 |
 | 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 / September 2006Quickburst shut down by BATFE
Apparently, Quickburst is no longer allowed to manufacture or sell igniters or e-matches by order of BATFE. From Website http://www.quickburst.net/ "All Due to recent developments with the ATF QuickBurst is no longer allowed sell igniters. The ATF classifies our igniters as low explosives and we are no longer allowed to manufacture or sell them. With luck, we will be able to manufacture igniters and offer them to LEUP holders in the future. David Bachelder DBA~QuickBurst" Les Kramer Since igniters are now being classified as low explosives, where does that put Estes, whose igniters are included with every motor pack sold nationwide in virtually every Wal-Mart and hobby store? Does Wal-Mart have a company-wide license to sell low explosives? Does Wal-Mart demand LEUP's from customers purchasing Estes motor packs, with their included igniters? Wal-Mart had better get its lawyers together FAST on this one, before the BATF comes down on them hard. > Since igniters are now being classified as low explosives, where does > that put Estes, whose igniters are included with every motor pack sold [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Wal-Mart had better get its lawyers together FAST on this one, before > the BATF comes down on them hard. It was pointed out that Estes sells igniters. They said that they weren't igniters even though the package calls them igniters. You can get the story from Quickburst here: http://www.rocketryforum.com/printpost.php?s=&threadid=30002&postid=348930 -Aaron > It was pointed out that Estes sells igniters. They said that they > weren't igniters even though the package calls them igniters. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > -Aaron What a bunch of winkies they are.....reminds me of my kid when he was two, kicking and screaming when he didn't get his way......I see many more pingpong balls being sold in the future. ;-) Chuck This is not a new "thing". Jim Turner (RIP) would only ship ignitors if you also ordered stuff with the proper paperwork. (like AT reloads). This was pre 9/11. Doesn't surprise me that the BATFE is cracking down on stuff.. And I don't think that they feel they'll lose against NAR/TRA in October.. It's the same stuff that prevents us from taking a can of Coke on a plane these days. Things are getting tight. Ignitors, are, well ignitors.. And might warrant regulation. But understand, in the current world, a can of Coke is also regulated... You don't like it, then vote out the Republicans this fall. Remember the "patriot act" that really amped up the regulation of rocketry! >> It was pointed out that Estes sells igniters. They said that they >> weren't igniters even though the package calls them igniters. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Chuck Then he must've forgotten to check my paperwork when I scored a bunch of kick butt fire in the hole igniters circa 2000. Still got a few left. Fantastic for small composite clusters. Ted Novak TRA#5512 IEAS#75 > This is not a new "thing". Jim Turner (RIP) would only ship ignitors if > you also ordered stuff with the proper paperwork. (like AT reloads). [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >> >> Chuck > You don't like it, then vote out the Republicans this fall. Remember the "patriot act" that > really amped up the regulation of rocketry! Nice spin. When the facts aren't on your side, just lie and scream "Patriot Act!" House Bill S.724 - which would have removed many of the onerous regulations on this hobby - was put forth by a Republican, Sen. Mike Enzi. It was shot down largely due to efforts by senators Charles Schumer and Frank Lautenberg, both leading Democrats. (Don't let these facts cloud your opinions, though.) > You don't like it, then vote out the Republicans this fall. Remember > the "patriot act" that really amped up the regulation of rocketry! Our problems with the ATFE started long before the Bush administration. The problem is not political, it's bureucratic, the people in the ATF feel the need to do SOMETHING to justify their jobs Acknowledged! -Larry (just wanted to use a dandy new word I made up) C. > > You don't like it, then vote out the Republicans this fall. Remember > > the "patriot act" that really amped up the regulation of rocketry! > > Our problems with the ATFE started long before the Bush administration. > The problem is not political, it's bureucratic, the people in the ATF > feel the need to do SOMETHING to justify their jobs > Doesn't surprise me that the BATFE is cracking down on stuff.. And I > don't think that they feel they'll lose against NAR/TRA in October.. It doesn't surprise me either, since this was reaction was predicted a long time ago. As for whether or not ATF "feels" they will lose in court, I certainly think they are running scared. They've probably come to the conclusion that they can't come up with an objective, non-arbitrary definition of "explosive" that includes our motors without also including many other things. So now they're starting to crack down on other necessities of the hobby. > Ignitors, are, well ignitors.. And might warrant regulation. However, as with PADs, the ATF's definitions and enforcement are inconsistent and arbitrary. There is absolutely no factual difference between an HPR igniter and an Estes igniter, yet ATF treats them differently and even refuses to admit that -- as you say -- "an igniter is an igniter". > You don't like it, then vote out the Republicans this fall. Remember > the "patriot act" that really amped up the regulation of rocketry! Wrong again. The Patriot Act had nothing to do with it. It was the Homeland Security Act/Safe Explosive Act. And if you think the Dems would be any less restrictive of our freedoms, you're living in a dreamworld. s > You don't like it, then vote out the Republicans this fall. Remember > the "patriot act" that really amped up the regulation of rocketry! Except all the illegal crap in the 'patriot' act was written under the Clinton / Reno administration, but they couldn't get it passed. 9/11 was an excuse to ram police state legislation through congress with virtually no objection. Those who voted for it should be charged with treason. And if you think the democrats will solve this problem, then you're just plain stupid.  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! > You don't like it, then vote out the Republicans this fall. Remember > the "patriot act" that really amped up the regulation of rocketry! Right. And then you'll get lower taxes and free health care for everyone. IIRC the lawsuit was filed while Clinton, a Democrat, was in office. I also recall the biggest opposition to the failed exemption for hobby rocketry came from democrats. Neither party is going to "save" the hobby. Unless it gets them votes, which it will not. > Neither party is going to "save" the hobby. Unless it gets them votes, > which it will not. The only party that would help our cause is the libertarians. 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! >> Neither party is going to "save" the hobby. Unless it gets them votes, >> which it will not. > > The only party that would help our cause is the libertarians. NOT to be confused with liberals! Ted Novak TRA#5512 IEAS#75 Or the Librarians. Signature"""Remove "zorch" from address (2 places) to reply. http://www.sirius.com/ >>> Neither party is going to "save" the hobby. Unless it gets them votes, which it will >>> not. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > TRA#5512 > IEAS#75 >> Neither party is going to "save" the hobby. Unless it gets them votes, >> which it will not. > > The only party that would help our cause is the libertarians. How? Which Libertarian Senators (or candidates for that matter) will "out" the members of the Judiciary Committee for blocking attempts to exempt hobby rocketry from regulation? Are those crickets I hear? >>> Neither party is going to "save" the hobby. Unless it gets them votes, >>> which it will not. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >"out" the members of the Judiciary Committee for blocking attempts to >exempt hobby rocketry from regulation? What about the Libertine? >Are those crickets I hear? HERE HERE! I too vote Libertarian....they are the only party we can trust to keep sensible regulations in place and to throw out the silly ones. I truly think if more people heard the message the Libertarians would begin to win major political offices. Unfortunately, the dominant parties have written the rules so as to squelch any real threat from another party. Craig >> Neither party is going to "save" the hobby. Unless it gets them votes, >> which it will not. > > The only party that would help our cause is the libertarians. But the libs are a meaningless voice in getting things done. There are two parties right now in the real world. The Repubs have been backing Bush on really stupid stuff, as they control the house and Senate, though there seems to be a bit of a revolt with "redefine the Geneva conventions" thing. Getting Dems into place will help in getting the congress back to the state where they don't do something too stupid on their own. Right now, a vote for the libs, is a vote thrown away.... > HERE HERE! I too vote Libertarian....they are the only party we can trust > to keep sensible regulations in place and to throw out the silly ones. I [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >>> which it will not. >> The only party that would help our cause is the libertarians. . > Right now, a vote for the libs, is a vote thrown away.... It is as long as people keep thinking that way. I vote libertarian, every time, all the time and encourage everyone of a like mind to do the same. SignatureTweak > Right now, a vote for the libs, is a vote thrown away.... A vote for a libertarian candidate is better than a vote for either a democrat or a republican. A vote for the evil of two lessers is still a vote for evil. 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! > > Right now, a vote for the libs, is a vote thrown away.... > > A vote for a libertarian candidate is better than a vote for either a > democrat or a republican. A vote for the evil of two lessers is still a vote > for evil. Vote fot Cthulhu. Why settle for the lesser evil? Bill Sullivan Campus Crusade for Cthulhu > A vote for a libertarian candidate is better than a vote for either a > democrat or a republican. A vote for the evil of two lessers is still a vote > for evil. Which brings me back to my perennial rant. We'll never have a real democracy until all ballots have a "none of the above" option. If "none of the above" wins, the election is re-run until someone comes up with a candidate people ARE willing to vote for. This would NOT extend the tenure of the previous electee. If the office goes unfilled long enough (weeks, months... years) maybe we'll get better candidates. Or realize we don't actually need that office after all.... >> A vote for a libertarian candidate is better than a vote for either a >> democrat or a republican. A vote for the evil of two lessers is still a vote [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > of the above" wins, the election is re-run until someone comes up with > a candidate people ARE willing to vote for. I think we need the ability to force a "vote of no confidence" that disolves Congress and triggers a general election. I'd love to see this at the Federal level but would be happy just to get it at the State level. The amount of time and money wasted by the Texas Legislature (Republicans, Democrats, and I think even a Liberatarian or two) is criminal. >>> A vote for a libertarian candidate is better than a vote for either a >>> democrat or a republican. A vote for the evil of two lessers is [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Legislature (Republicans, Democrats, and I think even a Liberatarian > or two) is criminal. You've got nothing to complain about compared to Kalifornia... David Erbas-White >>> A vote for a libertarian candidate is better than a vote for either a >>> democrat or a republican. A vote for the evil of two lessers is still a vote [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >(Republicans, Democrats, and I think even a Liberatarian or two) is >criminal. Say, what's going on with that Kinky character in Texas? >>I think we need the ability to force a "vote of no confidence" that >>disolves Congress and triggers a general election. I'd love to see this [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Say, what's going on with that Kinky character in Texas? The local Austin paper ran an editorial of him in a clown costume. For once, I agree with the Austin Pravda. As an entertainer he might be fun, for a year or two. He has lots of one lines quips about current problems but very little depth. Most of his ideas require legislative support and possibly state constitution changes. Personally I hope one of the "Independent" candidates win. Our Government needs a reminder that they are elected by the people to get things done and they have failed. I'll even "throw away" my vote by voting for a Libertarian this time around. Even a bunch of clowns could do a better job than the current crew. My motto for this election is "No Incumbent Left Behind". Luckily, with respect to Kinky, the Texas Governor actually has very little power. > Which brings me back to my perennial rant. We'll never have a real > democracy until all ballots have a "none of the above" option. If "none [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > better candidates. Or realize we don't actually need that office after > all.... I remember hearing a story about some place that actually does this. Don't recall if it's a town, township, or whatever, but if no candidate gets a majority of the votes, the office remains vacant for the term. I think we'd be a LOT better off if half the politicians currently in office were just gone tomorrow. We've had three recent presidential elections in this country where no candidate got a majority of the popular vote. 