alternative to Hatch/Kohl 724 in the works

[ from ROL Re: Mark Bundick 'call to action' issue at 7/23/2003 12:51 AM ]

TRA and NAR endorse the Hatch-Kohl amendment and that is what they are trying to push through the Senate. NAR and TRA are not trying to get Enzi's S724 passed by the Senate. If you do not support the Hatch-Kohl version of S724, do not write or fax letters to Senators to get hold removed.

I have been working on a compromise verison of S724 based on an idea from Senator Enzi that will not require rocketeers to have ATFE permits no matter what size motor, yet satisfy the concerns of Senators and Representatives. It more than goes halfway to meet any legitimate concerns.

I have been working with a group of individuals that represent a good cross-section of amateur, HPR and hobby shop owners. We think we have something that will be acceptable to most everyone. I plan to post this compromise version in a few days.

This compromise S724 based on Senator Enzi's idea is what the Senate should pass and what many of us will be pushing for. We do not endorse the Hatch-Kohl version of S724 and do not want to see that passed by the Senate. Consequently, we do not support the NAR-TRA "call to arms".

John Wickman

[ posted here by iz ]
Reply to
izzy
Loading thread data ...

Aloha, You are going to have to be a bit more specific before anyone signs on. So far, you have told us nothing. Your post was absolutely ZERO-CONTENT. If you have a good idea, let's hear it. Just don't expect us to sign on without having a clue of what its going to be.

Best Wishes, Larry

Reply to
AkaZilla

Me too, Zilla, I noticed that lack also. It kinda reminded me of the "spade in the hole" hint that was dropped earlier.

steve

Reply to
default

in the hole"

Reply to
Alex Mericas

He has a track record of showing his cards when his SENATOR approves it. Do you challenge the SENATOR's tactical practices in light of the hk724 buttfuck?

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

No, reporting that the content will not be released until the author releases it, is reasonable. I blast them for SPECIFIC items that I describe and in many cases OFFER an alternative point of view or list of actions that would be superior.

To broadly claim "I would blast them" is intellectually dishnest and a change of subject. Let's talk about what ACTUALLY is happening and discuss that.

I never claimed to be impartial. I merely claimed to be intellectually honest and to discuss the actual issues. I have openly admitted my personal shortcomings on several occasions. I have admitted when I am wtong, I have paid bets I have made. I am not so biased that I am not inmtellectually honest.

I am biased that NAR and TRA are illegally requiring (read REQUIRING with penalties) ATF permits for good that ATF itself agree are EXEMPT from their regulatory control for permits and storage.

I am biased that this FACT is a leading indicator that NAR/TRA supporting HK724 (hereafter the big buttfuck) is consistent with the other illegal acts I cited above.

The alternative course of action is FAR more favorable to rocketry, to the cliebnts of NAR/TRA, to all rocket vendors and all dealers.

If the BIG BUTTFUCK were to be passed there would be a major throttle as compared to the current situation with no sich legislation at all.

SB724 (the Enzi Bill, hereafter heaven on earth) provided a provision to make BP clearly permissible for a wide range of rocketry purposes and verified any non-detonable propellant (ie a non-explosive) would be permissible in any quantity JUST AS IT IS NOW but in a way ATF cannot arbitrarily change at will.

Support HEAVEN ON EARTH and not the BIG BUTTFUCK.

Oh, and if you reply, state your position SPECIFICALLY on the NAR/TRA tendency to demand and ENFORCE the use of ATF permits for exempt propellants and propellant actuated devices.

This way your "bias" is disclosed.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Excuse me? How would genuine legislative/regulatory relief that included all amateur/civilian rocketry "destroy hobby rocketry"?

-dave w

Reply to
David Weinshenker

NAR disagrees.

You couldn't be more wrong. If Wickman (note spelling) gets Enzi to successfully proffer his bill the benefits accrue HUGELY to both consumer and amateur rocketry. Since there is more consumer rocketry in dollar and people terms there will be FAR more benefit to consumer rocketry.

