MR motor sources



"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain".
Please do not again associate me with anyone who wishes that the brain-damaged legislation get passed in any form. There is no use in proposing or passing any law that gives legitimacy to an exemption that itself is illegal. That is a fact, but you, as usual, like to run loose with whatever you feel necessary for "the cause" and attacking individuals when you wish to ignore answering a direct question.
You are getting much better, Iz, at lots of meaningless rhetoric that ignores the facts. Model rocketry was not affected by the HSA/SEA. ARSA and Wickman spread the false rumor that it did, and the media picked up on it. Fact. Many media people were not happy to have been misled. Fact. People in and out of the hobby still believe the Feds have banned it or limited it. It is a fact that people believe this and it is a fact that the source is from ARSA and John Wickman. The BATFE was given the opportunity, in the midst of the misleading media blitz to post a release on their website saying that model rocketry is exempt as it always was... "see we're the good guys". The cause and affect is a clear and undeniable fact... Wickman/ARSA have helped slow down the market with FUD.
One case of an over-zealous rocketeer who got the attention of an over-cautious local BATFE person does not prove out as the general experience of most people applying for a LEUP. Most people report that the BATFE has been very cooperative if you understand the current law. People are getting LEUPs. People are having others help them get the motors they need to fly them legally if they can't get their own permit. This, despite the "efforts and causes" of Wickman/ARSA. Again, go ahead and ignore these facts when convenient.
The May 24th "the end is near" warning from Wickman/ARSA was a clear example of a self-fulfilling prophecy, quite common with crackpot prophets. Or, giving him more credit, a shrewd move to add urgency to "the cause", regardless of the affect on law-abiding rocketeers and the vendors. Or, giving him even more credit, it was an attack on the NAR/NSL that weekend, based on the fact that Wickman has publicly shown he despises both of the major hobby organizations and has personally attacked their leaders with crude rhetoric.
The facts are that many people do not understand the current law, and the changes in the laws, if they have followed the misinformation and paranoia from the ARSA website. Helping people understand the law and comply with the law would alleviate the urgency of his radical (and naive) solution. So, instead, the FUD continues and the "cause" becomes more important than the health of the hobby and the livelihood of the vendors. And now the "guilt trip" phase, "helping save rocketry" and not admitting responsibility for much of the misinformation that caused the slump. The irony is pretty sad... Wickman siding with the established world of safe and certified rocketry after trying to create his unsafe anarchistic world of "anything goes" rocketry.
If my response is giving Iz more legitimacy that he deserves, my apologies to RMR readers.
-John DeMar http://delta.syr.edu/jsdemar
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Say what? What is your precise basis for this claim?

Then you should have no problem supporting that.

It did for a while when shippers STOPPED SHIPPING 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6 since drivers would require background checks as of something like Jan 23 forthe first time ever. Before that DOT required a "hazmat endorsement" which required special testing, a medical exam and other issues, but not a background check. But the base lisence was not obtainable with a bad driving record.

--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
responses inline ...
John DeMar wrote:

People are getting LEUPS when there if no objective case for regulating non-explosive APCP as an explosive, when they can satisfy the absurd requirements for storage, provided they wish to have their privacy invaded by a government agency. Gee, thank you for the privilege.
Why should I acquiesce to this, and invite others to do so? Why should we be placed in a position where relying on another person is necessary, when the conditions that precipitate that reliance are absurd?
It seems that you are the one who is ignoring the facts. Or do you actually enjoy bending over for the BATFE?
The fact is that the whimsical re-interpretations of law that the BATFE use as license to oppress hobbyists (including fledgling aerospace engineers) brought us to the present reality.
The fact is that the deceit on the part of the DOJ/BATFE to the SJC (and other Senators prior to the committee meeting) promises a future reality that is even more subject to BATFE whimsical interpretation.
The fact is that our freedoms are being eroded and TRA party line is "that is how washington works", or worse, that we should resign ourselves to HK724 or some questionable 'repair' as the best we can achieve in the current political climate.
That is, in my view, pure wholly unacceptable.
I, personally do not enjoy bending over.

as I said, just invite them to bend over
get fingerprinted and background checked because the BATFE said so, whats the big deal?
go through the expense and inconvenience of securing acceptable storage because the BATFE said so, what's the big deal?
or enroll someone else to share their storage, limiting your flexibilty to fly due to attendant logistical and scheduling issues, what's the big deal?
or simply rely on the generosity of those willing to supervise your launches, again with the same logistical and scheduling issues.
really, what is the big deal? Right?