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! > I think we'd be a LOT better off if half the politicians currently in office > were just gone tomorrow. We've had three recent presidential elections in > this country where no candidate got a majority of the popular vote. But like the Energizer bunny, the government keeps on going and going and ... Congress and the Senate were never meant to be full-time jobs, but these greasy bastards have figured out a way to make them a career! Never doing a thing except running their mouths, making big-buck deals that you and I pay for, and lining their own pockets. SignatureRocketry Planet — hobby rocketry news, feature articles, news archive, discussion forums, live chat, free auctions, launch calendar and the largest collection of web links anywhere! http://www.rocketryplanet.com > But like the Energizer bunny, the government keeps on going and going > and ... [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > http://www.rocketryplanet.com Yes! Yes! Yes! Now how do we end political careerism? Larry Lobdell Jr. >> Right now, a vote for the libs, is a vote thrown away.... > > A vote for a libertarian candidate is better than a vote for either a > democrat or a republican. A vote for the evil of two lessers is still a vote > for evil. Not really Bob. In most cases, voting for a lib is a "throw away" vote, as you and I both know, the chance of that candidate getting elected is slim to none... By voting for the "lesser of two evils", you are none the less raising the bar on who actually does get elected. In the real world Bob, if you only vote for libs in November, it would have the same impact on the process as if you turned in a blank ballot. What if the "extreme Ahole" from party A wins by one vote over the "promising guy" from Party B? Your vote would have mattered, had you not voted for the guy from Party C with 14 other voters, only because he was in party C... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0483726/trailers-screenplay-E28486-10-2 Signature"""Remove "zorch" from address (2 places) to reply. http://www.sirius.com/ >>> Right now, a vote for the libs, is a vote thrown away.... >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > not voted for the guy from Party C with 14 other voters, only because he > was in party C... >By voting for the "lesser of two evils", you are none the less raising >the bar on who actually does get elected. In the real world Bob, if you >only vote for libs in November, it would have the same impact on the >process as if you turned in a blank ballot. But it's not always true. Many years ago I voted for a governor candidate who I considered at the time to be a "no" vote. A vote to say "no" to both of the major party candidates, or as those candidates said "a wasted vote". The guy I voted for made the often quoted comment "we wasted them with waste votes". I think he did as good of a job as Govenor as his successor has. Glen Overby, Twin Cities, Minnesota > But it's not always true. Many years ago I voted for a governor candidate who > I considered at the time to be a "no" vote. A vote to say "no" to both of the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I think he did as good of a job as Govenor as his successor has. I'll take him over the last two corrupt governors we've had here in IL. Or over the challenger we have 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! > What if the "extreme Ahole" from party A wins by one vote over the > "promising guy" from Party B? Your vote would have mattered, had you > not voted for the guy from Party C with 14 other voters, only because he > was in party C... If I had a choice between E-A and P-G, I'd vote for P-G. But if its E-A-1 and E-A-2, I'll vote for C every time. Who would you vote for in a race between "W" and Hillary? 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! >Who would you vote for in a race between "W" and Hillary? Knowing what people know now or what they knew 7-8 years ago? Dubyah showed the people that voted for him a thing or two. Phil >> Who would you vote for in a race between "W" and Hillary? > > Knowing what people know now or what they knew 7-8 years ago? Dubyah > showed the people that voted for him a thing or two. > > Phil No doubt who I'd vote for, even though I'm not a fan of either, by any means.. The shrub (baby bush) could have been the "AHOLE" in my example! Don't really care for Hillary but out of real "potential" people, I'd rather see her than the Shrub.. So I'd be voting against the Shrub, and not voting for someone who most folks have never even heard of... But who I voted for would have more of an impact than if I voted for someone who didn't stand a chance from day one! >>> Who would you vote for in a race between "W" and Hillary? >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > But who I voted for would have more of an impact than if I voted for > someone who didn't stand a chance from day one! Holy ?!@# Are you kidding? How many bombings does it take? Did you forget Reno + Clinton calling for the registration of any group of 5 or more to combat grassroots efforts? How about Carnivore and Eshilon(sp). Tighter homeland restrictions ala McVey and David Koresh(sp). Giving technology to the Chinese enabling them to guide ICBM's to our cities. Thousands of FBI files of their opponents found at the White house. Reno enabled the BATF as her private police force. I could go on, and on, but you get the idea. I hate any liberty taken from the people. I can only imagine the jail we all would live in had Al or Hillary been in power. Does anyone know why quickburst was singled out? Were they just the first to get harassed or was there a technicality of some sort? Does this mean that we should all stock up now? > Does anyone know why quickburst was singled out? Were they just the > first to get harassed or was there a technicality of some sort? Does > this mean that we should all stock up now? They probably just "came to their attention" in some way.. Think about the motor vendor in DC that also got hit by the BATFE... Quickburst isn't the first, by any means... You advertise on the web (as a vendor) and a simple google search for "ignitors" gives customers a link, but also gives one to the BATFE! You try to sell stuff on the web in a manner that the BATFE can't find you, and that even looks worse.. >> Does anyone know why quickburst was singled out? Were they just the >> first to get harassed or was there a technicality of some sort? Does [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > You try to sell stuff on the web in a manner that the BATFE can't find > you, and that even looks worse.. We need a new term... From now on, anyone who wants to sell things like this should call them "rocket-makeit-go'ers"!!! David Erbas-White >They probably just "came to their attention" in some way.. Think about >the motor vendor in DC that also got hit by the BATFE... Quickburst >isn't the first, by any means... Let me play Devils' Advocate here for a moment... The way I understand it, the fellow who runs Quickburst (sorry, I can't recall his name...) had a LEUP, and yet has been selling igniters for some time. Since a LEUP is intended for 'Use-Only'... and the sale of igniters is clearly outside that definition, it's no wonder he was approached. And before anyone says "Well, what about Estes?" - I'm pretty sure that they'd have a valid Manufacturers' Permit in hand. It wasn't the igniters per se that got the BATFE all worked up... it was the fact that he was selling them without a LEMP that brought it to their attention. Get the permit, and all troubles go away. >>They probably just "came to their attention" in some way.. Think about >>the motor vendor in DC that also got hit by the BATFE... Quickburst [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > can't recall his name...) had a LEUP, and yet has been selling > igniters for some time. I think he has a LEDP. It's the LEMP he does not have. > Since a LEUP is intended for 'Use-Only'... and the sale of igniters > is clearly outside that definition, it's no wonder he was approached. