 |
 | 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 / March 2006what did we win in the lawsuit against the atf?
can anyone explain in simple terms what it is that we won in our lawsuit against the ATF? I thought it was that motors are not considered explosives? why do we still nead a permit for easy access 29 & 38 mm reloads ? seems that nothing has changed and the ATF is nailing vendors for not requiring permits. Thanks in advance for any explanations Nothing has changed. ATF gets a chance to go back to the court and defend their interpretation. However, it forces ATF to make some hard choices about what really *is* an explosive, instead of the semantics games they've played for the past 35 years. I've read about some complaints coming from people about some ATF heavy-handedness recently, and that Bunny was none too happy about it, but that's about as much as I've heard. It's possible that ATF is making sure people know that nothing has changed -- for now. > can anyone explain in simple terms what it is that we won in our > lawsuit against the ATF? I thought it was that motors are not > considered explosives? why do we still nead a permit for easy access > 29 & 38 mm reloads ? seems that nothing has changed and the ATF is > nailing vendors for not requiring permits. Thanks in advance for any > explanations > Nothing has changed. ATF gets a chance to go back to the court and defend > their interpretation. However, it forces ATF to make some hard choices [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >>nailing vendors for not requiring permits. Thanks in advance for any >>explanations Mr. Green, who is "bunny"? Bob Mark "Bunny" Bundick, president of the NAR. David Erbas-White >> Nothing has changed. ATF gets a chance to go back to the court and >> defend their interpretation. However, it forces ATF to make some [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Bob David, Thank you for the info. I apologize for not running across that earlier, but I'm still getting back into the swing on things, and 3 teaching courses a semester is still teaching me the zen of time management. Bob > Mark "Bunny" Bundick, president of the NAR. > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >> >> Bob > Mr. Green, > > who is "bunny"? > > Bob Sorry. That's Mark "Bunny" Bundick, President of the National Association of Rocketry. > can anyone explain in simple terms what it is that we won in our > lawsuit against the ATF? I don't think we have won anything at this point Le, but as Bunny said last week we have them between a rock and a hard place. The ATFE want to regulate AP propellent because it deflagrates, the court has told them to define this in scientific terms - which we think they can't do. If they define deflagration as the burn rate of APCP they have also banned many household products - Mark says your shirt burns at the same rate as APCP! Dale Greene SPAAR 503 >> can anyone explain in simple terms what it is that we won in our >> lawsuit against the ATF? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > banned many household products - Mark says your shirt burns at the same > rate as APCP! Exactly correct. The best product I can think of the compare to APCP is the safety flares used by police and found in emergency kits. It burns vigorusly, at about the same speed, is not put out by water, and is freely available. It must be shipped hazmat just like our stuff. But it's not an explosive. Gasoline, matches, flash paper, cotton, steel wool, and Christmas trees all have higher burn rates than APCP.  SignatureBob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org S&T is becoming this decades Steve Weaver! > >> can anyone explain in simple terms what it is that we won in our > >> lawsuit against the ATF? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Gasoline, matches, flash paper, cotton, steel wool, and Christmas trees all > have higher burn rates than APCP. O.K., I understand that the ball is in the BATFE's court to show that APCP explodes or at least deflagrates. But, I don't think the BATFE will be looking for the "best product to compare with APCP" I'm no propellant guy, nor do I play one on T.V., but my question is, can the BATFE come up with an APCP "formula" that is nothing like hobby APCP that does indeed deflagrate and then say something to the effect that since one formula deflagrates, they all must be rergulated"? Seems the defination of "Composite" is vauge enough that they could throw in something bad along with AP and call it APCP and "show" it deflagrates. This could then be challenged, as not being commercial hobby propellant, but it would further be tied up in court, with the current regs standing, for a very long and expensive time. > why do we still nead a permit for easy access > 29 & 38 mm reloads ? seems that nothing has changed and the ATF is > nailing vendors for not requiring permits. You're right, nothing has changed yet - I've just heard that Performance Hobbies got a visit from the friendly BATF inspectors a few days ago and was sited for violations. The lawsuit hasn't been won yet. Dale Greene SPAAR 503 > You're right, nothing has changed yet - I've just heard that > Performance Hobbies got a visit from the friendly BATF inspectors a few > days ago and was sited for violations. Any ideas what the violations