[FS] Hangar 11, Inc. motor availability

Too bad their unjustly asking for LEUP at this point in time..... *sigh*.

You know what I am going to say.

If NO LEUP is required then please answer the following

1- Why is there a law suit??? if it was not LAW then wait for the ATF to enforce illegally and fight then why in advance??? I guess it is required or somebody made a $250,000 mistake with our money. "The NAR and TRA have spent approximately $250,000 since the inception of the litigation" I don't think they are making a mistake... DO YOU????

2- Why did a major rocketry magazine recently print an article regarding "GETTING LEGAL" and setting up a club magazine.. Must be a whole club gone mad.... Wait.. I fly with 3 major clubs out east. Almost all of the serious HPR fliers have LEUPS damn they must be crazy too.....

3- Why is the ATFE issuing licenses and permits to rocketry people. Have you EVER seen a public agency or employee go out and look for more work??? in this case ALLOT more work... If this isn't proof positive what is????

4- Why did 9+ senators co sponsor S724? do you think the senate has nothing better to do than debate bills that exempt activities that do not need exemptions?

5- Why did 2 senators from NY and NJ bother to put S.724 on hold if addressed an already exempt activity. Are they mis informed that we are exempt already??? Maybe we should call them and clue them in....

6- Why does NFPA 1127 address rocketry and specifically allow indoor magazine storage for a residence. attached garage OR out building. The basis for receiving a variance for indoor residential storage from the ATF. Have the fire inspectors gone nuts too????

READ the lawsuit info on the TRA website... the ATF's position is stated.. as a user your risk is minimal.. as a dealer mine is considerable. My actions are based on documented fact and legal advice. NO I do not want nor endorse the regulation of our hobby. The accusations regarding the dangers involved in rocketry were written by imbeciles. We are no more dangerous than many other hobbies and we are also no less dangerous either... weapons come in many forms and regulation is useless when applied to legal activities. They need to focus and apply resources on getting the bad guys and leave us and many other sports and industries alone.

I guess I'm in good company being wrong in asking for the LEUP.... for now I'm going to stick with all of the WRONG people above and continue requesting a LEUP. until the lawsuit is settled, S724 passes or the ATFE admits we are PADS...

Please respect my actions and my dedication to the sport. A real business man would not put up with the regulation BS for the few dollars we can make on the items we sell. I can sell R/C at 2 to 3 X the mark up and ZERO regulation...... I believe in rocketry.. I want rocketry to grow and prosper. By keeping the flow of motors and rocketry related items available I feel I am supporting the hobby by accusing me of unjust actions you are damaging me and my business. ["sigh"]

If you really believe that LEUPS are not required please send a K or larger motor along to the ATF public safety branch and request that they respond with an exemption status... I'd be happy to stop requesting LEUPS once I see REAL proof in a letter with a 2003 date on it..... The older letters I have in my files indicating the J350 exemptions cannot be verified today.

If by chance you have researched this subject and have facts on recent documents to back up the NO LEUP status I'd love to see a copy.

Bobby B NAR 79350 L1

Either way , he's just covering his a** & doesn't want to become a test case for the ATFE... Would you? I take it you don't have an LEUP either ,right ?

JD

THAT is bullshit. The ATF has a rule book. All you have to do to sell motors with no LEUP is sell motors with no LEUP. It's the LAW. And if he actually has an LEUP and an agent, which in his case is a HUGE business mistake because it makes him beholdent to arbitrary rules lisencees are not, then all he has to do is waive the rule book in their face and show how he properly:

1. Logged out any exempt materials that were sent to him improperly using a LEUP (or LEMP or LEDP). Yes you can LOG OUT materials from a magazine and store them in the shipping bozes as recommended in lieu of magazining them improperly.
2. Maintains a record of sales should an investigation ever be needed on a legit misuse. Two such investigations of real terrorists were cracked by ROCKETEERS. The proposed system would eliminate the traps that snared them. Literally.
3. One cannot see and read the law:

And say by magazining propellant I am "overcomplyiong". There is NO PROVISION in law, code, regs, even rules for "overcompliance". There is ONLY compliance and non-compliance. Putting exempt items in a magazine is actually a crime!

