The Blitz gasoline can - what went wrong - what needs to be fixed

[Danny D]

A recent thread in a.h.r blamed the government for "ruining"
the portable gasoline container:
TITLE: The government ruined the gas can...
URL: http://tinyurl.com/cszj22e

Personally, I feel manufacturers ruined the gasoline can, simply
by following only half the requirements for a gasoline can.

That half is the government requirement that the gas stay
*inside* the can. Yet, the manufacturers wholly punted on the
consumer's requirement that the gas flows *out* of the can!

All photos below are of the Blitz brand, since it's all I could
find local Lowes hardware store, here in California anyway:
http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/12925619/img/12925619.jpg

The real problem is that the engineers at Blitz designed a gas
can *only* to government standards (and not to consumer needs).

For example, the government stipulated that no gas should diffuse
or leak leak out of the can, even after a year in the hot sun; and,
they mandated that accidental expression of the contents be prevented;
and and they required child-proof caps, all of which Blitz engineered
into the gas can.

But, the government didn't mandate consumer ease of use.
Neither did Blitz design to any reasonable consumer use model.

The result is that Blitz engineers designed a gas can that holds
gasoline *in*; but Joe Consumer can't easily get that gas *out*.

In a followup post, I'll describe what I think may be the engineer
foibles that resulted, which I know many of you know full well.

I'm also well aware of the common workarounds to the problem,
which I will mention later; but if you know of better solutions,
now would be a good time to suggest them. The best solution of
all, would be a replacement cap - so if you know of one, please
let us know where to get it.

[Danny D]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 23:20:01 +0000, Danny D wrote:

> The real problem is that the engineers at Blitz designed a gas can
> *only* to government standards (and not to consumer needs).

The few Blitz portable gasoline containers I own hold gasoline
*in* without losing an ounce by weight even after a full year
in the blazing sun, it's almost ridiculous how difficult it is
to get that gasoline *out* of the poorly designed Blitz gas can!

A quick way to show how well the can holds the gasoline *in*, is
simply to take two cans from the cool windowless shed, as I did
just now, and put one in the sun and leave the other next to it,
in the shade, for a few minutes (this was after about ten min):
http://www3.picturepush.com/photo/a/12926771/img/12926771.jpg

Bear in mind, both those portable gasoline containers are
holding a full 5 gallons, and they still balloon outward in
the sun. When they're a quarter full or less, they basically
blow over in the wind like a beach ball rolling about.

It should be clear that the Blitz cans are designed only to
keep the gasoline *in*, but that no attention whatsoever was
made to making it easy for the consumer to get the gas *out*.

For example, pour spout manipulation requires two hands alone:
http://www5.picturepush.com/photo/a/12925803/img/12925803.jpg

The problem with that is we're talking five gallons of gasoline,
which you can't hold high in the air with your pinky while you're
refueling a standard-sized automobile. So, in effect, you need
three hands (two to defeat the buttons, the other to fight gravity).
http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/12925919/img/12925919.jpg

Worse yet, your third hand will be holding those five gallons for
a long time, because there is no external vent. The internal vent
only allows the gasoline to trickle out.
http://www5.picturepush.com/photo/a/12925923/img/12925923.jpg

You'd think these handles conspicuously molded into the can would
be helpful under these circumstances, but only the top handle is
of any use whatsoever when there is any appreciable gas in the can:
(If you don't believe me, try to use that handle & report back):
http://www5.picturepush.com/photo/a/12925908/img/12925908.jpg

Of course, the only logical solution is to remove the button
(which the manufacturer designed expecting you to do just that):
http://www2.picturepush.com/photo/a/12925925/img/12925925.jpg

And Youtube videos exist showing where to drill the 1/2-inch
hole to vent the gasoline can (again, where the manufacturer
left conspicuously thick knowing full well that's what you'd do):
http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/12925914/img/12925914.jpg

Since nobody on this planet can stand the pour spout, most of
the time you just remove the spout in its entirety and just pour
or siphon out of the open mouth of the can.
http://www2.picturepush.com/photo/a/12926515/img/12926515.jpg

That means you'll be removing the cap a lot - so - again, the
manufacturer made it painfully obvious what you have to do in
order to make cap removal even close to palatable:
http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/12925909/img/12925909.jpg

True to the design goal of keeping gasoline *in* the can, even
if you tilt the can fully upside down, and do the Harlem Shake,
you'll still *never* get all the gas *out* of the can!
http://www4.picturepush.com/photo/a/12926632/img/12926632.jpg

Would one of the engineers on this group explain *how* it can
be that the spout isn't at a point where *all* the gasoline
comes out when you fully invert the gasoline can???
http://www3.picturepush.com/photo/a/12926701/img/12926701.jpg

The result of this inexplicable design flaw is that the trapped
gasoline vaporizes such that it all leaks out into the
atmosphere the moment you remove the spout to refill the can.

While we're discussing engineering fixes, a little known yet
very serious flaw in the Blitz spout design is that this spot
tends to develop a circular crack, within only about a year of
use, which again, allows all the gasoline to leak into the
atmosphere:
http://www3.picturepush.com/photo/a/12925906/img/12925906.jpg

While common workarounds exist (e.g., remove the button, cut
off the ratchet lock, add a tire valve vent, etc.) the one
workaround I haven't seen, since the spout is so useless,
is to replace it with a plain old gasoline cap?
http://www4.picturepush.com/photo/a/12941482/img/12941482.jpg

[Danny D]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 23:21:29 +0000, Danny D wrote:

> the one workaround I haven't seen, since the spout is so useless,
> is to replace it with a plain old gasoline cap?

I'm not sure if the company will ever get out of chapter 11; but,
if anyone knows of a second source for a plain old gasoline cap,
we'd all benefit.
http://www.blitzusa.com/chapter11filings.html

Any ideas for a plain Jane gasoline cap for the Blitz gas can?

[Steve W.]

http://ezpourspout.bluesarthouse.ws/wp/
Works great and has fit every can I have.

[Danny D]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 19:54:13 -0400, Steve W. wrote:

>> Any ideas for a plain Jane gasoline cap for the Blitz gas can?

> http://ezpourspout.bluesarthouse.ws/wp/

This is interesting because it provides for a second vent opening.
That would be plan B, if I can't find a plain Jane gas cap to fit.

Since I siphon, I don't really need to pop a vent hole; I just need
a plain gas cap.

So, plan A is a gas cap source for the Blitz USA gas cans.
Plan B, if no cap can be found, is that nice spout you just found!

Thanks for the helpful information!

[Nate Nagel]

Just take the damned thing off and use a funnel... seriously.

The nozzle is damn near worthless, a simple screw-off cap would be more
practical, less likely to break, and would make it more clear to the end
user how to actually get the gasoline out of the stupid thing.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

[Danny D]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 20:24:00 -0400, Nate Nagel wrote:

> The nozzle is damn near worthless, a simple screw-off cap would be more
> practical, less likely to break, and would make it more clear to the end
> user how to actually get the gasoline out of the stupid thing.

I agree 100%.

Based on the spout information from Steve W., I just sent an email to
sa...@ezpourspout.com (EZPourSpout, 18451 Centaur Road, Wildwood MO
63005) asking if they sell a plain flat one-piece gas cap.

I'll also call them tomorrow at 573-751-2783, and 866-223-6535 to ask
the same question. (Blitz USA never returned my calls or emails.)

A plain gas cap would solve all the practical problems inherent in the
Blitz USA gasoline cans & would still meet CARB & EPA standards:
a) A cap would hold the gasoline inside the can until needed
b) A cap could have the same child-proof lock features as does the spout!
c) A cap would prevent accidental spills even better than the spout!

The advantage of the simple one-piece gas cap would be that it then gets
out of the way when you actually need to pour or siphon the gasoline.

Personally, I siphon the 5 gallon cans into a vehicle and pour the 2
gallon cans into a funnel; but in both cases, I have no need for anything
more than a simple flat one-piece gas cap.

QUESTION:
Anyone know a source of plain gas caps for Blitz USA gasoline cans?

[Steve W.]

They also sell plain caps. Look under the parts heading.

--
Steve W.

[Danny D]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 20:45:45 -0400, Steve W. wrote:

> They also sell plain caps. Look under the parts heading.

I see them! I will call tomorrow to see if they fit the Blitz cans.
http://ezpourspout.bluesarthouse.ws/wp/ez-pour-products/parts/

I'll say I'm from Kansas, or some other non-nanny state!

PS: Let's hope the 'gubament doesn't see this!

[Eddie Powalski]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 23:21:29 +0000, Danny D wrote:

> Would one of the engineers on this group explain *how* it can
> be that the spout isn't at a point where *all* the gasoline
> comes out when you fully invert the gasoline can???
> http://www3.picturepush.com/photo/a/12926701/img/12926701.jpg

I have the same problem!
There must be a puddling spot inside somewhere.
This guy had a similar problem at point 6:45 of this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lcnwdIYEfI

[Eddie Powalski]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 01:35:34 +0000, Eddie Powalski wrote:

> This guy had a similar problem at point 6:45 of this video:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lcnwdIYEfI

Another fix:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpaP-nT3Zog

And another:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3o5tHLWZKc

[Steve W.]

You can order the "water spout" which is the same material just white in
color.

The yellow cap is the one you need. Fit's blitz cans.

--
Steve W.

[Brent]

Because they sell it for containers made -before- 2009. In other words
it works because it doesn't meet the regs. See it's up to you not use it
on containers made after 2009....

[George]

I have purchased those but they are useless on the new and improved cans
which have a different thread size.

Their web site prominently notes that:

"EZ-POUR REPLACEMENT SPOUT KIT IS DESIGNED AND SOLD AS REPLACEMENT PARTS
SPECIFICALLY FOR PORTABLE FUEL CONTAINERS MANUFACTURED BEFORE JANUARY 2009"

[George]

I have only dealt with a few but the thread size on the pre 2009 cans is
different than the post 2009 "new style" cans. Likely intentional to
prevent the use of older accessories.

[Danny D]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 07:00:13 -0400, George wrote:

> I have only dealt with a few but the thread size on the pre 2009 cans is
> different than the post 2009 "new style" cans. Likely intentional to
> prevent the use of older accessories.

I had a few older gas cans lying around and none fit the California
2011 & 2012 Blitz cans I have, so that's why I'm leery also.

However, I'll order a dozen of the B4 caps ($5 + shipping) to see
if they fit & report back when they arrive.

[Danny D]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 06:45:18 -0400, George wrote:

> "EZ-POUR REPLACEMENT SPOUT KIT IS DESIGNED AND SOLD AS REPLACEMENT PARTS
> SPECIFICALLY FOR PORTABLE FUEL CONTAINERS MANUFACTURED BEFORE JANUARY 2009"

This could be due to one of two possible reasons:
1. It could be legalese (as previously stated), or,
2. It might actually be the wrong threads.

I'll try calling Blitz again to see if they changed their threads:
Blitz U.S.A., Inc., 404 26th Ave. NW, Miami, OK 74354

Unfortunately, the Blitz USA hotline is out of commission:
24-hour Consumer Service Hotline at 877-922-5489
So is the Blitz local telephone number:
918-540-1515

I'm going to have to order a few caps just to see if they fit.
I may also buy the water jug caps, to see if they fit.

If anyone has *already* tested the cap, it would be nice to
see if they fit.

Maybe someone can test them side-by-side in the store?
(I'll check out my local stores to see if they have both
the water jugs and the gasoline jugs to test.)

[Steve W.]

They are available in some retail stores as well as online. I picked
mine up at a Tractor Supply. Might want to check that avenue first, they
list the retail stores on the site.


On the ones I have I measured up the original spout and discovered the
new ones were the same as far as the seal and seat area, the hole in the
cap was the same as well. Bit of surgery later and the new spout was
secured with the old cap retainer ring.

The newest can I have is one of the dopey lever style and the yellow
ring included did fit it, but the original had a locking tab.

You could also do what I used to do to have a plain cap, cut a piece of
stainless with a holesaw and use an O ring to seal it inside the
original cap.


--
Steve W.

[Danny D]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 11:01:28 -0400, Steve W. wrote:

> They are available in some retail stores as well as online.

I did try the ezpour retail store finder, but there were none
in California when I looked at your original link.

> stainless with a holesaw and use an O ring to seal it inside
> the original cap.

That's an interesting idea. A circular piece of gasoline-stable
sheet material inside the original spout cap. That might work.

That will be plan C, if the caps I ordered don't actually fit.

PS: I can't be the only one who hates those spouts enough to
find a cap that fits, so, if others have tested various
other cap suppliers - now is the time to report it to the
news group.

[Harry K]

From the few I have tried, the compliant cans take a different size
cap. They changed the size.

Harry K

[Danny D]

UPDATE:

Called CARB at 800-242-4450 and was transferred to Angus at
916-445-4686 who discussed with me the legality of gas caps:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/contact.htm

Angus says that the cans aren't tested in the sun, but the
"system" is certified for permeability after 140 days in an
enclosure or after an accelerated 30-day test at 100 degrees F.