were? >The lawsuit hasn't been won yet. As Jerry would say: Point! Randy www.vernarockets.com Just to show how the current situation has been mis-understood, I found this in a club's newletter: " Decision leads to reduced restrictions Classification of APCP as an explosive imposed regulatory restrictions of the handling of the product by all users. These regulatory controls on members were felt to be unfair by the Appellants (TRA & NAR). The decision effectively removes these restrictions in handling of Ammonium Perchlorate Composite as a rocket fuel. " In reality, nothing has changed. Per the statement (Feb 10, 2006) by Good and Bundick, and here's what I'd go by: " We are currently discussing next steps and practical, regulatory implications of the Court's opinion with counsel, and will offer further feedback after we've completed that discussion. We expect to offer that feedback to members sometime in the next week to ten days." Here it is 5 weeks later, and there's been no additional feedback from NAR/TRA, so we can only assume that nothing really changed. That is unless Good and Bundick have provided additional feedback to NAR/TRA that I've not seen! (nothing on ROL, RMR, the TRA listserver, etc....) > Here it is 5 weeks later, and there's been no additional feedback from > NAR/TRA, so we can only assume that nothing really changed. That is unless > Good and Bundick have provided additional feedback to NAR/TRA that I've not > seen! (nothing on ROL, RMR, the TRA listserver, etc....) March 17 Update on the ruling- http://nar.org/NARfrompres.html > > Here it is 5 weeks later, and there's been no additional feedback from > > NAR/TRA, so we can only assume that nothing really changed. That is unless [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > March 17 Update on the ruling- > http://nar.org/NARfrompres.html Thanks for the link - I'm wondering why it was not a joint statement with TRA and posted in the usual places, but then again, it basically says, that for now, nothing has changed.... (ask me again in 45 days) > > > Here it is 5 weeks later, and there's been no additional feedback from > > > NAR/TRA, so we can only assume that nothing really changed. That is [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > TRA and posted in the usual places, but then again, it basically says, that > for now, nothing has changed.... (ask me again in 45 days) The noteworthy part as to "what has changed" is: (d) Cautions - We have received reports from members wondering about specific elements of ATF field inspections and license renewals. Counsel has advised that pending further court action, APCP classification and related regulatory requirements remain in effect. Member currently holding Low Explosive User Permits (LEUP) approaching renewal dates should consider proceeding with their renewals as we do not know any firm dates for court action at this time. > The noteworthy part as to "what has changed" is: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > proceeding with their renewals as we do not know any firm dates for court > action at this time. That's legal talk for, "nothing has changed in reality and be prepared to send more money for legal fees"... (:-) Fred > That's legal talk for, "nothing has changed in reality and be prepared > to send more money for legal fees"... (:-) But we didn't need them to tell us that did we? It's not over, it might be half time. Randy www.vernarockets.com > The noteworthy part as to "what has changed" is: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > proceeding with their renewals as we do not know any firm dates for court > action at this time. The problem is that we still hav BATFE field agents trying to enforce the 62.5g provision of the NPRM that never made it past NPRM status. THey cited me at my remewal for not having the easy access motors listed on my inventory, yet when I challenged them for where the 62.5g limit was in writing, all they could product was the NPRM. I even pointed out where it said PROPOSED on the top, but it did no good. SignatureBob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org S&T is becoming this decades Steve Weaver! > > The noteworthy part as to "what has changed" is: > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > writing, all they could product was the NPRM. I even pointed out where it > said PROPOSED on the top, but it did no good. Bob, What's the story on citations like that? Is it a fine? Are you screwed, or is there a hearing or an appeal process that can come into play? James > What's the story on citations like that? Is it a fine? Are you As far as I can tell, they have all the significance of a piece of paper. IIRC they cited me for 4 violations. I didn't have the easy access motors on my inventory. I didn't have receipts for them. I didn't have a current copy of my license, as the inspection was 2.5 months AFTER my license expired, and they still hadn't sent me the new one. I had to send them a copy back of the notification stating what actions I took. I guess they were satisfied, because a couple months later, I finally got my new license. It took 5-6 months for a RENEWAL! SignatureBob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org S&T is becoming this decades Steve Weaver! > It took 5-6 months for a RENEWAL! I guess it's time to start your renewal process all over again for NEXT year... >> It took 5-6 months for a RENEWAL! > > I guess it's time to start your renewal process all over again for NEXT > year... Last time I sent the #!