BLACKPOWDER - BUYING & SELLING PER ATF

[roundball]

FYI...I found a contact Email on the ATF site and emailed this memo to them...if I get a reply, which will be "in writing" so to speak...I'll post it here.
==============================================

Hello...I hope you can help clarify a regulation for us about selling black powder.

We've been heavily involved in shooting and hunting with black powder muzzleloaders year round for decades and specifically use various brands of real black powder such as Goex.

We've all read a lot on the ATF website over the years trying to be certain that we operate within the law, and for example have learned that as an individual we can buy/keep up to 50lbs black powder for recreational purposes like weekend shooting and hunting, without having to have a permit or license, etc...and in fact the regs in general seem make a clear distinction between recreational users like us, and business users like dealers, retailers.

But...several of us were discussing item #47 which states to the effect that it’s unlawful to sell black powder to someone without a permit or license...which has lead to these questions as we want to be sure we aren’t breaking the law and I'll post a couple of examples.

Example #1
From time to time over the years there’s 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 or something, and to avoid the wasted time and cost of gasoline to make a round trip back to get it, someone will usually have an extra can in their shooting box and just let the guy have it at whatever the cost was.

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 of 25 1Lb cans. And again, among a group of black powder shooters, every now and then somebody will be needing to order some more black powder, but not wanting the whole 25 lbs in a case for himself, its not uncommon for 2-3 guys to agree to use all 25 cans but only one guy places the order, then they simply split up the cost according to however many 1 lb cans each guy wanted.

In our opinion, those are not examples of somebody “selling black powder without a license”. Our interpretation is that the ATF regs were not established for that...they are not examples of somebody actually in business trying to seek out buyers to sell black powder to...not advertising to try and sell powder...and of course in these examples no profit is involved.

They are just examples of a couple guys splitting a case of powder to get the most economical price, or helping a fellow shooter who forgot and left his powder at home 50 miles away...just the occasional spontaneous circumstance that pops up a couple times a year.

We'd appreciate it very much if you could explain / clarify item #47...that it does or does not apply to these incidental exchanges between a couple of fellow shooters from time to time over the years.

Thank you,

 

[Zonie]

Hopefully they will respond with answers to your question.
It would be even better if they cited a few examples of actions that they consider legal and a few that they consider illegal.

I don't expect them to do that but as I say, if they respond at all we should have a better understanding of how they interpret the law.

 

[bucktales]

Hopefully you will get a response.
And Thank You for doing the legwork regarding this issue. :applause:

 

[brubincam]

-----personally I wouldn't poke a sleeping lion with a stick-----

 

[roundball]

Different strokes I guess...I'd at least like to know for sure if I do something like that in the future whether or not it would be unlawful...probably still do it but would like to know ahead of time :grin:

 

[brubincam]

-----no offense meant-----

 

RB,

Yer awesome dude :thumbsup:

Thanks for looking out for us.

:v

 

[paulvallandigham]

If ATFE does respond, any statement of any agent that might make a commitment one way or another is NOT binding or " controlling" on any Federal Court Judge, or, for that matter, on any U.S. District Attorney, or the Attorney General of the United States. Only decisions of the courts have any controlling precedent.

For example: I have a very good friend who still holds a letter he received from the head of AFT, back in the 1950s, when he wrote them for clarification about whether he could legally rifle a shotgun barrel in order to fire rifled slugs more accurately. The letter writer indicated Decisively " NO", he could not do so. Back in the late 1970s, a new barrel maker( Hastings) began offering rifled slug barrels. Hastings got so many phone calls about whether his barrels were legal, that he paid for a full page Ad in Shotgun News, making an enlarged copy of the letter he held in his hands from the ATF indication a rifled shotgun barrel IS legal, as the character of the firearm remains a shotgun, and fires shotgun ammo!

Go Figure! My friend, who had worked out the correct ROT to fire slugs accurately from a shotgun barrel back in the 50s, and was denied an opportuntity to make those barrels and go into the business, making a better-than-good living for himself and his family, remains " unhappy " with the turn of events. But, he still has the letter from ATF. I believe he even has the envelope it came in.

So, my thanks to Roundball for writing for an " Opinion", but I am not holding my breath waiting for someone, who knows nothing about our use of Black Powder, or how inconvenient the government's regulations are to us, and how little true terrorists care a wit about the law when acquiring real explosives, to answer the inquiry. And regardless of what any bureaucrat may say, the issue will have to wait the ruling of our Federal Court judges.

I do predict that the answer will largely depend on whether the bureaucrat has a law enforcement only background, or has attended law school, where the laws of Contract, and Agency are taught, in addition to the Criminal law. It will also help if the bureaucrat has some passing knowledge of the " Rules of Constructions" for statutes and regulations.

 

It's kind of like asking the cop on the beat about a law. Most of the time they don't have a clue. You can't really go into court later and say, "Well he said...". :grin:

 

[roundball]

Some people are just amazing... :grin:

We have a group conversation about a serious subject that should be of interest to all of us who use BP...but unfortunately there is much speculation, anecdotal comments, and armchair theories, none of which represent an official unimpeachable source.

Then somebody actually writes the ONLY official, unimpeachable source to ask the question squarely, expecting/hoping to get a written reply which will clearly be traceable back to the official ATF organization...and the armchair theories and anecdotal comments take a different approach that such a reply can't even be trusted, etc.

:rotf:

Ostrich anyone?

