Anyone who is surprised that high explosives are available has not had to deal with a bunch of large stumps. -- they're a nightmare even with a large excavator, explosives are a life saver.

Yup. I was surprised when my cousin showed me my uncle’s TNT stash, but then explained how they cleared stumps off the family farm.

One of my rural buddies told me how he spent a summer mixing diesel and fertilizer to clear fields, approaching it like a lab experiment and keeping detailed notes.

Honestly, both sounded like a lot of fun.

Or you can use stump remover (Potassium nitrate) which allows to use fire to destroy them safely.

It doesn’t work very well, and it can cause underground fires which pop up a year+ later.

It works well enough to be the only legal way of dealing with them in most of EU, and the consequences of mishandling are no doubt more severe with high explosive than simply “can cause underground fire”.

"Works well" may also depend on the species and sizes of the trees in an area as well as the soil composition.

Uh, the EU has plenty of bans of very useful things. I know of at least one 500+ acre wildfire in California that was caused by burning roots.

As to how much it matters or not? No clue.

> Uh, the EU has plenty of bans of very useful things.

Yeah, like AR-15 and high explosives, surprisingly violent death rate is much lower here…

And a whole slew of common chemicals used in harmless synthesis, and in many countries even things like common knives.

> And a whole slew of common chemicals used in harmless synthesis

The US also regulate chemicals, and knives are free to sell everywhere, it's just forbidden to be carried in public.

You can buy this knife, but you can't carry it home.

Many things which were common in my youth are vanishing forever.

> You can buy this knife, but you can't carry it home.

How can otherwise reasonable people come to believe nonsense like this just because it fits their worldviews will always remain a mystery for me.

Not in the EU anymore, but this was a consistent issue in the UK - at least in London with kitchen knives.

Of course you can carry it home…

Like speech, equity compensation...

AR-15s are actually not banned in many parts of the EU.

Iv got a photo from an unnamed image board.

The dude showed of this EU compliant collection.

Multiple pistols and rifles, and what some state would classify as weapons of war, an SBR, or a assault weapon.

All obtained legally via permits and a local cop signing off on the paperwork.

Yeah, they have a different system. In broad outline, there are classes of weapons (generally four -- classes A, B, C and D -- with subclasses within them) and then courses and certificates required for each class of weapon. For example, an AR-15 might be class C2 -- so it does requires a lot of course work -- but usually it's not banned.

It's actually interesting to met that, in the American discourse, we never discourse an EU-style classification system. Whenever people in the US propose new gun regulation, it always a maximalist approach -- banning the AR-15 completely.

Not true - various states have banned (and currently do ban) all sorts of variants/classifications, the Fed gov’t has several classifications, etc.

I'm not aware of any US states that have a graded A, B, C, D system with courses and qualifications -- instead, they just ban everything that might be in a European B or C classification. This is how the old federal AWB worked, as well -- it didn't say, you can purchase an AR-15 if you take certain classes, it said you just can't buy it at all.

The European system, broadly speaking, is not like that.

There are federal classes for dealers and manufacturers -- manufacturers of silencers, of automatic weapons, of missiles and rockets, &c, and dealers of these articles -- but that also is not like the European classification system I am talking about, which is for end users.

The NFA, which does apply special regulation to silencers, short-barreled rifles and some other items, which allows them to be owned by end users, and that is kind of similar but there is a real difference: you file for a tax stamp and wait for a background check to complete, without having to worry about taking a particular course and getting a certain grade.

> Like speech

Speech, in both the EU and the US is free under the limits set by law, the US isn't an “absolute free speech land”, you will definitely be jailed for speech that goes against the law (for instance death threats, see [1]).

> equity compensation...

What are you talking about, I've been given equity more than once…

[1]: https://nypost.com/2024/12/12/us-news/florida-mom-arrested-f...

Are you familiar with Centralia?

...sure, maybe don't use this technique if you live on top of a large amount of abandoned coal mines.

AKA Saltpeter. I've heard that you can just dig the stump out after a few months, in addition to using fire. I bought some to remove a stump a few years ago, but when I went to drill the stump I found it had already rotted enough that I didn't need it. This was a small, maybe 10" diameter, stump that had sat for a couple years.

Going to see how well it works soon though; a few weeks ago had a ~2ft diameter stump left when my 65ft spruce snapped in a wind storm. Turns out about halfway up it had branched off into two trunks, and that junction was rotting, the wind storm caused that junction to snap half way up. In looking, my neighbor has a tree with the same dual-trunk situation, though hers is more likely to land on her house.

Or a beaver dam. Imagine a bunch of those stumps all concreted together with mud.

