 |
 | 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 / April 2004Question about APCP storage
If it turns out Jerry is right and we use this PAD exemption does that only effect the commerce of APCP? Do we still have to store APCP since it is on the explosives list? TP > If it turns out Jerry is right and we use this PAD exemption does that > only effect the commerce of APCP? Do we still have to store APCP since > it is on the explosives list? > > TP Well, the storage requirements are in part 55 (now 555), along with the permit requirements... the whole "part" falls under the scope of the various exemptions given at section 141. -dave w > > If it turns out Jerry is right and we use this PAD exemption does that > > only effect the commerce of APCP? Do we still have to store APCP since [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > -dave w I told you so.  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 http://tinyurl.com/2hmgv << If it turns out Jerry is right and we use this PAD exemption... >> What makes you think the PAD exemption has anything to do with Jerry?? TRA/NAR have also championed the PAD exemption, and it was part of their lawsuit. It was the ATF that said motors were not PADs, and it took a court ruling to change that. > << If it turns out Jerry is right and we use this PAD exemption... >> > > What makes you think the PAD exemption has anything to do with Jerry?? TRA/NAR > have also championed the PAD exemption, and it was part of their lawsuit. It > was the ATF that said motors were not PADs, and it took a court ruling to > change that. So they're ready to certify his and Kosdon's motors now that they're not enforcing federal law? Joel. phx << So they're ready to certify his and Kosdon's motors now that they're not enforcing federal law?>> I don't know. Has there been a court ruling saying that manufacturers of propellent don't need LEMPs? Seems even the letter from the NAR/TRA BOT/BOD says' "fully assembled rocket motors". Not Reload kits, nor the process of making a "fully assembled rocket motor". Seems this all means nothing to users of reload kits, EX folks, manufacturing folks, or DOT restrictions Why is this such a difficult concept? The message that Bunny posted states this specifically! Here are the exact words from Bunny's letter: "fully assembled rocket motors are propellant actuated devices under the law and are exempt from regulation by BATFE." It DOES NOT say "along with the parts/chemicals/igniters, prior to assembly are exempt!" "fully assembled" = SU only. And then when you obtain them "assembled". The ONLY thing this seems to do is that the 62.5g limit on "fully assembled rocket motors" goes away until the BATFE jumps through the proper hoops. Not that there are many SU motor with >62.5g of propellant! > << So they're ready to certify his and Kosdon's motors now that they're not > enforcing federal law?>> > > I don't know. Has there been a court ruling saying that manufacturers of > propellent don't need LEMPs? > Here are the exact words from Bunny's letter: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > "fully assembled" = SU only. And then when you obtain them "assembled". Nope, it doesn't say SU. It says "fully assembled rocket motors". That means a reloadable motor, that's fully assembled, as well. You're putting in a distinction that is NOT there. The reload kit, prior to assembly, does not meet that definition. But the reload kit, assembled into a motor casing, does, as it is then a "fully assmebled rocket motor". -Kevin Granted, as is doesn't restrict "user assembled", but it does restrict reload kits, as they are not assembled rocket motors.. So you do an RMS motor, and is it a PAD during the time it takes to put the assembled motor into a bird until it's burned! But when you by the parts, and until it is assembled, it's not a PAD, and still requires whatever the BATFE is saying. After it's burned, it's not a PAD either... just junk to dispose of, and a case to be cleaned! So, with the ruling, the BATFE can not hassle you if your are holding an assembled RMS in your hand, but they can if you're putting it together! I think for the matter of discussion, the ruling does little for reload kits, and really only applies to SU motors.. Sorry, but if I need a LEUP to by a reload, I'm no better off than before the ruling! > Nope, it doesn't say SU. It says "fully assembled rocket motors". That > means a reloadable motor, that's fully assembled, as well. You're > putting in a distinction that is NOT there. > So you do an RMS motor, and is it a PAD during the time it takes to put the > assembled motor into a bird until it's burned! That's the ticket. > I think for the matter of discussion, the ruling does little for reload > kits, and really only applies to SU motors.. Sorry, but if I need a LEUP to > by a reload, I'm no better off than before the ruling! Not entirely. A dealer can assemble the reload for you, hand you the assembled motor, and you're good to go. Or, your buddy with a LEUP can buy the reload, babysit you while you assemble it, or assemble it for you, and you're good to go. This is a HUGE deal. -Kevin > > So you do an RMS motor, and is it a PAD during the time it takes to put the > > assembled motor into a bird until it's burned! [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > -Kevin I am saving this so when people ask why rocketeers didn't simply use the exemptions they had, I will refer to the words of the Tripoi webmaster as hard proof. 