de-regulating rocketry questions - TAKE TWO

Stop acting like a moron, by attempting to put word in my mouth..

Fred

Reply to
W. E. Fred Wallace
Loading thread data ...

I hear you will soon have new information to share with us on RMR. Is that true "big fine"??

Reply to
W. E. Fred Wallace

Yep. Too bad ATF no longer thinks it should be exempt, and until we took them to court they weren't even bothering to remove the exemption legally.

Not quite true. It wasn't a blanket exemption. It applied only to government, educational institutions, and certain corporations. TRA (and some other groups) incorporated to exploit this legal loophole. So, just like today, you had to be a member of a rocketry org to do high power rocketry (unless you fit into one of the other exempt categories, such as educational institution).

Yep. Times change, so do government regs. Sucks, don't it?

Exsqueeze me? High power rocketry was not "far more visible" in 1972, it barely even existed, if at all.

"Unfortunately, our system of laws is set up so that an agency's own interpretation of its regulations is valid unless you show it to be otherwise. You do that by convincing a court that the agency's interpretation is arbitrary, capricious or without authority." -- Harold Gilliam, Skylighter Inc.

Reply to
raydunakin

jerry, Why are you talking to yourself? Is it because no one else will listen?

Reply to
Dave Grayvis

jerry, Are you talking about yourself... AGAIN?

Address this head on.

you were found guilty of civil fraud, to the tune of over $50,000! Ten years later, you, jerry irvine, still haven't paid a single penny toward that judgment.

When are you going to pay up?

Remember, don't sidestep!

In 2001 you were caught illegally shipping rocket motors. you kept that a secret until 2004 when the news about your $40,000 fine (reduced from $60,000) became public knowledge.

When are you going to pay up?

Remember, don't side step!

Reply to
Dave Grayvis

It does not cause me one iota of worry. I suggest, if it really worries you, you take the bull by the horns (the end without the tail hole) and propose changes through any one of the NFPA committee members.

Before the NFPA codification of rocketry, the activity fell under a morass of other regulations by default, but none specifically aimed at rocketry. All states, most counties and cities too, had regulations which controlled or outright banned the use of "devices pyrotechnique". In my case, using pyrotechnique devices "such as but not limited to"; common fireworks and explosive compounds, was illegal, unless specifically permitted for professional displays or carried out by a licensed explosives contractor. By defining "legal rocketry" in NFPA codes, it separated such from falling within the purview of other less applicable regulations. In doing so, they had to describe the activity. Those activities that do not fall within the scope of NFPA

1122 or 1125 are not illegal, they just are not defined as legal and regulated by the NFPA codes, and therefore fall into "another category".

_Everything_ is regulated, David, whether we choose to call it model rocketry or "model aircraft parts".

steve

Reply to
default

So in your case the linkage was clean, if "MR/HPR, as otherwise regulated by NFPA 1122/1127" was then specifically specified as an exemption to those general requirements for "pyrotechnic devices".

Interesting point of view... I thought that was just a California thing. :(

I believe the term you're looking for in this case is "recoverable aero models", the subject of exemptions in a number of state codes from the sort of "pyrotechnic devices" requirements you mention above. (California doesn't have exemptions; it has its own specific, alternate sections of the regulations for various types of rockets, separate from those applicable either to fireworks shows or commercial blasting operations.)

-dave w

Reply to
David Weinshenker

However the point being discussed is HOW the scope of the regulations is itself inconsistent and conflicting.

If you don't know WHAT you are talking about in the first place, your arguement is moot.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Those portions of that part (555) which are expressly *not* exempted by 27 CFR 555.141(a) -- sections 555.180 and 555.181.:

Sec. 555.180 Prohibitions relating to unmarked plastic explosives. Sec. 555.181 Reporting of plastic explosives.

- Rick "Pedantic? Moi?" Dickinson

Reply to
Rick Dickinson

He doesn't need to because he has already proved it - rather welll I might add.

Reply to
Phil Stein

It's not an act. He really is a moron!

Reply to
Phil Stein

I forgot and I was trying to be nice...

Reply to
W. E. Fred Wallace

THIS is what you do with your time.

Jerry

"I have never denied your content has been significant "over the years"."

-Fred Wallace

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

What's your point? Compared to you I'm an amateur at posting on RMR. (:-)

Must of been another time I was trying to be nice..

Reply to
W. E. Fred Wallace

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.