Updated list of EU explosive precursors.

[Nitrotitanite]

with three new substances to the list of precursors at the All explosives. II Reg. (EC) n. 98/2013

21/02/2017

The All. II Reg. (EU) No. 98/2013 lists those substances which may be precursors of explosives. These substances are subject to harmonized standards in the case of willingness on the part of private and designed to ensure proper reporting of suspicious transactions, disappearances and thefts all along the supply chain.

This latest update has seen the inclusion in App. II of the following three substances:

Aluminium powder - Cas No. 7429-90-5 (Reg (EU) 2017/214);

Magnesium nitrate hexahydrate - Cas No 13446-18-9 (Reg. (EU) 2017/215);

Magnesium Powder - Cas No. 7439-95-4 (Reg. (EU) 2017/216).

 

 

Aggiornato con tre nuove sostanze lelenco dei precursori di esplosivi dellAll. II al Reg. (CE) n. 98/2013

21/02/2017

 

L'All. II al Reg. (UE) n. 98/2013 elenca quelle sostanze che possono essere precursori di esplosivi. Tali sostanze sono soggette a norme armonizzate in caso di disponibilità da parte di privati e finalizzate a garantire un'adeguata segnalazione di transazioni sospette, sparizioni e furti lungo tutta la catena di approvvigionamento.

 

Questo ultimo aggiornamento ha visto linserimento in All. II delle seguenti tre sostanze:

 

Polvere di alluminio Cas N. 7429-90-5 (Reg (UE) 2017/214);

Nitrato di magnesio esaidrato Cas N. 13446-18-9 (Reg. (UE) 2017/215);

Polvere di magnesio Cas N. 7439-95-4 (Reg. (UE) 2017/216).

 

 

 

 

Fonte: Per ulteriori informazioni: eur-lex.europa.eu

 

Fonte: eur-lex.europa.eu

 

It almost seems that they are just made for us fans these restrictions. As if a terrorist to build an explosive ordignio was using magnesium.I think that if a person wants to do damage consistent points on far more destructive explosive.

These laws are made to hit us hobbyists.

On like this it will be hard to find pyrotecnico aluminum here in Europe, the case will organize to autoproduction in the house.

[lloyd]

I agree! Of ALL the things I might use as an oxidizer, magnesium nitrate comes in among the LAST five, or so. It's terribly deliquescent, and wouldn't be very useful.

 

I wish you well finding new sources of aluminum powder. That is a crippling loss!

 

Lloyd

[taiwanluthiers]

It's just part of the Socialist agenda. Keep adding more and more substances to the list of "explosive precursor". Next thing you know baking soda and vinegar will be on that list.

[Andres1511]

As a european: THIS SUCKS. On the other hand, it will always be available, if I go to a local aluminum processing factory they give me a big bag full of Al for free, it's waste for them. I just have to sort the mesh sizes. Kinda ridiculous rules, they should focus on the real problems. The EU could be so big if they didn't waste time on all these 'potential terrorist threats'

[taiwanluthiers]

No wonder countries keep talking about leaving.

 

Oh and by the way so what about paint industry? That's what aluminum powder is used for.

[MrB]

I wish you well finding new sources of aluminum powder. That is a crippling loss!

 

Not entirely certain, but i THINK this is a "report purchase" list, not a "ban" list.

So, Al should still be possible to buy, no worries. And for good reasons, since it's used as a pure powder for so much.

B!

[lloyd]

That would be much better than a ban, MB. I hope (for you) that's the case.

 

Lloyd

[MrB]

The more you know.... Right?

 

Anyway, over the last year or so, since they "banned" (per)chlorates, i've been reading up.

I cant say that this is true for the entire EU, but here in Sweden, it's kinda crazy, and works like this.

It's banned. No person, not even one with permits to actually make pyro on a hobbyist level (At this point i think there is 3 in all of Sweden, that managed to qualify. I am NOT one of them.) can legally make, purchase, or own (per)chlorates.

