What procurement records exist for HC‑formulation smoke munitions purchased by Minnesota law enforcement or federal agencies since 2020?
Executive summary
No procurement records for hexachloroethane (HC)–formulation smoke munitions purchased by Minnesota law enforcement or by federal agencies since 2020 are present in the supplied reporting; the materials provided instead identify the statutes, agencies, and procurement channels that would be relevant repositories or regulators of such purchases (but do not themselves contain purchase logs or contracts) [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. What the available sources actually show about guns, explosives and “less‑lethal” oversight
The supplied documents outline Minnesota’s legal and administrative framework for ammunition, explosives, and less‑lethal munitions—covering state statutes, the State Fire Marshal’s explosives licensing and permitting page, and the legal definition of “less‑lethal munitions” in Minnesota law—but none of these items contain transaction-level procurement records for HC‑formulation smoke devices [1] [5] [6]. Minnesota regulatory materials indicate that explosives and related devices are governed by state licensing and storage rules [1] [7], and that the legal treatment of “less‑lethal” weapons factors into use‑of‑force law [5], but the provided files stop short of listing vendor contracts, purchase orders, or inventory manifests.
2. Where procurement records would most plausibly be kept, according to the reporting
The sources point to a handful of offices and systems that would reasonably hold procurement records: Minnesota’s Data Practices / Law Enforcement office (which governs access to law‑enforcement records) [2], the State Fire Marshal division that issues explosives and ammunition permits [1], cooperative procurement vehicles such as Sourcewell that agencies use to buy public‑safety gear [3], and federal ATF field offices that oversee explosives and firearm licensing and industry operations [4]. The supplied materials therefore identify custodians and legal pathways for records, even though they provide no specific HC‑munition purchase files.
3. What the supplied reporting does not provide (and what cannot be concluded from silence)
None of the supplied snippets or pages include vendor invoices, purchase orders, contract language, or agency inventory lists showing HC‑formulation smoke munitions acquired since 2020; the absence of such primary procurement documents in these sources means the question of whether and how much HC smoke was purchased cannot be answered from these materials alone [1] [2] [3]. Because the reporting does not contain procurement records, it would be incorrect to assert from these sources that purchases did or did not occur.
4. Public claims and context present in the reporting
A social‑media claim in the supplied materials asserts that HC munitions were deployed in Minneapolis and criticizes their safety and manufacturer marketing; that post names Defense Technology and describes HC as different from tear gas (CS/CR/CN) [8]. That entry is useful context for public concern but is not a procurement record, and the provided corpus contains no corroborating invoice, contract, or official procurement statement tied to the incident described [8].
5. How procurement transparency is framed by the law excerpts provided
Minnesota law and administrative rules included in the reporting set the boundaries for what agencies may possess and how “less‑lethal” devices are classified for use‑of‑force purposes [5] and place explosives and similar items under permitting and storage regimes administered by the State Fire Marshal [1] and subject to state procurement processes like cooperative contracts [3]. These rules imply that procurement records could be obtainable from the named custodians, but the supplied materials do not include the records themselves nor detail any public‑release exemptions or redactions that might apply [1] [2].
6. Bottom line and what the provided reporting points to next
The assembled sources identify the legal owners and record custodians most likely to have HC‑munition procurement records—Minnesota Department of Public Safety/State Fire Marshal, local law‑enforcement agencies (subject to state data practices), Sourcewell contracts, and federal ATF oversight—but they contain no purchase orders, contracts, or inventory lists for HC smoke munitions since 2020, so the question remains unanswered by the supplied reporting [1] [2] [3] [4]. Any definitive accounting would require direct retrieval of procurement files from those custodians or releases from agencies; the materials provided here only map the institutions and legal framework relevant to such a search.