HPR Magazine

I think everyone has to weigh the risks, and be responsible for their own decision

that is a decision that only he can make. Everyone has their own personal circumstances, and tolerance for risk (to disruption of their lives and finances)

yes, absolutely! quickly enough to make said disruption tolerable? I can't say. A judge may await a finding on the pending TRA/NAR suit.

theoretically, but even to be charged has implications at your job, community involvement, etc. For example, I've seen questionaires that ask if I have ever been arrested or charged with a felony. Although the next question was whether I was acquitted or convicted, I would already suffer a bias against me. So my position is that only the individual can make that choice.

bear in mind that I tend to be considerably more conservative since I have 3 children, ages 9 to 13, and am on the BoD of their private school. Were I 25 and unmarried, I would most likely tell them, with all due respect, to go to hell. But now, I have them (and it) to think about.

bear in mind also that the BATFE has demonstrated throughout its history that it is able and willing to perpetrate mayhem and slaughter if it so chooses, and do so with virtual immunity. How far will BATFE play their bluff of felony charges for possession violations? I personally don't think very far, but neither do I care to risk my time, money and the well-being of me and my family to find out. But that is my personal choice in the matter (and precisely the kind of decision their tactics are designed to elicit)

again, considering the risk of inconvenience, disruption of their lives, or worse, I expect that individuals need to use their judgement in how they would deal with it. I do not regard it as a matter of courage or cowardice, but of one of being responsible for your situation.

(I apologize for the repitition on this 'flow of consciousness' response)

- iz

Reply to
Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed
Loading thread data ...

Phil,

With all due respect I think you're the one that is wrong if you believe that the BATFE is mearly an inconvience. If you really believe that it's okay to have to beg their permission and pay them money in order to exercise your rights as an American citizen then you're very seriously wrong. That is exactly the type of wrong thinking that allows them to overstep their bounds and unlawfully take away our freedoms.

Regards, Michael Newton

Reply to
Michael Newton

that meets the requirement, and you may also be interested in noting the following:

*** PLEASE be sure to snip it in any replies!! ;) ***

your LEUP entitles you to purchase a motor containing explosive propellant from any vendor at the launch site, any vendor on the way to the site, or possibly even recieve one as a gift ("transfer") from another LEUP holder either there or on the trip up (as long as no money is exchanged, as that would make them a "dealer in Low Explosives"). There is nothing that requires you to make your purchases of motors containing explosive propellant only from a vendor with whom you have a contingency storage agreement

but you can't purchase or recieve a motor containing explosive propellant so long before that you are "possessing" it and are not merely in the act of transporting it (e.g.; you get it the previous day)

note that magazine storage of motors containing explosive propellant is neither required nor permitted during transport. You can transport the motors and their explosive propellant in any properly labelled box (that, I believe, meets the HAZMAT requirements as you are transporting explosive propellant over public roads).

however there may be some logistical issues

[ attention, the following is not "FUD". These are valid concerns raised by a spectrum of rocketeers trying to understand the effect of the SEA after May 24th. ]

one of the stated objectives of the SEA, is that Explosive Materials (even flammable solids that are misclassified by the BATFE as "explosive propellant", albiet "low" explosives) do not fall into the wrong hands by either sale, transfer, theft or negligience. Considering that a launch site is a general milling around of people, with a fair amount of explosive propellant in the motors stashed in their car or launch box while they are eating lunch, talking shop, helping other flyers prep their rockets, or just looking up at the sky for a parachute to deploy, the BATFE may have (what they consider to be) a legimate concern about the security of motors and their explosive propellant at the launch site.

in their mind, it wouldn't do for a terrorist to join the milling people at a launch and be looking for an opportunity to lift some motors and their explosive propellant from someones table, launch box, or raised tailgate with which they can shoot down a plane at 30,000 feet or hit a tank at 5 miles.