It seemed to him that gas cap 'should' easily meet those
permeability requirements, as long as it's made of similar
material.

Angus said the cap must hold the ~13 psi above atmospheric
Reid Vapor Pressure of California winter formulation gasoline
(which has a higher vapor pressure than summer formulations);
but that RVP & permeability requirement seems easy enough for
a gas cap of the same material as the current spout.

In addition, the spout must be spill proof and child proof;
but again, those requirements would be met by use of a cap.

The only requirement of the spout that the cap can't meet
is the auto-shutoff requirement; but if the cap is used just
for storage, then that requirement wouldn't be applicable.

Interestingly, Angus said there is a provision in the specs
for a "secondary opening" (e.g., a vent!); but he said none
of the cans certified for California have opted for that
secondary opening.

Angus said these 5 manufacturers are certified in California:
1. The Plastics Group
2. Scepter
3. Midwest
4. Great Outdoor Products
5. NoSpill

Of those manufacturers, the first three have the lions share of
sales in California, according to Angus, and the first is the
one he thinks who bought the Blitz operation in July of 2012.

That explains why I can't get a hold of anyone at Blitz
to affirm the threads on the gas can caps. I'll work on
The Plastics Group next, to see if they sell just the gas caps.

Q: Anyone have a 411 on "The Plastics Group"?

[Danny D]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 18:20:55 +0000, Danny D wrote:

> That explains why I can't get a hold of anyone at Blitz
> to affirm the threads on the gas can caps.

Apparently Angus was right in that Blitz ceased operations:
http://tinyurl.com/d6ebfem
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20120613/NEWS/306139977/
beleaguered-gas-can-manufacturer-blitz-usa-closing-down

And, Hopkins Manufacturing technical support was right when they
told me they bought everything *but* the gas can manufacturing.

Blitz was spending about 3 million dollars a year in lawsuits,
mostly for the gas cans not having flame arrestors built in.

---- cut here for verbatim press release ---

MIAMI, OKLA. (June 13, 10:15 a.m. ET) —
Plastic fuel-can molder Blitz USA Inc. will shut operations after
unsuccessfully trying to reorganize under Chapter 11 bankruptcy
protection since Nov. 9, according to a company statement issued June 12.

The July 31 shutdown will affect 117 employees at Blitz’s manufacturing
plant in Miami, Okla.

The firm plans to liquidate all assets either en masse or piecemeal,
external affairs manager Amanda Emerson said in a telephone interview.

“We appreciate the support of our employees and their families in their
efforts to reorganize and develop a viable business plan,” said Blitz
President Rocky Flick, according to an article in the Joplin (Missouri)
Globe. “Unfortunately, we were not able to address the costs of the
increased litigation associated with our fuel-containment products.”

In April, Blitz sold its F3Brands LLC business, a major in oil drains and
other associated auto products, in a bankruptcy auction sale to Hopkins
Manufacturing Corp. of Emporia, Kan. Court documents stated Blitz netted
$14.6 million from the sale, which it applied to secured debt.

Blitz has been facing a storm of lawsuits blaming its products for
consumer injuries caused by fires. The firm spent some $30 million
defending itself in product liability suits and owes $3.5 million in
legal fees, Blitz reported in court documents.

Blitz’s decision to sell its assets is subject to approval by bankruptcy
court. It sought Chapter 11 protection in Delaware. Wal-Mart Stores Inc.,
a major retailer of Blitz gas cans, also faces lawsuits.

Blitz has been the dominant producer of plastic gas cans in the United
States and claimed 75 percent of the market.

“Other manufacturers face similar uncertainty — putting the industry’s
ability to meet the typical spike in demand driven by storms in serious
jeopardy,” Blitz stated in a news release.

In the week of June 4 the Portable Fuel Container Manufacturers
Association began alerting consumers in hurricane-prone states of a
potential product shortage, which increases public safety risk. In times
of disaster, consumers rely on portable fuel supplies to operate
electricity generators, vehicles, chain saws and other relief equipment.

PFCMA’s legal office is in Sacramento, Calif.

PFCMA has said congressional intervention is needed to stabilize the
business environment so PFCMA group members can continue supplying the
products necessary for safely transporting and storing gasoline and
diesel fuel.

“While it is now too late to save Blitz, adoption of mandatory safety
standards could convince others to invest in expanded operations,” the
Blitz news release stated.

PFCMA has criticized the U.S. Consumer Products Safety Commission for
twice refusing to mandate fuel-can safety standards because it claims
that harmful incidences were the result of misuse of the fuel cans rather
than a product issue.

Fuel-can producers have adopted voluntarily standards developed by the
American Society for Testing and Materials since the 1980s. The standards
include container stability and heat resistance, openings and closings,
filling and pouring, drop strength, permeability and cautionary labeling.

Labeling, for example, states that gasoline should never be used to start
or accelerate a fire. Much litigation resulted from such misuse of the
fuel in the containers.

U.S. consumers buy more than 15 million portable fuel cans each year, but
that number rises by 30 percent when hurricanes make landfall.

“If gas cans aren’t available, disaster victims will still be
transporting and storing fuel, but at much greater risk to themselves and
everyone around them,” Blitz stated.

Blitz President and CEO Rocky Flick said the sale process for the Miami
assets could take three months.

Other PFCMA members include Midwest Can Co. of Melrose Park, Ill.; No-
Spill Inc. of Lenexa, Kan.; Scepter Corp. of Scarborough, Ontario; and
the Plastics Group Inc. of Willowbrook, Ill.

“Blitz was very good at what they did,” said Tom Cray, president of No-
Spill. “The legal system is what brought them down. Blitz exported around
the world and only here [in the United States] were there lawsuits.”

[Danny D]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 10:38:47 -0700, Harry K wrote:

> From the few I have tried, the compliant cans take a different
> size cap. They changed the size.

That's exactly been my experience but I had never researched
the caps thoroughly before. I just used the spouts as caps.

But it would really be nice to find the 'right' sized cap.

After speaking to CARB today (Angus 916-445-4686), it looks like
the big four gas can manufacturers in the USA are:

Midwest Can Co. of Melrose Park, Ill.

No-Spill Inc. of Lenexa, Kan.

Scepter Corp. of Scarborough, Ontario

Plastics Group Inc. of Willowbrook, Ill.

