Compromise S724 Bill Developed by ARSA

Len Lekx wrote:


Do you really think that the limit will stay at 2400 lb-sec?
John's last effort started with no limit and ended at 0.9 pounds of propellant.
--
David W. Schultz
http://home.earthlink.net/~david.schultz
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 03:03:11 GMT, David Schultz
Likely not... but an exceedingly high limit is better than a low one, no...? :-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So then, when this one gets out of committee we should have a limit somewhere around....oh, probably something like 62.5 grams.
--
Mike KD7PVT
NAR #70953 - Sr/HPR Level-1 ~ SeaNAR - The Seattle NAR Section #568
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Len Lekx wrote:

Giving them the idea, and the likelyhood that a lower limit will only be acceptable, we may all have to do this for much smaller motors. Talk about progress!
-john
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Even if this were required for motors larger than 0.9#, it's better than what we've got today, or what HK724 currenty does. As long as the 25# aggregate limit is also history.
One comment though. Even with no license in state transfers (history thanks to SEA), the JBGTs didn't have to be notified of every sale. The seller had to keep the paperwork, so that **IF AN INCIDENT OCCURED**, the paper trail could be followed from the source to the destination. The JBGTs still didn't have immediate access to those records, unless required to investigate an incident.
    Bob Kaplow    NAR # 18L    TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"         >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle:    http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org
Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
It would be nice if you needed a LEUP just to buy an N motor, then all M's would be LEUP free.
--
Stephen Corban
NAR# 81338
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It would be nice if you didn't need an LEUP to buy anything that wasn't an actual explosive!
    Bob Kaplow    NAR # 18L    TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"         >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle:    http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org
Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
izzy wrote:

That's OK, I'm not putting myself in a position of pretending to represent the whole interest of the hobby. John Wickman and his lock-step followers are, and I don't care to be insulted by expecting to sit back and not question your patronizing ignorance. If you truly want people to believe this crap, then back it up with facts. Who was this all-encompassing committee of Wickmanites that were so informed to be capable of coming up with the same bill (plus complications) and have the nerve to call it 'new'?

Blah blah blah. Revisionism based on previous idealistic ignorance.

Yeah, when people who know what they're talking about start telling Wickman he's missed some details and have to spend time and money in DC working on the hard parts... while John Wickman sits back and complains that others are taking over and won't let him play.

I can keep records now and only notify if something comes up missing. This is a whole new layer of "giving up control" and opens the door to admitting the BATFE should control rocket motors and not just explosives. Listen to this, read this again, and don't tell me "oh yeah, that was thought of and will be taken care of". Start thinking for yourself.

No whining from me. Just leave us alone and don't keep taking giant steps backwards and shoving it in our faces as either someone else's fault or telling us something new and secret is on it's way. Disingenuous self-importance can only take you so far. Back to the 'filter' you go.
-John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<< I can keep records now and only notify if something comes up missing. >>
Yes, but you also have to get a LEUP and storage. If that were eliminated and all you had to do was notify someone when a very large motor is transfered, it seems to me that would be a step forward. There would be no ATF permits, no storage hassles, and no forced entanglements with local authorities.
I just don't see how they expect to pass this bill when they couldn't even get the first one through the SJC. If Hatch, Kohl and the other cronies/obstructionists could be mollified by such a simple change, why wasn't it done the first time?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 27 Jul 2003 07:53:03 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (RayDunakin) wrote:

Because they didn't know what changes needed to be made first time around...? :-)
Seems to me that writing effective legislation is a lot like writing computer software... you do a first draft that you think will work. You test it, find a bug... rewrite to eliminate that bug, test again. Repeat until the bugs are either eliminated or unnoticeable.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Len Lekx wrote:

That may be how some people write software, but there are much better methods. There is a difference between iterations in the design as planned by the design methodology, and iterations due to a lack of good skills and experience. You could probably guess where I could take this as an analogy for the topic at hand. ;)
-John DeMar NAR #52094 http://delta.syr.edu/jsdemar
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Point taken. However, even the *best* author (of software *or* legislation...) cannot take every potential problem into account. If they could, there would be no need for Beta-testers.
That's not necessarily a lack of skill, but a fact of life. :-)
Besides... how do we _gain_ experience in something, unless we make the attempt? If we all "Let the Experts Do It", there wouldn't be any unique scratch-built rockets to marvel at. ;-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<< Because they didn't know what changes needed to be made first time around...? >>
I seem to recall that when the bill was in committee, it was known which Senators were objecting to it, and why.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Because it wasn't their idea?
steve
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@acceptable-gains.com (izzy) wrote:

The current practice that has worked for 40 years is record of sale to verified buyers. On FBI inverstigations, large motor sales records are available for determination of specific questions about specific buyers ala the IRA investigation and others. It works.
I have been saying on rmr since DAY ONE "record of sale metric" and, has anyone listened to a successful long term vendor with actual investigation experience?
Nope.
Jerry
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<< Focus group: John Wickman went to an amusement park and sat in the "hall of mirrors" for a while. >>
I think that's an overly harsh assessment.
<< "Exempted From The Safe Explosives Act" does not exempt propellant from other applicable laws. It needs to refer to the 18 USC and Under 55.141, etc. Correcting the SEA can only correct what it changed.>>
Good point.
<< Why even talk about the specifics of the motor?!>>
If we have to compromise, I think this makes a lot more sense than weight-based limits.
<< We are trying to tell the BATFE that they do not have jurisdiction over the the device, only the content! >>
Actually, we've been trying to tell them they have no jurisdiction over either the device or the content -- the device, because it is a PAD; and the content, because it is not an explosive.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<< I personally feel that Wickman's Senate route is much more productive than the lawsuit,>>
Until it actually produces something, it can't be considered productive.
<<...you just can't win against the government. >>
Maybe not, but if that's the case we won't be able to win in Congress either. Personally I think our chances are a bit better in the courts, which are at least _supposed_ to base judgements on facts and law. Congress acts only on fear and illogic.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<< If legislation is asking them for an exemption, it is admission that the BATFE have control over it.>>
Not necessarily, but I agree it could certainly be viewed that way. Which of course, is why it probably would have been better to hold off on the legislative attempt until after there was a decision on the lawsuit.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (RayDunakin) wrote in message

Sometime in the next ten years;-)
Steve Schafer NAR #80427 L2
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
izzy wrote:
<about the Super Secret Exemption Plan - SNIP>
That's it? That's the Super Secret Plan? We promise not to build weapons (disregarding the fact its already illegal to do so) and to notify HSA if we sell/trade our N or O motors to someone else, and we can get an exemption Bill through the Senate? Pardon me if I find that more than a little hard to believe.
Please note that total impulse will affect ALL rocket motors, not just APCP. A total impulse number in an exemption Bill will open a can of worms that not even John Wickman wants to deal with. Just as a total exemption Bill went into Committee and came out with weight restrictions, a similar Bill which even mentions total impulse may come out with impulse restrictions which will impact ALL of rocketry, including liquid fuels, hybrids, AN, and sugar motors. A much worse choice than a weight restriction on APCP, by far. ANYTHING can be added to the Explosives List; that's our original problem.
You mentioned in another thread that there are several details to work out. That is an understatement.
--
Gary Bolles
NAR 82636
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.