Twenty-plus years ago I hiked the Appalachian Trail. Back then, it was common practice to hitch a ride into town for resupply. One time when my partner and I were hiking in Virginia, we got picked up by a state department of conservation employee. During the ride I asked him what he did and he said “I destroy beaver dams.” When I asked him how he did it he said “with dynamite.” I laughed—how ridiculous, right?—and he looked at me very seriously and said “it’s not funny; beaver dams are difficult to remove.” For years I thought that this was some dumb redneck thing until I met another former DCR employee back home who told me the same story.

I dunno, the image of some beaver watching a guy in green and brown blow up its hard work with dynamite is pretty damned funny. His little face all surprised and angry.

I read a book a while back about the founder of San Juan Airlines, a local commuter airline, in the Puget Sound area. There was an entire chapter that described the process of the founder clearing the Friday Harbor runway on San Juan island of trees, mostly working alone, using TNT and heavy equipment.

https://www.amazon.com/Island-Bush-Pilot-Founder-Airlines/dp...

There are laws barring explosives, see https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/842, and the one mentioned in the article is listed as having no known use with at least some evidence of others being charged with having it.

Maybe the charge would get thrown out at some point, but not including it in the indictment seems odd.

Those laws don’t actually bar explosives at all, and there are numerous carve outs that could potentially meet what the poster is describing. You might want to read it?

Though it would be helpful to know which state, because I don’t know of any that are quite that easy to deal with.

BATF to my knowledge does still require a license (albeit easy to get if you meet the requirements) for commercial use, anyway.

From the HN guidelines:

> Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that".

My comment did not refer to the article at all. It was if they had read the link to the law they pasted. Which near as I can tell they hadn’t, because the content of the law is the opposite of what they are asserting it is.

Feel free to check the law yourself if you’d like.

>It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in explosive materials without a license issued under this chapter

Seems fairly clear cut. You could argue the term "business" means they need to be selling the stuff, but the definitions clarify "manufacturing" includes for personal use.

edit it never occurred to me he may be licensed. Still, this particular explosive seems to have no approved use, and the licensing seems to be for specific explosives. I may be wrong on that though.

And it's Virginia, the Isle of Wight is a county in Virginia.

Purchasing, and using are still fine (when non-commercial).

The dealer would be the one with the license.

Also, manufacturing and using on site for non-commercial purposes is exempted (albeit not explicitly). Which is why tannerite and personal explosives research is fine and widespread.

Can I see a link to the exemption for non commercial use?

While I get some things are exempt like tannerite, I find it highly unlikely someone could just manufacture TNT or rdx and use it in their back yard without breaking a ton of laws.

Even if you used it within the 24 hour requirement so it didn't have to be stored(iirc from my memory of old legal readings)

It depends on state laws, but there are a LOT of folks doing it on youtube - zero prosecutions i’m aware of. [https://www.atf.gov/explosives/binary-explosives], halfway through the ‘License and or permit requirements’. It’s not actually specific to binary explosives, but those are the ones where it most clearly applies to random members of the public.

Specifically, “Persons manufacturing explosives for their own personal, non-business use only (e.g., personal target practice) are not required to have a federal explosives license or permit under 27 CFR, Part 555”

The issue is the law is clearly written to regulate commercial activites, and the fed gov’t (at least in theory) only has jurisdiction over commercial activities (those involving trade). There is a lot of court precedent on this, some of it confusing. So while the law doesn’t explicitly exempt personal, non-business use, the courts (and constitution), and the law, doesn’t cover personal, non-business use either. So, legal.

also, there is zero chance they could stop it.

Where does it clarify that manufacturing includes personal use? I did read it over a couple of times and I couldn't find anything that says that, at least not in those words.

However, it may be that the suspect violated a different section of the law:

It shall be unlawful for any person to store any explosive material in a manner not in conformity with regulations promulgated by the Attorney General.

The suspect may also have violated the NFA, by manufacturing destructive devices without appropriate permitting or record keeping.

>Where does it clarify that manufacturing includes personal use?

The definitions, which were on the previous page. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/841

You may be referring to (h), but that is the definition of "manufacturer".

I'm not sure if we can take that to mean "engaged in the business of manufacturing" includes non-commercial activity.

you are correct, I pasted a link to the ATF saying so in a parallel comment.

it’s not explicitly called out in the law, like you’re noting. rather that personal, non-commercial use just isn’t covered by the law. So legal/exempt.

Other situations, like non-personal, non-commercial use are covered - distribution requires licensing even if not paid, same as import/export, doing business in explosives, etc.