Since the Plastics Group apparently bought the Blitz manufacturing
operation for gasoline cans, I'll start with them.
http://www.theplasticsgroup.net/fuel_containers_us.php

Looks like this is their contact information:
http://www.theplasticsgroup.net/contact-us.php
630-325-1210 x295, mdeckard at the plastics group dot net

[bob haller]

Some of my 5 gallon plastic gas cans happen to be the same size and
threads of a briggs & stratton lawnmower engine. I swapped them by
accident:( and the sealed cap killed the engine pretty quick.

I have thouggt about replacing my bad caps, 2 lost:( one cracked with
those lawnmower gas tank caps. Although they have a automated vent for
high pressure. I have never been fond of swollen gasoline cans that
look like a over filled balloon:(

[Danny D]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 12:33:51 -0700, bob haller wrote:

> Some of my 5 gallon plastic gas cans happen to be the same size and
> threads of a briggs & stratton lawnmower engine. I swapped them by

> accident and the sealed cap killed the engine pretty quick.

Bad news on Blitz.

I called the Plastics Group at 630-325-1210 x295
http://www.theplasticsgroup.net/contact-us.php

That extension was invalid, but I spoke to a representative who
said *nobody* bought the molds that Blitz used on their gas cans.

The lady (I forgot to get her name) said that all the molds could
be different but they themselves might re-use their own molds for
their Briggs & Stratton engines (she wasn't sure). So that would
explain how a Briggs & Stratton engine can use the same cap threads
as a gas can from The Plastics Group.

Regarding the Blitz manufacturing operation, the lady said nobody
bought the molds because then they'd be subject to the lawsuits;
so, in the end, it looks like there is no way to get a *direct*
replacement cap.

The only option left is to see if someone else's threads *fit*
the Blitz gasoline cans. That's going to be left to trial & error.

[hrho...@sbcglobal.net]

Now that there are do-it-yourself manufaturing of plastic parts
machines readily available, maybe someone will come up with a design
for a cap with the needed thread dimensions and make it available on
the internet. If they can illegally make crappy-firing guns that way,
they should be able to make a gas can cap, legal or otherwise..

[Danny D]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 13:34:35 -0700, hrho...@sbcglobal.net wrote:

> Now that there are do-it-yourself manufaturing of plastic parts machines
> readily available, maybe someone will come up with a design for a cap
> with the needed thread dimensions and make it available on the internet.
> If they can illegally make crappy-firing guns that way,
> they should be able to make a gas can cap, legal or otherwise..

I don't disagree.

I have two sources of caps on the way, so I'll run my test.
If we all pitch in where we can, we'll solve the problem.

As far as I can tell (by calling CARB), the cap is perfectly legal
for filling, transportation, and for storage; so it's not a question
of legality.

It's simply a question of fit.

[Stormin Mormon]

Home made scofflaws making gasoline can spouts. What is this world coming to. On so many levels.
.
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
.
<hrho...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:98eaa4f9-6f98-418e...@j4g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...

[Brent]

You do not want FDM parts for a gasoline container. I don't recall the
gasoline resistance of PC or ABS off the top of my head but FDM by it's
very nature will have to be thick to prevent fluid and vapor from
passing through it. Also it will cost more than simply buying a new
plastic gas container.

And the FDM gun is just nonsense. People with skills and specialized
equipment could always make their own firearms.

[Geoff Welsh]

those videos are great. Later I am going to see if YouTube can teach me
to tie my shoes again.....damn velcro....

GW

[k...@attt.bizz]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 17:02:02 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
<cayoung61**NOJUNK**@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Home made scofflaws making gasoline can spouts. What is this world coming to. On so many levels.

When they make it illegal to own gas caps and toilets, only criminals
will have gas caps and toilets.

[k...@attt.bizz]

Cost isn't the issue.

>And the FDM gun is just nonsense. People with skills and specialized
>equipment could always make their own firearms.

Sure, but try telling a statist gun grabber (anything).

[Danny D.]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 11:44:52 -1000, Geoff Welsh wrote:

>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lcnwdIYEfI
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpaP-nT3Zog
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3o5tHLWZKc

>>
> I am going to see if YouTube can teach me
> to tie my shoes again.....damn velcro....

Everything in those videos was intuitive to me except
what to use for a vent. I thought it was ingenious that
they drilled a half-inch hole (paddle wood bit would be
better than the spiral flute bit they used though) and
inserted an automotive tire valve sans the stem.

Pulling out the locking "trigger" was obvious, I agree.

Personally, I defeat the child-proof lock simply by knocking
off the nub on the red plastic, whereas in the videos, they
redundantly cut both the nub and the ratchet (either one
would have worked alone).

That child-proof feature is odd though, because even with
it removed, it's still darn difficult to get the cap off.

It's my opinion that any 'kid' strong enough to remove that
cap is certainly already old enough to defeat the ratchet
lock on his own anyway.

Overall, after experiencing these cans since their inception
in California (which happened before you guys had the honor
of following CARB regulations)... I've concluded the best
thing to do with the spout is to simply remove it.

That's why I'm looking for caps to fit!

[HeyBub]

Really, really liked the hint of obtaining gas can vent caps via Ebay !

Cheap (1 for $3.00, 5 for $7.75, 10 for $11.20, 15 for $11.98, etc. ),
trivial to install (1/2" bit is all you need), and quite functional.

[Danny D]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 11:44:52 -1000, Geoff Welsh wrote:

>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lcnwdIYEfI
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpaP-nT3Zog
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3o5tHLWZKc
>>

> I am going to see if YouTube can teach me
> to tie my shoes again.....damn velcro....

[Danny D]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 11:44:52 -1000, Geoff Welsh wrote:

>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lcnwdIYEfI
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpaP-nT3Zog
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3o5tHLWZKc
>>

> I am going to see if YouTube can teach me
> to tie my shoes again.....damn velcro....

[jim beam]

ebay for "nato jerry can" and you'll have your solution.


--
fact check required

[Danny D]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 17:26:06 -0700, jim beam wrote:

> ebay for "nato jerry can" and you'll have your solution.

I love that thing!
It's expensive; but it is designed and build like a brick outhouse!

[Danny D]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 22:47:45 +0000, Danny D. wrote:

> That's why I'm looking for caps to fit!

Yikes. Sorry for the duplicate posts.
AIOE keeps doing that!
I don't know why.


Message-ID: <kmuerm$4qu$1...@speranza.aioe.org>
Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 22:46:14 +0000 (UTC)

Message-ID: <kmuesk$63c$1...@speranza.aioe.org>
Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 22:46:44 +0000 (UTC)

Message-ID: <kmueug$t1s$1...@news.albasani.net>
Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 22:47:45 +0000 (UTC)

[Danny D.]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 17:48:30 -0500, HeyBub wrote:

> Really, really liked the hint of obtaining gas can vent caps via Ebay !

