 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Rockets / December 200320mm ammo can as a type IV magazine?
Can I use a surplus 20mm ammo can for a type IV magazine? I plan on welding 2 hasps on it and coating the inside with epoxy paint. Any inpuy would be appreciated. Thanks Matt Oresky TRA 7645 L2 Member Tripoli South Carolina About 50 miles from the Super Sod in Orangeburg! > Can I use a surplus 20mm ammo can for a type IV magazine? > I plan on welding 2 hasps on it and coating the inside with epoxy paint. > Any inpuy would be appreciated. Well it all starts here: http://www.atf.gov/explarson/fedexplolaw/subpartk.pdf A lot will depend on the local office (from comments I've read) though subpart K reads pretty clear. From a construction point of view: "(2) Construction. Indoor magazines are to be constructed of masonry, metal-covered wood, fabricated metal, or a combination of these materials. The walls and floors are to be constructed of, or covered with, a nonsparking material. The doors must be metal or solid wood covered with metal. {A coated ammo box certainly qualifies} (3) Hinges and hasps. Hinges and hasps are to be attached to doors by welding, riveting, or bolting (nuts on inside of door). Hinges and hasps must be installed so that they cannot be removed when the doors are closed and locked. {Depending on your boxes latches, this might be an issue. Don't count latches with rod from the latch to the lid to count for anything. Plus if hinged, the pin must not be removable} (4) Locks. Each door is to be equipped with (i) two mortise locks; (ii) two padlocks fastened in separate hasps and staples; (iii) a combination of a mortise lock and padlock; (iv) a mortise lock that requires two keys to open; or (v) a three-point lock. Padlocks must have at least five tumblers and a case-hardened shackle of at least 3/8 inch diameter. Padlocks must be protected with not less than 1/4 inch steel hoods constructed so as to prevent sawing or lever action on the locks, hasps, and staples." {Very interesting reading here. Notice mortise locks don't specify "5 tumblers" and don't require hoods. Plus, the ATF is trying to make the paddle lock shackles 1/2". Price out those paddle locks} Keep in mind also: "Indoor magazines are to be fire-resistant and theft-resistant." {Note THEFT-RESISTANT} Your best bet is to talk with individuals in your area who've gotten magazines approved. Joel. phx > Thanks > > Matt Oresky > TRA 7645 L2 > Member Tripoli South Carolina > About 50 miles from the Super Sod in Orangeburg! > {Very interesting reading here. Notice mortise locks don't specify "5 > tumblers" and don't require hoods. Plus, the ATF is trying to make the > paddle lock shackles 1/2". Price out those paddle locks} I've been looking around at heavy-duty padlocks - the largest thickness that seems to be a common hardware store item is 7/16"... a 1/2" thick one would take some hunting around it seems. I guess that must be why they picked that size - they don't want to make it too easy for just anybody to lock up their Explosives properly, now do they? -dave w > > {Very interesting reading here. Notice mortise locks don't specify "5 > > tumblers" and don't require hoods. Plus, the ATF is trying to make the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > to make it too easy for just anybody to lock up their Explosives > properly, now do they? My third solution (1/2" problem) was hitch pin locks. The ones I looked at were 5/8", round keyed (more than 5 cylinders) and $9 at walmart. If you search McMaster, 1/2 shackle padlocks can be had for $40, EACH. Though they only have 1" of clearance which might be a problem with a hood. The next larger are $138. http://www.mcmaster.com/ pg 2739 I posted several comments to ROL forums (regulations?) recently pointing out some solutions from Grainger for mortise locks (9 each). Grainger also has hasps with hoods for $20 each. Does it strike anyone funny that there is no specification for the dimensions of the hinges nor hasps? Joel. phx Well, nosing through that Mcmaster site, I find on page 2740 (next page) a 1/2" shackle 7 cylinder padlock for $20. > -dave w from Blaster's Tool and Supply Company at http://www.blasterstool.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=724 [ http://tinyurl.com/2czp7 ] --- Model 790 American Padlock: 1/2" Shackle - $53.95 3" Wide, 6 Pin, Key Retaining Currently Exceeds ATFE Requirements Case Hardened, Chrome Plated, Solid Steel Body, Stainless Steel Pins --- - iz >>{Very interesting reading here. Notice mortise locks don't specify "5 >>tumblers" and don't require hoods. Plus, the ATF is trying to make the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > -dave w > http://www.blasterstool.com/ Hmmm... interesting website... Looking under "blasting machines", I note a typical spec: (These aren't the old T-handle contraptions any more - these days they're little electronic units...) http://www.blasterstool.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=507 Voltage: 450, Energy: 8 joules, Capacity: 65 two ohm caps Hmmm... not sure what the standard "no fire" and "all fire" current ratings for "two ohm caps" are, but I doubt that they take any _less_ energy to fire than a standard e-match... which suggests that one of these doodads should be able to pop at _least_ that many e-matches. The same way it's done with blasting caps: Simultaneously. In _series_. That ought to light your cluster _real_ good. (With _full_ continuity testability through the ignition circuit from the remote firing point, and no car batteries or starter relays required...) -dave w fyi, the 1/2 inch shackle requirement is as per NPRM 968. Prior to that the requirement was 3/8 inch. reference: http://frwebgate2.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=59549566935+0+0+ 0&WAISaction=retrieve [ http://tinyurl.com/3buvl ] --- E. Subpart K--Storage (excerpt) Sections 55.208, 55.210, and 55.211 require that magazines be equipped with 2 hooded locks with at least \3/8\-inch shackles and five tumblers. In past years, ATF issued a number of variances allowing mobile outdoor type 2 and type 4 magazines to have only one lock, with no hood requirement. This variance was subsequently extended to the entire explosives industry. A review of explosives theft data indicates that in a significant number of explosives thefts access was gained to the explosives by cutting or prying the padlocks. Based on these findings, ATF has determined that the reduction in explosives magazine security allowed by these variances is inappropriate. Therefore, we are proposing to amend the regulations to require that all types 1, 2, 4, and 5 outdoor magazines (except for type 5 bins used to load bulk trucks), including vehicular/mobile magazines, be secured with 2 hooded locks with \1/2\-inch (rather than \3/8\-inch) shackles and five tumblers. We are proposing the same requirement for typs 2, 4, and 5 indoor magazines. Upon the effective date of the final rule, the above-mentioned variances will no longer be valid. ATF is soliciting comments from the industry on the economic burden these actions will impose. Commenters should address such issues as whether it is physically and economically viable to lock all magazines as stated in the proposed regulations in sections 55.207 through 55.211 and whether such actions will afford increased security. In addition, commenters should address the costs associated with increasing the lock size requirements as stated above. Comments should contain specific estimates of the monetary cost of this action. --- - iz > from Blaster's Tool and Supply Company > at http://www.blasterstool.