therefore, the BATFE may interpret "in use" to mean those motors containing explosive propellant in the act of being put in the rocket, or awaiting ignition at the pad. Motors containing explosive propellant waiting for your subsequent flights may not be considered "in use". There is nothing in the regulations to indicate that this is not subject to their interpretation. Motors containing explosive propellant not "in use" or not being transported may require acceptable storage. [now while some of you may find this conversation absurd and a complete waste of energy, I challenge you to show me a Notice or Q&A from the BATFE where they have committed to a position on it, especially in light of my previous remarks on the SEA, above]

if that is the case, either a Type 3 magazine ("Day Box"), a stationary Type 4 magazine at the launch site which is registered with the BATFE, or a Type 4 "vehicular storage" that was immobilized (the wheels were removed) would be required to hold the motors containing explosive propellant that are not being prepped or at the pad. These precautions seem reasonable (to the BATFE) when you realize that we are talking about protecting airplanes and tanks.

scenatio 1a - your vendor/"storage partner" is at the launch, or any other vendor (whom you, BTW, would be well within your rights to purchase motors containing explosive propellant from)

no problem, they hold onto the motors containing explosive propellant, and take responsibility for keeping airplanes and tanks safe from terrorists with motors containing explosive propellant while you are eating lunch, talking shop, helping other flyers prep their rockets, or just looking up at the sky for a parachute to deploy

scenatio 1b - you stop at a vendor and buy your motors containing explosive propellant on the way up

you have to find someone with a magazine at the launch site to take responsibility for keeping airplanes and tanks safe from terrorists with motors containing explosive propellant while you are eating lunch, talking shop, helping other flyers prep their rockets, or just looking up at the sky for a parachute to deploy, so that airplanes and tanks can remain safe

lets take a optimistic view, and consider that the BATFE does not imagine that terrorists might circulate around launch sites littered with motors containing explosive propellant, or that rocketeers would be concientious citizens and establish a buddy system to make sure all motors and their explosive propellant is accounted for at all times. So despite the fact that storage is required in the safety and security of your own property; you can keep your entire days cache of motors and its explosive propellant in your appropriately labelled cardboard box in your car or in your launch box or on your folding table while you are eating lunch, talking shop, helping other flyers prep their rockets, or just looking up at the sky for a parachute to deploy.

scenario 2a - purchase from alternate vendor at the launchsite (not your storage partner):

any unused motors containing explosive propellant are returned and refunded - no problemo. Airplanes and tanks are safe.

scenario 2b - purchased on the trip up from your vendor & storage partner:

any unused motors containing explosive propellant will have to be (a) destroyed, (b) given away to a vendor or other LEUP holder, or (c) taken back to your vendor for return/refund or for storage in your behalf, or (d) taken to any other storage location or LEUP holder who will assume responsibility for its storage. In any case, airplanes and tanks are safe.

secenario 2c - purchased on the trip up from a vendor other than your storage partner:

any unused motors containing explosive propellant will have to be (a) destroyed, (b) given away to a vendor or other LEUP holder, (c) taken back to the vendor from whom you made the purchase for return/refund, (d) taken to your storage partner for storage in your behalf, or (e) taken to any other storage location or LEUP holder who will assume responsibility for the storage of said motors and their explosive propellant. Airplanes and tanks are safe.

you can't "return it for refund" to anyone other than the vendor from whom you purchased it, as that would be "dealing in Low Explosives" in the eyes of the BATFE.

I know that getting educated on the regs and considering their implications is harrying. But what really upsets me is the absurdity of applying Low Explosive regulations to a non-explosive material. I trust that my use of BATFE's description of APCP helps in understanding their perspective.

see the following references:

Letter from the Department Of Justice to the Chairman Of Senate Judiciary Committee sent June 10, 2003

formatting link
Code of Federal Regulations Title 27 Part 55 - Commerce in Explosives
formatting link
section of above pertaining to Storage
formatting link
Questions and Answers - 18 U.S.C. Chapter 40 and 27 CFR Part 55
formatting link

- iz

David We> "David W." wrote:

Reply to
Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed

no problemo, amigo!

I would appreciate it if you would comment on my long article re: storage at launch sites

- iz ;)

Phil Ste> I agree that if they ever did exist they don't formally exist now.