It's so banned that there is... no control what so ever, if you are a company, or any other tax-registered organization. And at this point i went "Wait...What?!"

 

Really. You need a VAT number, or, if purchasing from a Swedish retailer a corporate identity number, and you are set. You might have to email back and fourth for a while with MSB, to get "cleared" to purchase, but potassium perchlorate will be granted access to, if you claim a need to use it as a disinfectant. Att which point that give you a carte-blanche for any amount, from any source.

 

It's just stupid.

Remember that Norwegian who blew up a small truck, trying to waste a bunch of politicians, while he was on a small island shooting kids? Yes, the nutcase Anders Behring Breivik. He had the right idea... He did exactly this, but to get access to ammonium nitrate in bulk. And they still haven't figured "it" out. They can ban anything they want, and they wont stop the people actually trying. All they do is make criminals of hobbyists. It's stupid.

Personally i have a full valid reason for buying aluminum powder, should it come to that. We use it in bulk both for paint, and for "liquid metal" in the family truck company's workshop. But i don't see them taking it to the next level and actually "banning" Al powder, since any damn fool can make it them self... (But then again, i thought the same about (per)chlorates.)

B!

[taiwanluthiers]

How would a bunch of politicians at EU Parliament know what goes through each member country?

 

Countries like the UK have near total ban on guns (can get one if you show REALLY exceptional reason) while countries like Czech Republic have looser laws...

 

Meanwhile terrorists still shoot up nightclubs with automatic weapons. I'm sure they didn't have permit for those.

[PyroCreationZ]

MrB is right. It's not a ban but large quantity orders will have to be reported as those could be 'suspicious'.

Side note about Al / Mg: They are talking about particle size 200µm (#70) or smaller.

 

It's been said before but these laws are silly.

These stupid laws hurt us hobbyists which is bad. One good thing about it might be that it can stop the k3wl kids from making flash powder and blowing things up but... these are not terrorists with intentions to kill.

Besides, instead of making it they might obtain flash by taking it out of commercial fireworks. What's next? A total ban on consumer fireworks?

 

Will it actually stop terrorists? No! They will just find other ways.

A good example of that is the attack in France or the one in Germany. Instead of blowing people up, they use daily life things such as a truck to mow down a lot of people at once.

 

It's the same with guns. The law abiding citizen is not allowed to have guns in many countries unless they join clubs and a whole bunch of other things which makes it nearly impossible to own one.

Does that stop terrorists from smuggling and using them? No!

Look at the Charlie Hebdo attacks in France. Those terrorists were running through the street with automatic guns.

 

I can understand why some countries want to leave the EU...

 

PS: I have no means to turn this topic into a gun or terrorist attack discussion. I used them only as an example.

Edited March 19, 2017 by PyroCreationZ

[taiwanluthiers]

Unfortunately the mentality of the Europeans are completely different than the US. Their assumption is, if it's legal then criminals will use it. They know the laws don't work but if they relax it they think it will make crimes worse. They will not even try relaxing them since the people will deride them for not taking their safety seriously. Therein lies the problem... the people in Europe expects the government to be responsible for their safety. In the US the police has no duty to protect citizens from criminal acts, however in European countries (or Canada) they do.

 

This is highlighted by the fact that in Denmark a woman was charged with a crime because she used a pepper spray to fight off a rapist. Guns aren't the only thing that's illegal. Carrying any weapons, regardless of what it is (even a key) with the intention of using it for self defense is a crime in many European countries. Self defense may be a "right" however if anyone does anything to prepare for criminal acts they are themselves labeled as a criminal. If you get a gun license with the intention of self defense it will be rejected because they do not consider self defense as a right at all.

 

That and Europeans generally consider any unlawful acts to be unethical and cannot separate between the two. So if possessing guns and ammo is illegal, then it is seen as unethical as well.

Edited March 20, 2017 by taiwanluthiers

[MrB]

If you get a gun license with the intention of self defense it will be rejected because they do not consider self defense as a right at all.