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=724 [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >> >> -dave w >> {Very interesting reading here. Notice mortise locks don't specify "5 >> tumblers" and don't require hoods. Plus, the ATF is trying to make the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that seems to be a common hardware store item is 7/16"... a 1/2" thick > one would take some hunting around it seems. I've been looking for 1/2" padlocks since I responded to the NPRM last spring. I've yet to see one in person in a hardware, tool, or other store. Nor have I seen any hasps for the larger shackle size. Best I've found is 7/16". I've heard they can be ordered, but cost over $100 each. BTW, my current 3/8" padlocks were on the order of $10 each. > I guess that must be why they picked that size - they don't want > to make it too easy for just anybody to lock up their Explosives > properly, now do they? My guess is that it looked good in print, they have absolutely no idea what is actually available, and they are suffering from a severe case of rectal cranial inversion. Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html > >> {Very interesting reading here. Notice mortise locks don't specify "5 > >> tumblers" and don't require hoods. Plus, the ATF is trying to make the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 7/16". I've heard they can be ordered, but cost over $100 each. BTW, my > current 3/8" padlocks were on the order of $10 each. Locks are available online. See other posts. See also bicycle U-locks. I have not looked for hasps, but then I would modify existing or make my own. I will look at hasps at HD next chance I get. If it's possible to modify one, it won't cost $100 (and I'll modify or build one for someone wishing to run it past the atf). Joel. phx > > I guess that must be why they picked that size - they don't want > > to make it too easy for just anybody to lock up their Explosives [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Bob Kaplow NAR # > I've been looking for 1/2" padlocks since I responded to the NPRM last > spring. I've yet to see one in person in a hardware, tool, or other store. > Nor have I seen any hasps for the larger shackle size. Best I've found is > 7/16". I've heard they can be ordered, but cost over $100 each. BTW, my > current 3/8" padlocks were on the order of $10 each. as previously posted, from Blaster's Tool and Supply Company at http://www.blasterstool.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=724 [ http://tinyurl.com/2czp7 ] --- Model 790 American Padlock: 1/2" Shackle - $53.95 3" Wide, 6 Pin, Key Retaining Currently Exceeds ATFE Requirements Case Hardened, Chrome Plated, Solid Steel Body, Stainless Steel Pins --- - iz > http://www.blasterstool.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=724 Isn't it ironic that most rocketeer's magazines will cost significantly more than what's inside them? > > http://www.blasterstool.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=724 > > Isn't it ironic that most rocketeer's magazines will cost significantly > more than what's inside them? Isn't it moronic that the LOCK will cost more than a can of BP which wouldn't have to be stored if you bought a $100 pistol!! Joel. phx I give you something more moronic if you possess an antique or replica of an antique firearm or cannon you can store 50 lbs of BP in your kitchen cabinet right above your microwave, toaster oven and coffee maker but if you intend to use 1 gram of that BP for use in a ejection charge for rocket recovery you will need to have the LEUP, the qualifying storage meeting the distance requirements, and store that 1 gram of BP in your magazine after completing the required log entry and while completing required periodic inventories the other 22,678+ grams can stay in your kitchen cabinet with no LEUP, storage, distance, logging or inventory requirements "But wait! That's not all!" the DoJ/BATFE will send their law enforcement agents around from time to time to make sure your 1 gram is being properly stored and logged. Oh, and BTW, violations of your 1 gram BP storage requirement is a felony. completely insane! - iz >>>http://www.blasterstool.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=724 >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Joel. phx > I give you something more moronic > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > but if you intend to use 1 gram of that BP for use in a ejection charge > for rocket recovery you will need to have the LEUP, I have to admit that is the "party line", but if you parse the exemption, it is "or" recreational uses. Which explains why rockets have been in a non-enfocement zone despite the (TRA/NAR) turn-ins and (agency) targeting. > the qualifying > storage meeting the distance requirements, and store that 1 gram of BP [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > "But wait! That's not all!" ROFL. > the DoJ/BATFE will send their law enforcement agents around from time to > time to make sure your 1 gram is being properly stored and logged. Oh, > and BTW, violations of your 1 gram BP storage requirement is a felony. I was told this very thing by the agent that allowed me to store 3300 pounds of APCP outside of the magazine (AFTER I asserted my rights) till I showed him the "or" languiage in the exemption. He was dumbfounded his superiors didn't "catch it". I was not dumbfounded in the least. :) > completely insane! > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > > > Joel. phx  SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com My articles valuable? Donate at iKobo.com c/o my email. >>I give you something more moronic >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > been in a non-enfocement zone despite the (TRA/NAR) turn-ins and > (agency) targeting. well then, this handles the purported LEUP requirement for BP - iz >>the qualifying >>storage meeting the distance requirements, and store that 1 gram of BP [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >> >>- iz re 18USC40.845.a at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/845.html "Except in the case of subsections [1] (l), (m), (n), or (o) of section 842 and subsections (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), and (i) of section 844 of this title, this chapter shall not apply to: (5) commercially manufactured black powder in quantities not to exceed fifty pounds, percussion