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 http://tinyurl.com/2hmgv > Seems even the letter from the NAR/TRA BOT/BOD says' "fully assembled rocket > motors". > > Not Reload kits, nor the process of making a "fully assembled rocket motor". So nothing was won with the lawsuit. > Seems this all means nothing to users of reload kits, EX folks, EX folks are not dealing in commerce and are not effected either way. > manufacturing folks, or DOT restrictions Joel. phx Here's my take: A "fully assembled rocket motor" is a PAD, just as a nailgun loaded with cartridges is a PAD. The cartridges are exempt, even when they are not loaded in the nailgun, and even though, by itself, a cartridge is NOT a PAD! I think we should treat reloads just the same as nailgun cartridges. > Here's my take: > > A "fully assembled rocket motor" is a PAD, just as a nailgun loaded with > cartridges is a PAD. The cartridges are exempt, even when they are not loaded > in the nailgun, and even though, by itself, a cartridge is NOT a PAD! I think > we should treat reloads just the same as nailgun cartridges. But that's just personal opinion. What we need is legal guidance. It would be best if everyone were to contact an attorney to determine their legal standing regarding reloads, wouldn't it? Say, maybe we could form a group and have everyone chip in. That sure seems like a valuable investment considering the risk, don't you think? Wonder where we could find a good lawyer in this matter... Joel. phx BTW, a nail gun is a propellant actuated industrial tool. >>Here's my take: >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > BTW, a nail gun is a propellant actuated industrial tool. Let's see here, I work at a prominent law firm..... I'll try to ask sometime this week. Personally I view the reload as a component of the PAD since the reload is designated for the PAD casing/closure use only and the fact that a casing/enclosure is just a piece of metal. Ted Novak TRA#5512 > > BTW, a nail gun is a propellant actuated industrial tool. > > Let's see here, I work at a prominent law firm..... Well, no name dropping,.. ;) > I'll try to ask sometime this week. Personally I view the reload as a > component of the PAD since the reload is designated for the PAD > casing/closure use only and the fact that a casing/enclosure is just a > piece of metal. I think we agree. Congress exempted 'propellant actuated industrial tools' to cover propellant for propellant actuated fastener installers. The bammer itself is not regulated (not explosive) so there's no need to 'exempt' it. Propellant for a PAD whether a complete assembly or pre-formed components intended for that assembly would be exempt as well [personal opinion]. Joel. phx > Ted Novak > TRA#5512 << I think we agree. Congress exempted 'propellant actuated industrial tools' to cover propellant for propellant actuated fastener installers. The bammer itself is not regulated (not explosive) so there's no need to 'exempt' it. Propellant for a PAD whether a complete assembly or pre-formed components intended for that assembly would be exempt as well... >> Bingo! >It DOES NOT say "along with the parts/chemicals/igniters, prior to assembly >are exempt!" As far as chemicals, it doesn't need to. The chemicals to make APCP are unregulated, thus exempt. Also, ATF does not require LEMP's when making APCP for your own use. Mike Fisher BUT....does the BATFE require a person to have a LEUP when they make APCP for their own personal use?. Thats what I want to know.... I assume you are quoting from that ARSA news item...? in http://www.space-rockets.com/arsanews.html#nolemp "This is in response to your e-mail dated November 12, 2003, in which you requested a determination as to whether your manufacturing of rocket propellant (ammonium perchlorate in rubber/poly butadiene) for your own use is allowed under the Limited Explosives User Permit 27 CFR, Part 555." This above seems to me to be saying, "Hey I already have LEUP so can I manufacturer for my own use APCP under a LEUP? " So this news item is totally misleading. It should have asked, "Do I need an LEUP to manufacturer for my own personal use, APCP propellant?" Another example of ARSA misdirection...... shockie B) shockie B) > >It DOES NOT say "along with the parts/chemicals/igniters, prior to assembly > >are exempt!" [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Mike Fisher > BUT....does the BATFE require a person to have a LEUP when they make APCP > for their own personal use?. Thats what I want to know.... Then write to Inspector Gene Baker of the