Reply to
Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed

nope. Sales are prohibited to people without a LEUP. You cannot buy a motor from a vendor to use under his supervision (money cannot change hands)

but a LEUP holder (vendor or otherwise) can give a motor to a non-LEUPer (provided he is not among the list of "prohibited persons", and supervise your use of it as you described

- iz

RayDunak> Ironically, it was and still is possible to do all that _without_ a LEUP at

Reply to
Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed

yes, thats true

oh, you thought WE were talking about MOTORS?

- iz ;)

Jerry Irv> Motors are EXEMPT explosives per 27 CFR 555.141-a-8

Reply to
Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed

not in New York City you can't (store anywhere near 500 lbs)

NYC has its own explosives and fire codes that supersede the SFM

sorry :(

- iz

Reply to
Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed

Maybe if enough people don't get what they pay for, and go after legal remedies, we'd fix the problem. Rather than complaining about it amongst ourselves endlessly.

Reply to
David

I'm not in favor of what the BATFE is doing but, I don't see it killing HPR either.

Phil

Phil Stein

Reply to
Phil Stein

Jerry,

I (and everyone else) know what you think. I was asking Iz's interpretation. It seems to me, from reading Wickman's website, that Wickman does not agree. I'm trying to cull that out - but no one will answer a direct question.

Reply to
David

Before HSA/SEA, you could do this if you bought in your own state from an in-state vendor or in-state LEUP holder.

Reply to
David

that is accurate. Prior to 5/24/03 there was no requirement for a LEUP for APCP motors of any size, purchased within your own state. Even if purchased on the Internet or in a hobby shop (i.e.; not at a lauch site) as long as the vendor and you were in the same state.

motor manufacturers "easy access" multi-grain 62.5 g /grain product lines were designed to circumvent the interstate LEUP requirement.

the SEA did away with the exclusion for in-state transactions, and NPRM

968 aims to do away not only with easy access, but with all RMS motors where the grain dimensions and stanard case sizes enable assembly of motors > 62.5 g/motor (that all multi-grain "easy access" motors). Only the Pro38 133G69 and (as Gary Rosenfield, and later Bob Kaplow pointed out) the entire AeroTech "consumer" product lines would be exempt.

NPRM 968 was originally published in the Federal Register (FR) on

1/29/03 with a comment period ending 4/29/03, with BATFEs plans to have it effective 1/29/04. On 6/23/03 an extension of the comment period to 7/7/03 was published in the FR.

They have yet to respond to hundreds of comment in protest. It is hoped that these comments will delay or force a revision of NPRM 968.

- iz

David wrote:

Reply to
Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed

Dozens of jurisdictions. Dozens of filing fees that meet or exceed the individual loss. Dozens of lost days at work. It is that difficulty of getting justice that prevents justice.

Of course the entity charged with resolving it, the TRAI BOD refuses to do it collectively for all members as a group because they CAUSED and MAINTAIN the problem as a matter of policy.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

The amounts are set by COUNTY hazmat and the CITY can but most do not restrict it further. NYC and LAX and CHI and ATL may be exceptions.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Motors are EXEMPT explosives per 27 CFR 555.141-a-8

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Motors are EXEMPT explosives per 27 CFR 555.141-a-8

Thus exempt from ANY explosive treatment. As is gasoline.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

27 CFR 555.141-a-8 and its predecessor 27 CFR 55.141-a-8 have been eliminating a need for any of the crap stated in this post for decades.

So the NAR and TRA responses have been highly inappropriate. That's why the ATF didn't know what to do and responded by notices of public rulemaking that themselves only made the situation worse.

Stop poking a retarded giant in the penis with a sharp stick.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Nahh...it's RMR. The bashing comes around every so often and, like a bad case of the clap, just won't go away.

Reply to
Kurt Kesler

Jerry

I am talking about "explosive propellant" motors, ... not hobby-grade APCP! ;o)

- iz

Jerry Irv> Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed wrote:

Reply to
Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed

jerry: why do you call motors exempt explosives? I thought motors could not explode? Isn't this one of the crutches the NAR/TRA lawsuit is based upon? This position is sure gonna disappoint a lot of true believers. have you finally come around to the "dark side", ie the NAR/TRA/NFPA position that all model rocket and HPR motors must be explosives prior to cert and legal use?

shockie B)

Reply to
shockwaveriderz

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.