[history] MR-LMR-HPR-?

The first major era of model rocketry was pioneered by Carslile, Estes, Stine and Reese. This era ushered in what can only be described as a revolutionary change in consumer rocket safety, access, use in schools and use in local parks.
The second era of model rocketry was pioneered by Kline, Irvine, Rosenfield and others whereby increased rocket size, power, technology, and variety motivated increased toleration by NAR and FAA.
The third era has not yet been defined. But so far it is looking to be radically increased regulation and radically reduced participation.
It has been over 20 years since #2 and over 40 since #1.
The time is neigh.
Jerry Irvine

wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
No it's not. The time is whinny...
And it's Carlisle...
CAR - leese - lay...
Jeez...
<g>
tah

Jerry Irvine wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Poor jerry.

  Quoted Text Here  
You are part of the low tide.

Can't wait for it to merge into Model & High Power Anti-Gravity Beasts.... :-) Big trees from little seeds...Who's pioneering this effort???
MR-LMR-HPR-AGRAV
  Quoted Text Here  

  Quoted Text Here  
Honestly?
Whoever picks up the ball. I'm retired. Remember?
And based on my email . . . somebody will.

wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
No, Waite, I think Irv was the pioneer, especialy with a marketing assist by Lee.
  Quoted Text Here  

Jerry Irvine wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Estes,
schools
technology,
be
Depends on the outcome of the court case. If we win, it'll be a whole new era of growth for the hobby.
If we lose, it'll drastically alter the hobby and radically reduce participation. If HPR survives at all it will only be at a few locations, hosted by clubs with large on-site magazines. The reduced market will kill off some manufacturers and dealers, and force massive price increases on those who remain. Anyone who can't get storage, or can't/won't get a LEUP, will either be forced out of the hobby or be driven underground, dependent on homemade and/or black market motors.


" snipped-for-privacy@aol.com" wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Or go to non-"explosive" alternatives such as hybrids and liquids...
-dave w

  Quoted Text Here  
Personally, I'm pursuing both hybrids and amateur motors. I won't get a LEUP (screw the ATF-- fascists!!) and the fact that a preferred propellant is over-regulated hardly seems like the "end of it all". It seems fairly straightforward to shoot HPR without APCP. Maybe this prohibition can be a good thing-- forcing the next stage in technology onto the main floor... I do support the legal efforts to get the ATF to step off, but don't believe my participation in the sport is defined by the outcome of those efforts.
BTW-- the fact that I detest the ATF doesn't mean I'm operating outside the law. A little ingenuity and a bit of thought, and it's amazing what can be accomplished. Legally.
The sky is *not* falling. And lemonade can be goooood.......
Kevin OClassen NAR 13578

  Quoted Text Here  
If only that were actually true.
"Live the life style. Employ existing exemptions." - Jerry Irvine

Jerry Irvine wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
ATF says there is no exemption.
i

  Quoted Text Here  
Ummm, that doesn't matter.
  Quoted Text Here  

Oh brother wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
LOL! Yeah, right. That's what Jerry thought when the DOT told him his motors weren't legal to ship.
"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.

  Quoted Text Here  
Ummm, your Jerry bashing opinion doesn't matter, nor Jerry's nor the ATFs. What the JUDGE says is what matters and he's ruled the pad exemption exists.
It is sad that being right over Jerry is all that does matter.
  Quoted Text Here  
Nice quote. You prove my point, NAR/TRA has shown otherwise in a court of law. I'd go to the NAR web page and get the statement, but that would be a waste of my time. Please return to the mindless Jerry bashing and continue to make rmr a valuable asset to the rocket community. Sorry for the interruption.

  Quoted Text Here  
Here's the JUDGE's words verifying it.
"In addition, the Court finds that the ATF's pronouncement that sport rocket motors are not PADs is invalid because it was made without compliance with the notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures of the OCCA and the APA."
Here is the court order that is from:
http://www.v-serv.com/atf/62.pdf
Just factual Jerry
See SOMETHING useful can be saved from this thread.
It took a lot of editing.
  Quoted Text Here  

Jerry Irvine wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
OCCA
Too bad that ruling was superceded by the later ruling I just quoted, and which you have consistently refused to acknowledge. You're only half-factual.
  Quoted Text Here  
Yeah, that's your style -- edit out any facts that happen to be inconvenient.

  Quoted Text Here  
Nope. The ruling I quoted was from the "compliant being ruled on".
The ruling you quote from is "on a motion for expidited relief".
Relief must wait till the end.
BUT the fact that it was already ruled that rocket motors are PADS is in no way superceeded. In fact it is now a given.
"In addition"
"In addition, the Court finds that the ATF's pronouncement that sport rocket motors are not PADs is invalid..." - http://www.v-serv.com/atf/62.pdf Jerry
  Quoted Text Here  

Jerry Irvine wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
quoted,
Correct, and until then we're stuck with the ATF's position and enforcement.
  Quoted Text Here  
in
No it's not, because in that most recent ruling the judge said the issue of whether or not rocket motors are PADs was not properly before the court. We had to file a NEW motion to get it placed before the court, and until he rules on it, that issue is NOT settled.
Yeah, it contradicts what he said in his previous ruling, but those are the facts whether you like it or not.
-

  Quoted Text Here  
And since there is no enforcement, we are stuck with nothing.
Oh, and your fear and loathing in the mean time.
  Quoted Text Here  
Finding:
"In addition, the Court finds that the ATF's pronouncement that sport rocket motors are not PADs is invalid because it was made without compliance with the notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures of the OCCA and the APA."