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > it was the fact that he was selling them without a LEMP that brought > it to their attention. Get the permit, and all troubles go away. Perhaps. But as long as you have a device that initiates a regulated explosive (and they claim that APCP operates through explosion, right?) they you have a regulated material per Congress. Estes motors are exempt so their "igniters" don't initiate a regulated explosive. Assume we win in October. Our BP charges are still regulated (unless the PAD definition applies, which I'm sure the ATF will claim it does not because the charges are not hand-held and therefore can not be a tool). > Our BP charges are still regulated ... Question: if you make your own black powder, is it regulated too? SignatureRocketry Planet — hobby rocketry news, feature articles, news archive, discussion forums, live chat, free auctions, launch calendar and the largest collection of web links anywhere! http://www.rocketryplanet.com > > Our BP charges are still regulated ... > > Question: if you make your own black powder, is it regulated too? If the homemade BP is not for your own personal use and available for sale in commerce, its regulated.. > If the homemade BP is not for your own personal use and available for > sale in commerce, its regulated.. But what if your home-made black powder isn't in an ATFE-approved magazine? SignatureRocketry Planet — hobby rocketry news, feature articles, news archive, discussion forums, live chat, free auctions, launch calendar and the largest collection of web links anywhere! http://www.rocketryplanet.com > > If the homemade BP is not for your own personal use and available for > > sale in commerce, its regulated.. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > http://www.rocketryplanet.com See the response by Dave Shultz, pretty much covers it. Fred >> Our BP charges are still regulated ... > > Question: if you make your own black powder, is it regulated too? The only exemption is at 18 USC 845(a)(5). Even if you planned to use your home made BP in an antique firearm, it wouldn't be exempt because the exemption is for commercially made black powder. Will the JBGT break down your doors as soon as you make a batch? Unlikely unless you have done something to piss someone off. SignatureDavid W. Schultz http://home.earthlink.net/~david.schultz/ Q. Where am I? A. You can't get there from here. >> Our BP charges are still regulated ... > > Question: if you make your own black powder, is it regulated too? Not if You are using it in Your Great great great grandfather's muzzle loading firearm, or maybe a celebratory cannon. > Perhaps. But as long as you have a device that initiates a regulated > explosive (and they claim that APCP operates through explosion, right?) > they you have a regulated material per Congress. Estes motors are > exempt so their "igniters" don't initiate a regulated explosive. Alex, I see nothing in the law or regulations that makes a distinction between igniters that are designed to initiate regulated explosives or unregulated materials. Estes igniters aren't regulated by the ATF simply because they choose not to. Perhaps Estes has a copy of an ATF ruling, or perhaps not. The MSDS for the Estes igniter lists potassium nitrate and charcoal as ingredients, which makes it a "potassium nitrate explosive mixture" which is on the list of explosives. Or it could have something to do with the small amount of pyrogen per Estes igniter versus the amount in a Quickburst Fatboy igniter. The only surprising thing about this enforcement action is that it took the ATF so long to do it. SignatureDavid W. Schultz http://home.earthlink.net/~david.schultz/ Q. Where am I? A. You can't get there from here. > Estes igniters aren't regulated by the ATF simply because they choose > not to. The complete class of "igniters" is not regulated by the ATF. Devices containing a regulated material are regulated. Not all igniters contain ATF regulated materials. The manufacturing of fireworks for sale requires a manufacturing permit. However, many fireworks can be purchased, stored and used without an ATF user permit because the use is exempt from needing a permit. Do you know if Estes igniters are totally unregulated or are you speculating? Potassium nitrate and charcoal is black powder. The more it is milled the more it goes KABOOM! Sulfur is not a required component of black powder. Oxral, Daveyfire, M-TEK, "Cosmos" ematches all contain one or more ATF regulated materials. My opinion is that the regulation of the sale and storage of ematches that contain a minute amount of material is pointless and a waste of tax money because they present no significant risk to the public. Eating spinach or fish is probably riskier. Mixing a couple of common household chemicals is far riskier. Anyone wanting an ematch for doing evil can easily make one. Another opinion is that politicians, of any party, will not solve our problems because they have nothing to gain from deregulation and much to gain from creating more regulations. >> Estes igniters aren't regulated by the ATF simply because they choose >> not to. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > However, many fireworks can be purchased, stored and used without an ATF > user permit because the use is exempt from needing a permit. A very specific exemption exists at 27 CFR 555.141(a)(7) for consumer fireworks. No such exemption exists for igniters. > Do you know if Estes igniters are totally unregulated or are you > speculating? Potassium nitrate and charcoal is black powder. The more it > is milled the more it goes KABOOM! Sulfur is not a required component of > black powder. Since I can walk into a hobby store anywhere in the country and buy Estes igniters without showing an ATF permit from a store that has no ATF permit, then they are not being regulated. > Oxral, Daveyfire, M-TEK, "Cosmos" ematches all contain one or more ATF > regulated materials. As does the Estes igniter. > My opinion is that the regulation of the sale and storage of ematches > that contain a minute amount of material is pointless and a waste of tax [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > problems because they have nothing to gain from deregulation and much to > gain from creating more regulations. SignatureDavid W. Schultz http://home.earthlink.net/~david.schultz/ Q. Where am I? A. You can't get there from here. > A very specific exemption exists at 27 CFR 555.141(a)(7) for consumer > fireworks. No such exemption exists for igniters. Now if I can just figure out how to get my son's sparklers inserted through my I357T nozzle... But then you'd fall into the "intended use" category... >> A very specific exemption exists at 27 CFR 555.141(a)(7) for consumer >> fireworks. No such exemption exists for igniters. > > Now if I can just figure out how to get my son's sparklers inserted > through my I357T nozzle... >>A very specific exemption exists at 27 CFR 555.141(a)(7) for consumer >>fireworks. No such exemption exists for igniters. > > Now if I can just figure out how to get my son's sparklers