DOJ's position on the law.

Feel free to cut & paste the entire Email if you want...it shows the Email addresses of the folks at DOJ who replied and were CC'd...so they can be contacted for follow-up if anyone wants to.

 

[rafterob]

Maybe you could just "trade" it for some billfold size pieces of paper. Or, you could loan him some powder and he could loan you some cash.-Thank you Roundball for persuing this information.

 

[Blizzard of '93]

yeah man you could say 'I'll give this BP if you will donate to my gas purchase fund'

 

[bebloomster]

Seems to me that once I ran across an ATF interpretation that "selling" doesn't have to involve the exchange of money or any other thing of value. If a can of powder goes from my possession to yours it was "sold" and I would need a license for that. Wish I could find that reference again.

 

[renovato]

Roundball, thanks for putting in the effort to get this information. Their reply was just as I had feared.

That does make me worry about the stings at rondies that were being discussed in another thread. Considering the types of stings that they're notorious for pulling, I can definately see them doing it at rondies to catch folks selling there.

On the other hand, I know folks that have been selling black powder at gun shows for years without a license, and gun shows almost always have a couple ATF walking around in plain clothes. Hopefully we're not a priority with them, or not worth the effort.

 

[Stumpkiller]

I know in drug cases "selling" and "distributing" are somewhat interchangable, so that even giving it away free is still "selling".

Spent a month on grand jury listening to all kinds of interesting things like this.

 

[DOUBLEDEUCE 1]

It can't get anymore clear than that. Simple enough. Thanks again. :thumbsup:

 

[tg]

I suspect the best approach is to put the powder on the bench or chair and turn around and walk away, and at a later date discuss the mytery of the missing powder. Or mention that there are two cans in a box in your tent and leave it at that.

 

[roundball]

No question there are many ways to handle it, and the only exposure I would see is that the transaction was with an undercover LEO or overseen / overheard by one.

But their answers were interesting just the same...personally I think they're hair-splitting...to me, in "practical terms", both examples should have answer #2. In neither example were actions taken to solicit sales and in neither example was a profit made.

So when I bought "2 cans" of powder from estate sales it was unlawful for the seller to sell it to me :shake:

But when I ordered a case of Goex and a guy came and got his "10 cans", that was OK. :shake:

Idiots.

 

[thewho66]

I agree. :thumbsup: :cursing: :youcrazy:

 

[Flint311]

Either way, thanks for the effort in pursuing this. That is some good information. :thumbsup:

 

[roundball]

Maybe Claude could add it to some reference section somewhere...at least it would be easier to find and downlowd to print if anyone wanted to...have access to some ATF/DOJ Email contacts

 

[Zonie]

Thank you roundball for your effort and for the information. :thumbsup:

I was thinking about the first situation where the good guy sold the powder to the other person for his cost.
As money changed hands it probably does qualify as a "sale" but, if the good guy said, "Sure, here you go. Money? Hell, no charge. You can give me some powder when you get some. " and poured half a pound or so into the guys powder horn or empty can no money would have changed hands. In this case, I think it would be considered a "gift" and not a "sale".

I'm sure it would take a lawyer or two to figure out if this would exempt it from BATFE control but it might be interesting to find out.

 

[wvbuckbuster]

Roundball what did you think their answer was going to be?

 

[roundball]

I assumed the worse, that they would say both examples constituted selling.

The flip side assumption was that they'd actually have a realistic practical viewpoint and say that neither example constituted selling.

I never expected they would give two different opposite decisions for the two examples.

 

[davemcg]

No question there are many ways to handle it, and the only exposure I would see is that the transaction was with an undercover LEO or overseen / overheard by one.

But their answers were interesting just the same...personally I think they're hair-splitting...to me, in "practical terms", both examples should have answer #2. In neither example were actions taken to solicit sales and in neither example was a profit made.

So when I bought "2 cans" of powder from estate sales it was unlawful for the seller to sell it to me :shake:

But when I ordered a case of Goex and a guy came and got his "10 cans", that was OK. :shake:

Idiots.

Look at it this way Roundball, in ex. #1 "Mr. Smith" is the "seller" "Mr. Jones" is the buyer.

In ex. #2 Goex is the "seller" "Mr. Jones" is merely reimbursing "Mr. Smith" for his portion of the purchase. He's not buying it from "Mr Smith" per se, since it was a prearranged agreement to order in quantity they are both buying from Goex.

Now if Mr. Jones said to Mr. Smith "Oh wow you've got 10# of BP could I buy one? Then you're back to ex. #1

least ways that's how I see it :2

Taint hair splitting just gubment :bull:

 

[gmww]

Well done my friend. Thanks for your efforts! :thumbsup: