 |
|
| Hobby Forum Index » Pyrotechnics » IS IT ILEGAL TO MAKE "HIGH CONCUSSION" TYPE FIREWORKS IN CAN |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Mr.T |
 Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2005 4:09 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Hey guys i just had a couple of qeustions about making Fireworks that
have explosive like qualities. Yes i know all fireworks have
"explosive like qualities" But i was refering to explosive qualities
similar to a pipe bomb, Metal shell, Extreme Pressure Release, and
Extreme Noise.... I was wondering if there were certain limits, the
power of homemade pyrotechnics, and if there were any specfic laws/
websites/ information to be found on the subject.
Also i was wondering What voltage Solid Rocket Motor Igniters ,
usually use to fire. Also what is classified as a Pipe Bomb In
canada.... I dont want to make one of my Rockets that a Cop would
catch me with and call it a PIPE BOMB, thus labelling me as a
Terriost....
Cant a man just shoot stuff into the sky without being worried that
evertime he does he is going to be arrested? ...
Anyways any info, thoughts, or opions on the matter would be
welcome.
-Patty O'Ryan |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2005 10:10 am |
|
|
|
|
im not sure about the rocket thing but a device that explodes with
violence and is contained in a metal pipe or a large plastic pipe would
be considered a bomb and has nothing to do with pyrotechnics. Im not
from canada but if your caught with a device like that im sure you will
be in some kind of trouble. Alot of people think if they make a pipe
bomb or a large exploding device that its a firework or a pyrotechnic
related device, but anything that is considered an (large) explosive
isnt and they will give you the name terrorist if you produce them.
Those are the types of things that give (pyrotechnics) a bad name. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Marcus D. Leech |
| Posted: Mon Feb 14, 2005 4:15 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Mike wrote:
Quote:
It was my understanding that you could make small quantities of explosives
in Canada without a liscence or a factory.
Only under Part 4, Section 34 rules. That section was designed to allow science
teachers, etc, to demonstrate chemical reactions that would otherwise
be labelled as "making explosives".
Once you traverse the "and not for practical effect" part of that rule, you're
squarely in the requiring a license terrain...
--
Marcus Leech Mail: Dept W669, M/S: 04352P16
Advisor Phone: (ESN) 393-9145 +1 613 763 9145
Internet & Security Services
Nortel Networks mleech@nortelnetworks.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Mike |
| Posted: Tue Feb 15, 2005 1:46 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Yes, but that does leave it open to enterpretation of practical effect since
it is not clearly defined.
"Marcus D. Leech" <mleech@nortelnetworks.com> wrote in message
news:4210FD65.39CB9B81@nortelnetworks.com...
Quote: Mike wrote:
It was my understanding that you could make small quantities of
explosives
in Canada without a liscence or a factory.
Only under Part 4, Section 34 rules. That section was designed to allow
science
teachers, etc, to demonstrate chemical reactions that would otherwise
be labelled as "making explosives".
Once you traverse the "and not for practical effect" part of that rule,
you're
squarely in the requiring a license terrain...
--
Marcus Leech Mail: Dept W669, M/S: 04352P16
Advisor Phone: (ESN) 393-9145 +1 613 763 9145
Internet & Security Services
Nortel Networks mleech@nortelnetworks.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Marcus Leech |
| Posted: Tue Feb 15, 2005 1:57 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Mike wrote:
Quote: Yes, but that does leave it open to enterpretation of practical effect since
it is not clearly defined.
I've spoken to ERD about this in the past. Believe me, making a shell
and launching it constitutes "practical effect". It really is just
for small-scale chemical experiments and science teachers. Once you
actually *do* something with it, like entertain your friends with
a shell, sparkler, fountain, mine, etc, etc, you're very clearly
in license-required territory.
One might be able to test the ambiguity in court, I suppose. Who
wants to go first?  |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Tue Feb 15, 2005 10:49 pm |
|
|
|
|
Marcus Leech wrote:
Quote: I've spoken to ERD about this in the past. Believe me, making a
shell
and launching it constitutes "practical effect". It really is
just
for small-scale chemical experiments and science teachers. Once
you
actually *do* something with it, like entertain your friends with
a shell, sparkler, fountain, mine, etc, etc, you're very clearly
in license-required territory.
What if you're teaching others how to make it? Or experimenting
yourself to determine how best to make it? Nothing says you can't have
an audience there to assist in observation of results.
Robert |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Marcus Leech |
| Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 1:57 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Perhaps my example was not as good as it could have been.
Once you move from mixing up a tiny batch of star composition to
actually constructing and launching a shell, you've transitioned away
from the "escape clause" in Part 4 Section 34. ERD was pretty
adament on this point.
robgood1@bestweb.net wrote:
Quote: Marcus Leech wrote:
I've spoken to ERD about this in the past. Believe me, making a
shell
and launching it constitutes "practical effect". It really is
just
for small-scale chemical experiments and science teachers. Once
you
actually *do* something with it, like entertain your friends with
a shell, sparkler, fountain, mine, etc, etc, you're very clearly
in license-required territory.
What if you're teaching others how to make it? Or experimenting
yourself to determine how best to make it? Nothing says you can't have
an audience there to assist in observation of results.
Robert
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:37 am
|
|