ATF vs NAR/TRA

with the 62.5 g limit looming on 10/10/06 I thought I would post a summary of where we stand.
The original counts:
count 1 says that APCP doesn't function by explosion and therefore ATF does not have jurisdiction.
result; October 17th 2006 will determine this count.. odds 60/40 odds in favor of ATF
count 2 says that the ATF's decision to list APCP on its 1999 List Of Explosives Materials, without providing the public reasonable notice and opportunity to comment was incorrect -
result: ATF won this one- dismissed as time barred by statute of limitations
count 3 says that even if APCP is ruled to be an explosive, rocket motors are propellant actuated devices, and therefore exempt
result: ATF will shortly issue a NPRM that will redefine PADS without Hobby Rocketry included
count 4 says that the ATF's civil regulation of individuals who purchase and store rocket motors that use more than 62.5 grams of APCP fuel is invalid because the ATF failed to provide notice and an opportunity for comment when it decided to regulate such rocket motors
result: Court allowed ATF to continue with its NPRM 968-goes into effect on 10/10/06
summary: right now its ATF-3 NAR/TRA-0
terry dean nar 16158

And I thought Tokyo Rose just died?

Fred Shecter wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Hi Fred,
I bet if you ask Terry, he'd probably tell you he hopes he is 100% wrong. Unless of course he just likes to fly small models and to pay all the regulatory fees the ATFE extracts from the LEUP guild members. :-)
Kurt

kurt:
of course I hope my odds are wrong. I was just pointing out that we have currently lost 2 of the original 4 lawsuit counts, with a 3rd (the pad exemption) which also appears lost at this point.
terry dean nar 16158

shockwaveriderz wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
I thought the comparison to a propagandist a bit much but the point of view is simply a statement of existing facts. I was hoping for some sort of compromise that would allow one to keep a reasonable amount of supplies on hand without going through a bunch of rigamorole. If we had a voting block as big as the NRA we'd be in great shape.
For cripes sake, the gasoline kept in cans in the home for lawn mowers is more dangerous than propellant. Why the heck do you think the government spent billions on coming up with the composite propellants for the nuclear arsenal?
Folks are saying that the ATFE is looking at our models as potential "terrorist weapons". If that is the case, the hybrid enthusiasts ought to start quaking in their boots.
Kurt

kurt:
exacto mundo..... its NOT just about APCP being an explosive.
If you read this carefully:
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20061800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2006/pdf/06-6862.pdf
you will notice that the ATF mentions numeropus times that HPR could be easily converted or used as weapons....
but then so can large RC aircraft.... as can cars,trucks, and yes, even people(homicide bombers).... maybe the ATF should regulate "people" ?
terry dean nar 16158

If I were a terrorist, I'd go with RC Aircraft. Much more accurate and the ability to carry a nice payload.
Phil
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 13:47:33 -0400, "shockwaveriderz"
  Quoted Text Here  

Cars, vans and people are *already* being used for terrorist activities, yet those aren't regulated.Go figure.
shockwaveriderz wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20061800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2006/pdf/06-6862.pdf

On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 13:47:33 -0400, "shockwaveriderz"
  Quoted Text Here  
A box cutter can take down a sky scrapper... maybe ATF and HS should stop trying to regulate "stuff", and start regulating "terrorists".
Box cutters don't...terrorists do. They can have my HPR when they pry it from my cold dead fingers. Ya that's the ticket, NRA, NAR, whatever...
  Quoted Text Here  

fred: can you please explain 2 me how posting already known public domain information makes me "tokyo rose", who was the propangandist for the Japanese during WW2?
I was under the assumption that anybody who is in the rocketry community from at least 2002 knows the court battle results by now.
I don't quite get the correlation .?
I guess you didn't like the 60/40 odds that I gave the ATF? and thats what makes me a propangandist for the ATf?
terry dean nar 16158

I don't feel like playing your game.
You seem to have it all figured out.

I didn't think the 60/40 comment was accurate or appropriate either but I hoped people would read past it or ignore it.
Phil
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 13:05:32 -0400, "shockwaveriderz"
  Quoted Text Here  

He was not referring to your posting "public domain information". He was apparently referring to your personal opinions of the expected outcome, to include counting a loss on an issue not yet finally decided. It was the purpose of your post, was it not: to give your pessimistic expectations? For as you stated below:
"I was under the assumption that anybody who is in the rocketry community from at least 2002 knows the court battle results by now."
Personally, I agree that the name-calling of that particular propagandist is wrong to the extreme.
To some these particular "rights" to rocketry are sacrificial, and not worth creating a ruckus over. To others, this seems a detrimental blow to basic rights ideals. Most of us are somewhere in between, but I dare guess that most would not put themselves in harms' way (other than verbally) over what is mostly a hobby.
Just my 2 cents...
~ Duane Phillips.
  Quoted Text Here  

shockwaveriderz wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
I don't believe the ATF was given carte blanche to make rules without justification, but rather that the judge did not need to consider the merits of the rules because they were invalid procedurally. It remains to be seen whether the new rules are "Arbitrary and Capricious".

shockwaveriderz wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
NPRM published on 11 August.
  Quoted Text Here  
Lawsuit filed in 2000 and NPRM 968 published in 2003. Since this was one of the remedies sought by the lawsuit, the judge stayed judgment until that process was completed. It has gone on far longer than he thought it would. (And much longer than the ATF told him it would.)
Only the rocket motor exemption part of NPRM 968 takes effect in October. The rest is now "TBD".
  Quoted Text Here  

david: can u point me to the PAD NPRM ? I must have missed that
terry dean nar 16158

shockwaveriderz wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fedreg/a060811c.html

shockwaveriderz wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
The "DOJ letter" was incredibly inane, yet was authored to persuade members of the US Congress. And it appears to have been, at least, useful in it's intended purpose.
If you want to retain any faith whatsoever in our leaders, the DOJ/BATFE, or regulatory bodies in general, don't subject yourself to reading the rationale contained in the NPRM.
Well, I really shouldn't give that advice as I don't remember when the comment period expires, though, IIRC, the wording of the NPRM pretty much exempts the current "PAD" (non hobby rocket motor)industry by name(s)and its that industry's comments which BATFE would listen to, if any at all.
Logic or fact are not requisites when all you HAVE to do is express the "opinion of the director" to enact administrative law.
Then again, we (citizens) buy "fire protection" laws from a for-profit insurance advocacy corporation. I guess that law making just isn't what it used to be; the job of concerned representatives elected by the people.

  Quoted Text Here  
written by a committee that has repeatedly shown the inability to understand the obvious, and has done exactly the OPPOSITE regularly. After many go rounds with them I realized that their standard statement "agree in principle..." means FU.
  Quoted Text Here  
I'm trying to remember the last time someone was elected to an office and actually represented my views...

Bob Kaplow wrote:
<edited for brevity, snip>
  Quoted Text Here  
Bob, we can't make a judgement on that comment until we know how much you paid those who were elected to represent you.
If you "contributed" a lot, then we might think the guy a little underhanded for not returning a favor.
If you didn't "contribute" much, well, you get what you pay for in these here Untied, er, United States.