APCP into the fire

How do you know? Did you try?

Reply to
Phil Stein
Loading thread data ...

Actually, even today there could be issues with Hybrids. Some use AP as a "pre heater".

Also, what do you plan to do for ejecti> Kurt wrote:

Reply to
AZ Woody

Nope,

But I was told that has been attempted in the past and they refused. For cripe's sakes, if they came up with a 25 or 50lbs. possession limit of HPR grains, don't you think the officers of the NAR and TRA would have brought that to the membership? When I've mentioned this issue of negotiation in other venues I'm gently reminded that was tried and not accepted by them.

Kurt

Reply to
Kurt

Back then - I doubt it.

Phil

Reply to
Phil Stein

But who defines what a modeler is? NAR/TRA membership? Remember, the law suit started long before 9/11.

If Abdul Von Izinski Smith, your neighbor down the street, starts building a bird, that's cool, but say his first bird has a 98mm MM, and alt bay, and a big payload section. Is he a modeler? Maybe yes, maybe no. He can by a motor casing with no problem, and without too much trouble and get the stuff to homebrew a motor (maybe take classes, like the 9/11 guys did to learn how to fly). Is is a modeler? Maybe yes, maybe no.. He shows no interest in joining TRA or NAR. In passing, he mentions that he plans to launch in the parking lot of a local college stadium "one of these weekends". You mention the FAA and wavers, and he says "not my problem..". Wouldn't you be on the horn to the TSA/HS in minutes? Is he a modeler? Maybe yes, maybe no. Homeland security pays him a visit. Turns out his "day job" involves designing military stuff for the government, and the bird will be used to launch canstat devices for his kid's college class, with full approval of the college, the FAA, and is infact being covered by CNN. The moral of the story - can YOU define what a modeler is?

That's why some regulation makes sense.

The point that many fail to miss in this whole regulation debate is they have blinders on as to what non-modelers might do with the exact same stuff! Why do I need a drivers license and pay fees to get it renewed? I'm a safe driver with 32 years and no accidents? Am I being "over regulated", as a "safe driver" isn't a problem?

Hey, we now live in a world where I can't take finger nail clippers on an airplane, and the most dangerous thing I've done with one of those is to knock it into the sink when the garbage disposal was running! It's "intended use" does not warrant government regulation, but it is infact regulated!

The lawsuit is a joke. APCP will be regulated, I have no doubt. Some of the funds that TRA/NAR have should be used to help local clubs/prefectures "get legal". What ever's left should be used to find a way where I can take nail clippers of a real tube of toothpaste on to an airplane....

Reply to
AZ Woody

The same way you can use gas in your car. There is an exemption.

Pyrodex is a component of small arms ammunition. It is exempt from regulation.

But here's a good question. If BP is 'obviously' a permit-requiring substance, how many arrests have been made at rocket launches over all these years fliers have used it for electronic recovery?

Reply to
Hyphlight

Oh contrare my friend: APCP, as it is legally defined does meet the legal definition of an explosive, based on its UN classification. What our HPR APCP does not meet, is the practical definition of an explosive, based on burn rate and detonable characteristics.

Fred

Brian Elfert wrote:

Reply to
W. E. Fred Wallace

Me too. And then today via AR I found out they the BATFE is now going after KNO3/sugar propellant.

Ted Novak TRA#5512 IEAS#75

Reply to
the notorious t-e-d

I don't believe that.

The ATF is regulating potassium nitrate composite propellant because potassium nitrate explosive mixtures is on the list of explosive materials.

Both ammonium perchlorate composite propellant and ammonium perchlorate explosive mixtures are on that list. You could take APCP off the list and ATF will still say it is an ammonium perchlorate explosive mixture, therefore within their purview.

Reply to
Darrell D. Mobley

There are ways around all these issues. O2 isn't (yet) regulated. Christmas lights aren't (yet) regulated. Pyrodex isn't (yet) regulated.

N2O is freely available at speed sh> Actually, even today there could be issues with Hybrids. Some use AP as

Reply to
Alex Mericas

Did you consider that the ATF offer to negotiate might had occurred pre-lawsuit?

Reply to
Darrell D. Mobley

You can bring finger nail clippers on an airplane in your carry on luggage. Check the TSA website.

Reply to
Alex Mericas

Oh? Smokeless powder is on the list. If you use it for its intended purpose, in small arms ammunition, it is exempt. Otherwise...

Available? Yes. Freely? We wish.

Reply to
Darrell D. Mobley

The definition of explosive that the DOT/UN uses is much broader than the "primary and common purpose to function by explosion" standard that the ATF is supposed to be using in this case.

49 CFR 173.50 a) Explosive. For the purposes of this subchapter, an explosive means any substance or article, including a device, which is designed to function by explosion (i.e., an extremely rapid release of gas and heat) or which, by chemical reaction within itself, is able to function in a similar manner even if not designed to function by explosion, unless the substance or article is otherwise classed under the provisions of this subchapter. The term includes a pyrotechnic substance or article, unless the substance or article is otherwise classed under the provisions of this subchapter.

The ATF even includes this as attachment 23 of their recent attempt to hand wave APCP into the realm of explosives. But they fail to mention that the definition of explosive is different from the one the ATF has to use.

Reply to
David Schultz

Darrell, please read subsection H, then post about what the exemption says.

(it's obvious you haven't)

Reply to
Hyphlight

I'm sorry, I see no mention of Pyrodex in the exemptions.

I clearly see smokeless powder in the List of Explosive Materials, but I don't see a definition of "small arms ammunition" or "components of small arms ammunition."

I see in the List of Explosive Materials that, "While the list is comprehensive, it is not all inclusive. The fact that an explosive material is not on the list does not mean that it is not within the coverage of the law."

I also see in the List, "We have added these explosive materials to the List because their primary purpose is to function by explosion." Obviously Pyrodex's intended purpose is to explode.

Based on:

  1. Smokeless powder is on the List.
  2. The List is not inclusive.
  3. Not being on the list doesn't exclude coverage of the law.
  4. No definition of what "components of small arms ammunition is."

I can't take you word for it.

Reply to
Darrell D. Mobley

You shouldn't. You should stop telling people what you don't know like you do know.

We use pyrodex in small arms. It is a component of ammunition. We buy it without a permit because it is exempt.

Nothing in the exemption states it has to be used as a component of ammunition to be exempt.

>
Reply to
Hyphlight

Pyrodex is not smokeless powder, per the Manufacturer.

Main Entry: free·ly Pronunciation: 'frE-lE Function: adverb : in a free manner: as a : of one's own accord b : with freedom from external control c : without restraint or reservation d : without hindrance

From my experience, N2O is freely available. Not free, but freely.

Reply to
Alex Mericas

I don't see where that is happening.

So. I still do not believe you.

Reply to
Darrell D. Mobley

"The exemption for components of small arms ammunition is for components whose "intended purpose" is to be used in small arms ammunition. If you use Pyrodex for anything other than small arms ammunition, then is NOT exempt. The same as the 50 pound exemption for black powder. It is exempt for use in antique firearms -- any other use, regulated. "

You do not know, yet you are stating that as fact.

Reply to
Hyphlight

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.