Discussion:
USA vs Firefox, document.
(too old to reply)
cat
2004-12-10 00:21:40 UTC
Permalink
I'm sorry if I seam stuck on this topic, but I'm trying to understand.

Probably most everyone has read USA vs Firefox by now but if you haven't you
really should, it's located here:
http://www.firefox-fx.com/images/Firefox%20CPSC%20Complaint.pdf

I don't make fireworks, but I have a lot of interest in propulsion, and EX
rocketry. When I have a free moment it's usually spent reading or testing
new motor concepts.

I don't understand much about law and precedent, but to me it seams the CPSC
is trying to establish that certain chemicals should raise suspicions that
an individual is constructing illegal fireworks/explosives. Again, I don't
know much, but it seams to me that they are saying anyone possessing any
combination or partial combination of chemicals or accessories that could be
used to create any explosive compound would be in violation.

It's really quite mind-boggling. On the forth page there is a list of
violations, the violations to me hardly straight forward and that's what
worries me. Using the verbiage "defendants knew or had reason to know that
it was a component intended to produce banned fireworks".

Some examples of combinations include:
"250 feet of fuse"
"5lbs of sulfur, 10ft of fuse, and 1000 paper tubes"
"5lbs of chlorate and 500 paper tubes"

By this logic wouldn't any oxidizer and fuel fall into that category?
KNO3+Sugar+Paper tubes?

-Cat
k***@earthlink.net
2004-12-12 16:43:48 UTC
Permalink
"By this logic wouldn't any oxidizer and fuel fall into that category?
KNO3+Sugar+Paper tubes?"

It appears they are targeting the sale of any combination of
oxidizer,fuel,fuse or tubes. Can one still buy H2O2, acetone and S2SO4
at Home Depot? Then why are they messing with low order stuff?
cat
2004-12-13 14:58:40 UTC
Permalink
Can one still buy H2O2, acetone and S2SO4 at Home Depot?
Hopefully no one in this group is making this particular peroxide!!!!

I don't think they would have any 80% or better H2SO4, I think 30% is used
to clean masonry. Off the top of my head I can't think of any other home
improvement uses.
donald j haarmann
2004-12-15 01:11:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by cat
Can one still buy H2O2, acetone and S2SO4 at Home Depot?
Hopefully no one in this group is making this particular peroxide!!!!
I don't think they would have any 80% or better H2SO4, I think 30% is used
to clean masonry. Off the top of my head I can't think of any other home
improvement uses.
----------
Conc. sulphuric acid is used/sold as a household drain cleaner! In my opinion it
is a lot safer than using lye!! Or smoking, bending over and grabbing your ankles —
except when standing on the white square.

Muriatic acid (hydrochloric acid) is used too clean masonry. Commercial masonry cleaners
often contain hydrofluoric acid!


----------------
Suicide by Sulfuric Acid
New York Newsday 16x92

A homeless woman committed suicide yesterday by drinking a half-bottle of sulfuric
acid she pulled from the shelf of a Brooklyn hardware store, officials said.

The woman walked into Sid's Hardware Store on Jay Street in downtown Brooklyn at
1:25 p.m., took two bottles of Butyl Cleaner Sulfuric Acid from a shelf and walked into
the bathroom, said Dandra Mackay, a spokeswoman for the Emergency Medical
Service.

"She doused herself with it, drank it, and went into cardiac arrest," Mackay said. The
woman died at 2:16 p.m. at Long Island College Hospital, police said.

Sad.
Nietzsche would not have approved.
--
donald j haarmann
-------------------------------
To die proudly when it is no longer possible to live proudly.
Death of one's own free choice, death at the proper time,
with a clear head and with joyfulness, consummated in the
midst of children and witnesses: so that the actual leave-taking
is possible while he who is leaving is still there.

Friedrich Nietzsche
PyroTube.com
2004-12-15 01:27:26 UTC
Permalink
Waivers, terms of sale's, releases, or whatever else you want to call
it don't really matter. Sometimes they hold up in court, sometimes they
don't. This has do to with the CSPC claiming that firefox sold these
components intentionally, knowing that they were being used to make
illegal/banned fireworks. Which is clearly bullshit.
Rich (aka Old Dog)
2004-12-15 02:22:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by PyroTube.com
Waivers, terms of sale's, releases, or whatever else you want to call
it don't really matter. Sometimes they hold up in court, sometimes they
don't. This has do to with the CSPC claiming that firefox sold these
components intentionally, knowing that they were being used to make
illegal/banned fireworks. Which is clearly bullshit.
But see, it doesn't matter whether they're right or not if they can force
Firefox into bankruptcy by forcing them to pay for massive amounts of legal
help.