inserted > through my I357T nozzle... Crush them, put the powder in ping pong ball lacquer and dip igniters. They work pretty good actually. Kurt > The way I understand it, the fellow who runs Quickburst (sorry, I > can't recall his name...) had a LEUP, and yet has been selling > igniters for some time. From what I understand, David had a LEDP, a dealer's permit. If so, and the issue was manufacturing, then why has the electric matches also been pulled from the QuickBurst site? You should be able to sell e-matches with a dealer's permit but they are gone from the site with the same message posted the igniters had. SignatureRocketry Planet — hobby rocketry news, feature articles, news archive, discussion forums, live chat, free auctions, launch calendar and the largest collection of web links anywhere! http://www.rocketryplanet.com > From what I understand, David had a LEDP, a dealer's permit. If so, > and the issue was manufacturing, then why has the electric matches also > been pulled from the QuickBurst site? You should be able to sell > e-matches with a dealer's permit but they are gone from the site with > the same message posted the igniters had. Are you serious?? If the ATFE considers the igniters/electric matches illegally manufactured explosives, how could you then expect ATF to allow them to be legally sold? Fruit of the poisonous tree..(:-) Fred > Are you serious?? If the ATFE considers the igniters/electric matches > illegally manufactured explosives, how could you then expect ATF to > allow them to be legally sold? Fruit of the poisonous tree..(:-) Fred, I forgot we were talking about the ATFE and therefore logic and reason don't apply. SignatureRocketry Planet — hobby rocketry news, feature articles, news archive, discussion forums, live chat, free auctions, launch calendar and the largest collection of web links anywhere! http://www.rocketryplanet.com >> The way I understand it, the fellow who runs Quickburst (sorry, I >> can't recall his name...) had a LEUP, and yet has been selling [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > e-matches with a dealer's permit but they are gone from the site with > the same message posted the igniters had. If they were manufactured without the proper permit, then it would be illegal to sell them, even with a dealers permit. You are correct that the e-matches could have been sold with the permit. The problem was that he had been selling them for some time now to people without permits. When the offer on the table is to give up your permit voluntarily with no further enforcement action you take it. The flip side would be charges and fines for each transaction or sale of ematches to those without permits. The investigator encouraged him to apply for the mfg permit and get back to business. David is doing what he needs to get back on track. The key is will they approve the mfg permit with what has happened. . . . . >> The way I understand it, the fellow who runs Quickburst (sorry, I >> can't recall his name...) had a LEUP, and yet has been selling [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > with a dealer's permit but they are gone from the site with the same > message posted the igniters had. > Does anyone know why quickburst was singled out? Were they just the > first to get harassed or was there a technicality of some sort? Does > this mean that we should all stock up now? I don't know why Quickburst was singled out. I also don't know if "stocking up" might be a red flag to your friendly local JBGT or not. I do know that it won't stop with Quickburst (or the pyro outfits, or the motor makers, or the ________________.) I think the comment made in another thread is pertinent: <paraphrase> Innovation is the answer. </paraphrase> If we can adapt faster than they can regulate, there may be a chance. If rocketry depends upon any single, critical item, those opposed to it can simply clamp down on that one item. We see the problem with APCP right now. I understand that sport rocket motor makers cannot simply change to non- regulated propellants. But maybe adding some other propellant formulations to their lines could prove useful. Electrical initiation does not have to mean a regulated pyrogen based "igniter". I certainly have no specific ideas. But I do know there exists, for instance, hypergolic fuels. There's been a lot of work on nitrate based propellants with different binders/fuel (epoxies) in the last few years. Yes, I know the ISP is lower. I also know a good sugar motor can loft about anything we need to loft. And you can put properly designed sugar/dextrin/sorbitol grains in RMS cases. I wish I knew more chemistry. Any chemists or pyrotechs out there with a comment? SignatureGary *********************************************** * "summum jus, summa injuria est" * * http://home.comcast.net/~bollesg/index.html * * bollesg at comcast dot net * *********************************************** > I certainly have no specific ideas. But I do know > there exists, for instance, hypergolic fuels. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I wish I knew more chemistry. Any chemists or > pyrotechs out there with a comment? Hypergolics? How sad and ironic that, in the interest of one kind of "safety," the nannystate may drive us to things that present a real and immediate, rather than theoretical and imagined, danger. Most of the materials we use are the best and safest that could be developed at reasonable cost. Almost any change is a step backward in that respect. The worst part is that I still can't really grasp the motivation. It seems clear that the authorities simply want to restrict the hobby into oblivion. But WHY? It's scary to think that they truly believe the stuff we use is a threat - they can't really be that stupid. My first thought was to at least appear to be doing something to make us "safer" - but I think on the whole people are more annoyed by airline restrictions than clamoring to be made safer. What's left? > > I certainly have no specific ideas. But I do know > > there exists, for instance, hypergolic fuels. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > "safety," the nannystate may drive us to things that present a real and > immediate, rather than theoretical and imagined, danger. <shudder> I'll quit before I mess with those. SignatureTweak > > I certainly have no specific ideas. But I do know > > there exists, for instance, hypergolic fuels. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > - but I think on the whole people are more annoyed by airline > restrictions than clamoring to be made safer. What's left? Guys, I've said it before and I'll say it again. Just because one vendor can't sell you igniters doesn't mean you can't buy the ingredients and make your own. Resistive heat element wires will always be around, as will metal powders and oxidizers (paint mixing? fertilizer?). There's no need yet for hypergolic mixtures, high voltage discharges, pulsed lasers, flux compression generators, radioisotope thermal batteries or ion plasma accelerators. The ATF's actions are certainly a blow to Dave and his business, but rather than shout about how the sky is falling, let's move on, fight the good fight and keep on doing what we were doing. <edited for brevity, snip> > Guys, I've said it before and I'll say it again. Just because one > vendor can't sell you igniters doesn't mean you can't buy the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > rather than shout about how the sky is falling, let's move on, fight > the good fight and keep on doing what we were doing. It seems to me that Quickburst's "problems" occurred in the midst of doing just that. It's certainly not my intention to start a flame war. But we will not lose rocketry in one fell swoop of the administrative or legislative pen. We will lose it incrementally; one seemingly innocent regulation after another. Look how hard it is to fly even modrocs in Kalifornia. (Or here in Aurora, for that matter.) The "good fight", IMHO, involves the little challenges as much as it does the big ones. Maybe more so, based upon the history of government incremental regulation. PS - I am NOT advocating a hypergolic liquid fueled sport rocket motor. I was just musing on the hypergolic *concept* as a possible alternative to pyrogen based igniters. SignatureGary *********************************************** * "summum jus, summa injuria est" * * http://home.comcast.net/~bollesg/index.html * * bollesg at comcast dot net * *********************************************** > I don't know why Quickburst was singled out. Why is one car pulled over when the whole highway is speeding? You can't get everybody at once, but getting one makes the rest slowdown. Quickburst is an example that will ripple through the hobby, getting others to put their permits right. This is no different than Performance Hobbies with the motors. I don't believe that he was tagged because of the manufacturers or dealers permit. I believe he was tagged because he was selling to non-permit holders. You can argue about the igniters for modrocs as being unregulated but I don't think you can carry that to the e-matches and HPR igniters. So who do we petition? There is really no sense in arguing amongst ourselves. We need to argue with ATF, at the very least for a definition. SignatureTom Koszuta Western New York Sailplane and Electric Flyers Buffalo, NY >> I don't know why Quickburst was singled out. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > So who do we petition? There is really no sense in arguing amongst > ourselves. We need to argue with ATF, at the very least for a definition. IMHO, the LAST thing we need is a definition of "igniter" from BATFE. You mentioned three different "igniter" types that could be subsumed under a generic definition. BATFE will not complicate regulatory enforcement by making a list of several different types of "igniters". We'd get a one-size-fits-all interpretation that would make things easy for them, not us. I have a different take on all this than most. BATFE was supposed to be an industry regulator. A federal watchdog and tax collector for the commercial explosives industry. Because of the incremental nature of bureaucracies and governments, they now have authority to regulate just about anything they say or feel is within their self-defined, ever expanding sphere of concern, including the actions of individuals. Unfortunately, I do not believe they are concerned with the minuscule amounts and numbers of chemicals and devices involved in sport rocketry. NOTHING we do involves any technology which is not readily available to anyone with a library card or Internet access. They are regulating rockets, not explosives. They USE their ambiguous definitions to their benefit in imposing more and more restrictions upon large sport rocket endeavors. They don't care about modrocs. They want rules in place to show their efforts at anti-terrorism when some dumb a.s lobs an HPR bird with a "huge ejection charge" at a target. The Feds are quick to point out that terrorists have binary liquid explosive technologies, are making or designing biological, chemical, even nuclear WMD's, and have "easy access" to real military weapons. But a piece of nichrome wire with a BP coating and >62.5 gram motors are so dangerous as to require regulation and permits. Hey, BATFE and DOJ, do something useful for a change; instead of spending time dealing with hobbyists who are on your side, go find the real terrorists before they hurt more innocent people. God forbid that we have to ask you why you wasted time, money, and personnel resources fighting the NAR and law abiding hobbyists when you could have been looking for the Al Queda operatives who performed another terror attack. SignatureGary *********************************************** * "summum jus, summa injuria est" * * http://home.comcast.net/~bollesg/index.html * * bollesg at comcast dot net * *********************************************** > Does anyone know why quickburst was singled out? That's easy -- everytime anyone online asks about igniters, Quickburst gets mentioned. We already know that the ATF has moles reading the rocketry forums and the TRA list. For a manufacturer, this is the classic "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario. They can only get business by advertising and through customer recommendations. But the minute that happens, they're on the ATF's radar. > Were they just the first to get harassed or was there a technicality of some sort? Probably both. Quickburst is a small manufacturer (just a one-man outfit, as far as I know), they lack deep pockets, and they're well known in the rocketry community. So they're an easy target. I expect there will be others, especially if the ATF loses control of APCP via the court. When that happens, fully expect them to start a crackdown on igniters, BP, etc. BTW, if anyone wonders why the ATF didn't go after Quickburst (and other igniter manufacturers/dealers) sooner, I think it was a strategic move. Early on, they were confident they'd beat us in court. No need to waste time and resources on such "small fish" when they could put a stranglehold on the motor supply. And if they had brought up the igniter issue sooner, we might have added it to our lawsuit (as it is clearly arbitrary and unreasonable). Now that they are losing the APCP battle, they can switch to Plan B and screw with our support materials. Not quite as effective as regulating motors, but (from ATF's point of view) hurting us a little is better than not hurting us at all > Does this mean that we should all stock up now? Seems like a wise move to me. s The technical reason: Technically, the compound used in the igniters made by Quickburst are, more than likely, a class 1 hazardous material, (explosive). Class 1 hazmat is regulated by the ATFE because ATFE regulates all hazmat that is an explosive by classification. Also, there is the DOT, another issue altogether for someone manufacturing hazardous material for commerce, just ask JI. Fred lizard queen wrote: > Does anyone know why quickburst was singled out? Were they just the > first to get harassed or was there a technicality of some sort? Does > this mean that we should all stock up now? > The technical reason: Technically, the compound used in the igniters > made by Quickburst are, more than likely, a class 1 hazardous material, > (explosive). Class 1 hazmat is regulated by the ATFE because ATFE > regulates all hazmat that is an explosive by classification. I guess that is why I need a permit for class 1.3 road flares? Oops, I don't need a permit for road flares. So much for that argument. The ATF prefers to ignore DOT