BATFE Court Decision

Not to mention Bush's political interest in hydroen fueled cars...

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!

There's at least one hobby shop in Charlotte that has some Aerotech product, Hobbytown USA in Cheshire Place. There's also a local NAR/Tripoli group. Visit

for more info. We're having a launch & NAR contest next weekend. An onsite vendor is likely to be there and you'll have an opportunity to max out all your credit cards.

Regards,

Bob Bernatchez

NAR 29996

remand means: send back (a case) to a lower court with instructions about further proceedings.

"ATFE's authority to designate deflagrating materials as

explosives under § 841(d) is undisputed by appellants.

But for the agency to so designate a particular material,

APCP, it must establish that it is indeed a deflagrating substance."

The BATFE is under the burden of proof that APCP is indeed a deflagrating substance.

"In this case, the agency has articulated no standard whatsoever for

determining when a material deflagrates. We therefore remand

the case so that ATFE may reconsider the matter and offer a

coherent explanation for whatever conclusion it ultimately

reaches."

Here the court has remanded the case back to the BATFE to allow them to TRY and articulate a standard for determining when a material deflagrates. In Particular, if APCP deflagrates.

" Because ATFE's designation of APCP as an explosive

was in place long before the present challenge, we will not

vacate the designation without first affording the agency an

opportunity to reconsider this matter. "

This is the "meat of the matter"... What the court is saying here is, that AT THIS TIME,

they(the court) will not remove APCP from the BATFE's list of explosives. But this removal is dependent on the BATFE successfully articulating a standard for Deflagrationa AND that APCP meets that standard

"The case is hereby remanded to the District Court with instructions to remand the

case to the agency for further consideration consistent with this decision."

SO basically the DC Court of Appeals has laid down a roadmap for the BATFE:

1. establish deflagration standards

1. using that standard determine if APCP falls within that standard

2. If APCP fails the new deflagration standards, then APCP will be removed from the BATFE Explosives listing.

and Yes, the BATfEe can more or less take their sweet time within reason to come back to the court with all of the above... maybe 6 months to 18 months would seem reasonable to me...

But they have already painted their self into a upper and lower limits for what standards deflargation is and is not. They can't just lower the deflagration rate to such an extent that its not realistic. I would gather right now, they are siting up at BATFE HQ and trying to figure out some way to get our propellants up to the thresold deflagration limits they have already set.

I mean our HPR APCP deflagration burn rates will be so low above conventional definitions thats theres no way for them to be able to include APCP on their explosives list. But I still expect them to establish standards, as the court is giving htme "another bite at the apple" in trying to control APCP., hence the remand to develop "standards".

UNless the BATFE just has their head stuck up their collective butts, I would create the standards, run the tests and when APCP comes back beflow their new standards, they will just remove APCP from the listing.

Now obviously if APCP is not longer on the BATFE explosives listing, the

62.5g limit becomes a moot point.... theres NO need for a limit as APCP will no longer be a regulated substance. So NPRM may become meaningless? If APCP is not an explosive, then how would this effect the PAD exemption? Will we continue to say rocket motors are indeed PADS? If they are PADS, then BATFE can re-write the definition of PADS....to our detriment? SO the question of LEUPS's etc all become moot. Want you money back for the cost of magazines,pics,etc? Can you say Class ACtion suit against the BATFE?

shockie B)

ohh did anybody notice that the 3 judges were all Democrat appointees? clinton(94),.clinton(97) and the senior judge was a Carter(80) appointee... I wonder what the result would have been had they all been reagan/bush/bush appointees?

shockie B)

No, the roads will simply become choked with slow moving traffic like pedestrians, bicyclists, horse drawn carriages, etc.

I don't think that will help. They will not roll over and die quietly; you'll just make then angry, angry enough to get a last minute amendment added to the Patriot Act renewal that renders the judges decision moot.

It's hard telling.

Sandra Day O'Conner was a Reagan appointee, yet she was a very independant judge. Sometimes she sided with the liberal judges, sometimes with the conservative judges.

-Kevin

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.

Clearly someone there does, and the best way to deal with it is to get the press to paint the turkeys in charge as another Michael Brown at FEMA.

Rocket motros are still PADs. They are just PADS made with unregulated materials if APCP is removed from the list.

I'm in on that one. Not only do I want them to reimburse me for the $$$ I spent on permits and compliance, but I want all documents that they collected regarding me destroyed, including all record of my fingerprints in "the system" removed.

Not the interstates and other limited access highways with minimum speeds.

I'm sure we won't have that problem with scAlito.

On the other hand, my little brother knew Roberts from law school, and followed in his footsteps at Harvard, Law Review, and clerking for the same judge one step below the supreme court. Rather than following him to clerk for the high court, he returned to Harvard and has been on their law faculty ever since.

Not particularly flammable really. Ever tried to light an APCP grain with a match? Difficult to put out once lit though...

whats the autoignition temperature for APCP typically?

shockie B)

600-700 degrees for an "easy to light" propellant such as one with ferric oxide or cupric oxide. It can be 900+ degrees for some of the hard to light red and greeen propellants. It really is hard to light. And believe me, if you have a spot in your house where you keep your rocket motors and that spot gets to 600 degrees, you are ALREADY in deep, deep yogurt. The rocket motors aren't going to make much difference.

-- David

There is not much chance of that happening. Maybe you should just change your name to Bob Kablam. ;)

OK, so much for the APCP, but is an LEUP (and magazine) still required for Black Powder, ematches and the like?

knar also knaur Listen: [ när ] n. A knot or burl on a tree or in wood.

Seems really obscure. What kind of spell checker is he using? OTOH, a knarr is a Viking cargo ship.