55.141 exemptions (a) (8) Gasoline, fertilizers, propellant actuated devices, or propellant actuated industrial tools manufactured, imported, or distributed for their intended purposes.

"or" "or" "intended purposes" All SU, RL and components qualify without reservation.

27 CFR 55.11, "Propellant Actuated Device. Any tool or special mechanized device or gas generator system which is actuated by a propellant or which releases and directs work through a propellant charge."

"Any" "or" "or" "or" All SU, RL and components qualify without reservation.

Stop the madness. Use the laws we have so we do not lose them because the ATF can say, "the rocket guys all have explosives permits anyway, lets codify it". That would be evil. And it wold be YOUR fault and the FAULT of every vendor and dealer who ILLEGALLY asked for ATF permits for EXEMPT items.

See

page 10 (page 62 of the "Orange Book")

1. Who must meet storage requirements? All persons who store explosive materials must store them in conformity with the provisions of Subpart K of the regulations, unless the person or the materials are exempt from regulation. [18 U.S.C. 842(j), 845; 27 CFR 55.29, 55.141, 55.164,

55.201(a)]

Note the reference to 55.141.

Choose truth. Choose reality. Chose the law. Stop being a moron or supporting morons who are KILLING OUR ENTIRE INDUSTRY.

Jerry

Yes the one I built.

Because of the actions of Aerotech over a decade asking consumers and dealers for ATF permits, that practice which was illegal the whole time CODIFIED into NFPA ny morons NAR and TRA and HPRMADA with ATF laughing their asses off the whole time. I was there. Physically in the room.

AT used it as a tactic to form a monopoly, which worked. Now the market has dropped in size by literally over 90% because those who CAN read and understand the law REFUSE to get an ATF permit to fly some propellant. Plenty of vendors (who are banned by TRA and NAR of course on this very issue and others) will sell you all the propellant you want. Why? Because it is perfectly legal. Of course.

Just fly at ANY indy launch. Since the market has contracted 90% there are ot that many NAR ort TRA launches of note anymore. LDRS being the one thorn in the side of the world at large. Where the terms Model Rocketry, High Power Rocketry, Amateur Rocketry, Ex rocketry and TRA/EX are munged together as if TRA has sole ownership over them.

They do not.

In fact TRA is a diming flicker in time and space whose only claim to power is the NFPA codes they co-author with such hate and vile for the general consumer and the true experimenter in rocketry at large. TRA HATES Lone Rangers!!

There are other issues being addressed by the lawsuit about the PROCESS ATF uses to "regulate" that are real and will be won.

Not on the lawsuit. But definitely and for SURE on supporting the claimed need for ATF permits at all in propelants which they ACTIVELY DO NOW IN DIIRECT OPPOSITION TO THEIR LAWSUIT POSITION!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1. NAR and TRA themselves inserted language into NFPA-1127 that states propellants are explosives, require ATF permits and need to be magazined. Why would someone even do that? Why not be silent on the issue and let the law settle it? Or at bare minumum read and understand the law, which they did NOT.
2. NAR and TRA themselves REQUIRE ATF permits of motor manufacturers before the motors will be certified. This is illegal on several levels including and notably restraint of trade. This prctice was ADDED about the same time as the illegal NFPA-1127 references. The reference to manufacturers I believe also appears in NFPA-1125.
3. NAR and TRA themselves REQUIRE ATF permits BY CONSUMERS to make mail ordr transaction of motorts above an arbitraryu size (a weight limit). Gee I wonder where the ATF and Congress got that silly idea from? Hmmm. But the limit is not a clear one. No. Some vendors ask for LEUP for all motors above 62.5g (just to be safe - mega-morons), while others only ask for it on motor which have several slugs but contain CARTRIDGES under 62.5g (ie AT J350 and J570 38mm). BUT do they also have the same treatment of SU motors with individual cartridges of under 62.5g? Nope.
4. You are being administered by morons who canot read or understand law ansd who have the power of the pen to WRITE LAW and they do. Senselesssly and continuously.

