Not trying to rain on your parade but a lot of this activity involving blowing up items may run afoul of various Federal and particularly State laws. The federal and states consider some items that are explosive in nature and creates shrapnel as a destructive device. Many of the chemical explosive devices like dry ice bombs are also considered to be illegal in most places. While you may not consider this to be illegal a prosecutor may not agree. A lot of people get away with doing these things for fun but let someone get hurt or worse and a prosecutor will have a case file put on his desk.
I am familiar with at least one case where an individual was convicted of blowing up a PVC device underwater as a social activity and with no intent to use the device as a weapon and received 44 months in jail. Here is the case:
Spoerke: PVC pipe bombs are "destructive devices"
In U.S. v. Spoerke, No. 08-12910 (May 22, 2009), the Court held that a homemade explosive device made of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe that could propel shrapnel was a "destructive device"under 26 U.S.C. §§ 5801 et seq. The Court noted that Spoerke admitted that his devices could hurt people. The government expert testimony established that the pipe bombs were designed as weapons, and were capable of propelling shards. Moreover, the jury was free to reject Spoerke’s assertion that he designed the devices for "social enjoyment" by exploding them under water.
The Court rejected Spoerke’s argument that the National Firearms Act was unconstitutional as applied to him, because pipe bombs are unlawful, and their regulation therefore cannot be justified under Congress’ taxation powers. Spoerke conceivably could have registered and paid taxes on his pipe bombs.
The Court also affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress physical evidence obtained after the vehicle Spoerke was riding in was stopped for littering. Once police spotted gloves, goggles, a face mask and a flashlight in plain view, and noted other suspicious circumstances, the police had an articulable suspicion that the occupants of the vehicle were engaged in a burglary, and reasonably prolonged the traffic stop to investigate further. In addition, the statements Spoerke gave during the traffic stop fell within the "public safety" exception to Miranda, which allows officers to question a suspect without first giving Miranda warnings when necessary to protect themselves or the general public.
The Court rejected the challenge to the admission of videos showing the jury explosions of devices similar to Spoerke’s. "The video demonstration was relevant to prove the nature of the devices." The Court rejected the challenge to the government’s reference to items seized in the vehicle as related to other crimes, pointing out that this was relevant to the claim that the pipe bombs "were designed as weapons."
Turning to the sentence, the Court rejected the argument that Spoerke should have received an acceptance of responsibility sentence reduction even though he went to trial, because he challenged only the constitutionality of the Firearms Act. The Court noted that Spoerke also contested whether his pipe bombs were destructive devices, and attempted to exclude evidence of his guilt. The Court upheld the 44 months sentence as substantively reasonable.
I once responded to a call as a police officer that was called a "propane explosion". Upon my arrival I observed a small propane torch covered in frost in the front yard. The caller thought that was the device that had exploded. It was not. It was being used to solder on a device that exploded on the kitchen tablle. It ended up killing two men. I spent a whole day removing sheet rock in the house to locate the victims missing hands,shrapnel, etc.
One of the dead men was a former US Navy Explosive Ordance Disposal veteran who should have known what he was doing. I have been to some schools on making things go "BOOM" and learned I know just enough to get myself hurt. I would leave that stuff alone. If you really want to blow stuff up the military is hiring.
