A Bill Outlaw Reloading and All Modern Cartridges

Grapeshot · Dec 27, 2013

All gunowners (self-defense, hunters, sport shooters, plinkers) take note.

The antis would turn your tool(s) into fancy paper weights. Even tannerite possession would make you a felon.

§ 18.2-85. Manufacture, possession, use, etc., of fire bombs or explosive materials or devices; penalties.
http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?141+ful+HB129

They are coming for all of your guns......and/or anything that will make them work.

Grapeshot · Dec 27, 2013

Unintended consequences

Would seen that even the internal combusion engine would be illegal

In their rush to make Virginia safe from honest people, they would make us all criminals.

SouthernBoy · Dec 27, 2013

Grapeshot said:
Would seen that even the internal combusion engine would be illegal

In their rush to make Virginia safe from honest people, they would make us all criminals.

While we know that neither gunpowder nor gasoline vapors explode in firearms or internal combustion engines (they both burn), the wording is such that what you say could be construed as illegal since both of these agents are classed as combustibles.

grylnsmn · Dec 27, 2013

Grapeshot said:
All gunowners (self-defense, hunters, sport shooters, plinkers) take note.

The antis would turn your tool(s) into fancy paper weights. Even tannerite possession would make you a felon.

§ 18.2-85. Manufacture, possession, use, etc., of fire bombs or explosive materials or devices; penalties.
http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?141+ful+HB129

They are coming for all of your guns......and/or anything that will make them work.

If you read the bill closely, and use the "hilite" link, you can see that this is a minor wording change from the previous law. It's not a completely new law. The parts that you bolded are already in the law as it is today.

Specifically, the new parts are (added in bold, removed in red):

"Explosive material" means any chemical compound, mechanical mixture or device that is commonly used or can be used for the purpose of producing an explosion and which contains any oxidizing and combustive agents or other ingredients in such proportions, quantities or packaging that an ignition by fire, friction, concussion, percussion, detonation, or high impact velocity or by any part of the compound or mixture may cause a sudden generation of highly heated gases. These materials include, but are not limited to, gunpowder, powders for blasting, high explosives, blasting materials, fuses (other than electric circuit breakers), detonators, and other detonating agents and smokeless powder.

Any person who (i) possesses materials with which fire bombs or explosive materials or devices can be made with the intent to manufacture fire bombs or explosive materials or devices or, (ii) manufactures, transports, distributes, possesses or uses a fire bomb or explosive materials or devices shall be is guilty of a Class 5 felony. Any person who constructs, uses, places, sends, or causes to be sent any hoax explosive device so as to intentionally cause another person to believe that such device is a bomb or explosive shall be is guilty of a Class 6 felony.

The last two changes don't really matter much. The first change wouldn't affect firearms specifically, but would make the law cover substances like tannerite.

180shabah · Dec 27, 2013

Cap guns????

HILTI Nail guns???

Model Rockets????

CadWeld????

BrianB · Dec 27, 2013

Unless I'm reading it wrong it is presently unlawful to transport, possess, or use smokeless powder under current law in Virginia (based on what was posted earlier).

The definition of explosive material specifically includes smokeless powder (irrelevant parts removed):

"Explosive material" means [...]. These materials include, but are not limited to, [...] smokeless powder.

The second part criminalizes just about every use of it (irrelevant parts removed):

Any person who [...] manufactures, transports, distributes, possesses or uses [...] explosive materials [...] shall be is guilty of a Class 5 felony.

grylnsmn · Dec 27, 2013

BrianB said:
Unless I'm reading it wrong it is presently unlawful to transport, possess, or use smokeless powder under current law in Virginia (based on what was posted earlier).

The definition of explosive material specifically includes smokeless powder (irrelevant parts removed):

The second part criminalizes just about every use of it (irrelevant parts removed):

Not quite. The key portion is (current version):

Any person who (i) possesses materials with which fire bombs or explosive materials or devices can be made with the intent to manufacture fire bombs or explosive materials or devices or, (ii) manufactures, transports, distributes, possesses or uses a fire bomb or explosive materials or devices shall be guilty of a Class 5 felony. Any person who constructs, uses, places, sends, or causes to be sent any hoax explosive device so as to intentionally cause another person to believe that such device is a bomb or explosive shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony.

You can possess the materials as long as you don't have them with the intent to make fire bombs, explosive materials or devices.