classifications. The reason for this is explained in NPRM 968: DOT takes packaging into account when assigning a shipping classification and the ATF cares not at all about packaging. SignatureDavid W. Schultz http://home.earthlink.net/~david.schultz/ Q. Where am I? A. You can't get there from here. > > The technical reason: Technically, the compound used in the igniters > > made by Quickburst are, more than likely, a class 1 hazardous material, > > (explosive). Class 1 hazmat is regulated by the ATFE because ATFE > > regulates all hazmat that is an explosive by classification. > > I guess that is why I need a permit for class 1.3 road flares? Road flares are exempt aren't they; if used for their intended purpose?? (:-) > Oops, I don't need a permit for road flares. So much for that argument. > > The ATF prefers to ignore DOT classifications. The reason for this is > explained in NPRM 968: DOT takes packaging into account when assigning a > shipping classification and the ATF cares not at all about packaging. That has always been the case. Much of the piro devices used in the aircraft industry ship under a lessor shipping classification exemption, but when received by the end user must be stored as it's basic classification. Example: Some fire bottle squibs ship as a flammable solid, but must be stored as a regulated explosive by the originator, prior to shipment and the end user, until installed in the acft or on the equipment part such as the fire bottle. Fred >> The technical reason: Technically, the compound used in the igniters >> made by Quickburst are, more than likely, a class 1 hazardous material, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Oops, I don't need a permit for road flares. So much for that argument. You do if You plan on manufacturing road flares. > The ATF prefers to ignore DOT classifications. The reason for this is > explained in NPRM 968: DOT takes packaging into account when assigning a > shipping classification and the ATF cares not at all about packaging. >Does anyone know why quickburst was singled out? Manufacturing an explosive for commerce requires an ATF manufacturing permit. Do the igniters contain a regulated explosive? Does Quickburst have a manufacturing permit? Most parties shut down by the ATF are making illegal fireworks rather than rocket motor igniters. Many pyrotechnic devices are available for purchase without the requirement of a user permit even though they contain a regulated explosive. A manufacturing permit is required to make them. What to know why estes gets away with it? My Dad back in the early 80's to a trip to Denver, Colo. and tured some of the state, lyons, etc. When near Estes he was told in the local clp joint that they also made ammo up there for DOD. He didn't think about geting this confermed, but it was told him no less than 3 times in that area, so it would seem if any of that was true then or now, they have an "In" into the grovement. SignatureThe Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond Telescope Buyers FAQ http://home.inreach.com/starlord Sidewalk Astronomy www.sidewalkastronomy.info Astronomy Net Online Gift Shop http://www.cafepress.com/astronomy_net In Garden Online Gift Shop http://www.cafepress.com/ingarden Blast Off Online Gift Shop http://www.cafepress.com/starlords Astro Blog http://starlord.bloggerteam.com/ >> It was pointed out that Estes sells igniters. They said that they >> weren't igniters even though the package calls them igniters. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Chuck > What a bunch of winkies they are.....reminds me of my kid when he was > two, kicking and screaming when he didn't get his way......I see many more > pingpong balls being sold in the future. ;-) ------------------------ The last time I heard the word 'winky(ies)', my son was 3. He was referring to 'his' rocket. ;) > > What a bunch of winkies they are.....reminds me of my kid when he was > > two, kicking and screaming when he didn't get his way......I see many more [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > He was referring to 'his' rocket. ;) A less polite synonym of the word "winky" provides a pretty accurate appoximation of who's in the ATF administration. > Since igniters are now being classified as low explosives, where does > that put Estes, whose igniters are included with every motor pack sold [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Wal-Mart had better get its lawyers together FAST on this one, before > the BATF comes down on them hard. As I recall from ancient rocket history, Estes avoided the problematic legalities of "igniters" by selling them packaged together with the motors as part of the "motor assembly" in the package. And by keeping the amount of pyrogen below 50(or was it 20?)milligrams. Of course, Estes also sells these non-igniters separately but that is allowed as "replacement parts" for malfuncting units which is legally distinct from simply selling igniters. It's all horse puckey legalism of course, but that's the ONLY thing that matters to bureaucracies. Estes igniters have two leads, a resistive bridge, and pyrogen just like any other igniter. Their intended function is to *ignite* rocket motors. But they are *not* igniters BECAUSE ATF SAYS SO! Now, go to the blackboard and write the phrase, "BECAUSE ATF SAYS SO!" 500 times. +McG+ kmcgrmr@ wrote: >As I recall from ancient rocket history, Estes avoided the problematic >legalities of "igniters" by selling them packaged together with the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >for malfuncting units which is legally distinct from simply selling >igniters. So why can't others sell "replacement parts"? The US legal system has ruled this to be permissible with things like toner refills for photocopiers, replacement cartridges for laser printers, and even ink refills for inkjet printers (whose manufacturers are now resorting to other methods - chips on the ink cartridge - to keep the refillers at bay). I think that turning a blind eye towards Estes is a Bereau strategy intended to pacify Estes in order to keep them out of the legal battle. They have a name that many congressmen will recognise. Vern Estes has a good story he told at NARCON in, IIRC, 2005 about why his model rocket motors is safer to have than to have people making their own motors out of match heads and other things. They can easily take out Estes when they're done with the rest of us. > I think that turning a blind eye towards Estes is a Bereau strategy intended > to pacify Estes in order to keep them out of the legal battle. They have a > name that many congressmen will recognise. Vern Estes has a good story he > told at NARCON in, IIRC, 2005 about why his model rocket motors is safer to > have than to have people making their own motors out of match heads and other > things. They can easily take out Estes when they're done with the rest of us. This is what confuses me about ATFE rulings -- they seem to be pushing people toward amateur activities, away from pre-manufactured components. Pre-manufactured components would give the opportunity to put trace elements into the mixtures so you would know where the stuff came from if it ever ended up in an explosive device. If everyone is building their own stuff, the ability to trace is hampered. And it raises awareness of explosive compounds and their composition and structures, how they are made and work together. In this day of anti-terrorism, why are we pushing regular consumers to expand their knowledge of explosives? Every new formula posted on the Internet exposes more and more terroristic potential. This seems to have the opposite effect to me. SignatureRocketry Planet — hobby rocketry news, feature articles, news archive, discussion forums, live chat, free auctions, launch calendar and the largest collection of web links anywhere! http://www.rocketryplanet.com > This is what confuses me about ATFE rulings -- they seem to be pushing > people toward amateur activities, away from pre-manufactured components. > Pre-manufactured components would give the opportunity to put trace > elements into the mixtures so you would know where the stuff came from > if it ever ended up in an explosive device. If everyone is building > their own stuff, the ability to trace is hampered. You've been gone too long Darrell. You should know thid by now. It's the government. It doesn't have to make sense. 