Learn your facts before venting or be corrected, or ignored.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

My bias is SPECIFICALLY that my ATFE agent does not buy your 27 CFR

55.141-q-8 argument/defense. She states that she will consider me in violation of ATFE regulations if I have APCP rocket motors over 62.5g per grain in non-approved storage or transport them or use them without a LEUP. So if I take your advice, I get accused of a felony. So I have a choice to abide by the rules you suggest, or the rules that an ATFE agent with the power to charge me with a felony suggests. I am not willing to jeapardize several years of my life and my family to see if you are right. All evidence from the people who can put me in jail is that you are wrong, even though logic / science say you are right.

So, your blanket exemption is of no use to me (nor to anyone else but yourself, that I know of. I know of no other specific person who has agreement from their ATFE agent that APCP is exempt under 27 CFR

55.141-q-8).

I must therefore choose between ARSA's shoot for the sky, all or nothing approach or NAR/TRA's let's try to get something reasonable for most hobbyists approach. I understand that NAR/TRA's approach will cut SOMEONE out of exemption. But I believe that ARSA's approach, which is based on logic and reason and which I agree with COMPLETELY in THEORY, has near zero chance of succeeding in a partisan political world (the real world). So I choose to support NAR/TRA's approach of compromise. I know you condemn compromise. But, I take measured, calculated risks. I don't take wreckless risks. All or nothing in this political, post 9/11 environment is a wreckless risk.

Reply to
David

They do not have jurisdiction over transportation. DOT does. ATF jurisdiction ends at each end of a DOT transport event.

I am not advocating doing whatever I day in defiance of an agent order (yet another law). I am saying you stick the law in their face, tell them you will follow the LAW and not their opinion, newsletter or made up mini-rules. You have that RIGHT as a citizen. The ORANGE BOOK is their bible. Use it against them and WIN!!

Have balls.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Reply to
Alex Mericas

John Wickman assures us that an outlne of the compromise S.724 will be available ASAP:

"We will have it up this weekend. You can let [them] know. The legal wording will not be finished by then, but a detailed description of how it works will be."

I will propagate it once it is on the ARSA site, but you are welcome to check it directly as well.

- iz

Reply to
izzy

We are anxious to have this handled before 2003 ends, but in a way that rocketry as a whole can prosper.

All levels of rocketry are important to the R&D and maintenance of the human resource pool the U.S. requires to maintain our competiveness, if not leadership, in aerospace. Other countries not quite on the news horizon have substantial initiatives in this area, and any compromise of our capability would give them a considerable opportunity to overtake us. This would mean economic losses to us as a nation, and more importantly loss of a critical strategic advantage.

TRA/NAR are simply not looking at the impact of regulation at this scale.

Senator Enzi remains committed to the original S.724, and John Wickman is shoulder to shoulder with him in this struggle. This is a statement of fact. [ TRA/NAR's repeated efforts to obtain confirmation from Senator Enzi's office at every turn is quite unnecessary. ]

TRA/NAR recalcitrance is both unfortunate and counterproductive, but rest assured that we are quite serious in pursuing our original objective.

- iz

Reply to
izzy

That's not entirely accurate. Yes, they are trying to get it pushed through the Senate, but they do NOT support it at all and have made that very clear. They simply see this as the best way to get things moving on an alternative bill in the House.

Reply to
RayDunakin

That was an impressive retort, but I seem to have missed the POINT you are trying to make. Since I have not known you long on the internet I am still willing to assume by default you have one.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

I'd like to know how he "knows" Wickham would be glad. Sounds like an attempt to distort facts and create controversy.

Joel. phx

Reply to
Joel Corwith

Ok, so did you ask her why a8 does not cover a rocket motor? If ACPC propellant in a motor case does not constitute a PAD because it's not propellant actuated, then what you're putting in the casing is NOT ACPC propellant AND unless she can demonstrate it's ability to explode, it's not APCP explosive, so it's not regulated.

Joel. phx

You know, this would be a whole lot easier if ya'll stopped buying motors which use explosive material.

Reply to
Joel Corwith

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.