caps, safety and pyrotechnic fuses, quills, quick and slow matches, and friction primers, intended to be used solely for sporting, recreational, or cultural purposes in antique firearms as defined in section 921(a)(16) of title 18 of the United States Code, or in antique devices as exempted from the term ''destructive device'' in section 921(a)(4) of title 18 of the United States Code; " (the excepted subsections relate to criminal acts) looking more closely at this exemption, I am believe the meaning may be ambiguous. Observe: parse 1: -------- commercially manufactured black powder in quantities not to exceed fifty pounds ... intended to be used solely for sporting, recreational, or ( cultural purposes in antique firearms ) parse 2: -------- commercially manufactured black powder in quantities not to exceed fifty pounds ... intended to be used solely for ( sporting, recreational, or cultural purposes ) in antique firearms - iz >>> I give you something more moronic >>> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >>> >>> - iz > re 18USC40.845.a > at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/845.html [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > ( sporting, recreational, or cultural purposes ) > in antique firearms Ambiguous defalts to the defendant. OR means OR It is CRITICAL to remember that BOTH NAR and TRA consider 27 CFR 555.141-08 TOO AMBIGUOUS TO DEFEND VIGEROUSLY WITH ACTION AND DEED. Jerry Irvine SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com My articles valuable? Donate at iKobo.com c/o my email. > >>I give you something more moronic > >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > well then, this handles the purported LEUP requirement for BP BUT only if you believe "Jerry Irvine" and know he is NOT in jail!!! (yet . . . ) Jerry "Don't forget - you've been able to build and fly those large rockets because *someone else* has been able to discuss, and take action on, the very politics you want to shun. If we can't openly talk about the leadership or policies of our national/regional/local organizations, or the regulatory stuff that comes down the pipe from governments, then we can't do anything to effect change to them. It's a dirty little fact of life, and you ignore it at your own risk..." - Len Lekx "Making the simple complex is commonplace; making the complex simple, awesomely simple - that's creativity." - Charles Mingus and the final word (inspired by golf-troll): "Golfers are willing to pay more than rocketeers to lob small objects so far into the sky they cannot be seen by the unaided eye, then chase after them again and again." - Tom Emerson SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com My articles valuable? Donate at iKobo.com c/o my email. >>exemption, it is "or" recreational uses. Correct, your local friendly gun and ammo store (not a kmart, a real gun store) will glady sell you BP for all recreational uses. I shot my 1858 six gun today, smells good. Not even classified as a firearm even and can be shipped ups etc.. Six shooter users don't seem to be out looking for new rules, why do rocketeers always look for new rules ? > > I give you something more moronic > > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > > > > > Joel. phx > >>exemption, it is "or" recreational uses. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Six shooter users don't seem to be out looking for new rules, why do > rocketeers always look for new rules ? Just the meglomaniacs: Charles E Rogers Bruce Kelly Mark Bundick Jack Kane Mark Clark Tom Blazanin Dave Crisalli Dane Boles and others. Jerry SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com My articles valuable? Donate at iKobo.com c/o my email. > I give you something more moronic > > if you possess an antique or replica of an antique firearm or cannon you > can store 50 lbs of BP in your kitchen cabinet right above your > microwave, toaster oven and coffee maker Actually, this is incorrect. The explosives regs state that even if a material is not regulated (e.g., BP for antique firearms), it must be stored in accordance with the storage regulations. However, since there are no reporting requirements for unregulated materials, there's no way for the ATF to inspect storage of BP, so in reality, I'm sure it's stored in many inappropriate places. >>I give you something more moronic >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > materials, there's no way for the ATF to inspect storage of BP, so in > reality, I'm sure it's stored in many inappropriate places. not that I can see, David first note the exemption applies to all but the explicitly excluded subsections: 18USC40.845(a) "Except in the case of subsections [1] (l), (m), (n), or (o) of section 842 and subsections (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), and (i) of section 844 of this title, this chapter shall not apply to: (5) commercially manufactured black powder in quantities not to exceed fifty pounds ..." the storage requirement I believe you are referring to is as follows. Note that as it is not among the subsections explicitly excluded from the exemption, the exemption applies to this subsection 18USC50.842(j) "It shall be unlawful for any person to store any explosive material in a manner not in conformity with regulations promulgated by the Secretary ..." references: Exceptions; relief from disabilities http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/845.html Unlawful acts http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/842.html - iz > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Isn't it ironic that most rocketeer's magazines will cost significantly >more than what's inside them? Yes, especially when they're not delivered on time. Oops, wrong magazine--sorry... David Erbas-White > > > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > David Erbas-White :) SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com My articles valuable? Donate at iKobo.com c/o my email. > > http://www.blasterstool.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=724 > > Isn't it ironic that most rocketeer's magazines will cost significantly > more than what's inside them? It would be ironic if it were required by law. But it is not. 27 CFR 555.141-a-8 SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com My articles valuable? Donate at iKobo.com c/o my email. > from Blaster's Tool and Supply Company at > http://www.blasterstool.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=724 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 3" Wide, 6 Pin, Key Retaining Currently Exceeds ATFE Requirements Case > Hardened, Chrome Plated, Solid Steel Body, Stainless Steel Pins Gosh, I'd only need 4 of these, plus 4 shackles that have holes big enough for them, plus the hardware and time to install them. That's more $$$ than the total contents of my "easy access" magazine has ever held! Absurd! Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html it would be cheaper to just buy a new type 4 magazine with built in locks MissileWorks 40" L x 18" W x 18" H @ $250 http://tinyurl.com/3yn8t Merlin Missiles 22" L x 11" W X 14" H @ $194.95 http://tinyurl.com/2xvvx Solar Energy 33" L x 13" W x 11.5" H @ (TBD) http://www.solarenergy.com/type4/ - iz >>from Blaster's Tool and Supply Company at >>http://www.blasterstool.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=724 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > for them, plus the hardware and time to install them. That's more $$$ than > the total contents of my "easy access" magazine has ever held! Absurd! > it would be cheaper to just buy a new type 4 magazine with built in locks Abd cheaper still to COMPLY with the LAW. 27 CFR 555.141-a-8 Jerry > MissileWorks > 40" L x 18" W x 18" H @ $250 [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > for them, plus the hardware and time to install them. That's more $$$ than > > the total contents of my "easy access" magazine has ever held! Absurd! SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com My articles valuable? Donate at iKobo.com c/o my email. yes, of course I was assuming Bob had a magazine to store non-exempt low explosives doesn't AP used in EX motors qualify? - iz >>it would be cheaper to just buy a new type 4 magazine with built in locks > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >>>for them, plus the hardware and time to install them. That's more $$$ than >>>the total contents of my "easy access" magazine has ever held! Absurd! > yes, of course > > I was assuming Bob had a magazine to store non-exempt low explosives > > doesn't AP used in EX motors qualify? NO!!! Joel. phx > - iz > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > >>>for them, plus the hardware and time to install them. That's more $$$ than > >>>the total contents of my "easy access" magazine has ever held! Absurd! > yes, of course > > I was assuming Bob had a magazine to store non-exempt low explosives > > doesn't AP used in EX motors qualify? Definitely NOT! To wit: From 27 CFR 55.11, "Propellant Actuated Device. Any tool or special mechanized device or gas generator system which is actuated by a propellant or which releases and directs work through a propellant charge." > - iz > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > >>>for them, plus the hardware and time to install them. That's more $$$ than > >>>the total contents of my "easy access" magazine has ever held! Absurd! SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com My articles valuable? Donate at iKobo.com c/o my email. BATFE List of Explosive Materials, 4/26/02 rev. http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/listofexp.htm while "Ammonium perchlorate explosive mixtures" is listed, AP is not I expect the former is formulations that include actual explosive material, as might be used in the military - iz >>yes, of course >> [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] >>>>>for them, plus the hardware and time to install them. That's more $$$ than >>>>>the total contents of my "easy access" magazine has ever held! Absurd! > BATFE List of Explosive Materials, 4/26/02 rev. > http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/listofexp.htm [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > - iz <snip 15th post of completely useless dribble for the originator's question> What was your argument for 'open' discussion groups again? Joel. phx I guess the only thing to do is filter on the message body to eliminate messages with quoted text. > <snip 15th post of completely useless dribble for the originator's question> "The originator's question"? Good god, man, we're many layers down the thread from "the originator's question", and you're getting your boxers in a bowline about a bit of topic drift? You certainly aren't expecting that every message is somehow supposed to be a direct response to "the originator's question" in the first one in the thread it's replying to, are you? :) -dave w > > <snip 15th post of completely useless dribble for the originator's question> > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the first one in the thread it's replying to, > are you? Yes Joel Corwith certainly IS. > :) > > -dave w SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com My articles valuable? Donate at iKobo.com c/o my email. > > <snip 15th post of completely useless dribble for the originator's question> > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > you're getting your boxers in a bowline > about a bit of topic drift? No, I agree topics drift. Such as now. However, how many times would one expect the exact same off topic response to every on topic response? By current deja count there are 79 messages and 18 of Jerry trolling. . > You certainly aren't expecting that every > message is somehow supposed to be a direct > response to "the originator's question" in > the first one in the thread it's replying to, > are you? No, I don't. Though the thread was about magazine construction, someone pointed out that motors are exempt PADs. Fine, we know that and have bickered about it endlessly with no resolution. That wasn't the problem. The originator neither stated what they were storing or what they needed the magazine for (someone could be asking because they use fireworks and had heard we use them) so most continued to be helpful with comments on magazine construction. Yet that troll didn't get fed and feels compelled (medication?) to post the same off-topic comment over and over. That is not thread drift. That is 4 year old brother poking older brother. There were excellent suggestions on locks, latches, liner material and talking to local agents and with no further questions from Matt I see the thread at an end (hitler). I hope Matt has some information he can use and post how it goes for future reference. If he has further questions I suggest ROL or rocketryforum, where tireless poking is not allowed. I'm sorry for this thread drift and will filter the thread. Joel. phx To you and yours a very happy and prosperous new year. Maybe rmr WILL improve... > :) > > -dave w > > > <snip 15th post of completely useless dribble for the originator's > question> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > expect the exact same off topic response to every on topic response? By > current deja count there are 79 messages and 18 of Jerry trolling. Examples of trolling please. > . > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > pointed out that motors are exempt PADs. Fine, we know that and have > bickered about it endlessly with no resolution. The resolution is clear. The bickering about the truth being the truth is pointless, like you do. PAD's are exempt. No debate. ANYTIME someone posts something assuming otherwise I will feel free to correct it and chastize the error poster. Especially you who has already been told. It is MISINFORMATION to say, imply, assume, or infer otherwise, including posting questions or statements assuming facts not in evidence or in this case, facts ruled to be WRONG. That magzines are or might be required for motors or motor kits. > That wasn't the problem. > The originator neither stated what they were storing or what they needed the > magazine for (someone could be asking because they use fireworks and had > heard we use them) rec.pyro > so most continued to be helpful with comments on magazine > construction. Yet that troll didn't get fed and feels compelled > (medication?) to post the same off-topic comment over and over. rec.models.rockets (fully on-topic) > That is not > thread drift. That is 4 year old brother poking older brother. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > > > -dave w SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com My articles valuable? Donate at iKobo.com c/o my email. > What was your argument for 'open' discussion groups again? So people like you can troll incessantly in pure freedom. Jerry "I've been following this thread (like a dog returning to its vomit) for only god knows what reason. Personally, I think it's pointless but what the hell - this is usenet, right?" - Bob Fortune SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com My articles valuable? Donate at iKobo.com c/o my email. > > yes, of course > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > propellant or which releases and directs work through a propellant > charge." Glad to see some people can be just as wrong as others. AP is not a PAD. It is an oxidizer, not an explosive (or propellant for that matter), and not on the Explosive's List. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to locate the ATF explosives list and examine it in it's entirety for "AP". Joel. phx Would a single on-topic post be too much to ask. Thought so. > Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, > > > yes, of course > > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Glad to see some people can be just as wrong as others. AP is not a PAD. It is common here on rmr for people to refer to APCP as AP and thus that particular reference was NOT literal. I should have put AP[CP]. I stand corrected BY YOU. However AP is itself an oxidizer and not an explosive and is also NOT regulated by ATF. So whether he meant AP or APCP it is not regulated by ATF using two different cites to exclude them. > It is an oxidizer, not an explosive (or propellant for that matter), and not > on the Explosive's List. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > > Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com My articles valuable? Donate at iKobo.com c/o my email. > it would be cheaper to just buy a new type 4 magazine with built in locks > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 33" L x 13" W x 11.5" H @ (TBD) > http://www.solarenergy.com/type4/ It would be much cheaper to get the damn JBGTs off our case permanently. I'll give that cash to the legal fund before I spend another dime complying with illegal regs... Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html > (3) Hinges and hasps. Hinges and hasps are to > be attached to doors by welding, riveting, or bolting [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > latches with rod from the latch to the lid to count for anything. Plus if > hinged, the pin must not be removable} Ammo boxes typically have hinges that interlock, and can only be removed when the box is open. > (4) Locks. Each door is to be equipped with > (i) two mortise locks; [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > or > (v) a three-point lock. Indoor magazines only require one lock. > Padlocks must have at least five tumblers and a > case-hardened shackle of at least 3/8 inch > diameter. Padlocks must be protected with not less > than 1/4 inch steel hoods constructed so as to > prevent sawing or lever action on the locks, hasps, > and staples." Indoor magazines don't require hoods. Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html > > (3) Hinges and hasps. Hinges and hasps are to > > be attached to doors by welding, riveting, or bolting [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Ammo boxes typically have hinges that interlock, and can only be removed > when the box is open. I have boxes which are hinged and others with flip off latches on both ends. There does not appear to be any reason that the flip latches should not count as a "hinge" (if secured) but I have read of individuals not being approved. Just had a thought that the rod bent to form the 'hinge' of the flip latches may not be welded to form a continuous loop, thus the 'pin' could be removed by pulling on 1 side. > > (4) Locks. Each door is to be equipped with > > (i) two mortise locks; [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Indoor magazines only require one lock. This is partially correct and why I provided the link directly to the Subpart K. He did not specify whether or not his magazine was to be indoor or outdoor, nor if he felt he has what would be considered a secure room (see orange book link I provided or text below). Indoor magazines in a ""secure room"" only require one lock. The door to the "secure room" requires ALL the locking provisions previously stipulated. Some have had garages OK'd, but others have not. I do not see a garage as fitting "secure room", unless you have a door which you have 2 locks (or a separate entrance and secure the main from inside). It was also my understanding that they were trying to eliminate the "secure room" provision (though I cannot find such text in 968 link below). Since "building" is not defined, a shed or fixed truck box with all the locking requirements should work as well. But you still have to buy the locks and now it's 3 locks (1-magazine, 2-secure room). I would not suggest he build a magazine which will (quite probably) need modification within a years time. Plus 2 mortise locks are cheaper than a single 1/2" padlock anyway. > > Padlocks must have at least five tumblers and a > > case-hardened shackle of at least 3/8 inch [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Indoor magazines don't require hoods. See previous comments. ""secure room"" indoor.... Joel. phx "Indoor magazines located in secure rooms that are locked as provided in this subparagraph may have each door locked with one steel padlock (which need not be protected by a steel hood) having at least five tumblers and a case-hardened shackle of at least 3/8 inch diameter, if the door hinges and lock hasp are securely fastened to the magazine." http://www.atf.gov/explarson/notices/notice_968.pdf > Bob Kaplow > > In article <ROtHb.233$NH5.116532@news.uswest.net>, "Joel Corwith" > <Replyto@thegroup.thanks> writes: [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Subpart K. He did not specify whether or not his magazine was to be indoor > or outdoor, nor if he felt he has what would be considered a secure room > (see orange book link I provided or text below). See http://www.atf.treas.gov/explarson/fedexplolaw/qanda.pdf page 10 (page 62 of the "Orange Book") 66. Who must meet storage requirements? All persons who store explosive materials must store them in conformity with