"When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail." -Lotfi Zadeh

Just Jerry

bobbyb: Its your compnay and therefore you have the right to run it anyway you = see fit.....its not my place to jump on your case and tell you you are = right or wrong...

There are numerous other vendors who are selling and shipping Aerotech = so-called easy access motors without the requirement of a LEUP. As far = as I am aware this is legal in their minds and in my mine and others at = the moment.=20 There is currently NO federal law that says that in order to purchase or = sell a rocket engine that has more than 62.5g of APCP requires you to = have a LEUP...YET. Thats what NPRM 968 is all about. Thats what the = lawsuit is currently fighting against. The Safe Explosives ACT which = went into effect May24th, only requires a LEUP for instate purchases of = explosives......It has nothing to do with rocket motors per se...

Right now the Sport Rocketry Hobby is kinda in a quasi-legal = limbo.....Until we lose the lawsuit, and/or NPRM 968 becomes final law, = nothing has changed from a regulatory pov ....except in peoples minds = with FUD..... thats my take on it.... good luck=20

shockie B)

available.

This should be in the FAQ.

Seriously.

One more question:

Is the manufacturer/vendor you're currently buying your motors from requiring YOUR LEDP for the purchase of H128s or J350s?

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

PROVE IT

27 CFR 555.141-a-7-v ONLY

SHOW ME A SIGNED LETTER (NOT A FAX) from the ATF NATIONAL OFFICE (not a local office) saying we do NOT need a LEUP because of 27 CFR 555.141-a-7-v ONLY

SHOW ME THE PROOF.

SHOW ME THE PROOF that will keep me out of jail or court should they try and nail me.

27 CFR 555.141-a-7-v does not count unless the ATF SAYS IT COUNTS

Chris Taylor

I have an LEIL allows direct import of motors... functions like an LEDP in the states.....

YES Cesaroni DID require an LEIL before they would even set up my account. I tried to buy the 1Gr G motors which ARE

Interesting.

Are you selling ASSEMBLED motors?

I consider an unassembled J350 to be easy access. As do the dealers I buy from. I've never bought an assembled J350 from anyone, nor seen them sold that way.

The J350 is legally no different from the H123s I bought last month from a local dealer. The person behind the counter was unknown to me. Never asked for an LEUP, or for that matter anything else.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

Bobby, Is there any reason you can't just sell single grain 38mm reloads to us? Would it really matter if you sold me an order of 6 single grains packed individually? It would seem reasonable to me that you have no control over what I actually do with them. If you happened to sell individual liners (body tubes : )) at various lengths we could put together whatever we needed.

The harsh reality for me is that since you are the only motor vendor at our METRA launches, and I won't be getting an LEUP, I will fly only up to "F" motors at the club launches. Consequently I tend to not make every launch now since my interests lean more to larger motors/rockets. The EX launches are few and far between around here but at least still give me an opportunity to fly. I have started making my own AP motors now (since Jeff Taylor's propellant class) so while I can still "get" AP motors, I am pretty limited in where I can fly them. I end up doing more static testing now than flying.

I think everyone is frustrated to see the hobby in decline and feeling like there is nothing we can do about it. I understand your position completely but sure wish there was a way I (and many others I am sure) could buy more motors from you at the launches.

Hang in there,

Stuart Leslie

This is a case where he is simply wrong. If one relies entirely on

555.141-=a-7-v as their exemption and further rely on VERBAL STATEMENTS and LETTERS fro the ATF and NOT the four corners of the law and regs, then yes, all motors over 62.5g needs a permit. But to be subject to that you have to have a permit yourself and be subject to ATF whim as well as law. There has been zero enforcement. I don't think there has ever been enforcement on a point that is solely supported by VERBAL STATEMENTS and LETTERS fro the ATF and NOT the four corners of the law. It's a pressure tactic.