I wonder how 'much' gas (percentage wise) actually escapes as vapor
from a modified gas can with a vent?

That is, how much of a problem is the EPA trying to solve?

I'll call CARB tomorrow to see if I can nail down what we're
saving in gas venting versus the huge frustration and cost of
those useless spouts.

BTW: Sorry for the duplicate posts (AIOE does that every once in a while).
(Using a different newsserver for this post).

[jim beam]

On 05/14/2013 07:28 PM, Danny D. wrote:
> On Tue, 14 May 2013 17:48:30 -0500, HeyBub wrote:
>
>> Really, really liked the hint of obtaining gas can vent caps via Ebay !
>
> I wonder how 'much' gas (percentage wise) actually escapes as vapor
> from a modified gas can with a vent?
>
> That is, how much of a problem is the EPA trying to solve?
>
> I'll call CARB tomorrow to see if I can nail down what we're
> saving in gas venting versus the huge frustration and cost of
> those useless spouts.

not to mention the increased spillage trying to get them to work...

>
> BTW: Sorry for the duplicate posts (AIOE does that every once in a while).
> (Using a different newsserver for this post).
>

--
fact check required

[Danny D.]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 19:33:30 -0700, jim beam wrote:

> not to mention the increased spillage trying to get them to work...

Seems to me they mandated the gas stays *in* rather well; but
not that the gas comes *out* gracefully.

The cost of the complexity is (it seems):
a) The increased spillage of gasoline
b) The increased vapors from gas left in the can (see note 1)
c) The increased cost & complexity of the spout
d) The increased time it takes to pour the gas out

Note 1:
I can't get all the gas out of the can with the spout on.
I presume all that gas will vaporize and fill the can with
gasoline vapors, which, will stay inside due to the lack of
venting and permeability - but - they will immediately escape
the moment the spout is removed for the refilling tasks.

Given that we spill more, and we vent more when we open the
gasoline can to refill - yet - we certainly vent *less* during
storage and during the pouring tasks ... I wonder where the
balance of the equation lies?

Does anyone know of any data on what we're actually saving
in vented gasoline vapors?

[jim beam]

for anything more than a few hours storage, there's no question that
fully sealed will lose less. this is because the sealed can vapors will
reach equilibrium and after initial vaporization inside the can, it will
then stop once its magic vapor pressure is reached. with a vented can,
that never happens, and it continues to leak out forever until all gone.

so, re storage, these cans are a win. but on pouring, which is the
whole point of the can in the first place - most people use cans to
transport gas, not store it - these "no leak" cans are a joke. maybe if
you're filling a lawn mower they work, but for a car with the fuel cap
only accessible from a vertical plane, it's pretty much impossible to
pour more than about 30% of contents without spillage. and that's
assuming you've /not/ given up on the spout and are not using a
newspaper or other improvised funnel.

bottom line, these things need to be re-thought. preferably by someone
with a car.


--
fact check required

[Danny D.]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 20:46:29 -0700, jim beam wrote:

> for anything more than a few hours storage, there's no question that
> fully sealed will lose less. this is because the sealed can vapors will
> reach equilibrium and after initial vaporization inside the can, it will
> then stop once its magic vapor pressure is reached. with a vented can,
> that never happens, and it continues to leak out forever until all gone.

Hmmm... in the olden days, with the vented cans, I don't remember ever
having the gasoline all vaporize. Although, I must admit I never thought
about the level in the can day to day.

Would the old-style cans lose *all* the gas over time?

How long (for 5 gallons)?

[Harry K]

I used to store a 1 gal can in one of my sheds for the mowers. Never
found the can empty even after sitting for a year.

Harry K

[Danny D.]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 20:46:29 -0700, jim beam wrote:

> bottom line, these things need to be re-thought.
> preferably by someone with a car.

When I told Angus at CARB (916-445-4686) earlier today
that the air resource board specifications were only
for keeping the gas *in* the can, nobody allowed for the
gas to come *out*, he just laughed good naturedly. He's
heard it all. There was nothing I was going to tell him
about the spout or the spills or the slowness of the gas
coming out that he hadn't heard before.

He *was* unaware of the flaw where a concentric ring cracks
on the Blitz spouts (it happened to three of my cans); but
he said CARB doesn't get warranty information from the
manufacturer.

So, I have to agree with you that they need to rethink
these cans.
a) They've gotten the gas to stay *in* rather well;
b) Now it's time for them to mandate the gas come *out*!

[Danny D.]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 18:07:43 -0400, krw wrote:

> When they make it illegal to own gas caps and toilets,
> only criminals will have gas caps and toilets.

I have a secret plan to own what may be illegal!

I was told by the Plastics Group of Willowbrook, Illinois today, that
*nobody* bought the gasoline can molds from the now defunct Blitz USA of
Miami Oklahoma; but, at the same time, we are aware that Hopkins
Manufacturing Corp. of Emporia, Kansas paid $14.6 million for everything
*but* the gas can molds.

That means, if we're lucky, that the Hopkins Manufacturing *water* jugs
might use the *same cap* as the Blitz USA gasoline cans!

To find out if that's true, I ordered a set of water jug caps from
Hopkins Manufacturing today.

Cross your fingers and maybe they'll fit!

[Unquestionably Confused]

On 5/14/2013 10:46 PM, jim beam wrote:
> bottom line, these things need to be re-thought. preferably by someone
> with a car.

Or a freakin' brain!

Neither my wife nor I are klutzes but I'll guarantee you that we've both
spilled more gasoline than would have escaped as vapor using the old
style cans. We kept the vents closed and the cans capped unless we were
actually pouring gasoline.

[jim beam]

if vented, absolutely. it'll take a while, but it will.

>
> How long (for 5 gallons)?

don't know, but i do know that a dented-up 11 gallon gas tank from a car
with about a gallon of unpourable gas left in the back yard is bone dry
a couple of months later.


--
fact check required

[jim beam]

On 05/14/2013 02:06 PM, Brent wrote:
<snip>

> And the FDM gun is just nonsense. People with skills and specialized
> equipment could always make their own firearms.

indeed. you have afghans in caves making the real deal with little more
than primitive tools and crappy materials - it's simply absurd to try
and demonize a set of technical skills. unless you're a political
sociopath, but that's another debate.


--
fact check required

[Oren]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 21:06:06 +0000 (UTC), Brent
<tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>And the FDM gun is just nonsense. People with skills and specialized
>equipment could always make their own firearms.