the provisions of Subpart K of the regulations, unless the person or the materials are exempt from regulation. [18 U.S.C. 842(j), 845; 27 CFR 55.29, 55.141, 55.164, 55.201(a)] Note the reference to 55.141. > Indoor magazines in a > ""secure room"" only require one lock. The door to the "secure room" [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > > Bob Kaplow SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com My articles valuable? Donate at iKobo.com c/o my email. > This is partially correct and why I provided the link directly to the > Subpart K. He did not specify whether or not his magazine was to be indoor [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > were trying to eliminate the "secure room" provision (though I cannot find > such text in 968 link below). A local friend just got nailed on this with his renewal. What they had approved 2-3 times previously was no longer OK. No rule changes, just a new interpretation. He went and built a concrete "secure room" inside his garage. I'd have thought it easier to instead get a compliant magazine. I've been eyeing a small gun safe or even smaller pistol safe at Farm&fleet. Or perhaps I should get the larger box, and use it to lock up the JBGTs, and declare my magazine to be the OUTSIDE of the box. Topologically, it's equivalent :-) Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html > > This is partially correct and why I provided the link directly to the > > Subpart K. He did not specify whether or not his magazine was to be indoor [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > garage. I'd have thought it easier to instead get a compliant magazine. I've > been eyeing a small gun safe or even smaller pistol safe at Farm&fleet. My point entirely. > Or perhaps I should get the larger box, and use it to lock up the JBGTs, and > declare my magazine to be the OUTSIDE of the box. Topologically, it's > equivalent :-) Is 6' underground secure? :O Com'on they're just doing their job, for NATIONAL security,.... Joel. phx > Bob Kaplow > Com'on they're just doing their job, for NATIONAL security,.... The best thing we can do for "national security" is restore ALL of our constitutional rights that have been stripped away over the years. Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html >> Com'on they're just doing their job, for NATIONAL security,.... > > The best thing we can do for "national security" is restore ALL of our > constitutional rights that have been stripped away over the years. Whoops, forgot the other half: Jail all those who have illegally taken them away from us. Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html I forgot my original question. Murray >> Com'on they're just doing their job, for NATIONAL security,.... > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html < snip > >>(4) Locks. Each door is to be equipped with >>(i) two mortise locks; [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>or >>(v) a three-point lock. > Indoor magazines only require one lock. >>Padlocks must have at least five tumblers and a >>case-hardened shackle of at least 3/8 inch >>diameter. Padlocks must be protected with not less >>than 1/4 inch steel hoods constructed so as to >>prevent sawing or lever action on the locks, hasps, >>and staples." > Indoor magazines don't require hoods. > Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" 2 hooded locks will be a requirement if and when NPRM 968 is effective, My understanding is that BATFE is requiring all new applicants to have storage that meet these requirements in anticipation of NPRM 968 being effective. reference: http://frwebgate2.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=59549566935+0+0+ 0&WAISaction=retrieve [ http://tinyurl.com/3buvl ] --- E. Subpart K--Storage (excerpt) Sections 55.208, 55.210, and 55.211 require that magazines be equipped with 2 hooded locks with at least \3/8\-inch shackles and five tumblers. In past years, ATF issued a number of variances allowing mobile outdoor type 2 and type 4 magazines to have only one lock, with no hood requirement. This variance was subsequently extended to the entire explosives industry. A review of explosives theft data indicates that in a significant number of explosives thefts access was gained to the explosives by cutting or prying the padlocks. Based on these findings, ATF has determined that the reduction in explosives magazine security allowed by these variances is inappropriate. Therefore, we are proposing to amend the regulations to require that all types 1, 2, 4, and 5 outdoor magazines (except for type 5 bins used to load bulk trucks), including vehicular/mobile magazines, be secured with 2 hooded locks with \1/2\-inch (rather than \3/8\-inch) shackles and five tumblers. We are proposing the same requirement for typs 2, 4, and 5 indoor magazines. Upon the effective date of the final rule, the above-mentioned variances will no longer be valid. ATF is soliciting comments from the industry on the economic burden these actions will impose. Commenters should address such issues as whether it is physically and economically viable to lock all magazines as stated in the proposed regulations in sections 55.207 through 55.211 and whether such actions will afford increased security. In addition, commenters should address the costs associated with increasing the lock size requirements as stated above. Comments should contain specific estimates of the monetary cost of this action. --- - iz > < snip > > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > reference: Thank you. I couldn't find the reference. Joel.phx http://frwebgate2.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=59549566935+0+0+ 0&WAISaction=retrieve > [ http://tinyurl.com/3buvl ] > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Sections 55.208, 55.210, and 55.211 require that magazines be > equipped with 2 hooded locks with at least \3/8\-inch shackles and five If those links didn't work for anybody else: http://www.atf.gov/explarson/notices/notice_968.pdf Page 8 (4413) or search on "55.208, 55.210, and 55.211" Joel. phx Thanks again for the cite. http://frwebgate2.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=59549566935+0+0+ 0&WAISaction=retrieve > [ http://tinyurl.com/3buvl ] > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > - iz thanks, the links I provided earlier must be query results (temporary) I uploaded the PDF file to ambr - iz > If those links didn't work for anybody else: > http://www.atf.gov/explarson/notices/notice_968.pdf > 2 hooded locks will be a requirement if and when NPRM 968 is > effective, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > http://frwebgate2.