*@ within a few weeks of when they sent me the renewal packet. It would have been sooner, cept they wanted photos and fingerprints this time... SignatureBob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org S&T is becoming this decades Steve Weaver! >Last time I sent the #!*@ within a few weeks of when they sent me the >renewal packet. It would have been sooner, cept they wanted photos and >fingerprints this time... So... did you send them Goddard's paw prints? Glen >>Last time I sent the #!*@ within a few weeks of when they sent me the >>renewal packet. It would have been sooner, cept they wanted photos and >>fingerprints this time... > > So... did you send them Goddard's paw prints? *@%# Why didn't you say that 18 months ago... SignatureBob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org S&T is becoming this decades Steve Weaver! > Last time I sent the #!*@ within a few weeks of when they sent me the > renewal packet. It would have been sooner, cept they wanted photos and > fingerprints this time... What's next? A DNA sample? Left kidney. -- David >> Last time I sent the #!*@ within a few weeks of when they sent me the >> renewal packet. It would have been sooner, cept they wanted photos and >> fingerprints this time... > > What's next? A DNA sample? I could have sent them my a$$hole, but it's gone now. (A little ostomate humor.) Bill Sullivan "The lesser of two evils is still evil." > Left kidney. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > > > What's next? A DNA sample? > Thanks for the link - I'm wondering why it was not a joint statement with > TRA and posted in the usual places, but then again, it basically says, that > for now, nothing has changed.... (ask me again in 45 days) It WAS a joint statement, and has been posted multiple places. I've seen it in at least three. No, it's not on the TRA website yet; I just received it last night, saw it was multiple places already, so I didn't take a "drop everything and post it NOW" approach. -Kevin > It WAS a joint statement, and has been posted multiple places. I've > seen it in at least three. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > -Kevin In the words of that famos Cable guy, " you are not to reason why, just "GET-ER-DONE". (:-)))) I'm sorry Kevin, just couldn't resist. Fred, my wife is calling me; I guess I better "GET-ER-DONE"..... harumph..... that's "git". "Git-r-Done" (a registered trademark, I assume!) must not be from the South. >> It WAS a joint statement, and has been posted multiple places. I've >> seen it in at least three. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Fred, my wife is calling me; I guess I better "GET-ER-DONE"..... Spellin neber was my cup-o-tee..(:-) > harumph..... > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > > > Fred, my wife is calling me; I guess I better "GET-ER-DONE"..... It was. See http://www.tripoli.org/documents/batfe/20060317JointStatement.pdf Be patient. Sometimes it takes a while for the body to die after you cut off the head. (this is in no way a suggestion that we should do bodily harm to anyone). In other words: 1. Nothing has changed for the average HPR rocketeer ATFE permit holder. 2. Stay tuned for additional court proceedings sometime in the next 45 days or future, (we are not sure of the real date). 3. Report any unusual or suspected heavy handed enforcement by BATFE agents in the field. I guess there is still hope... Fred > > Here it is 5 weeks later, and there's been no additional feedback from > > NAR/TRA, so we can only assume that nothing really changed. That is unless [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > March 17 Update on the ruling- > http://nar.org/NARfrompres.html > You're right, nothing has changed yet - I've just heard that > Performance Hobbies got a visit from the friendly BATF inspectors a few > days ago and was sited for violations. The lawsuit hasn't been won yet. Hearing about stuff like this, and the ATF agents harrassing people at a gun show a few weeks ago in Richmond (a few rogue agents were harrassing blacks and women) really makes me think seriously about joining the NRA. > Hearing about stuff like this, and the ATF agents harrassing people > at a gun show a few weeks ago in Richmond (a few rogue agents were > harrassing blacks and women) really makes me think seriously about > joining the NRA. Me2. SignatureBob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org S&T is becoming this decades Steve Weaver! > can anyone explain in simple terms what it is that we won in our > lawsuit against the ATF? I thought it was that motors are not > considered explosives? why do we still nead a permit for easy access > 29 & 38 mm reloads ? seems that nothing has changed and the ATF is > nailing vendors for not requiring permits. Thanks in advance for any > explanations To paraphrase CD: A case of Estes "Episode one" rockets, a year's supply of E15-6 motors, and a copy of "NARAM the home game". Sorry, I couldn't resist! SignatureBob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org S&T is becoming this decades Steve Weaver! |
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.