The 3D printed gun has no provision in the law to require a serial
number, registration or background check. The gun grabbers have gone
nuts about it. The Feds have taken control of 3D plans from the
student in Austin. Scrubbed the Internet of the plans. Spit!

A firearm milled in your basement will require the serial number,
registration, etc... By law.

[Brent]

Highly unlikely.
They would not adapt their own products to what they purchased.

[Steve W.]

Nope. No nothing required on a home made gun. It's a good idea to put
something on it but not required.

--
Steve W.

[Brent]

Because criminals always care about paperwork laws. LOL.

The homemade gun has been around since there have been guns. It has
never been a problem of any significance. Why? Because someone with the
marketable skills required to make a firearm does not need to be a
criminal, is unlikely to be one, and criminals can get manufactured
firearms with less effort and cost.

[Oren]

On Wed, 15 May 2013 11:51:24 -0400, "Steve W." <csr...@NOTyahoo.com>
wrote:

...as long as it isn't sold or transferred, no serial is needed (I'm
not an expert though)

[Oren]

I agree with that. Today, a homemade firearm has to have a serial if
it's sold or transferred. How many guns can one put in one lunch box.

[Steve W.]

Actually you cannot "sell" a firearm you made yourself.


With certain exceptions a firearm may be made by a non-licensee provided
it is not for sale and the maker is not prohibited from possessing
firearms. However, a person is prohibited from assembling a non-sporting
semi-automatic rifle or non-sporting shotgun from imported parts. In
addition, the making of an NFA firearm requires a tax payment and
approval by ATF. An application to make a machine gun will not be
approved unless documentation is submitted showing that the firearm is
being made for a Federal or State agency.

18 U.S.C. 922(o) and (r)
26 U.S.C. 5822
27 CFR 478.39, 479.62 and 479.105


--
Steve W.

[Dan Espen]

Of course you didn't.
If there is evaporation, the most volatile components go first.
What remains evaporates more and more slowly.

--
Dan Espen

[Geoff Welsh]

Danny D wrote:
> On Tue, 14 May 2013 11:44:52 -1000, Geoff Welsh wrote:
>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lcnwdIYEfI
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpaP-nT3Zog
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3o5tHLWZKc
>>>
>> I am going to see if YouTube can teach me
>> to tie my shoes again.....damn velcro....
>
> Everything in those videos was intuitive to me except
> what to use for a vent. I thought it was ingenious that
> they drilled a half-inch hole (paddle wood bit would be
> better than the spiral flute bit they used though) and
> inserted an automotive tire valve sans the stem.
>
>

The valve stem with the Schrader valve removed is an excellent
modification...if they came like that they'd probably cost ten dollars more.

GW

[Geoff Welsh]

jim beam wrote:
>
it's pretty much impossible to pour
> more than about 30% of contents without spillage.

this is an excellent point. The amount of gas spilled using any type of
can far exceeds the amount of vapor saved by any new design.

GW

[Geoff Welsh]

Steve W. wrote:
> Oren wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 May 2013 16:23:23 +0000 (UTC), Brent
>> <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> A firearm milled in your basement will require the serial number,
>>>> registration, etc... By law.
>>> Because criminals always care about paperwork laws. LOL.
>>> The homemade gun has been around since there have been guns. It has
>>> never been a problem of any significance. Why? Because someone with the
>>> marketable skills required to make a firearm does not need to be a
>>> criminal, is unlikely to be one, and criminals can get manufactured
>>> firearms with less effort and cost.
>>
>> I agree with that. Today, a homemade firearm has to have a serial if
>> it's sold or transferred. How many guns can one put in one lunch box.
>
> Actually you cannot "sell" a firearm you made yourself.
>

I think you meant "cannot, legally, in some places, sell"...

GW

[Steve W.]

Anywhere in the US and it's territories at least. The rest of the world ??

--
Steve W.

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Oren:

> The Feds have taken control of 3D plans from the
>student in Austin. Scrubbed the Internet of the plans. Spit!

I took the whole thing as more of a proof-of-concept demonstration than
anything of actual utility.
--
Pete Cresswell

[Oren]

On Wed, 15 May 2013 14:03:37 -0400, "Steve W." <csr...@NOTyahoo.com>
wrote:

>Actually you cannot "sell" a firearm you made yourself

oh, stop. Next you will me that a homemade firearm cannot be an
inheritance.

[Vic Smith]

On Wed, 15 May 2013 16:23:23 +0000 (UTC), Brent

Yup. Most people won't spend a year or more writing a novel when you
just buy one for a few bucks.
In most places in the U.S. I can legally traffic in guns, buying and
selling with criminals, crazy folks, and terrorists.
It's all legal. No need to make a gun.

[k...@attt.bizz]

On Wed, 15 May 2013 05:02:37 +0000 (UTC), "Danny D."
<Dan...@is.invalid> wrote:

>On Tue, 14 May 2013 18:07:43 -0400, krw wrote:
>
>> When they make it illegal to own gas caps and toilets,
>> only criminals will have gas caps and toilets.
>
>I have a secret plan to own what may be illegal!
>
>I was told by the Plastics Group of Willowbrook, Illinois today, that
>*nobody* bought the gasoline can molds from the now defunct Blitz USA of
>Miami Oklahoma; but, at the same time, we are aware that Hopkins
>Manufacturing Corp. of Emporia, Kansas paid $14.6 million for everything
>*but* the gas can molds.
>
>That means, if we're lucky, that the Hopkins Manufacturing *water* jugs
>might use the *same cap* as the Blitz USA gasoline cans!

Not bloody likely.

[Steve W.]

Under US Federal law you can make a firearm for your own use. It does
not have to have any markings.


If you decide to transfer that gun to anyone then it has to be marked
ATF Wants
Maker's name
City (or county) and state where it was built
Model designation (if you wish, no real complaint if you don't)
Unique TO YOU serial number.
All required markings must be "permanent" to a specific depth and height.

BUT the catch then becomes numbers. If the ATF even suspects you are
making the firearms with the intent to sell them they will visit you.

--
Steve W.

