3 ms·

There are laws barring explosives, see https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/842 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/842, and the one mentioned in t

There are laws barring explosives, see https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/842 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/842, and the one mentioned in the article is listed as having no known use with at least some evidence of others being charged with having it. Maybe the charge would get thrown out at some point, but not including it in the indictment seems odd.

lazide 2y ago
Those laws don’t actually bar explosives at all, and there are numerous carve outs that could potentially meet what the poster is describing. You might want to read it? Though it would be helpful to know which state, because I don’t know of any that are quite that easy to deal with. BATF to my knowledge does still require a license (albeit easy to get if you meet the requirements) for commercial use, anyway.
- Hnrobert42 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - lazide 2y ago
    My comment did not refer to the article at all. It was if they had read the link to the law they pasted. Which near as I can tell they hadn’t, because the content of the law is the opposite of what they are asserting it is. Feel free to check the law yourself if you’d like.
- boomboomsubban 2y ago
  >It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in explosive materials without a license issued under this chapter Seems fairly clear cut. You could argue the term "business" means they need to be selling the stuff, but the definitions clarify "manufacturing" includes for personal use. edit it never occurred to me he may be licensed. Still, this particular explosive seems to have no approved use, and the licensing seems to be for specific explosives. I may be wrong on that though. And it's Virginia, the Isle of Wight is a county in Virginia.
  - lazide 2y ago
    Purchasing, and using are still fine (when non-commercial). The dealer would be the one with the license. Also, manufacturing and using on site for non-commercial purposes is exempted (albeit not explicitly). Which is why tannerite and personal explosives research is fine and widespread.
    - tonetegeatinst 2y ago
      Can I see a link to the exemption for non commercial use? While I get some things are exempt like tannerite, I find it highly unlikely someone could just manufacture TNT or rdx and use it in their back yard without breaking a ton of laws. Even if you used it within the 24 hour requirement so it didn't have to be stored(iirc from my memory of old legal readings)
      - lazide 2y ago
        It depends on state laws, but there are a LOT of folks doing it on youtube - zero prosecutions i’m aware of. [https://www.atf.gov/explosives/binary-explosives https://www.atf.gov/explosives/binary-explosives], halfway through the ‘License and or permit requirements’. It’s not actually specific to binary explosives, but those are the ones where it most clearly applies to random members of the public. Specifically, “Persons manufacturing explosives for their own personal, non-business use only (e.g., personal target practice) are not required to have a federal explosives license or permit under 27 CFR, Part 555” The issue is the law is clearly written to regulate commercial activites, and the fed gov’t (at least in theory) only has jurisdiction over commercial activities (those involving trade). There is a lot of court precedent on this, some of it confusing. So while the law doesn’t explicitly exempt personal, non-business use, the courts (and constitution), and the law, doesn’t cover personal, non-business use either. So, legal. also, there is zero chance they could stop it.
  - solidsnack9000 2y ago
    Where does it clarify that manufacturing includes personal use? I did read it over a couple of times and I couldn't find anything that says that, at least not in those words. However, it may be that the suspect violated a different section of the law: It shall be unlawful for any person to store any explosive material in a manner not in conformity with regulations promulgated by the Attorney General. The suspect may also have violated the NFA, by manufacturing destructive devices without appropriate permitting or record keeping.
brookst 2y ago
Not sure about this kind of case, but for more garden variety crimes it is common for the first charges to be slam-dunk, with tons of evidence and a clear path to conviction. Then, during the pre-trial phase, a superseding indictment can be added as more evidence is gathered and a stronger case is put together. This happened with Paul Manafort, who was first indicted for “conspiracy against the United States”, but then the superseding indictment included all sorts of tax and bank fraud.

lazide 2y ago

Those laws don’t actually bar explosives at all, and there are numerous carve outs that could potentially meet what the poster is describing. You might want to read it? Though it would be helpful to know which state, because I don’t know of any that are quite that easy to deal with. BATF to my knowledge does still require a license (albeit easy to get if you meet the requirements) for commercial use, anyway.

Hnrobert42 2y ago
[flagged]
- lazide 2y ago
  My comment did not refer to the article at all. It was if they had read the link to the law they pasted. Which near as I can tell they hadn’t, because the content of the law is the opposite of what they are asserting it is. Feel free to check the law yourself if you’d like.
boomboomsubban 2y ago
>It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in explosive materials without a license issued under this chapter Seems fairly clear cut. You could argue the term "business" means they need to be selling the stuff, but the definitions clarify "manufacturing" includes for personal use. edit it never occurred to me he may be licensed. Still, this particular explosive seems to have no approved use, and the licensing seems to be for specific explosives. I may be wrong on that though. And it's Virginia, the Isle of Wight is a county in Virginia.
- lazide 2y ago
  Purchasing, and using are still fine (when non-commercial). The dealer would be the one with the license. Also, manufacturing and using on site for non-commercial purposes is exempted (albeit not explicitly). Which is why tannerite and personal explosives research is fine and widespread.
  - tonetegeatinst 2y ago
    Can I see a link to the exemption for non commercial use? While I get some things are exempt like tannerite, I find it highly unlikely someone could just manufacture TNT or rdx and use it in their back yard without breaking a ton of laws. Even if you used it within the 24 hour requirement so it didn't have to be stored(iirc from my memory of old legal readings)
    - lazide 2y ago
      It depends on state laws, but there are a LOT of folks doing it on youtube - zero prosecutions i’m aware of. [https://www.atf.gov/explosives/binary-explosives https://www.atf.gov/explosives/binary-explosives], halfway through the ‘License and or permit requirements’. It’s not actually specific to binary explosives, but those are the ones where it most clearly applies to random members of the public. Specifically, “Persons manufacturing explosives for their own personal, non-business use only (e.g., personal target practice) are not required to have a federal explosives license or permit under 27 CFR, Part 555” The issue is the law is clearly written to regulate commercial activites, and the fed gov’t (at least in theory) only has jurisdiction over commercial activities (those involving trade). There is a lot of court precedent on this, some of it confusing. So while the law doesn’t explicitly exempt personal, non-business use, the courts (and constitution), and the law, doesn’t cover personal, non-business use either. So, legal. also, there is zero chance they could stop it.
- solidsnack9000 2y ago
  Where does it clarify that manufacturing includes personal use? I did read it over a couple of times and I couldn't find anything that says that, at least not in those words. However, it may be that the suspect violated a different section of the law: It shall be unlawful for any person to store any explosive material in a manner not in conformity with regulations promulgated by the Attorney General. The suspect may also have violated the NFA, by manufacturing destructive devices without appropriate permitting or record keeping.

brookst 2y ago

Not sure about this kind of case, but for more garden variety crimes it is common for the first charges to be slam-dunk, with tons of evidence and a clear path to conviction. Then, during the pre-trial phase, a superseding indictment can be added as more evidence is gathered and a stronger case is put together. This happened with Paul Manafort, who was first indicted for “conspiracy against the United States”, but then the superseding indictment included all sorts of tax and bank fraud.