-Rich
Mike
2004-12-15 14:53:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich (aka Old Dog)
Post by PyroTube.com
Waivers, terms of sale's, releases, or whatever else you want to call
it don't really matter. Sometimes they hold up in court, sometimes they
don't. This has do to with the CSPC claiming that firefox sold these
components intentionally, knowing that they were being used to make
illegal/banned fireworks. Which is clearly bullshit.
But see, it doesn't matter whether they're right or not if they can force
Firefox into bankruptcy by forcing them to pay for massive amounts of legal
help.
-Rich
That is normally the point why you can only fight city hall so far. Just
look at NAR how long they have been in battle, eventually the money will run
out and the ATF will do anything they want. I really think if the government
had to pay for both lawyers they would think twice of letting it drag on so
long.

Mike
2004-12-12 18:31:20 UTC
Permalink
In the document I can only find one possible violation, it looks like a
witch hunt to me. I wonder what happened to the people who ordered the
stuff.
Post by cat
I'm sorry if I seam stuck on this topic, but I'm trying to understand.
Probably most everyone has read USA vs Firefox by now but if you haven't you
http://www.firefox-fx.com/images/Firefox%20CPSC%20Complaint.pdf
I don't make fireworks, but I have a lot of interest in propulsion, and EX
rocketry. When I have a free moment it's usually spent reading or testing
new motor concepts.
I don't understand much about law and precedent, but to me it seams the CPSC
is trying to establish that certain chemicals should raise suspicions that
an individual is constructing illegal fireworks/explosives. Again, I don't
know much, but it seams to me that they are saying anyone possessing any
combination or partial combination of chemicals or accessories that could be
used to create any explosive compound would be in violation.
It's really quite mind-boggling. On the forth page there is a list of
violations, the violations to me hardly straight forward and that's what
worries me. Using the verbiage "defendants knew or had reason to know that
it was a component intended to produce banned fireworks".
"250 feet of fuse"
"5lbs of sulfur, 10ft of fuse, and 1000 paper tubes"
"5lbs of chlorate and 500 paper tubes"
By this logic wouldn't any oxidizer and fuel fall into that category?
KNO3+Sugar+Paper tubes?
-Cat
cat
2004-12-13 15:00:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike
In the document I can only find one possible violation, it looks like a
witch hunt to me. I wonder what happened to the people who ordered the
stuff.
Copied from another message:
Actually, the usual practice is that agents of the government make the buy,
so that they can testify in court to the purchase. I believe that is the
case here. (Notice that the complaint lists each family member as a seller.
No doubt that is due to careful work by the purchasers.)
<<
Mike
2004-12-13 17:27:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by cat
Post by Mike
In the document I can only find one possible violation, it looks like a
witch hunt to me. I wonder what happened to the people who ordered the
stuff.
Actually, the usual practice is that agents of the government make the buy,
so that they can testify in court to the purchase. I believe that is the
case here. (Notice that the complaint lists each family member as a seller.
No doubt that is due to careful work by the purchasers.)
Well of course, they wouldnt want all the stuff transferred to another
familly member and the business restarted under a different name, thus
making their petition useless.

I wonder why they targetted firefox and say not Skylighter.
Lloyd E. Sponenburgh
2004-12-13 18:07:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike
I wonder why they targetted firefox and say not Skylighter.
I cannot speak about the procedures Firefox uses to screen potential
purchasers, but I know that Harry at Skylighter has a fairly rigid set of
rule he follows to "qualify" his customers before they are allowed to
purchase dangerous chemicals.

Perhaps his system works well enough that CPSC has no beefs about him.

LLoyd
r***@bestweb.net
2004-12-13 18:37:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lloyd E. Sponenburgh
Post by Mike
I wonder why they targetted firefox and say not Skylighter.
I cannot speak about the procedures Firefox uses to screen potential
purchasers, but I know that Harry at Skylighter has a fairly rigid set of
rule he follows to "qualify" his customers before they are allowed to
purchase dangerous chemicals.
Perhaps his system works well enough that CPSC has no beefs about him.
That was my impression too -- that his system works well enough to
screen out the commercial M-80 makers who apparently led to the CPSC
action on Firefox. That's my reading of the Firefox matter -- that a
customer had been making salutes for sale to consumers, had gotten
caught, and that that led CPSC to their supplier. If you read the
document, you see that the principals at Firefox had already been
operating personally under a previous consent decree entered into after
they'd had a previous such problem.