BATFE and ask. He has told non-commerce fireworks manufacturers (amateurs) that federal permits are not required. At this point why would anyone believe anything but the horse's mouth? First page Orange book: "Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations PART 55 -- COMMERCE IN EXPLOSIVES" Are you participating in "commerce" when you perform EX? Joel. phx "but so far as we have been informed, Federal permits/licenses are still required only for those "engaged in the business" of manufacturing, importing, buying or selling, and using display fireworks, and not for those making them solely for personal enjoyment rather than in the furtherance of economic activity. " So does this mean that I can make ALL the BP and APCP that I want as long as I don't sell and or distribute it in anyway? And I don't need an LEUP for either? I don't understand Joel thats why I brought this up. In that ARSA news article they ask if a LEMP is required while basically stating that they have a LEUP? Isn't that the way you read that? Or am I missing something in the translation of that article? Maybe its just a "BATFE" thing, in that on one hand they want to regulate APCP as an explosive such that you can't purchase it without an LEUP, but on the other hand they will allow you to make as much as you want as long a its not in commerce? shockie B) > > BUT....does the BATFE require a person to have a LEUP when they make APCP > > for their own personal use?. Thats what I want to know.... [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > making them solely for personal enjoyment rather than in the furtherance of > economic activity. " > So does this mean that I can make ALL the BP and APCP that I want as long as > I don't sell and or distribute it in anyway? And I don't need an LEUP for > either? For legal advise you need to seek out the advice of council. To me the letter on ARSA as well as the Orange book Q&A indicate that you do not need an LEMP for any quantity of manufacture for personal use (NOTE: storage rules {may} still apply). However, will you put your butt on the line with a letter which isn't addressed to you from some website? I would submit that if none of these organizations are going to support amateur activities, the least that is needed is for each member to cover themselves addressing use,manufacture, and/or storage of explosive material. Local laws will vary and having council familiar with local, state and federal regulations is the only way to go. The Q&A only refers to commercial activities. Question 30: Q-What activities are covered by licenses and permits? A-Licenses allow persons to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in explosive materials. Any individual or business entity intending to engage in any of these activities must first obtain a license. " to me indicates that if you are not 'engaged in the business', you do not require a license (even LEUP). > I don't understand Joel thats why I brought this up. In that ARSA news > article they ask if a LEMP is required while basically stating that they > have a LEUP? Isn't that the way you read that? Or am I missing something in > the translation of that article? That is the way I read it. The answer on the LEMP is not dependent on the LEUP (as it appears to me). > Maybe its just a "BATFE" thing, in that on one hand they want to regulate > APCP as an explosive such that you can't purchase it without an LEUP, but on > the other hand they will allow you to make as much as you want as long a its > not in commerce? The laws governing the BATFE fall under "Part 55 COMMERCE IN EXPLOSIVES". As you put it, it IS just a BATFE thing because their rules are based (supposed to be based?) on those laws. If you're buying motors, you are engaged in commerce. If you're making them for your own use, you are not. Joel. phx Now I'm starting to wonder about the homebrew industry which is restricted in the amount they can make for personal use. Is that in the law, or have they come up with a rule that you can only possibly consume xx amount, such that after that it would -have- to be for "commerce". > shockie B) Well thats interesting as here in the state of Kentucky Black powder in any amounts is not considered an explosive.... SO I suppose that if I make my own BP if small quantities( for example perhaps an OZ at a time max) for my own personal use in ejection charges for example, then I will not require a LEUP.... shockie B) > > So does this mean that I can make ALL the BP and APCP that I want as long > as [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > > shockie B) > Well thats interesting as here in the state of Kentucky Black powder in any > amounts is not considered an explosive.... SO I suppose that if I make my > own BP if small quantities( for example perhaps an OZ at a time max) for my > own personal use in ejection charges for example, then I will not require a > LEUP.... Yes and as I said I would recommend ensuring you're on the legal side in your community. Some are funny about making