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! >> This is what confuses me about ATFE rulings -- they seem to be pushing >> people toward amateur activities, away from pre-manufactured components. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You've been gone too long Darrell. You should know thid by now. It's the > government. It doesn't have to make sense. Bob, the world changed on 9/11, and you just can accept that. A real story here.. Went a bought a new car today - first time in 10 years. anyways I was handed a form to fill out, and I asked why the info on the form was needed. The salesperson told me that it was due to the TSA and the patriot act, as they needed to insure that I wasn't a terrorist! (I'm a 48 year old guy from Milwaukee, and just buying a new car!) That's what happens when you "throw away" your vote.. The idiots remain in charge. Vote for someone that you think might actually get elected and have an impact, even if it's "the lesser evil" of the folks that stand a chance. The government in the US is what the people vote for, and throwing away a vote, is like not voting at all! > Bob, the world changed on 9/11, and you just can accept that. "Know what I pray for? The strength to change what I can, the inability to accept what I can't and the incapacity to tell the difference." -- Calvin > A real story here.. Went a bought a new car today - first time in 10 years. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > The government in the US is what the people vote for, and throwing away > a vote, is like not voting at all! First of all, tell me who I could have voted for, or voted against, that would have prevented this case. Second, please identify the federal form you were required to fill out. I'd like to look it up and see what kind of JBGT crap this really is. It had to have some form number, an OMB number, etc. A pointer to an online copy would be great. 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! > You've been gone too long Darrell. You should know thid by now. It's the > government. It doesn't have to make sense. I suppose you are right, Bob. I let logic re-establish itself in my life... SignatureRocketry Planet — hobby rocketry news, feature articles, news archive, discussion forums, live chat, free auctions, launch calendar and the largest collection of web links anywhere! http://www.rocketryplanet.com >You've been gone too long Darrell. You should know thid by now. It's the >government. It doesn't have to make sense. Why doesn't it have to? > This is what confuses me about ATFE rulings -- they seem to be pushing > people toward amateur activities, away from pre-manufactured components. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > exposes more and more te rroristic potential. This seems to have the > opposite effect to me. Not to mention the fact that the regs vastly increase the pool of LEUP holders -- meaning, more people who can legally purchase REAL explosives, not just rocket motors and igniters. Ó > > I think that turning a blind eye towards Estes is a Bereau strategy intended > > to pacify Estes in order to keep them out of the legal battle. They have a [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > exposes more and more terroristic potential. This seems to have the > opposite effect to me. Darrell, you might remember my very similar rantings about this on the old Compuserve rocketry forum. We are in a classic predator/prey cycle of evolutionary adaptation with respect to ATF. It's stupidly counterproductive with respect to the general good but ATF is helpless to resist their bureaucratic nature. And rocketeers have no choice but to adapt or go extinct. The only thing about all this that I got wrong in my rants of years past is that it is proceeding much more slowly than I expected. It is no doubt frustrating to ATF that rocketeers have proven to be so adaptable. But this cycle of adaptive response is leading to a schism in the rocketry community between the LEUP haves and have nots. The haves adapt by getting permits. The have nots, being in situations where becoming fully licensed is simply not practical or possible, adapt by changing technologies. I see some strain from this occurring in my local club already. Rocketry isn't going away anytime soon. But it is becoming increasingly a diversified tangle of different directions including a significant amount of return to the amateur rocketry of decades long past. This all ensures the survival of hobby rocketry but it also ensures a never ending cycle of measure and countermeasure. It's basically the messy biological way, not the neat, orderly, categorized system of typical human preference. That's the supreme irony here: The harder ATF tries to exert control, the more it will lose control. +McG+ >>>I think that turning a blind eye towards Estes is a Bereau strategy intended >>>to pacify Estes in order to keep them out of the legal battle. They have a [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > +McG+ There is a simple remedy to this all. Allow rocketeers to keep reasonable amounts of engines and or engine components on hand to participate in our hobby period. We all know the gasoline we keep in our garages for our lawn mowers is more dangerous than APCP motors or motor components. Federal law allows one to keep 50lbs. of BP on hand. Yes I know local laws vary. Ooops I forgot, you have to use it for guns and BP shooting. > The only thing about all this that I got wrong in my rants of > years past is that it is proceeding much more slowly than I > expected. Ken, this may have unfolded slower than you thought, but that is typical American application of social engineering. Look at how America has enacted the rule of law in the country -- had they tried to become the Thought Police overnight, the ordinary citizen might have grumbled more than usual. By the incremental erosion of rights, they have systemically installed their controls over us without a major upheaval in the populace at large. SignatureRocketry Planet — hobby rocketry news, feature articles, news archive, discussion forums, live chat, free auctions, launch calendar and the largest collection of web links anywhere! http://www.rocketryplanet.com |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message