Home of Known Rocket Builder Blows up: Anybody we know?

Thanks for the non reply. Why do you even bother?

That doesn't make sense to me. EX is experimental right? Why must that mean APCP?

If you think that you are freaking out (which means get a life already). I am just asking a question based on Jerry answers. Whoa...

It really IS all about Jerry for you, eh? I was not mentioned in this particular message except BY YOU.

It is a Tripoli term. It does not necessarily "mean" experimental. It also can be defined to include or exclude whatever they want, apparantly in real-time as well.

Jerry

In rocketry administration and leadership "chicken little" serves a practical purpose:

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be lead to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

Jerry

It seems that NAR/TRA, at the level of their extential roots, depend on a perception of rocketry as "inherently forbidden", such that they can promote their program as an oasis of permission within the notional wasteland of prohibition...

-dave w

Correct. Which flies in the face of reality. Rocketry is EXEMPT on a federal level and permissible in the case of reuseable aero models on a state level and where not explicitly prohibited, amateur rocketry is freely legal.

That fact upsets NAR and TRA emmensely and they intend to "fix that." And I have faith they will with sufficient effort.

Jerry

"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."

27 CFR 555.11, 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.

27 CFR 555.141 exemptions (a) (8) Gasoline, fertilizers, propellant actuated devices, or propellant actuated industrial tools manufactured, imported, or distributed for their intended purposes.

QED

"On the other hand, the only reason an individual vendor needs any kind of BATF-related "license" for exempt PAD's is if he's getting them from a manufacturer who still insists on distributing them under the auspices of the "licensee/permittee" system in the first place...

- David Weinshenker

This is also clear evidence of why NAR and TRA refuse even the most obvious and easy to implement policies that would make rocketry easier access, UNDER CURRENT LAW.

Jerry

Greg C. wrote:

LOL! Nope.

Generally speaking, rockets _have_ historically been lumped in with fireworks and have been either forbidden or highly regulated. Especially the commercial manufacture and sale of rocket motors. Amateur rocketry, which is making your own not-for-sale motors, is another issue.

If you believe this is merely a "perception", please prove it, with cites, instead of making insinuations.

I agree, Ray.

David, you really do believe that without the oasis of permission, we'd be able to "just do rockets?" In Seattle, rockets are lumped in with fireworks unless they're certified. Oh sure, that doesn't mean they're forbidden necessarily, either are fireworks. It is much easier though to do it the NAR way, than it is to go through the onerous task of getting permission from the myriad of State, County, and City agencies.

And if your above statement is on the right track, then why in the world would both the NAR and TRA be fighting the Federal Government over regulations? Their 5 count lawsuit looks much more like a platform of "Inherent Freedom" than one of prohibition. Again, I just shake my head when I hear this "restrictive NAR" idea.

Tell you what, you go ahead and list the restrictions the NAR has _added_ to rocketry, that would otherwise not be in existence if NAR hadn't felt the need to "control" rockets.

steve

Local TV quotes Sherriff dept. saying he "experimented with model rocketry"

Of course you agree with Ray. Neither of you read and understand cites, much less provide them, and, when provided you say in effect, "but the government" doesn't listen to those cites".

So citing the law is inneffective with you folks 100% of the time.

However cite that same law directly to an authority and STAND YOUR GROUND (unlike TRA, its manufacturers, dealers, and members) then you get what you deserve. Rights.

Yes. It's really simple.

Rockets are ATF exempt. Once in a consumer's hands, DOT exempt. FAA exempt up to 125 g propellant and a simple. free waiver above that.

So the answer is OBVIOUSLY YES.

Obvious to anyone but a moron of course.

Jerry

Is that what you thought you were, a consumer?? You know, $40K aint hay..

Fred