explosives in backyards. If you are interested in BP, you should contact a local fireworks club which would have members familiar with regulations, attorneys, and safety measures need to undertake such an endeavor. Joel. phx > shockie B) > > > "shockwaveriderz" <shockwaveriderz@hotmail.com> wrote in message Joel: no way dude am I going anywhere near the feds with questions... I may be paranoid, but I can envision them backtracking my phone number through callerid, doing a complete background check on me,then doing a black bag job to bug my computers etc and the next thing you know I will be disappeared as a noncombatant terrorist for having incorrect thoughts against the state..... I'll pass thankyou.... shockie B) > > Well thats interesting as here in the state of Kentucky Black powder in > any [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > > > > "shockwaveriderz" <shockwaveriderz@hotmail.com> wrote in message > Joel: > no way dude am I going anywhere near the feds with questions... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > disappeared as a noncombatant terrorist for having incorrect thoughts > against the state..... I'll pass thankyou.... So you are at the same stalemate. There's no way to trust the information posted here, and you won't clear it up at the source. May I suggest you avoid this endeavor as the least-risk approach? Joel. phx Not required, by the way.... > shockie B) > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > > > > > > "shockwaveriderz" <shockwaveriderz@hotmail.com> wrote in message > Well thats interesting as here in the state of Kentucky Black powder in any > amounts is not considered an explosive.... SO I suppose that if I make my > own BP if small quantities( for example perhaps an OZ at a time max) for my > own personal use in ejection charges for example, then I will not require a > LEUP.... no you would not. you would not, and do not need a LEUP to buy black power in a can from a gun store either. > shockie B) > [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > > > > > shockie B) I don't need a LEUP to buy a can of BP in a gun store? Sure I do, unless it for recreational antique gun use.... or did I miss something somewhere? shockie B) > > Well thats interesting as here in the state of Kentucky Black powder in > any [quoted text clipped - 87 lines] > > > > > > > shockie B) > I don't need a LEUP to buy a can of BP in a gun store? Sure I do, unless it > for recreational antique gun use.... or did I miss something somewhere? Have you never bought a can of BP from a gun store? Joel. phx > shockie B) No, I've never purchased BP ,, but I did just call several local GUN shops and NONE of them sell BP anymore.... And ONE said I didn't need a LEUP to purchase a can and another said I do.... They also said that most local gun vendors stopped carrying BP after 9/11.... it seems its a pyrodex world here where I live..... So what is the law on purchasing BP ? Federal Law that is.... wow... shockie B) > > I don't need a LEUP to buy a can of BP in a gun store? Sure I do, unless > it [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > > shockie B) << So what is the law on purchasing BP ? Federal Law that is.. >> Federal law says you can buy and store up to 50 pounds of BP "...intended to be used solely for sporting, recreational, or cultural purposes in antique firearms or in antique devices." Some folks interpret that sentence one way, some another. Regardless of you, I or ATF interpret it, the fact remains that this exemption allows anyone to buy BP. State and local laws may impose additional limits. Some of the communities in my area don't allow the sale of BP. The state pointlessly restricts it to one pound per purchase. Additionally, since the HSA gave the ATF illegal authority to interfere with intrastate transactions, many dealers have stopped selling it because they can't comply with the ATF's permit and/or storage requirements. Ok I just called "Biff's Gun World" up in Louisville....I figured if ANYBODY knew what the law was, it would be Biff at Biff's Gun World.... They told me as long as I was purchaisng the Bp for use in antique firearms that No LEUP or magazine for storage up to 50 lbs was required.... they quoted me a price of $15 per lb for 4fg....IS that a good price? Theys aid All i had to do was show my drivers License to prove who I was? They didn't say IF i had to fill out any Federal forms? Would I ? So my next question is this: where and what is the cheapest form of antique gun can I purchase that would qualify for me to purchase BP for its use? IS there anything under $100 on the market? shockie B) > > I don't need a LEUP to buy a can of BP in a gun store? Sure I do, unless > it [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > > shockie B) > Ok I just called "Biff's Gun World" up in Louisville....I figured if ANYBODY > knew what the law was, it would be Biff at Biff's Gun World.... [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > gun can I purchase that would qualify for me to purchase BP for its use? > IS there anything under $100 on the market? I told you so. > shockie B) > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > > > > shockie B) 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 http://tinyurl.com/2hmgv > Ok I just called "Biff's Gun World" up in Louisville....I figured if ANYBODY > knew what the law was, it would be Biff at Biff's Gun World.... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > All i had to do was show my drivers License to prove who I was? They didn't > say IF i had to fill out any Federal forms? Would I ? Well if you buy 20 cans mailorder I think you can get that closer to $10. Might have been 50 cans. If he's the only one selling it, what's a bad price? When you go in, ask Biff if you'll have to fill out any -f e d e r a l- forms, then kind of look over your shoulder, wink and say "I'd like to avoid any paperwork,...". If he says no forms clap your hands realllly loud once and shout "praise alla". > So my next question is this: where and what is the cheapest form of antique > gun can I purchase that would qualify for me to purchase BP for its use? > IS there anything under $100 on the market? If they want to nail you on intended use and the gun has never been fired,.... Surely there's a Muzzle loader's guild in Kantucky of all places, Biff might know. Joel. phx A quick net search: http://www.basspro-shops.com/servlet/catalog.TextId?hvarTextId=13247 But buying one from Biff would make him happy... > shockie B) > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > > > > shockie B) hey Joel: and that would qualify huh? Does a person who buys a muzzle loader have to undergo the instant background check? Are muzzleloader guns exempt from the federal firearms laws? shockie B) > > Ok I just called "Biff's Gun World" up in Louisville....I figured if > ANYBODY [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > > > > > > shockie B) I'll answer my own questions, the answers are Muzzleloader guns are exempt from the Gun Control Act of 1968 and they are also exmept from the Brady Law: From the Federal Firearms Regulations reference Guide 2000: (P11) Does the Brady law apply to the transfer of antique firearms? No. Licensees need not comply with the Brady law when transferring a weapon that meets the Gun Control Act's definition of an "antique firearm." Do antique firearms come within the purview of the GCA? No. "Antique firearms" are defined in the following: TITLE 18 U.S.C. CHAPTER 44 SECTION 921(a) (16) (16) The term "antique firearm" means- (A) any firearm (including any firearm with a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, Or similar type of ignition system) manufactured in or before 1898; or (B) any replica of any firearm described in subparagraph (A) if such replica- - (i) is not designed or redesigned for using rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition, or (ii) uses rinifire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition which is no longer manufactured in the United States and which is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade; or C) any muzzle loading rifle muzzle loading shotgun, or muzzle loading pistol, which is designed to use black powder, or a black powder substitute, and which cannot use fixed ammunition. For purposes of this subparagraph, the term 'antique firearm" shall not include any weapon which incorporates a firearm frame or receiver, any firearm which is converted into a muzzle loading weapon, or any muzzle loading weapon which can be readily converted to fire fixed ammunition by replacing the barrel, bolt, breech-block, or any combination thereof. 27 CFR 178.11 Antique firearm. (a) Any firearm (including any firearm with a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system) manufactured in or before 1898; and (b) any replica of any firearm described in paragraph (a) of this definition if such replica (1) is not designated or redesignated for using rinifire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition, or (2) uses rinifire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition which is no longer manufactured in the United States and which is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade. Looks like I'm gonna go out and purchase me a some BP and a Muzzleloader LongRifle and join a local National Muzzleloaders club down the road here....COOL shockie B) > hey Joel: and that would qualify huh? Does a person who buys a muzzle > loader have to undergo the instant background check? Are muzzleloader guns [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > > > > > > > > > shockie B) But why would anyone believe your law cites if they do not believe mine wich were affirmed in court? Jerry > I'll answer my own questions, the answers are Muzzleloader guns are exempt > from the Gun Control Act of 1968 and they are also exmept from the Brady [quoted text clipped - 118 lines] > > > > > > > > > > > shockie B) 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 http://tinyurl.com/2hmgv << But why would