However, there is also a series of exemptions:

Nothing in this section shall prohibit the authorized manufacture, transportation, distribution, use or possession of any material, substance, or device by a member of the armed forces of the United States, fire fighters or law-enforcement officers, nor shall it prohibit the manufacture, transportation, distribution, use or possession of any material, substance or device to be used solely for scientific research, educational purposes or for any lawful purpose, subject to the provisions of §§ 27-97 and 27-97.2.

Those last two sections mentioned at the end are from the fire code relating to storage.

By longstanding law and precedent, including the Second Amendment, ammunition would fall under "any lawful purpose".

Grapeshot · Dec 27, 2013

grylnsmn said:
If you read the bill closely, and use the "hilite" link, you can see that this is a minor wording change from the previous law. It's not a completely new law. The parts that you bolded are already in the law as it is today.

Specifically, the new parts are (added in bold, removed in red):
The last two changes don't really matter much. The first change wouldn't affect firearms specifically, but would make the law cover substances like tannerite.

Nightmare said:
If a felon may properly be disbarred rights under color of law, then all can be legally disarmed merely by sufficiently lowering the bar of felony, as has been done to stressed veterans and alleged abusers. Good people ought to be armed as they will, with wits and guns and the Truth.

Whether completely new law or revision of the old matters how?

Class 5 felonies are not trifling and I'm sure there are no Commonwealth Attorneys that would persue application of such charges against good people who have no intent to cause harm to others. Nah, not in Virginia.

Every attempted nick or slice at my brother's freedom is a frontal assault on my own.

grylnsmn · Dec 27, 2013

Grapeshot said:
Whether completely new law or revision of the old matters how?

If we are talking about bills that are up in this next session and what their impact would be, then it matters quite a bit.

The law, as applied to gunpowder and smokeless powder, is already on the books. This proposed bill won't change that. Any CA that would try to charge you under the new version (if passed) can already charge you with his novel legal theory right now. The proposed changes don't modify the potential severity of the punishment.

The bill doesn't change anything as it relates to gunpowder or smokeless powder. What it would change is to include substances like tannerite (which explode upon impact when involving high velocities) in the definition that already covers gunpowder and smokeless powder.

Blocking this bill won't take the old law (covering gunpowder and smokeless powder) off the books. If your concern is focused on those items, then the battle is already lost until there is some potential to repeal the existing law. That ain't happening for the next 4 years.

BrianB · Dec 27, 2013

grylnsmn said:
Not quite. The key portion is (current version):You can possess the materials as long as you don't have them with the intent to make fire bombs, explosive materials or devices.

However, there is also a series of exemptions:Those last two sections mentioned at the end are from the fire code relating to storage.

By longstanding law and precedent, including the Second Amendment, ammunition would fall under "any lawful purpose".

I disagree with your statutory construction analysis with regard to the portion of your post that I bolded. I believe you have overlooked the operation of the coordinating conjunction "or":

Any person who (i) possesses materials with which fire bombs or explosive materials or devices can be made with the intent to manufacture fire bombs or explosive materials or devices or, (ii) manufactures, transports, distributes, possesses or uses a fire bomb or explosive materials or devices shall be guilty of a Class 5 felony.

As written, if you do (i) or (ii) you "shall be guilty of a Class 5 felony".

Thanks for posting the exceptions. That does appear to "fix" the problem.

peter nap · Dec 27, 2013

grylnsmn said:
If we are talking about bills that are up in this next session and what their impact would be, then it matters quite a bit.

The law, as applied to gunpowder and smokeless powder, is already on the books. This proposed bill won't change that. Any CA that would try to charge you under the new version (if passed) can already charge you with his novel legal theory right now. The proposed changes don't modify the potential severity of the punishment.

The bill doesn't change anything as it relates to gunpowder or smokeless powder. What it would change is to include substances like tannerite (which explode upon impact when involving high velocities) in the definition that already covers gunpowder and smokeless powder.

Blocking this bill won't take the old law (covering gunpowder and smokeless powder) off the books. If your concern is focused on those items, then the battle is already lost until there is some potential to repeal the existing law. That ain't happening for the next 4 years.

Actually it does matter and has been used by localities as the state permission to pass local laws. AT least one city (I don't remember which one but there was a lot of discussion here) that used it to bypass preemption and keep guns out of their parks.

I agree, it isn't worth an all out assault but needs to be on the "OPPOSE" list.

I just don't understand the attitude sometimes. The hunting bill discussed here yesterday would actually eliminate the possibility of dog hunters being charged with trespassing. An ex cop turned gunsmith said it didn't matter because the judges wouldn't do much with them anyway.

