 |
 | 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 / August 2006nfpa,explosives and the BATFE
I have a question for those much smarter than me(which is probably most of you).. From NFPA 1125: Chapter 8 Testing and Certification 8.1 Certification of Model Rocket Motors, Motor-Reloading Kits, and Components. 8.1.1 A prerequisite for certification of a model rocket motor or motor-reloading kit shall be its prior classification by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), or competent authority, as a Division 1.3 or 1.4 explosive, or a written acknowledgment from DOT, or one of its approved testing agencies, that the model rocket motor or motor-reloading kit is a flammable solid. Notice that its says that a prerequiste is for the usdot to define the rocket motor as a class 1.3 or 1.4 explosive or that the rocket motor is a flammable solid (I assume they mean 4.1 here). So assuming at some point in the future apcp is taken off the explosives listing, does that mean that all futiure apcp motors, since they are no longer explosives, will have to be reclassed as 4.1 flammable solids? just wondering as usual terry dean  Signature"Old Rocketeer's don't die; they just go OOP" counting eggs ? > I have a question for those much smarter than me(which is probably most > of you).. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > terry dean As the ATF takes pains to point out in its final rule, the DOT classification has nothing to do with the ATF classification. For example, your common everyday road flare is classified by the DOT as an explosive. Do you need an ATF permit to buy one? SignatureDavid W. Schultz http://home.earthlink.net/~david.schultz/ "What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security. And their sense of identification with Hitler, their trust in him, made it easier to widen this gap and reassured those who would otherwise have worried about it." from They Thought They Were Free by Milton Mayer > As the ATF takes pains to point out in its final rule, the DOT > classification has nothing to do with the ATF classification. For example, > your common everyday road flare is classified by the DOT as an explosive. > Do you need an ATF permit to buy one? They take greater pains to propagandize the potential use of rocket motors as a terrorist weapons delivery system. We all no that ATFE could only set a rental van on fire with them. So how do they really believe they could hit a target with any real accuricy? They are indeed playing a homeland security card and someone should point out to them this is not in their pervue. That is for other agencies to deal with as a criminal use such as setting someone on fire with gasoline, beating them with a baseball bat, running them over with a car, ect. Crimnal use of lawful substances is not up to BATFE to prosecute or regulate with out the specific mandate given to them for such from Congress. Dwatkins > They take greater pains to propagandize the potential use of rocket > motors as a terrorist weapons delivery system. We all no that ATFE could [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > up to BATFE to prosecute or regulate with out the specific mandate given to > them for such from Congress. Then there's the minor issue of the law. "... PRIMARY USE ..." The BATFE's job is to regulate explosives, not delivery systems. If the JBGTs are going to regulate delivery systems, you'll need an LEUP to drive a Ryder truck, van, or fly an airplane. 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 BATFE can regulate anything considered to be a destructive device. That can include but is not limited to delivery systems. It doesn't even have to be explosive, it can be a projectile component for example. Anthony J. Cesaroni President/CEO Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace http://www.cesaronitech.com/ (941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota (905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto > Then there's the minor issue of the law. "... PRIMARY USE ..." The BATFE's > job is to regulate explosives, not delivery systems. If the JBGTs are > going > to regulate delivery systems, you'll need an LEUP to drive a Ryder truck, > van, or fly an airplane. >The BATFE can regulate anything considered to be a destructive device. That >can include but is not limited to delivery systems. It doesn't even have to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > If anyone still has a 'Wrist Rocket' from the 70's, I guess it's time to hide it... <G> (for those who don't remember, it was a mass-marketed slingshot that rested against the back of the wrist) David Erbas-White What about "Pocket Rockets" ???? The horror.....the horror..... -Shreadvector NRA #1 Paramount Leader http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQfgtpZ1QQfrppZ25QQfsooZ1QQfsopZ1QQsassZshreadvector Signature"""Remove "zorch" from address (2 places) to reply. http://www.sirius.com/ >>The BATFE can regulate anything considered to be a destructive device. That can include >>but is not limited to delivery systems. It doesn't even have to be explosive, it can be [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > David Erbas-White >>The BATFE can regulate anything considered to be a destructive device. That >>can include but is not limited to delivery systems. It doesn't even have to [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >David Erbas-White You can still buy them. Phil > The BATFE can regulate anything considered to be a destructive device. That > can include but is not limited to delivery systems. It doesn't even have to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > President/CEO > Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace I'm trying to get my arms around if what your saying, really pertains to model or high power rocket airframes. If in fact it is true, it has not been the practice. No ATF agent has asked to see my rockets during any visits??? Fred >> The BATFE can regulate anything considered to be a destructive >> device. That can include but is not limited to delivery systems. It >> doesn't even have to be explosive, it can be a projectile component >> for example. >> >> Anthony J. Cesaroni The director of the Treasury Bureau has the power to declare devices not currently covered under regulations "lacking sporting purpose and deemed destructive devices". Please cite an example where a projectile component, not an explosive, has been considered to be a destructive device. I know that ammunition designed to be fires from a rifle can only have certain construction methods, and can only have limited amounts of certain specified materials in the bullets, but these are regulated under armour piercing laws, not as dd. 30mm PGU16/B projectile is one example. It's steel with an aluminum aeroshell tip (no HE, tracer or penetrator). Although considered a training round it's also used for urban combat operations to reduce collateral damage. We are developing an improved version and required an FFL that includes destructive devices. The round is fired from the GAU-8A. Anthony J. Cesaroni President/CEO Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace http://www.cesaronitech.com/ (941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota (905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto > The director of the Treasury Bureau has the power to declare devices not > currently covered under regulations "lacking sporting purpose and deemed [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > specified materials in the bullets, but these are regulated under armour > piercing laws, not as dd. > 30mm PGU16/B projectile is one example. It's steel with an aluminum > aeroshell tip (no HE, tracer or penetrator). Although considered a > training round it's also used for urban combat operations to reduce > collateral damage. We are developing an improved version and required > an FFL that includes destructive devices. The round is fired from the > GAU-8A. I can understand how a 30mm cartridge can be designated a dd. This is more than just the projectile or a component of a projectile, however. No. The PGU16/B article we are involved with is strictly the projectile only and requires a destructive device license for our operations. Anthony J. Cesaroni President/CEO Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace http://www.cesaronitech.com/ (941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota (905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto >> 30mm PGU16/B projectile is one example. It's steel with an aluminum >> aeroshell tip (no HE, tracer or penetrator). Although considered a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > more > than just the projectile or a component of a projectile, however. > 30mm PGU16/B projectile is one example. It's steel with an aluminum > aeroshell tip (no HE, tracer or penetrator). Although considered a > training round it's also used for urban combat operations to reduce > collateral damage. We are developing an improved version and required an > FFL that includes destructive devices. The round is fired from the GAU-8A. that's due to it being larger then a 12 gauge shell I do believe. the DD listing is comprehensive, and this falls under it's definition, no projectiles larger then 12 gauge shells. But I do not believe they can just declare something DD that is not on the list without rule making. But then again, I could be wrong. A destructive device is a firearm or explosive device that, in the United States, is regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934 All National Firearms Act items, including destructive devices, must be registered with the BATFE, who then closely monitor use, transport, and storage of the items. The definition of a "destructive device" is found in Title 26, United States Code, in section 5845(f). The definition reads as follows: (1) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas,(C) rocket having a propellant charge of more than 4 ounces, (3) Any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into a destructive device as defined in subparagraphs (1) and (2) and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled The term destructive device shall not include any device which is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon; any device, although originally designed for use as a weapon, which is redesigned for use as a signaling, pyrotechnic, line throwing, safety or similar device; surplus ordnance sold, loaned or given by the Secretary of the Army, pursuant to the provisions of section 4684(2), 4685, or 4686 of Title 10 of the United States Code; or any other device the Secretary finds is not likely to be used as a weapon, or is an antique or is a rifle which the owner intends to use solely for sporting purposes.[1] Its just a mtter of time before the above is redefined to include HPR. terry dean Signature"Old Rocketeer's don't die; they just go OOP" >> The BATFE can regulate anything considered to be a destructive device. >> That [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Fred |
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.