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=5954956 > 6935+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve [ http://tinyurl.com/3buvl ] Interesting that they think it's ok to enforce rules that aren't even rules yet. I guess that's at least a little better than enforcing rules that are simply made up on the spot. I wonder what this country would be like if police were allowed to make their own rules, then enforce them? > > 2 hooded locks will be a requirement if and when NPRM 968 is > > effective, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I wonder what this country would be like if police were allowed to make > their own rules, then enforce them? You are presently enjoying the experience of observing it. So what do you think? Jerry SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com My articles valuable? Donate at iKobo.com c/o my email. > Interesting that they think it's ok to enforce rules that aren't even rules > yet. I guess that's at least a little better than enforcing rules that are > simply made up on the spot. or enforce rules that ignore laws on the books, like APCP not meeting the definition of explosives set by congress from 18USC40.841(d) at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/841.html "Except for the purposes of subsections (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), and (j) of section 844 of this title, ''explosives'' means any chemical compound mixture, or device, the primary or common purpose of which is to function by explosion; the term includes, but is not limited to, dynamite and other high explosives, black powder, pellet powder, initiating explosives, detonators, safety fuses, squibs, detonating cord, igniter cord, and igniters." (the excepted subsections relate to the commission of criminal acts) - iz >> 2 hooded locks will be a requirement if and when NPRM 968 is >> effective, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I wonder what this country would be like if police were allowed to make > their own rules, then enforce them? That's what we've got right now... Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html > 2 hooded locks will be a requirement if and when NPRM 968 is effective, > My understanding is that BATFE is requiring all new applicants to have > storage that meet these requirements in anticipation of NPRM 968 being > effective. SAY WHAT? THey're enforcing as law a proposal that's not yet out of the comment stage yet. If you've got this in writing somewhere, forward it to our legal team so we can nail that many more JBGT a.sholes to the wall for illegal action. We need SERIOUS penalties for government misconduct like we're currently dealing with. Assult, Extortion, RICO should probably kick in too. Serious enough to include felony type punishment. The only way to stop government abuse is to lock them up in a cell with Bubba, and have them visit the unemployment office if/when they get out. > reference: > > http://frwebgate2.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=59549566935+0+0+ 0&WAISaction=retrieve > [ http://tinyurl.com/3buvl ] I'm getting nothing but a blank screen from with this URL or the tiny url. Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html > We need SERIOUS penalties for government misconduct like we're currently > dealing with. Are you saying our civil liberties are being violated ? I group I heard of once deals in that don't they ? But last I saw, was only helping really wack stuff out. > > 2 hooded locks will be a requirement if and when NPRM 968 is effective, > > My understanding is that BATFE is requiring all new applicants to have [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > > reference: http://frwebgate2.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=59549566935+0+0+ 0&WAISaction=retrieve > > [ http://tinyurl.com/3buvl ] > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html 27 CFR 555.141-a-8 Ask the NAR's and TRA's lawyers! > > Can I use a surplus 20mm ammo can for a type IV magazine? > > I plan on welding 2 hasps on it and coating the inside with epoxy paint. [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > > Member Tripoli South Carolina > > About 50 miles from the Super Sod in Orangeburg! SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com My articles valuable? Donate at iKobo.com c/o my email. > 27 CFR 555.141-a-8 That does not talk about construction of a type 4 magazine. > Ask the NAR's and TRA's lawyers! They (IAFAIK) have provided no comments other than on the 1/2" locking requirement as to the construction of a type 4 magazine. Joel. phx > > > Can I use a surplus 20mm ammo can for a type IV magazine? > > > I plan on welding 2 hasps on it and coating the inside with epoxy paint. > > > Any inpuy would be appreciated. > > 27 CFR 555.141-a-8 > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > They (IAFAIK) have provided no comments other than on the 1/2" locking > requirement as to the construction of a type 4 magazine. What non-exempt "explosives" are you going to put in this magazine? Jerry > Joel. phx > > > > > Can I use a surplus 20mm ammo can for a type IV magazine? > > > > I plan on welding 2 hasps on it and coating the inside with epoxy > paint. > > > > Any inpuy would be appreciated. SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com My articles valuable? Donate at iKobo.com c/o my email. Instead of epoxy paint, consider using that spray coating made for the pick-up truck beds. A friend in Maryland used that after the BATFE guy wasn't happy with his storage box originally. -- Richard "hoping fot decent weather for a launch next weekend" Hickok > They (IAFAIK) have provided no comments other than on the 1/2" locking > requirement as to the construction of a type 4 magazine. Correct, except it's a 3/8" lock. THe NPRM proposed changing it to a 1/2" lock, but it's not yet in effect, and may never be. Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html > > They (IAFAIK) have provided no comments other than on the 1/2" locking > > requirement as to the construction of a type 4 magazine. > > Correct, except it's a 3/8" lock. THe NPRM proposed changing it to a 1/2" > lock, but it's not yet in effect, and may never be. So YOU are suggesting that he build his magazine based on the current rules because there is a chance they won't up the shackle requirement? And if they DO change the requirement {in a few months} he's supposed to toss 2 locks and perhaps have to grind off the hasps and weld new ones on? Joel. phx If you read through previous rule makings, you'll see the ATF has written what they will enforce, and provide a "because we don't feel that's safe" response to the comments. I'm too tired to look at the link, but I think it was on the regulations page. Explosive manufactures making comments on the "proposed" regulations and the response? "nope, we don't see it that way,..." I'll put money on 1/2" anyone in? > Bob Kaplow > > In article <lfEHb.81$pu5.18659@news.uswest.net>, "Joel Corwith" > <Replyto@thegroup.thanks> writes: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > they DO change the requirement {in a few months} he's supposed to toss 2 > locks and perhaps have to grind off the hasps and weld new ones on? Or simply begin following 27 CFR 555.141-a-8 which is NOT up for change. > Joel. phx > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > > Bob Kaplow SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com My articles valuable? Donate at iKobo.com c/o my email. >> In article <lfEHb.81$pu5.18659@news.uswest.net>, "Joel Corwith" > <Replyto@thegroup.thanks> writes: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > they DO change the requirement {in a few months} he's supposed to toss 2 > locks and perhaps have to grind off the hasps and weld new ones on? That's certainly up to the individual, but they are trying to enforce TODAY what is only a PROPOSED regulation for a year from now. That is ILLEGAL. JBGTs illegally enforcing non-laws is extortion and racketeering, and they should be charged, tried, convicted and jailed for their crimes. Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html It seems to me (common since speaking here), that a simple fire proof safe from Wal Mart would be considered a suitable storage unit for APCP. Since the start of all of this LEUP mess, that is the one thing that has really bugged me. Not the fact that they want us to obtain the permits, but the absurd storage requirements. David > Can I use a surplus 20mm ammo can for a type IV magazine? > I plan on welding 2 hasps on it and coating the inside with epoxy paint. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Member Tripoli South Carolina > About 50 miles from the Super Sod in Orangeburg! the "safe distance" requirements are impossible for anyone living in an urban area - iz > It seems to me (common since speaking here), that a simple fire proof safe > from Wal Mart would be considered a suitable storage unit for APCP. Since > the start of all of this LEUP mess, that is the one thing that has really > bugged me. Not the fact that they want us to obtain the permits, but the > absurd storage requirements. > David > It seems to me (common since speaking here), that a simple fire proof safe > from Wal Mart would be considered a suitable storage unit for APCP. Fireproof is not a requirement. Heavy steel is NOT a requirement. As I've said beofre, a cigar box, covered with aluminum foil, and secured with an appropriate hasp and padlock meets the specs. For off the shelf solutions, a good metal toolbox is a fine solution. > Since > the start of all of this LEUP mess, that is the one thing that has really > bugged me. Not the fact that they want us to obtain the permits, but the > absurd storage requirements. Agreed. Plus all the damn state and local regs that get dumped on you simply because some JBGT misclassifies a flammable solid as an explosive. Imagine if EVERYTHING that burned as well as APCP or could be made to explode easier than APCP required the same storage and licensing. It would sure make my commute to work easier... Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html > > It seems to me (common since speaking here), that a simple fire proof safe > > from Wal Mart would be considered a suitable storage unit for APCP. Go look at Sports Authority (or equivalent). They have large steel rifle safe which are put together with anti-theft screws and appears to meet the requirements. Only 2 issues are mortise locks swing instead of deadbolt (again NOT a requirement, but some offices,... $20 replacements) and non-sparking lining (I believe it's painted, but a can of bedliner is $10). The safe is on sale for <$40. If the screws are not approved by an agent (ask where it says in the orange book first) some soldering or welding would make the screws permanent. Walmart has a pistol safe for <$20. > Fireproof is not a requirement. Heavy steel is NOT a requirement. As I've > said beofre, a cigar box, covered with aluminum foil, and secured with an > appropriate hasp and padlock meets the specs. I'll chip in $5 to help fund anyone wishing to run that past the ATF. Technically a wooden box covered in sheetmetal is type4. Find a nice jewelry box and a Webelo to make a sheetmetal wrapper (for his Craftsman project) and throw 2 hasps on the front. Joel. phx > For off the shelf solutions, a > good metal toolbox is a fine solution. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # > > In article <bsmiv7$e57bd$1@ID-57095.news.uni-berlin.de>, "Dlogan" > <dlogan@wk.nospam.net> writes: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > safe which are put together with anti-theft screws and appears to meet the > requirements. They also have cardboard shoe boxes that meet the requirements for APCP when intended to be used in PADs. > Only 2 issues are mortise locks swing instead of deadbolt > (again NOT a requirement, but some offices,... $20 replacements) and [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > > > Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com My articles valuable? Donate at iKobo.com c/o my email. >> Fireproof is not a requirement. Heavy steel is NOT a requirement. As I've >> said beofre, a cigar box, covered with aluminum foil, and secured with an [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > jewelry box and a Webelo to make a sheetmetal wrapper (for his Craftsman > project) and throw 2 hasps on the front. The problem is what one agent says is OK, the next will bounce. And what that agent OKs the first will bounce. And the agent in Iowa won't accept either of the Illinois agents interpretations. As long as we have this different interpretation crap, we can't know what is acceptable for everyone. Thus one of the points of the NAR lawsuit: inconsistent and differing ruleings across the country. Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html >>It seems to me (common since speaking here), that a simple fire proof safe >>from Wal Mart would be considered a suitable storage unit for APCP. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > appropriate hasp and padlock meets the specs. For off the shelf solutions, a > good metal toolbox is a fine solution. Yep. This is accurate, and NPRM 968 does not change this. >>Since >>the start of all of this LEUP mess, that is the one thing that has really [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > than APCP required the same storage and licensing. It would sure make my > commute to work easier... I agree it is absurd. Hey, the BATFE wants us to put Jerry's motors that have been classified as unregulated in a magazine! less hazardous than a flammable solid!!! sans clue - iz >>Hey, the BATFE wants us to put Jerry's motors >>that have been classified as unregulated in a magazine! I thought HPR magazine wont accept ads for Jerry's motors ? > >>It seems to me (common since speaking here), that a simple fire proof safe > >>from Wal Mart would be considered a suitable storage unit for APCP. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > - iz > >>Hey, the BATFE wants us to put Jerry's motors > >>that have been classified as unregulated in a magazine! > > I thought HPR magazine wont accept ads for Jerry's motors ? 100% correct and they can afford to be picky too, NOT!! :) SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com My articles valuable? Donate at iKobo.com c/o my email. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message