[Nate Nagel]

On 05/14/2013 08:26 PM, jim beam wrote:
> On 05/14/2013 07:39 AM, Danny D wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 May 2013 06:45:18 -0400, George wrote:
>>
>>> "EZ-POUR REPLACEMENT SPOUT KIT IS DESIGNED AND SOLD AS REPLACEMENT PARTS
>>> SPECIFICALLY FOR PORTABLE FUEL CONTAINERS MANUFACTURED BEFORE JANUARY
>>> 2009"
>>
>> This could be due to one of two possible reasons:
>> 1. It could be legalese (as previously stated), or,
>> 2. It might actually be the wrong threads.
>>
>> I'll try calling Blitz again to see if they changed their threads:
>> Blitz U.S.A., Inc., 404 26th Ave. NW, Miami, OK 74354
>>
>> Unfortunately, the Blitz USA hotline is out of commission:
>> 24-hour Consumer Service Hotline at 877-922-5489
>> So is the Blitz local telephone number:
>> 918-540-1515
>>
>> I'm going to have to order a few caps just to see if they fit.
>> I may also buy the water jug caps, to see if they fit.
>>
>> If anyone has *already* tested the cap, it would be nice to
>> see if they fit.
>>
>> Maybe someone can test them side-by-side in the store?
>> (I'll check out my local stores to see if they have both
>> the water jugs and the gasoline jugs to test.)
>>
>
> ebay for "nato jerry can" and you'll have your solution.
>
>

For once, the Beam is 100% correct.

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

[jim beam]

how does my ass smell, brown nose?


--
fact check required

[Doug Miller]

jim beam <m...@privacy.net> wrote in news:kmv07h$au$1...@dont-email.me:

> bottom line, these things need to be re-thought. preferably by someone
> with a car.

and a brain.

[Doug Miller]

"Steve W." <csr...@NOTyahoo.com> wrote in news:kn0iej$qiu$1...@dont-email.me:

> Actually you cannot "sell" a firearm you made yourself.

Of course you can. It appears you need to look up the difference between "can" and "may".

Perhaps you meant "cannot *legally* sell" -- which of course is very different from "cannot
sell".

> With certain exceptions a firearm may be made by a non-licensee provided
> it is not for sale and the maker is not prohibited from possessing
> firearms. However, a person is prohibited from assembling a non-sporting
> semi-automatic rifle or non-sporting shotgun from imported parts.

Prohibited. Not prevented.

> In
> addition, the making of an NFA firearm requires a tax payment and
> approval by ATF. An application to make a machine gun will not be
> approved unless documentation is submitted showing that the firearm is
> being made for a Federal or State agency.

And of course all persons with criminal intent will comply with those requirements, right?

[Steve W.]

There you go, getting all technical...

I KNOW that criminals don't obey the laws and that any "extra" laws will
be ignored as well. Others don't seem to grasp that reality though.

I no longer have to worry, went fishing Sunday and my gun safe fell
overboard...

My personal thought is that as long as you're not a convicted violent
felon or a nut-case who is a danger to anyone you shouldn't be
restricted from making or owning any type of firearm.

I don't have a problem with background checks BUT the way it should work
is simple. You fill out the form, they call it in, if it comes back
clear you get to take your purchase and they shred the form. The dealer
would record the serial numbers in/out BUT with no names/addresses or
other info.
Should also be that if you are in a state that issues handgun permits
that the permit is valid across the country and it exempts you from
background check unless it is revoked.

--
Steve W.

[Danny D]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 20:54:10 +0000, Danny D wrote:

> I have two sources of caps on the way, so I'll run my test.
> If we all pitch in where we can, we'll solve the problem.

Bad news on finding a simple one-piece Blitz replacement cap:

http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/13119319/img/13119319.jpg

The Hopkins Manufacturing Corporation 855-708-6333 yellow *water* jug
caps arrived in the mail today - and they are far too small.

[jim beam]

indeed.

>
> I don't have a problem with background checks BUT the way it should work
> is simple. You fill out the form, they call it in, if it comes back
> clear you get to take your purchase and they shred the form. The dealer
> would record the serial numbers in/out BUT with no names/addresses or
> other info.
> Should also be that if you are in a state that issues handgun permits
> that the permit is valid across the country and it exempts you from
> background check unless it is revoked.
>

with bells on.

i love how the journo's are getting all bent out of shape over rosen's
first amendment rights, but when it comes to the rest of us and our
second amendment rights, they're happily dog-piling the effluent about
the constitution's irrelevance. truly ironic.


--
fact check required

[jim beam]

further thoughts:

1. i don't see why states should get to make their own restrictions to a
federal constitutional right.

2. what are politicians afraid of in the first place?
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9jv6Hw_gs8>

the political mandate derives /from/ a free and armed populace, not in
spite of.


--
fact check required

[Oren]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 13:05:35 -0400, "Steve W." <csr...@NOTyahoo.com>
wrote:

>My personal thought is that as long as you're not a convicted violent
>felon or a nut-case who is a danger to anyone you shouldn't be
>restricted from making or owning any type of firearm.
>

Who would of thunk Iowa allows child molesters to carry guns, it was
recently reported I see.

>I don't have a problem with background checks BUT the way it should work
>is simple. You fill out the form, they call it in, if it comes back
>clear you get to take your purchase and they shred the form. The dealer
>would record the serial numbers in/out BUT with no names/addresses or
>other info.

We don't need no stinkin' forms or checks, or anything else.

>Should also be that if you are in a state that issues handgun permits
>that the permit is valid across the country and it exempts you from
>background check unless it is revoked.

The National Reciprocity law proposed died with other guns measures,
recently.

[Oren]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 18:01:17 -0700, jim beam <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

>further thoughts:
>
>1. i don't see why states should get to make their own restrictions to a
>federal constitutional right.

You are familiar that when the 2nd Amendment was written it was
derived from local laws of states?

[Nate Nagel]

Now that is the obnoxious thing; apparently I'm considered legally able
to conceal a handgun in my own state, but there are states in which
there is *no* legal way for me to even drive through with my own legally
purchased handgun unless I just pass straight through and don't stop
(e.g. Maryland or Massachusetts)

sorry for the OT post but this actually does annoy the crap out of me as
I have good friends in both of the states I mention above...

nate

[AMuzi]

It gets even worse.
In DC for example you can now own a gun but you can't
transport it, even unloaded and cased, except directly
between your home and a gun range. If you see any defensible
logic in that, you're a better man than I because I don't.
Oh, there are no gun ranges within DC by the way.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[k...@attt.bizz]

You *CAN* pass through DC, or any state, with a gun you're legally
allowed to posses.

[Nate Nagel]

True, but if you do more than stop for lunch or gas you can be
technically in violation of the law.

DC is a hellhole best avoided for many reasons, its handgun laws being
only one reason. Unfortunately I live very close to it...