anyone believe your law cites if they do not believe mine wich were affirmed in court? >> Jerry, the court upheld the PAD exemption for rocket motors. Nearly everyone in the hobby has been saying that rocket motors are PADs. Only the ATF disagreed. So which of your cites was upheld, that no one would believe but you? Oh, and you should note that the judge upheld the PAD exemption only until ATF puts on their little NPRM show to take it away. When/if they do that, what will you do with your cites then? > Ok I just called "Biff's Gun World" up in Louisville....I figured if ANYBODY > knew what the law was, it would be Biff at Biff's Gun World.... [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > shockie B) Muzzle loading, cannons also qualify. Shockie, Just get one of these: http://www.docsmachine.com/nonPB/mortar Legal _and_ fun! Patrick >Ok I just called "Biff's Gun World" up in Louisville....I figured if ANYBODY >knew what the law was, it would be Biff at Biff's Gun World.... [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >shockie B) SignaturePatrick Harvey NAR 81752 L2 Bluegrass Rocketry Society NAR# 657 - Advisor Visit the BluesRockS website: http://users.adelphia.net/~iceage/ Kentucky TARC teams welcome! OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! shockie B) > Shockie, > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > > >shockie B) > I don't need a LEUP to buy a can of BP in a gun store? Sure I do, unless it > for recreational antique gun use.... or did I miss something somewhere? Last I checked, that was the only kind of BP they sell in gun stores. -dave w > I don't need a LEUP to buy a can of BP in a gun store? Sure I do, unless it > for recreational antique gun use.... or did I miss something somewhere? Yes. A wide range of recreational uses. 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 http://tinyurl.com/2hmgv << I don't need a LEUP to buy a can of BP in a gun store? >> No, you do not. <<Sure I do, unless it for recreational antique gun use.... or did I miss something somewhere? >> Where is it written that you have to tell them you're using it for rockets? An exemption exists that allows ANYONE to buy BP. That exemption does not require you to notify ATF or anyone else about your purchase or possession of BP. If you can't deal with that, than don't use BP. ray: there are 2 kinds of lies: one kind of lie is called Omission......If I purchase BP for the purpose of using it for anything other than what the law calls for, or I say I will use it for one think and not another, that is a lie of omission....I think the Feds will prosecute you on that.... You are not recommending that I lie are you? Be dishonest? shockie B) > << I don't need a LEUP to buy a can of BP in a gun store? >> > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > If you can't deal with that, than don't use BP. << If I purchase BP for the purpose of using it for anything other than what the law calls for, or I say I will use it for one think and not another, that is a lie of omission....I think the Feds will prosecute you on that... >> If that's what you think, then don't do it. It's that simple. Of course, there are those who have a different understanding of the situation and have come to a different conclusion. Both sides can get along just fine... IF one side doesn't insist on rocking the boat. > The laws governing the BATFE fall under "Part 55 COMMERCE IN EXPLOSIVES". > As you put it, it IS just a BATFE thing because their rules are based > (supposed to be based?) on those laws. If you're buying motors, you are > engaged in commerce. If you're making them for your own use, you are not. > > Joel. phx Not quite right. 18 U.S.C. Chapter 40 is the law as passed by Congress governing explosives. 27 C.F.R. Part 555 (formerly 55) are the regulations promulgated by the BATFE. The law and the regulations cover much more than just commerce. 18 USC 842(a) It shall be unlawful for any person.... (3) other than a licensee or permittee knowingly - (A) to transport, ship, cause to be transported, or receive any explosive materials; or (B) to distribute explosive materials to any person other than a licensee or permittee; 18 USC 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. SignatureDavid W. Schultz http://home.earthlink.net/~david.schultz > > > > The laws governing the BATFE fall under "Part 55 COMMERCE IN EXPLOSIVES". [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > The law and the regulations cover much more than just commerce. Much more? Did you leave anything out on your quote? > 18 USC 842(a) It shall be unlawful for any person.... > > (3) other than a licensee or permittee knowingly - (A) to transport, ship, cause > to be transported, or receive any explosive materials; or Possibly transport, but we can ask about that since it's in a personal vehicle. > (B) to distribute > explosive materials to any person other than a licensee or permittee; So B doesn't apply. > 18 USC 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. Storage. Which I said in my "note:". Joel. phx > > 18 USC 842(a) It shall be unlawful for any person.... > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Possibly transport, but we can ask about that since it's in a personal > vehicle. Exempt materials are not "explosive materials" as defined. 