If you have NO PERMIT you are subject ONLY to the four corners of the law, and that law currently exempts specific UN numbers under a-7-v and ALL propellant actuated devices inder a-8. A-8 is sufficiently comprehensive (generous use of the words "any" and "or") it applies to essentially any and all propellant actuated devices one can imagine so long as they are for the intended use. This would therefore include igniters, motors, ejections, reloads, flares, whatever. And it can use either sensitive or insensitive components. Shipping may be a problem, but federal ATF access is not.

This is ATF VERBALLY telling TRA "we will throw you a bone" and let you do 38mm and below for noe, jjust get permits for >62.5g per cartridge". But do you see this in writing anywhere? No. It was a verbal conversation at a NFPA meeting between the two ATF agents who attended, Bruce Kelly, Gary Rosenfield, and Probably Pat Miller of NAR. It was a request to volunteer. They volunteered big time and now we have a lawsuit.

So if you agree with all of the above how do you get to this nonsense?

NOT according to the LAW. ONLY according to VERBAL requests. ONLY.

You have it right this second you dipstick. You just have to use it or lose it!!! It does not get any better than a HARD EXEMPTION!!

Jerry

First of all thiat is a lawsuit paper and has no standing whatsoever outside of court. It does not even have meaning within the administrative activities of ATF. It is a legal position in an extreme way to offset yet another legal position, of the NAR/TRA.

One cannot read a lawsuit paper and garner any useful information about current law as it is written. Remember law is required (by law) to be hunam readable. Understandable in the "common man's definition". ATF is stretching that several light-years beyond the breaking point to try to get jurisdiction over rockets and it is failing. Hard.

Jerry

Here is what we are to understand in the commmon man's definition:

27 CFR 55.11, "Propellant Actuated Device. Any tool or special mechanized device or gas generator system which is actuated by a propellant or which releases and directs work through a propellant charge."

This definition is what is referred to in 27 CFR 55.141(a)(8)

55.141 exemptions (a) (8) Gasoline, fertilizers, propellant actuated devices, or propellant actuated industrial tools manufactured, imported, or distributed for their intended purposes.

Emphasis on "any" and "or". How do you read that? Is an N motor exempt or not?

That is only legal if that is the "intended use" of the manufacturer. Does AeroTech directly condone this as does USR?

Which raises yet another point. Why cannot a person show up at a launch and fly whatever he can afford on-site? The ATF regs even if they applied to propellants as though they were explosives, which they do not, allow field use of explosives by unlisenced personnel under the supervision of the lisencee.

You really think all those mexican ditch diggers and miners have HEUP's?

Cesaroni has a HEUP and commercial interests to protech by not rocking the ATF boat AT and NAR and TRA sank. He agrees the law does not require a permit but considering his other far more lucerative business ventures he is traveling the path of greatest compliance with what he as a foreigner with NO RIGHTS has been asked to comply with. In his case it can be argued that both vernbal notices and letter rulings apply no matter how illegal and nonsensical they might be.

But once you get the motors in the USA you are required by LAW to LOG THEM OUT of your magazine and store them in the shipping containers in a cool, dry place.

Any place.

You consider. Gary says. You or someone interprets. Bullshit. The law states, not interprets.

55.141 exemptions (a) (8) Gasoline, fertilizers, propellant actuated devices, or propellant actuated industrial tools manufactured, imported, or distributed for their intended purposes.

Or a N6000 or a Q12000.

I bought last month from a

Ironically a Q12000 is a potentially over the counter Wal-mart item. Got your Visa card handy? Only about $20,000 each. Buy three!

Jerry

\

See

page 10 (page 62 of the "Orange Book")

1. Who must meet storage requirements? All persons who store explosive materials must store them in conformity with the provisions of Subpart K of the regulations, unless the person or the materials are exempt from regulation. [18 U.S.C. 842(j), 845; 27 CFR 55.29, 55.141, 55.164,

55.201(a)]

Note the reference to 55.141.

But the ATF has clearly stated that 55.141 does not apply to rocket motors.

so again where do you go from here ?

Chris Taylor

555.141-a-7-v