17 replies to this topic

[BigG]

couple of things of interest in the document. prior issues and court proceedings and a judgement. once judgement expiered they went back to doing things the same way that they were taken to court for before. to me this case is not about selling the chems, it is the manor in which it is done and the checks that are in place... the law is not going after all the other chem suppliers from what I can see on the web.
I think this needs a little more looking at, and if anyone has any other documents, pm me the url's or put the links in here.
I for one am not about to contribute towards 3 individuals that have prior judgements against them and have resorted to going back to doing things the same way again... I need more info before I cough up any money.

Mark

Guys, by now I have talked with most of the individuals involved, and Mark, you are more then welcome to lift up the phone and make that phone call to both sides yourself.

There is nothing to suggest in the complaint that things are sold in an irresponsible manner. In fact, the examples suggest that there is an argument about what the law means. For example, they claim that an order of potassium chlorate (5 pounds) and 500 paper tubes qualify as illegal because the seller must have known that the buyer is going to make illegal fireworks. Here is the problem - the ATF say that is someone makes fireworks for personal use - as long as they got proper storage - which they do not need to register (according to the ATF law), then they are doing nothing wrong.

How could possibly the seller know that the fireworks will be for anything else then personal use?

Secondly, they already closed two shops. Harry is next.

The case is endorsed by the firework foundation, Tom Prigrin, Harry from skylighter just to name a few known individuals. They already collected contribution in the extant of 25,000$ in a matter of days. How many people you think would have supported this matter if it was not justified?

If anyone has any questions about the document then they are more then welcome to ask. Mark, I'll phone in to try and understand what was the 1991 injunction about. I'll publish the information tommorow.

Edited by BigG, 12 December 2004 - 01:38 PM.

[burningbush]

WOW I missed this info,very important to people in US!
I've orderd from all the US suppliers "firefox,skylighter,discount pyro...etc
recently and in large quantity's and all I can say is THE ALL OPERATE THE SAME,
same realse agreement,same age and I.d verify before orders are sent,not more then 2 #'s of I.BH. or compareable a year.
I feel they ALL do more then their share in making sure and being prudent about who they sell to! They All support SAFE and Legal experimentation of rocketry and pyro hobby.
If they close these suppliers they will End most all American firework Club's& most pyro experimenters from safely obtaining chemical's Which will certainly effect the future of U.S. display and class c mfg. seeing allmost all owner/operators of these companies get their start in SAFE pyro through club's and org's or even experimenting after reading forum's like this one.
I have talked to numerous young kids that are tring to get kicks making thing's they should not IE. B**M's etc. When directed to a club or even good safe instruction and literature they soon realize how stupid and dangerous it is to assume they could make any thing with out blowing their arm or face off ,when they see and learn what safe and unsafe compositions can do! or how unsafe those
kwel and kill yourself manuals really are..
So what will happen if no rocketry and pyro org's are around for people to get a safe and knowlegeable start in something new, well I would guess the business will decline and die after time.
Besides the fact I'm sure this is meant to stop sketchy people from having explosives ,People they have to worry about wouldnt go throu firefox anyways!!!
STUPID way to iron out problems, I'll bet this is due to our new homeland security that is linking all parts of gov. together . ATF FBI ETC.. I can see it now ,Some one reading report about how individuals can obtain kclo3- unlim #'s
"Man alquida might build a huge firework"
Like I said there are alot more thing's they need to be spending tax $ on fixing... and making safer for U.S
.You can buy smallpox/anthrax spore's without a permit.
Thats how terroists got ahold of it before., from U.S. labs thruo mail ,without needing to verifing who you are or what it's for.
what the F**K is wrong with this picture!!
I dont know if I should send $ 1000.00 for defence or buy $2000 in chems now!
Guess I'll sleep on it.java script:emoticon('') and dream about my new chlorate cell I'll have to build now !!java script:emoticon('')
P.

[BigG]

couple of things of interest in the document. prior issues and court proceedings and a judgement. once judgement expiered they went back to doing things the same way that they were taken to court for before. to me this case is not about selling the chems, it is the manor in which it is done and the checks that are in place... the law is not going after all the other chem suppliers from what I can see on the web.
I think this needs a little more looking at, and if anyone has any other documents, pm me the url's or put the links in here.
I for one am not about to contribute towards 3 individuals that have prior judgements against them and have resorted to going back to doing things the same way again... I need more info before I cough up any money.

Mark

A Bit later then planned Mark, but here the information you required.

Back in 1986, Firefox were selling chemicals very much the same way they do today, but with almost no restrictions and allowing for combination chemicals. The CPSC have come to them with an injunction to stop doing so as they break federal law. This was not them being taken to court, but being told that they are doing something wrong and have to stop doing it ? or go to court (very similar to what they face today). At the time, they AGREED with the CPSC and signed the injunction. The injunction required them

1. Not to sell ?combination chemicals? (such as percholorate + fine aluminium).
2. Not to sell more then ? pound of fine aluminium in one order.

The injunction was set for five years and expired after that.

Firefox has kept the injunction going for an additional three years even that they were not required to do so, and then ? decided to allow a 1 pound of fine aluminium a year rather then ? pound per order. This is in accordance with ATF requirements and the way other chemical operators were conducting business.

One must note that at 1986, Firefox were the ONLY Company that had to sign this injunction, but then again, most small chemical suppliers started their business well after 1986. Firefox were one of the only ones around. The case is different today ? as they are quite a few suppliers around, and it seems like the CPSC is going after them one by one.

For instructions on how to make donations through the BPS please refer to:

http://www.ukrocketr...?showtopic=1211