BATFE Court Decision

http://www.tripoli.org/documents/batfe/ATFmessage20060210.shtml
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

David Erbas-White wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
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

Kevin Trojanowski wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
I can only imagine what a can of worms that this has opened for the BATF. I am sure they are not happy at all with this ruling.
Jeff Barnes TRA #2267

Kevin Trojanowski wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Matches, propane, butane, dried out Christmas trees, to name a few of the worms in that can.

Dave Grayvis wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Counting the seconds until jerry blathers, "I told you so".. ({-)

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.
  Quoted Text Here  

"Epaphras" <mjmangieri at comcast dot net> writes:
  Quoted Text Here  
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

  Quoted Text Here  
APCP is covered?
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 www.pratthobbies.com

  Quoted Text Here  
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.

Bob Kaplow wrote: <snip>
  Quoted Text Here  
To THEM?!? Of course it's peanuts to them, we're paying for it. No matter how or where we win, we loose in the end.
TK

kaplow snipped-for-privacy@encompasserve.org.mars (Bob Kaplow) writes:
  Quoted Text Here  
Tripoli is proposing any money from the BATFE be used for self insurance. Liability Insurance is Tripli's primary expense. It was costing $45 per member for insurance, but that may have gone down a bit.
Brian Elfert

writes:
  Quoted Text Here  
You mean like the CPSC? http://www.firefox-fx.com/CPSC.htm
-- David
  Quoted Text Here  

writes:
  Quoted Text Here  
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.

kaplow snipped-for-privacy@encompasserve.org.mars (Bob Kaplow) writes:
  Quoted Text Here  
I would bet that gasoline deflagrates fast enough to meet BATFE standards of today.
Nobody would dare list gasoline as an explosive as it would be political suicide. My vehicle uses diesel which is fairly difficult to burn and certainly doesn't explode.
Brian Elfert

Actually, in its primary intended use, it very well does explode, dozens of times per second. That explosion is what pushes the piston back up.
-- David
writes:
  Quoted Text Here  

  Quoted Text Here  
no, the exploding quality of gasoline is "knocking" that is undesired. you want a rapid burn but not an explosion.
this is the sort of argument we are trying to get straightened out. APCP doesn't explode, it just burns really really fast.

Tater Schuld wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
The point being, the "intended use" burn rate of gasoline is far, far greater than the "intended use" burn rate of APCP.

He said diesel. Diesel does explode under the 22x compression ration in an internal combustion engine. That's why diesels knock!
-- David
  Quoted Text Here  

writes:
  Quoted Text Here  
It doesn't even burn that fast. I've long compared APCP to the safety flares that police and commercial vehicles carry in their emergency kits. Our rocket motors should be regulated just as they are: VERY flammable. Nothing else.

On 11 Feb 2006 14:13:22 -0600, kaplow snipped-for-privacy@encompasserve.org.mars (Bob Kaplow) wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=flammable
Not particularly flammable really. Ever tried to light an APCP grain with a match? Difficult to put out once lit though...