Where some YouTubers and the like have gotten in trouble is when they start making money off what would otherwise be personal use (like showing videos of tannerite usage, or some other synthesis), but funny enough if they get demonitized and aren’t using it for some business purpose, they’re fine.

Not sure about this kind of case, but for more garden variety crimes it is common for the first charges to be slam-dunk, with tons of evidence and a clear path to conviction.

Then, during the pre-trial phase, a superseding indictment can be added as more evidence is gathered and a stronger case is put together.

This happened with Paul Manafort, who was first indicted for “conspiracy against the United States”, but then the superseding indictment included all sorts of tax and bank fraud.

I honestly don't know - what are some common applications of explosive material for private persons?

At one point it was pretty common for farmer's guidebooks to include recipes for explosives that could be used to clear land (e.g. boulders).

It's fairly common for tannerite to be used for target shooting.

Gunpowder is commonly available for reloading.

I doubt this is common and should probably be illegal if it isn't already because it's horrible for the environment. However, blast fishing is apparently actually a thing! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blast_fishing

For a farmer or other rural resident - getting rid of tree stumps or large boulders. No one in a suburb or city truly needs explosives.

Note that it's not totally unregulated. If you are only an occasional user, you get a permit from the ATF for $25. Plus whatever your state/county wants.

https://www.atf.gov/explosives/federal-explosives-licenses-a...

Another application is removal of large rocks, or excavation in places where the bedrock is close to the surface. I recall seeing this done in Ridgefield, Connecticut some decades ago. The excavation was right next to a building and a mat was used to contain fragments.

Haha, as I read your comment I was thinking “yeah, like back in CT.” I saw this done in ridgefield as well. My friends property was basically all bedrock about 1’ under the topsoil.

It was at the Schlumberger-Doll Research Center (which Schlumberger since moved to Cambridge, MA in 2007).

Stump removal for one. I would wager this is one of those things where the further outside of the city you get the more common it’s use would be.

Maybe I am naive, but is the ability to remove stumps without specialists really worth the risk of random inexperienced/careless people buying dangerous explosives?

To be frank I don’t have much of an opinion on either side. Just sharing how it’s used. I have heard of very few issues with people buying these historically and most/all of these require putting your name on a list.

I suspect a far greater many are injured from fireworks.

We use machinery for that now. It isn't 1823 anymore.

I am not advocating for anything but sharing how it’s used. The why would be a lot of people don’t have access to stump grinders and they can be awfully slow if you have a lot to take care of. They also are more expensive to rent and especially to buy. You don’t seem to have experience in the area but if you are taking care of multiple acres and need to knock out a number of stumps, machinery is pretty inefficient. It’s also difficult to move around if we are talking multi acre properties and not a residential less than acre lot.

Get out of here with your ridiculous 1823 hyperbole. These explosive can be very efficient and useful when managing multiple acres.

I have either full time or part time row cropped and livestock farmed for the last 40 years. The last time anyone anywhere even remotely close to me used explosives was to bust a levee.

If you're clearing multiple acres you use a track hoe and a large bulldozer. Source: the 60 acres of grown up crp we finished clearing last month.

I know the Internet wants you to think that rural life is all guns and explosions, but that's sometimes not the case. Why do you think every small town has multiple excavator companies?

>I have either full time or part time row cropped and livestock farmed for the last 40 years. The last time anyone anywhere even remotely close to me used explosives was to bust a levee.

Because the law is such an expensive PITA to comply with that nobody does it. People blew up rocks and stumps all the time before the mid 1970s.

I am sure you have but in the parts of the country I have lived in it’s been a fairly common tool used when clearing forested back country. Not talking so much farming. I don’t know where your snark comes from but it still has a place for some use cases. Sorry to disappoint your imagination. Certainly if you are whole clearing 60 acres machines are helpful. If you are cleaning up some spots here and there on a multi acre property it can be quite useful. So much snark from you for no reason.

Different experiences for different folks.

Machinery is a complete joke compared to explosives unless you're operating right up near stuff you care about.

About once a week I get pissed off that I'm on Craigslist looking for expensive tractors and expensive attachments instead of just a drill bit and explosives all because some leftists blew up some bathrooms in the 1970s and the 1970s equivalent of people like you wrung their hands over it.

Source: Clearing acreage the hard way in my spare time

Blowing up beaver dams that are flooding your farm land.

Mostly agriculture, mining, and (re-)moving rock.

US government started tracking explosives sales in the 70s which is why such terror incidents drastically dropped at that time. Misuse is rare because of government regulation.

"High explosives are basically legal in the US"

The compounds generally are. The applicable use is where the laws come into play. Things like pipe bombs, devices marked "lethal", etc are not legal without special permits and would be deemed destructive devices.