 

I have to correct you here. Self defense is a right. Self defense using guns, is not. Most parts of Europe even has laws regarding knifes, and how knifes size "X" isn't allowed in public without a specific reason.

But that just means that you are not allowed to carry your target shooting handgun at all times, and claim it's for self defense. It has to be stored under lock when not being transported for use, can only be transported for use, when specifically "going to be used", as in, when your going to and from the shooting range, and so on. However, if you get attacked at home, and provided you have the time, you get the gun out, and kill your attacker, at that point it becomes a legal issue. You are most certainly allowed to use the gun for self defense. But, you are possibly using excessive force, when killing the attackers. You aren't given a free card for unlimited amounts of violence and damage, just due to you feeling threatened.

It's been highly actualized here in Sweden a while back. An older gentleman shot, and killed 2 known criminals trying to enter his home, threatening with bodily harm. He shot both of them in something like 3 seconds. Dead, of course. (shotgun) The general conscious is that if he had waited with shooting until they actually were through his door, rather then shooting them through to door window, laying one on the porch, and one on the driveway when he managed to run a few steps, he would have been "fine" but at this point the court found him guilty of using excessive force. I on the other hand, think he should have a medal.

It's proven that a third, unknown person, was heading in through the back door, and if the two guys had come through the door, there is no way of being sure that the older gentleman actually would have been able to defend him self. So, he's been convicted twize, and given Swedens joke of a legal system, he's going to have one more trial, where it's the general assumption that he's going to get "convicted" just so that the state doesn't have to reimburse him for the time he's been locked up during the investigation...

 

The point of all this is... He's not accused of using a rifle to illegally defend him self. He's accused of using excessive force, and ending their life, rather then putting one down, and then just waiting, or, waiting a little bit before taking both out, when whatever criteria for "enough" would have been filled. It's stupid none the less, but nowhere, ever, during all this, has it been questioned if he had the right to defend him self with the shotgun. Hell, you are even legally allowed to use an illegal weapon to defend your self, but you WILL get charged for owning it. As with teargas / pepper spray. And, if using an illegal weapon for self defense, the same whole thing with excessive force or not, will be debated.

B!

[taiwanluthiers]

I just think letters of the law is besides the point.

 

Clearly the government thinks the old man has exceeded the government's monopoly of force, and is making an example of him.

 

Laws are written in such a way that everyone will be convicted of a felony if the government chooses to prosecute a single person of anything with the aim of putting him/her in prison for a specified amount of time the government desires.

 

The old guy isn't in prison because of improper use of firearms, he is in prison because the government wants him there.

 

It's amazing what laws can be overlooked if the government feels the person did right, and what obscure laws can be enforced if the government feels the person needs to be "punished".

[MrB]

Clearly the government thinks the old man has exceeded the government's monopoly of force, and is making an example of him.

 

The government has very little with it to do. State attorney, and judge isn't political positions in Sweden. Time will tell what it ends up with, but as i said before, there is yet another turn through to court system to be had, before there is any verdict worth noticing.

My money is on "convicted, but no punishment other then what has already been collateral damage", as in, the time he's been locked up after he called in and said he had shot the fellas, and the couple of weeks, until the "investigation" was completed. Means the state wont have to pay for wrongful incarceration. Seams to have become the ruling strategy lately, unless your actually a criminal, that willfully committed a crime, and hence actually cant be convicted for it, since you covered your tracks. That to has been going on a lot over here.

 

Och well.

B!

[DesertCatUSN]

There was a similar case in New Jersey where a landscaper got in an argument with his downstairs neighbor. After going back and forth yelling at each other, the downstairs guy went upstairs and tried to break down the door. The landscaper, who's wife and child were there, had a machete from work at hand. So he opened the door with the machete in his hand, but pointed downwards, giving a clear visual message for the aggressor to chill out. The police showed up,and arrested the guy with the machete, who was protecting his family, but hadn't threatened to, or even used, the machete. He was then convicted under some weird NJ law that says you can only use an item laying around to defend yourself (even a pencil), if it's in instantaneous self-defense. You can't use it as a "prepared" defense. A difference of about 1/10th of a second or probably less. The appeals court upheld the conviction, but fortunately, the NJ Supreme Court called the law stupid and vacated the conviction. So Europe isn't the only place with moronic lawmakers. We always have the west coast states, especially California, and most of the northeast states passing laws setting new standards for stupidity and restricting our freedoms.

