A modest proposal... or Jerry Irvine saves the Universe

That's definitely a big limiting factor for most folks. Doesn't matter how willing someone is, if they don't have the time or the ability to travel as needed, they won't be able to do the job.

I don't know about the NAR, but there have been reports from TRA about NFPA proposals.

Yes, and as we all know, being the "Savior of Rocketry" is your job. ;)

I can't speak for TRA or NAR on this, but IMHO I'd rather not see the hard work done on our behalf put to risk by the meddlings of individuals who are ignorant of the processes and issues or who are pushing some other, possibly harmful, agenda.

Nonsense. The process was flawed.

What a crock. It NEVER had a chance. There's no way that Hatch and Kohl would have approved it, ever.

exactly my point

God forbid we should actually see any constraints relaxed or, eliminated!

You'd better not let us dangerous libertarian rocketeers impede the forward march of regulations.

- iz

I agree; believing that TRA/NAR/Kyte would put the interests of rocketeers in front of TRA/NAR's quest to maintain control over rocketry was a serious flaw in our plan.

Hatch and Kohl are only two Senators. There are others on the SJC that could have been open to reason if we had had more cooperation from TRA/NAR.

and even so, the SJC endorsement is not essential to the passage of a bill. There would have been opportunities on the floor to make counterarguments to the DoJ/ATF fear-mongers and the Senators without a clue or backbone. We could start by debunking their ludicrous claims of HPR knocking airplanes down from 30,000 feet and destroying tanks from 5 miles on C-SPAN.

tell me, Ray, if you can be honest; what did TRA/NAR stand to lose if S.724 ever passed as introduced? Let's see just how insightful you are.

- iz

Hmmm... the Judiciary committee would have wanted _some_ sort of "compromise" so they felt they were "doing something to address anti-terrorist concerns" - but there might have been more chance to negotiate _what_ that compromise was to be if Kyte hadn't slipped in around the side and whispered "how about a 0.9 pound weight limit" - at that point the senators thought they had an "easy answer" that would let them expedite the bill through the committee while feeling like they'd done something "anti-terrorist" to it, and so they ran with that. (After all, it was suggested by a "representative of the sport rocketry community", so we must be OK with it...)

-dave w

And being the c*ck-block is yours.

The meetings are on weekends. A submarine captain was on the BoT for god's sake!

Anyone care to compete with his commute?

Jerry

http://161.58.5.90/animal/another.wav

Even more to the point: If Hatch and Kohl had really wanted the bill dead, they would have buried it 30 feet below the crypt in the basement of the Capitol, and it would NEVER have seen the light of day.

As hard as it is for us to fathom - and it certainly was, for me, they did us a FAVOR by producing *something* that would get out of committee. What happened next with Schumer and Lautenberg is another story, of course.

mj

Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed wrote in news:XoGRb.162017$ snipped-for-privacy@twister.nyc.rr.com:

Indeed it does. We are exactly where we would have been had ARSA never stuck its finger in the pie. If you think this is NAR and TRA's doing, I think you seriously overestimate their "control" over the world.

What we do have is a suit that is working its way through the legal process and remains highly likely to succeed on its merits. Why else would BATFE find it worhtwhile to try to change the subject ("so what if rocket propellant isn't explosive, sport rockets are potential weapons of mass destruction").

NAR and TRA recommended that their members do (or not do) certian things. They did not threaten members who did not follow that advice with excommunication.

Your political naivete is staggering. S.724 was doomed by the climate of fear that two senators felt it was politically expedient to exploit.

Some "sell out". The compromise was tabled anyway.

len.

Jerry Irvine wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@corp.supernews.com:

Just like you are?

len.

Jerry Irvine wrote in news:01rocket- snipped-for-privacy@corp.supernews.com:

Yes.

Bzzzzt! Alternate Universe Alert!

Like Jerry does. He's delined to renew his LEUP and flies his H and higher impulse class "propellant actuated devices" unrestricted.

len.

John Kyte did no such damned thing. He was NOT the source of the 0.9 lb weight limit - and by extension, neither was the NAR.

The weight limit came from some contact of Sen. Kohl, as far as I know. The NAR Board was as surprised by it as anybody; I heard about it right after it happened. Please note that I cannot speak for TRA - but I was present at the joint meeting of our two Boards just shortly before the original S.724 was introduced - and it's no secret to say that weight limits were NOT acceptable at that point.

Mark Johnson NAR Trustee/Executive Committee Wichita, KS

Sounds like a plan to me.

Kick-ass propellant actuated devices, too... :)

-dave w

But ATF permits are? Your inconsistency casts doubts on your veracity.

How many fences can you sit on both sides of?

If you call it sitting there with no hearing on submitted briefs for MANY MONTHS "working its way". I do not. I call that a stall tactic.

They refuse to certify motors from firms who FOLLOW the precise advise in the NAR lawsuit.

Jerry

From 06/18/2003:

There will be many claims, assertions and stories, and lots of finger-pointing, about what might have been by those who were not directly involved in the process on a daily basis. We want to outline some of the hard political reality that NAR and TRA have faced in attempting to push S.724 into law.

1. TRA and NAR were told early and often by Senate and House staffers that S 724 as introduced was a "non-starter". This is Congressional language for "unless you're prepared to compromise, we're not going to get anywhere." A blanket exemption for all rocket propellants never had any chance of passing the Judiciary Committee in either the Senate or House. Assertions to the contrary were wrong and misleading.
2. TRA and NAR never introduced the idea of specific weight limit compromises on S. 724. But we did realize that unless we were willing to discuss compromise, no discussions would take place at all. The legislation simply would not move onto the Committee's formal agenda. There was no other choice but to be willing to discuss options if we

1) wanted to have the views of majority of the hobby rocket community represented in the debate, and 2) had any hope of trying to counter the extensive "education" campaign waged by BATFE in the Senate. Even through today, TRA and NAR have not agreed to anything specific regarding weight limits.