It's not a win, because they've not taken APCP off the list, rather they
turned it back to BATFE saying "prove it". However, it is a good
indicator...
David Erbas-White
Keep in mind, however, that the ATFE must do two things....
1) Define what it means to deflagrate
2) Prove that APCP meets that definition
At the same time, they have to contend with how many other substances on
the list for which they can provide no scientific evidence?
In addition, if they're not careful with their definitions, they may
cause items such as gasoline to be defined as "explosives" due to their
burn rate when "used as intended", thereby causing other things to have
to be regulated, as well.
-Kevin
Absolutely it is a win. A simple ruling taking APCP off the list without
the clarification of what the "real" definition of an explosive is just as
bad a decision as putting APCP on the list in the first place. What I
believe most of us really wanted is exactly what we got - define explosive,
apply the criteria for the substance in question, and categorize it
appropriately. This is what the ruling forces the BATFE to do.
If gasoline were proposed today as a motor fuel, the goverment would be
unlikely to approve it for a number of safety reasons. If it were
approved, regulations would probably be much different.
There was a lot less government back in the early 1900s.
Brian Elfert
What if the BATFE redefines explosives to cover many more items just so
APCP is covered?
The BATFE is unlikely to just walk away and let Tripoli/NAR win.
Brian Elfert
So much the better for us. As long as some of the things they catch in
their net have interest groups that are as strong, as well-run, and as
responsive to their members as NAR and Tripoli, any such action will
give us some nice new allies in our fight.
Kudos and thanks to the past and present boards of both organizations,
the superb legal team, and anyone who has ever donated to the Legal
Fund. This is the way the system is supposed to work.
Doug Pratt
looks to me that the BATFE has effectively painted themselves into a corner.
to wit: They say that deflagration occurs at 1m/s or 1,000 mm/s... whereas
we say its much less, while the Eof E says 3.81-101.6mm/s....
It will finally be interesting to see what the actual burn rate is....does
anybody know if any of these test have already been done on our APCP
propellants?
It seems to me BATFE has 2 choices: do the test and fail and we win, or just
quietly drop this case, and remove APCP from the explosives list.... again
we win...
How will this decision affect the other counts in the case if any ?
If they do the actual deflagration test, how will they be done? by their lab
people? by an independent 3rd party? Can the test be done in the propellants
native form: ie within a motor casing and in its "intended use"....?
I also did a background search on the 3 judge panel that rules in our favor
and I notice they are clinton/clinton/carter appointees.... in other words
all 3 are probably democrats....
so what are their options? Can they ask for a re-hearing before the full DC
Court of Appeals?
shockie B)
There are NO Government in Taiwan... not sure if its good or bad cause just
about every metal appliances you touch in Taiwan will shock you. Of course
no one would give a rat's @$$ if you made rocket motors in your apartment,
cause once you shoot it off it will sound like fireworks and Taiwanese loves
shooting up rockets in close proximity. I think there is a festival where
just about everyone there shoots up rocket in a Time Square during new year
crowd. People do get hurt... at least in Taiwan I don't have to go with KNAR
code cause I could just make something that goes boom in the sky and not
have to worry about recovery. With the amount of buildings in Taiwan im not
even sure if recovery is possible...
and chem supply stores will sell chemicals to anyone with enough cash, there
are no regulation on that. Only time the big brothers care is if you make
firearm or bombs cause they are illegal.
--
TAI FU
It's pretty darn hard to get APCP to burn at 1.0 inch per second at
pressures that our casing can stand. Pretty far from ANY reasonable
definition of deflagration.
-- David
It also publicizes to the world that the BATFE was caught with their pants
down. This ruling doesn't affect APCP, it affects the entire list. Which
means that everything on the list is now under scrutiny. It also means that
anyone currently convicted of any explosives possession charge since 1970
may get a "get out of jail free" card. I can't believe that the BATFE has
been so stupid as to not realize that this would be the outcome when they
lost this ruling. OK, maybe I CAN believe they are that stupid.
With any luck, this decision will have the same effect on the senior
management at the BATFE as Katrina had on FEMAs management.
That's certainly possible. They could set the threshold low enough to
include APCP. Then it will also include gasoline, railroad flares, solvents,
pyrodex, and rum.
I sort of like having the BATFE regulate gasoline. It will get 99.9% of the
cars and trucks off the road, leaving them empty for me. And it will reduce
the demand for gasoline to the point that I can fill up my tank for loose
change.
The way the system is supposed to work is for these regulatory agencies to
do their job properly in the first place so we don't have to spend hundreds
of thousands of $$$ and most of a decade sueing them to get them to clean
up their act. And we're not done yet.
But I do recal one of the things inthe original suit was the request that
the BATFE pay our legal fees for fighting their illegal regulation. Now a
million bucks is peanuts to them, but if all that cash were to be returned
to our hobby, it could do a LOT of good. And perhaps be a war chest to stop
the next agency that thinks we'll roll over to illegal regulation.
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.