 

And fellow American's should thank the founders daily for the second amendment. I was stationed in Canberra, Australia from 1996 to late 1998. While I was there, some whacko did a mass shooting at a national monument, killing/injuring more than 30 people. Shortly afterwards, Australia banned virtually all guns, except for some ranchers in the outback and a few others. The guns were confiscated by the police, and the owners were paid a small fraction of their value, especially regarding collectible/historical weapons. The government also had a gun registry, so they knew who had guns and made sure they were collected. And then they destroyed all of the collected weapons by crushing and shredding them , instead of selling them to collectors elsewhere. Before I returned to the States, the crime rate had more than doubled, and illegal guns proliferated, along with gun crimes. They just never learn.... Roger

[taiwanluthiers]

Most countries that had a right to bear arms have been so thoroughly disarmed that people are afraid of what could happen if people could get guns.

[DesertCatUSN]

So sad. An armed society is a polite society. In every state that has started issuing concealed carry permits, or made it easier to get a concealed carry permit, the crime rate has dropped precipitously, especially violent crimes. The criminals don't know who's armed, so they're much more careful. The states or cities with the strongest gun laws have the highest crime rates. Pretty clear relationship, if you have a weapon and can protect yourself, there is less crime, and a reduction in criminals through Darwinian Evolution.

 

Gun Free Zones are also idiotic! Might as well have a huge sign above the location, welcoming criminals with weapons, and crazy people looking for a high body count, since they'll encounter zero resistance. That's exactly what happened at a Connecticut school shooting, a Florida night club shooting, and a Colorado theater shooting. The gunmen looked for and found gun free zones (along with other psychiatric drivers in some cases), and acted with devastating results. Europe is now seeing this in real time, and a gun isn't even needed. Just making sure the populace has no way to protect themselves does it all, as the Swedish gentleman so eloquently illustrated. Depressing and totally predictable. Roger

[DesertCatUSN]

Oh, almost left this off. Politicians bemoan the number of gun deaths in the US, and any gun death of a victim is sad and unwanted. But their figures are bogus. First they add in suicides, which aren't a violent act by a criminal on an other, but death by a quick and unfortunately at hand method. NOT that I'm saying it's a good thing, I wish there weren't any suicides at all. However opioid overdoses have far surpassed all gun deaths, and there isn't any hysteria about banning opioids, or being charged an excessive fee to get a license to be subscribed opioids after surgery, etc. But the most important point, and what is never reported, is that guns are used 500,000 to 2 million times per year to stop violent crimes and save the lives of the innocent. That's why ownership of guns by responsible civilians needs to be protected and expanded. And lastly, to perfectly illustrate this, it's illegal for civilians to own guns in Mexico, with a 25 year prison term for having one. Does that stop the cartel murders? Don't think so. But the poor civilians are without any protection, and many of them have died, some by the 2000+ guns that were allowed to 'walk' into Mexico by Obama and his pals.

Sorry, I got carried away! No warning needed, won't do so again. Roger

[taiwanluthiers]

People want quick solutions. It just so happens that in the US people do not want more gun laws, but in the UK carrying any item with the intention to use it for defense is illegal. The mentality is only bad guys have weapons.

 

Making stronger weapon laws just sound better, it sounds like politicians are doing something about problems.

 

Same go with updated list of EU explosive precursor. Even vinegar and baking soda could be considered explosive precursor.

[Atrey]

Big bengs is only for idiots or politics in EU. Smart man knows about long time using more dangerous chemicals which can made very big problems (like atomic bomb, but quetli).

Titanium and Boron can be used like more quick reaction, like another.....