Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
ModelsRailroadsRockets
Radio Controlled
Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater Models
ModelGeeks.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Model Forum / General / Rockets / April 2004



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Fed and State Laws

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Deaver - 29 Apr 2004 03:33 GMT
Correct me if I'm wrong but, the court ruling only affects the federal laws
not the states. Since many states have  adopted NFPA as law and NFPA follows
the BATF's position. NFPA wording would still require a LEUP for intra state
transactions and storage. There for nothing  has really changed for the
hobby in many states. NFPA would have to be modified and each state approve
the
amended version for true relief. Then there is the international code to
consider since many states are in the process of adopting it. In my opinion,
the court action is  very important to hold off the BATF and bring attention
to our cause. True relief will only come from enactment of a federal law.
Then state and local lawmakers would be willing to bring their laws inline
with the federal laws. Nothing can be accomplished as far as congress in an
election year. There needs to be a plan for after the  election to push a
legislative agenda. Be nice if Ascroft wasn't in power in 2005.
Gary Deaver
shockwaveriderz - 29 Apr 2004 03:56 GMT
Most(all?) states have PAD definitions  that are exact copies of the Federal
language used in its PAD's defintion....SDo if the Feds say its  a PAD, and
the state has copied the Feds definition, then its a PAD to the state too.

What wording specifically in which  NFPA code(s) require a LEUP for
intrastate transactions and/or storage?

The NFPA has a procedure and process for amending the NFPA codes on a
temporary basis if need be. Weather or not this also means the states are
required to follow such amendments I do not know...

shockie B)

> Correct me if I'm wrong but, the court ruling only affects the federal laws
> not the states. Since many states have  adopted NFPA as law and NFPA follows
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> legislative agenda. Be nice if Ascroft wasn't in power in 2005.
> Gary Deaver
David Schultz - 29 Apr 2004 04:03 GMT
Read NFPA 1127 again. It says:

5.2 User Permit Requirements. Where required by 27 CFR 55, a "User of Low
Explosives Permit" shall be obtained prior to...."

Notice that it says "where required".  If the motor is exempt, a permit isn't
required. Not to mention the language following that sentence was made obsolete
by the Safe Explosives Act.

I have no idea why a fire code has a requirement that you must obtain a permit
in circumstances where federal law already requires you to get one. Must be from
the Department of Redundancy department.

As for storage, NFPA 1127 requires that motors exempt under 27 CFR 55 must be
stored in a reclosable, noncombustible container. Not an ATF approved magazine.

> Correct me if I'm wrong but, the court ruling only affects the federal laws
> not the states. Since many states have  adopted NFPA as law and NFPA follows
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> legislative agenda. Be nice if Ascroft wasn't in power in 2005.
> Gary Deaver

Signature

David W. Schultz
http://home.earthlink.net/~david.schultz

Jerry Irvine - 29 Apr 2004 05:13 GMT
> Read NFPA 1127 again. It says:
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Notice that it says "where required".  If the motor is exempt, a permit isn't
> required.

f.cking TRIPOLI

> Not to mention the language following that sentence was made
> obsolete
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
> > legislative agenda. Be nice if Ascroft wasn't in power in 2005.
> > Gary Deaver

Signature

Jerry 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

shockwaveriderz - 29 Apr 2004 04:06 GMT
NFPA 1127 Code for High Power Rocketry states:

5.2 User Permit Requirements. Where required by 27 CFR 55, a "User of Low
Explosives Permit" shall be obtained prior to both of the following:

(1) Acquisition by a certified user of a high power solid propellant rocket
motor(s) or motor reloading kit(s) in a

state other than that in which the user resides

(2) Transportation by a certified user of a high power solid propellant
rocket motor(s) or motor reloading kit(s) to a

state other than that in which the user resides

I believe 27CFR 55 is now 27 CFR 555, but since the Court has ruled that
FARM's are PADS and therefore are exempt from the Explosives Laws, NO LEUP
is required so the above langauge has no bearing as long as FARM's are
PADS.....

Also Obviously since FARM's are now defined as PADS and are exempt from the
Explosives Laws, there is also No storage regulations either...

shockie B)

> Correct me if I'm wrong but, the court ruling only affects the federal laws
> not the states. Since many states have  adopted NFPA as law and NFPA follows
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> legislative agenda. Be nice if Ascroft wasn't in power in 2005.
> Gary Deaver
Jerry Irvine - 29 Apr 2004 05:12 GMT
> Correct me if I'm wrong but, the court ruling only affects the federal laws
> not the states. Since many states have  adopted NFPA as law and NFPA follows
> the BATF's position. NFPA wording would still require a LEUP for intra state

Nope.

NFPA regs state only IF required by ATF, but the LEUP is specifically
mentioned before it is eliminated by current federal law.

> transactions and storage. There for nothing  has really changed for the
> hobby in many states. NFPA would have to be modified and each state approve
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> legislative agenda. Be nice if Ascroft wasn't in power in 2005.
> Gary Deaver

Signature

Jerry 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

Deaver - 29 Apr 2004 13:17 GMT
Ok  - Just playing the Devil's advocate.
almax - 30 Apr 2004 01:54 GMT
> Ok  - Just playing the Devil's advocate.

Why ?

Why do rocketeers think they must play Beelzebub and his minions when it
comes to regulations ?

The NRA crowd does not, and they play with things much more "interesting"
then rocketeers do.

When will rocketry learn ?
 
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.