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 http://tinyurl.com/2hmgv read their example of making stump blowing stuff for personal use in the ATF documents. > > > > The laws governing the BATFE fall under "Part 55 COMMERCE IN EXPLOSIVES". [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > David W. Schultz > http://home.earthlink.net/~david.schultz > So does this mean that I can make ALL the BP and APCP that I want as long as > I don't sell and or distribute it in anyway? And I don't need an LEUP for > either? How many times must this be brought up ? If Bob bothers want to blast a stump , they can mix up some binaries and bloow that stump up. No leup needed. BUT, if the Bob brothers go to Bubbas farm and charge him $100 to blow his stump, and they mix binaries, then they need a leup. Heck, this is the example in the frecking ATF documents. I have posted this example at least 5 times this year, and the year is only 4 months old. > I don't understand Joel thats why I brought this up. In that ARSA news > article they ask if a LEMP is required while basically stating that they [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > of > > economic activity. " << How many times must this be brought up? >> Sadly, some folks _want_ to believe that permits are needed for anything and everything. > << How many times must this be brought up? >> > > Sadly, some folks _want_ to believe that permits are needed for anything and > everything. They are YOUR freinds and collegues Ray. 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 http://tinyurl.com/2hmgv >BUT....does the BATFE require a person to have a LEUP when they make APCP >for their own personal use?. Thats what I want to know.... >I assume you are quoting from that ARSA news item...? No, I'm quoting that from the ATF Orange Book. ARSA doesn't make the rules. Mike Fisher > BUT....does the BATFE require a person to have a LEUP when they make APCP > for their own personal use?. Thats what I want to know.... do you plan to make motors yourself ? > I assume you are quoting from that ARSA news item...? > in http://www.space-rockets.com/arsanews.html#nolemp [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > > > Mike Fisher what does that have to do with anything? I am just asking a simple question about the ARSA new item.... It seems to state that the person doing the question already has a LEUP for the manufacturer of his own propellant.... and then goes and asks if he needs a LEMP.... which the BATFE says no you don't.... The better question would be as I said DO I need a LEUP to manufacture APCP for my own personal use..... and some say as long as its not in commerce you don't need one.... And since 50% of what is said in here is BS.....who knows if that is or isn't a correct interpretation of law? shockie B) > > BUT....does the BATFE require a person to have a LEUP when they make APCP > > for their own personal use?. Thats what I want to know.... [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > > > > > Mike Fisher > what does that have to do with anything? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > for my own personal use..... and some say as long as its not in commerce you > don't need one.... What did they tell you when you called that phone number at the bottom of the letter? > And since 50% of what is said in here is BS.....who knows if that is or > isn't a correct interpretation of law? Then why ask here? Post what they tell you when you called. Joel. phx > shockie B) > > "almax" <al@unverified.com> wrote in message << And since 50% of what is said in here is BS.....who knows if that is or isn't a correct interpretation of law? >> Then why ask?? Do whatever you feel comfortable with. If you can't figure out what "commerce" or "personal use" mean, and are scared to death that the ATF boogeyman is gonna bust your door down at 4 a.m. 'cause you made a homebrew motor without a LEUP or LEMP, then don't make your own motors. Sheesh! I really do NOT understand all this handwringing! > > << If it turns out Jerry is right and we use this PAD exemption... >> > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > So they're ready to certify his and Kosdon's motors now that they're not > enforcing federal law? When hell freezes over. 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 http://tinyurl.com/2hmgv > What makes you think the PAD exemption has anything to do with Jerry?? TRA/NAR > have also championed the PAD exemption, and it was part of their lawsuit. It > was the ATF that said motors were not PADs, and it took a court ruling to > change that. Equally as important, it was Gary Rosenfield who first got them to state that they were PADs. -Kevin |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.