Robert
donald j haarmann
2004-12-13 22:58:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@bestweb.net
That was my impression too -- that his system works well enough to
screen out the commercial M-80 makers who apparently led to the CPSC
action on Firefox. That's my reading of the Firefox matter -- that a
customer had been making salutes for sale to consumers, had gotten
caught, and that that led CPSC to their supplier. If you read the
document, you see that the principals at Firefox had already been
operating personally under a previous consent decree entered into after
they'd had a previous such problem.
Robert
-------------
This rings a bell. Years ago there was a fwks co. that asked for my help in
defending themselves in a case like this. The jury did not convict on several
counts and was hung on the others. If I could conjure up the companies name
perhaps they could reference their lawyer. Only in this case the ATF/CSPS (?)
placed the order!
--
donald j haarmann - eminence grise
discorules
2004-12-13 23:52:28 UTC
Permalink
So if Firefox "knew or should have known that they were providing
individuals with components for illegal fireworks" does that mean that
the people who sold the stuff to firefox "knew or should have known
that they were providing firefox with components for illegal fireworks"
??????
A***@SPAMshaw.ca
2004-12-14 02:27:15 UTC
Permalink
what about the waiver that needs to be signed before purchasing
anything from firefox....did they take that into account???

On 13 Dec 2004 15:52:28 -0800, "discorules"
Post by discorules
So if Firefox "knew or should have known that they were providing
individuals with components for illegal fireworks" does that mean that
the people who sold the stuff to firefox "knew or should have known
that they were providing firefox with components for illegal fireworks"
??????
Mike
2004-12-14 23:32:22 UTC
Permalink
It will likely help in the defense. I think it will be thrown out because no
order listed was a complete kit to make M-80's , they were all missing at
least one componant.
Post by A***@SPAMshaw.ca
what about the waiver that needs to be signed before purchasing
anything from firefox....did they take that into account???
Marcus Leech
2004-12-13 19:44:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@bestweb.net
That was my impression too -- that his system works well enough to
screen out the commercial M-80 makers who apparently led to the CPSC
action on Firefox. That's my reading of the Firefox matter -- that a
customer had been making salutes for sale to consumers, had gotten
caught, and that that led CPSC to their supplier. If you read the
document, you see that the principals at Firefox had already been
operating personally under a previous consent decree entered into after
they'd had a previous such problem.
Robert
Well sure, The Purrington clan has been the subject of a consent
decree in the past. If the previous decrees were as bogus as this
one, so what?

If you look at the cited "counts", it would seem to me to be hard
to make a reliable judgement about exactly what the targetted
"customer" had in mind with these purchases.

Paper tubes, fuse, and sulfur? Could reasonably have been for 3
entirely different projects. Maybe the paper tube and fuse were
for small shells, and the sulfur was for BP making? It's a tough
judgement call. Firefox, like SkyLighter insists on there being
a signed waiver on file, and a copy of your photo-id (drivers
license, passport, etc).

Maybe Gary and friends have simply had the bad luck to attract a
criminal clientele, through no fault of their own. I'm a registered
customer at both Firefox and Skylighter, and I found that the
"customer initialization" procedures were essentially identical
at the two establishments.

In cases like this, the standards for "due diligence" had better be
pretty darned clear and publically available, and widely-practiced,
or the gummint, IMHO, doesn't have a case...


Keep in mind that I don't know Gary or the other Purrington folks
personally, and neither do I know Harry at Skylighter personally.
They could all be the worst kind of scum, and I'd never know it
from their externally-visible actions.

Being brought to court over what amounts to an apparent error in
judgement due to insufficient data, is just terrible, no matter
who the defending side is.

In order for any kind of "real" due diligence, the pyro chemicals
suppliers (heck, the chemicals suppliers in general) would need
to cooperate (collude?) in sharing customer and purchase data,
to provide a "total information awareness" type of picture about
customer purchases. But even then, the system would be imperfect.
And they'd probably all be brought up in front of the FTC on
some bogus "price fixing" charges or something.

The problem is that once you give some ground here, the standards for
what constitutes "due diligence" keep forever creeping forward
until nobody can afford to be in business.

This is why hairdryers come with instruction sheets that include
such things as "don't use this device while sleeping". In their
desperate attempt to meet the "soccer moms" and lawyers standards
for due diligence, the manufacturers have to spend their
time conjuring up more and more "absolutely stupid ways someone could
use our product in an unintended way and remove themselves from
the gene pool".
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...