 

[tg]

It is a good idea Roundball, often the most simple, direct, obvious path yeilds the best rewards, I suspect most support the gesture you have made in all our behalfs :thumbsup:

 

[paulvallandigham]

You have my support, Roundball, but you also get my caution. I have been practicing Law for almost 36 years, now, and much of my work has dealt with criminal cases, and interpreting regulations and statutes. The members here are entitled to understand the reason for my caution, as are you. You may not think a lawyer's advice is worth much, and that is your right. But, someone actually solicited my comments to this issue, because I am a lawyer.

If a cop give you wrong legal advice, you can't sue him for malpractice. If a lawyer does, you can.

I know I didn't charge anyone here for my advice, and I know you don't appreciate much of anything I say about anything. But, others actually wanted to hear what a lawyer would say, if this issue were to be argued in a Court. If there are any other lawyers out there You can discuss this matter with for free, have at them! Just remember that the advice you get from a " free " lawyer is worth what you pay for it, unless he has a vested( Personal) interest in your cause.

I do have a vested interest, as I gave the same advice to my own gun club, and only recently discussed the matter with my gunsmith, who is willing to store Black Powder if someone will build the bunker for him, and pay the annual fees required of him to have the State and Federal licenses needed. I have to talk to the officers of the gun club about this. However, having a local source of powder would be an aid to all local shooters, and even some other gunshop owners in the area.

Next time someone asks my advice on the law here on the forum, I will recommend they ask you, Roundball. I am through. They have you to thank. :cursing: I am done with your insults.

 

[Packdog]

Roundball,
Thanks for making the effort to get a interpretation. Binding or not it is 100% better than us speculating and making the interpretation ourslves.
Please post their response if and when you get one.
Thanks,
Ken

 

[ApprenticeBuilder]

Twas me that asked for your input and I appreciate the time you took to answer, I have since confirmed your advice as right on the money from a local individual in these parts.

He had many dealings with the ATF in the 80's as a store owner etc.

Thanks again Paul.

I may not agree with all you say and at times it would seem that you can get longwinded with a subject, but I do appreciate your involvement.

Again Thanks :hatsoff:

 

[MSW]

Roundball, thanks for your work. I have often wondered about whether or not a 'casual' or 'one off' or 'informal' exchange of a can of powder might be used to shoehorn one of into the criminal injustice system. Shades of Ruby Ridge.

I agree with you that since there's not a public offer of sale, and there's no profit involved, you might have a hard time convincing someone that you were involved in anything close to a retail operation. On the other hand, you have a product exchanging hands based upon a mutual agreement and the exchange of consideration (usually cash, but remember, sometimes the notion of 'good will' can be construed as consideration).

Call me paraniod, but whenever i contact any agency of the federal government, i do so from a remote source, and i'm darned sure to get the name of the filthy bureuacrat with whom i speak, and i try (with varying success) to get their supervisor's name, too. As with any promise made by the government, it's not worth the paper it's not written on. After all, look at the shocking list of broken campain promises (on both sides of the isle) and you can clearly see that the government will say one thing and then do another as it suits their purpose. Without further political tirade, suffice it to say that while an answer to your question will provide some better perspective about how the ATF might interpret their regulations, it's certianly no guarantee of future action.

With deep regret (and with no animosity) i agree with Paul. Whatever an individual agent might say isn't binding on the ATF (or the Assistant US Attorney who takes it into his or her head that ruining the life of some middle aged white blue collar male will make their conviction statistics look good).

So, trust in God, trust in steel, trust in descretion, but don't trust the government.

 

[roundball]

To me its simple:

1) ATF posts rules & regs on their official website;
2) ATF website offers contact point for questions;
3) Email question sent to official ATF website;
4) Official Email reply comes back from official ATF website;
5) Citizen files official reply for possible future reference;

At a minimum, such an Email exchange would be magnitudes more official than only being able to reference conversations with total strangers on the Internet.
And an Email audit trail with the official ATF website would clearly demonstrate a citizen's pro-active effort to do the right thing.

To think otherwise would suggest that the ATF has put up a website as a complete scam...to lure the law-abiding public into using it so they could just respond with any old answer since their replies would not be binding...and then go arrest citizen's who follow the guidance in the reply from the ATF website ???

I know our government can always improve but I don't think we're quite that bad off. :wink:

 

[dlpowell]

You know guys, I wouldn't worry about the issue. The ATF has a lot more important issues to worry about.

Last week a home owner was burglerized in an affluent Oklahoma suburb and the thief got his safe open and took over 30 guns. Some of these were class II weapons.

The ATF and other bureaus had most of the guns in custody in 48 hours.

I would be more concerned about the mis-guided public seeing a case marked explosive sitting on your front porch. Thank you UPS.

 

[brubincam]

-----don't forget how our government lied to the NATIVE AMERICANS-----

 

[jim m]

roundball, relax, take a deep breath, climb down off your high horse. what someone from ATF might say and what a judge would say can be two different things. no one was questioning your good intentions, just that the results might not be 100% reliable.

 

[Packdog]

Paul,
I'm curious, as an attorney, which would you rather defend in court? Guy #1 or Guy #2?
Again, based on your past experience, which would a judge be more lenient on? Guy #1 or Guy #2?

Guy #1) I wrote a letter and received an answer from an ATF agent. The ATF agent gave me the wrong answer, which by the way is in writing. Based on the answer I sold a few lbs. of powder.

Guy #2) I did not know I was doing anything wrong so I sold a couple of lbs. of black powder to a friend. I guess your defense would be "Ignorance of the Law"

I totally agree the answer roundball receives would not be binding until a court decides and the appeal process has been exhausted.
Is there any case history where the ATF has busted someone for selling 1 lb. of powder to a friend?