What the hell does that matter....a bad bill is a bad bill and has to be opposed.

grylnsmn · Dec 27, 2013

peter nap said:
Actually it does matter and has been used by localities as the state permission to pass local laws. AT least one city (I don't remember which one but there was a lot of discussion here) that used it to bypass preemption and keep guns out of their parks.

I agree, it isn't worth an all out assault but needs to be on the "OPPOSE" list.

I just don't understand the attitude sometimes. The hunting bill discussed here yesterday would actually eliminate the possibility of dog hunters being charged with trespassing. An ex cop turned gunsmith said it didn't matter because the judges wouldn't do much with them anyway.

What the hell does that matter....a bad bill is a bad bill and has to be opposed.

I agree that this bill needs to be opposed, but we should make an effort to be accurate in why it needs to be opposes. The specific change here would add substances that ignite with a high velocity impact to be covered by the existing bill. If we are going to oppose it, then let's oppose it for that reason, not because we don't like the law as it is already on the books. The reason to oppose this bill is because of the changes it would make.

The existing law is a battle that we've already lost, and there's almost no chance of reversing it while McAuliffe is in office (short of a veto-proof majority in the Senate). We have to start from where things are, and focus on holding the line here, and then prepare to move the line forward where and when we can.

Repeater · Dec 27, 2013

Grapeshot said:
Would seen that even the internal combusion engine would be illegal

In their rush to make Virginia safe from honest people, they would make us all criminals.

Say, what about model rocket engines?

BrianB · Dec 27, 2013

grylnsmn said:
I agree that this bill needs to be opposed, but we should make an effort to be accurate in why it needs to be opposes. The specific change here would add substances that ignite with a high velocity impact to be covered by the existing bill. If we are going to oppose it, then let's oppose it for that reason, not because we don't like the law as it is already on the books. The reason to oppose this bill is because of the changes it would make.

The existing law is a battle that we've already lost, and there's almost no chance of reversing it while McAuliffe is in office (short of a veto-proof majority in the Senate). We have to start from where things are, and focus on holding the line here, and then prepare to move the line forward where and when we can.

Earlier in this thread I believe Grapeshot posted that there were exceptions to the law including use for "any lawful purpose". Since "reactive targets" are a lawful purpose doesn't that eliminate any reason to be concerned about this change? Assuming that is the case the change could just be to ensure that if someone used Tannerite to maliciously blow up someone's car, they could be charged for the explosives violation as well.

davidmcbeth · Dec 27, 2013

What's an explosion?

Law does not define it ... so its all garbage

Grapeshot · Dec 27, 2013

davidmcbeth said:
What's an explosion?

Law does not define it ... so its all garbage

Words not defined by the VA GA in the legislative process are then given to the dictionary definition.

Could be garbage in some states (doubt it though), but definitely not the case in Virginia.

Tell it to the judge - we will cheer you through the process

Neplusultra · Jan 17, 2014

Stricken from the Docket. I assume this means it's dead for the year?

http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?ses=141&typ=bil&val=hb129&submit=GO

peter nap · Jan 17, 2014

It would outlaw Tannerite targets and I'm told ..."They're so much fun"

Another private joke only one other person understands

Neplusultra · Jan 17, 2014

peter nap said:
It would outlaw Tannerite targets and I'm told ..."They're so much fun"

Another private joke only one other person understands

It is obvious what the law is aimed at. Of course it will do nothing more than turn fun-lovers into felons...

I was wondering Peter if the link means the bill is dead? What really needs to happen is for the statute to be clarified to apply towards those with mal-intent and not people out to just have some fun.

Another problem I have with the statute is that tannerite, as a binary explosive, is legal according to the VA fire code. But would be illegal according to this statute proposal. I have a problem with something that is legal in one area of the law and illegal in another.

peter nap · Jan 17, 2014

Neplusultra said:
It is obvious what the law is aimed at. Of course it will do nothing more than turn fun-lovers into felons...

I was wondering Peter if the link means the bill is dead? What really needs to happen is for the statute to be clarified to apply towards those with mal-intent and not people out to just have some fun.

Another problem I have with the statute is that tannerite, as a binary explosive, is legal according to the VA fire code. But would be illegal according to this statute proposal. I have a problem with something that is legal in one area of the law and illegal in another.

It's been withdrawn.
That's good! Now people who have CHP's can take their LOADED rifle or shotgun to the range and really have a lot of fun...

A Bill Outlaw Reloading and All Modern Cartridges

Legendary Warrior

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate