---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 09:45:43 -0800 (PST) From: Jim Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [texas-hpr] Safe Explosives Act
One of the key points in our lawsuit is whether or not APCP is an "explosive." BATF says it is; we say it isn't. The applicable legal definition is "any chemical compound[,] mixture or device, the primary or common purpose of which is to function by explosion." BATF says APCP is intended to function as an explosive; we say it is intended to function as a rocket propellant. The lawsuit will decide it. If we lose the lawsuit (meaning APCP is an explosive fully subject to BATF regulation), then we will all have to get LEUPs or go back to F and below motors. The Safe Explosives Act could hardly make this any worse. On the other hand, if we win the lawsuit, the Safe Explosives Act will have no effect on us because we won't be dealing with explosives. Jim Parker --- Mike Strang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The Homeland Security Bill, which is now law, > includes the Safe > Explosives Act ( interesting oxymoron). It has some > implications with > respect to HPR that need to be reviewed by each of > us. You can read the > ATF news release at, > > http://www.isee.org/SafeAct.htm > > Enjoy, > Mike Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