[jim beam]

doubtful you'll be allowed to do it in the condition with which you may
be used to doing. here in kalifornistan, it has to unloaded, in a
locked container, in the trunk, and that container cannot have any
ammunition in it. whether separately magazines can even have rounds in
them is contentious.

--
fact check required

[jim beam]

so once otherwise law abiding citizens are criminalized and therefore
alienated, they're not invested in upholding other laws either. maybe
the legislators responsible for that absurdity have stock in the
companies that make the equipment used to quell civil unrest? it
wouldn't be the first time such a thing has happened.


--
fact check required

[jim beam]

the bill of rights could have been derived from the laws of planet
vulcan for all that matters - what matters is that the bill of rights
are universal to a free citizenry, not subjects of individual fiefdoms.


--
fact check required

[jim beam]

duh - make that "separately contained"

[Danny D]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 11:14:04 -0400, krw wrote:

>>>> http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/13119319/img/13119319.jpg
>>>>The Hopkins Manufacturing Corporation 855-708-6333 yellow *water* jug
>>>>caps arrived in the mail today - and they are far too small.
>>>

>>>Bummer.
>>
>>That was just a dice roll.
>
> Not even a good one.

Well, the *theory* was that Hopkins bought all the molds from the
now-defunct Blitz company *except* the gas-can molds, but, the
(bad) roll of the dice was that the caps *might* fit.

Clearly they're not even close. :(

I'm still waiting for my replacement caps from the other order.

[Danny D]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 11:51:30 +0000, Doug Miller wrote:

>> bottom line, these things need to be re-thought. preferably by someone
>> with a car.
>
> and a brain.

What they really need are consumer use-model specifications.

They have mandated that the gas stays in the can. That's half the spec.

Now they need to mandate that a consumer can get the gas *out* of the can!

[k...@attt.bizz]

Just to expand on that a bit, these rights aren't provided by the
Constitution, rather by nature. The Government didn't "give" these
rights so does not have the authority to take them away.

[k...@attt.bizz]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 04:21:50 +0000 (UTC), Danny D <Dan...@example.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 21 May 2013 11:14:04 -0400, krw wrote:
>
>>>>> http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/13119319/img/13119319.jpg
>>>>>The Hopkins Manufacturing Corporation 855-708-6333 yellow *water* jug
>>>>>caps arrived in the mail today - and they are far too small.
>>>>
>>>>Bummer.
>>>
>>>That was just a dice roll.
>>
>> Not even a good one.
>
>Well, the *theory* was that Hopkins bought all the molds from the
>now-defunct Blitz company *except* the gas-can molds, but, the
>(bad) roll of the dice was that the caps *might* fit.
>
>Clearly they're not even close. :(

I would *never* have expected a container that was used to hold a
toxic and dangerous chemical to be the same as one used for potable
water. Pipe and fittings for flammable gas and liquids are
intentionally made so they can't be confused.

>I'm still waiting for my replacement caps from the other order.

If they're intended for gasoline containers, I'd give them a *much*
better chance of fitting. If they're meant for other liquids, not so
much.

[k...@attt.bizz]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 21:22:52 -0400, Nate Nagel <njn...@roosters.net>
wrote:

Wrong.

[k...@attt.bizz]

Sure, but that wasn't the point.

[Nate Nagel]

It's not me that's saying that, it's J. Scott Kappas, Esq. and I'm
quoting from the 2013 edition of the "Traveler's Guide to the Firearm
Laws of the Fifty States."

From the bottom of page 18:

Travelers to D.C. are prohibited from carrying any firearms into the
District in a concealed or open manner. Any ammunition possession is
also banned. D.C. law was recently modified to allow the transport of
firearms and ammunition through the District. The firearms must be
unloaded, cased, and locked in the trunk, or, in a vehicle without a
trunk, secured in a locked container (other than a glove compartment or
console box.) They mst also be separated from any extraneous
ammunition. The traveler may not stop anywhere in the District of his
"passing through" status will cease to exist and his firearms may be
subject to seizure.

(end quote)

Also see here

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/dc.pdf


Places Off
-
Limits Eve
n With A Permit/License
Note:
If you stop in DC for any reason while transporting firearms you are no
longer covered by Federal
Law (
Title 18 Part 1 Chapter 44
� 926A)
but fall under DC law and can be arrested and your firearms
Confiscated

(end quote)

the actual law is given on pages 5 and 6 of the link given above.

So apparently DC grudgingly recognizes McClure-Volkmer but does the
absolute minimum to comply. The way I read the quote above, even
stopping for gas may in the eyes of District authorities put one outside
the protection of McClure-Volkmer.

[Harry K]

Same story. The old style spouts fit the old style cans, they will
not fit the epa type. EPA knew we would be trying that.

Harry K

[Harry K]

Tell that to the countries not ruled by our Constitution

Harry K

[Harry K]

On May 22, 10:33 am, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote:
> On 05/22/2013 08:19 AM, k...@attt.bizz wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

> > On Tue, 21 May 2013 21:22:52 -0400, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net>

Thanks for that. I knew that in transporthing _through_ a state they
still have to comply with the laws governing _how_ they are to be
secured. I didn't nknow DC had that "gotcha" in there.

Harry K

[k...@attt.bizz]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 11:18:44 -0700 (PDT), Harry K <tur...@q.com>
wrote:

Why is it my job to tell them anything? If they don't care about
their rights, why should I?

[k...@attt.bizz]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 13:33:08 -0400, Nate Nagel <njn...@roosters.net>

Yes. It's an interpretation of the law made by law enforcment
overreach. It was never the letter or the intent of the law.

<...>

[Oren]

"MOLON LABE", or "Come And Get Them." ...

I wasn't born to surrender, in the least.

"My lawyer says you cannot take something you have already given me."

[Nate Nagel]

I agree, but I'm not particularly interested in becoming a test case,
when driving around DC is so easy (easier than driving through in many
cases.) Maryland isn't much better, unfortunately, and is harder to
avoid. Obviously, when carrying a handgun through a firearm-unfriendly
state, the easiest way to avoid trouble with the law is to keep it
cased, in the trunk, and don't stop.

[Oren]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 11:22:57 -0700 (PDT), Harry K <tur...@q.com>
wrote:

>Thanks for that. I knew that in transporthing _through_ a state they
>still have to comply with the laws governing _how_ they are to be
>secured. I didn't nknow DC had that "gotcha" in there.
>
>Harry K

"I promise you a police car on every sidewalk."
- M. Barry,
Mayor of Washington, DC

"If you take out the killings, Washington actually has a very very low
crime rate."
- M. Barry,
Mayor of Washington, DC