you are so off base as to be laughable
what of the hobby shop owners who are unable to secure "acceptable storage" to maintain their inventory? Under the law you present as so workable, they just have to find another product line (or line of business)
what of the individuals who thing the things I iterated are in fact a big deal! Under your workable law, they are just choosing to be unrealistic, and will have to revise their positions, or find another form or rocketry (or another hobby).
I'm sorry, but your vision is considerably myopic

that is pure fabrication. I have never said or even suggested that JW has taken any position on certification of any kind. My only remarks in that area were my own. I made his position clear, as he has himself publicly on many ocassions. DOJ/BATFE should not be permitted to criminalize rocketry. As a legislative resolution is the only way to curtail their mischief, an explicit legalization of rocketry is being sought in Congress.
[ I will be offline for the next six hours or so .. family time. I will address whatever fairytales appear during my absence upon my return.]
- iz
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Iz wrote: << Why should I acquiesce to this, and invite others to do so? Why should we be placed in a position where relying on another person is necessary, when the conditions that precipitate that reliance are absurd? >>
I agree. On the other hand, I disagree with the way it was put out to the rocketry community as an immediate and total shutdown of the hobby by ATF. That has apparently led many in the hobby to quit, thinking there was no way they could legally launch. The fact is, if you have a vendor at the site, you can still launch anything you could before, without a LEUP.
Of course, this is certainly not the optimal situation, and it doesn't help those folks who have no on-site vendor. And I think John DeMar over simplifies the obstacles toward getting a LEUP and storage -- for many, it's just not possible. But the scare tactics have caused some folks to give up on the hobby prematurely.
<< The fact is that the deceit on the part of the DOJ/BATFE to the SJC (and other Senators prior to the committee meeting) promises a future reality that is even more subject to BATFE whimsical interpretation. >>
For that, you can _only_ blame the well-intentioned but misguided legislative campaign.
<< The fact is that our freedoms are being eroded and TRA party line is "that is how washington works" >>
That IS how Washington works, and the failure to see that political reality is why the bill got butchered and stalled.
<< or worse, that we should resign ourselves to HK724 or some questionable 'repair' as the best we can achieve in the current political climate. >>
As unpleasant as that may be, it certainly might be the only remaining option, either to get things moving so that improvements can be made; or simply to cut out losses while we can.
<< DOJ/BATFE should not be permitted to criminalize rocketry.>>
There are very few who would disagree.
<<As a legislative resolution is the only way to curtail their mischief, an explicit legalization of rocketry is being sought in Congress. >>
It's not the only way, and it certainly has not been very successful so far.
<< I will be offline for the next six hours or so ...family time. >>
Enjoy!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (RayDunakin) wrote:

There was an immediate and total shutdown of 1.4 shipments by the ATF (even though DOT alone had jurisdiction). That factually happened. Then UPS (and other common carriers) accepted small firearms again and a few weeks later they began taking 1.4 again. But it WAS shut down for weeks.

Not.
It was a HSA initiative.
Snip a bunch of exactly wrong crap. No point in arguing it AGAIN as he obviously didn't listen/understand the first time.
Jerry
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
responses inline as usual
RayDunakin wrote:

this is an intelligent observation

no, for that you can only blame the DOJ/BATFE, who brazenly crafted such outrageous lies (which they later "withdrew" in response to JW's incisive response).
see "ARSA Publishes Reports To Dispel Myths On Dangers Of Rocketry By Department of Justice and ATFE" at http://www.space-rockets.com/arsanews#reports
also see "Senator Enzi Questions John Ashcroft On Dept. Of Justice Opposition To Rocketry Relief Legislation" at http://www.space-rockets.com/arsanews#enzi2

no, that is how our America is slowly passing out of existence while we watch in acquiescence of our impotence

imagine a "model rocket motor" in a "recreational model rocket" now imagine a BATFE interpretation of what these are
that is not merely "unpleasant", it is wholly unacceptable
- iz
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Right. Granting people a license to possess low explosives so they can use a non-explosive substance doesn't seem to advance our security one bit.
len.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What is the alternative, Today? Do you disagree that current law requires a LEUP for APCP > 62.5g per grain?

the
paranoia
solution.
than
business)
"anything
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David,
I am not aware of any 62.5g exemption codified in law. I believe that the original proposal was sufficiently ambiguous to allow motor manufacturer to offer an "Easy Access" line of RMS, and that the BATFE devised NPRM 968 in acknowledgement of, and to resolve this ambiguity.
HOWEVER,
IF the APCP listing in the Explosives List has validity, (which is arguably NOT and consequently a subject of the TRA/NAR vs BATFE suit)
AND
rockets and their materials are not exempt as Propellant Actuated Deviced (as the BATFE would have us believe, despite their own previous statements to the contrary)
THEN
all APCP requires a LEUP regardless of size, as the BATFE contends.
I don't believe any of these criteria are met, and the BATFE is unilaterally abusing their license to interpret the regulations (in defiance of legal definitions established by Congress). Hence SB 724 to settle this once and for all (and in consideration of the safety and security issues that come into being over the past decade or so.)
I do not personally believe that a judge and jury will rule in favor of the BATFE prosecuting a case against a rocketeer possessing "Easy Access" motors. But most vendors and many rocketeers are understandably choosing to error on the side of caution.
- iz

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes.
With hard PROOF.
http://www.v-serv.com/usr/ATFexampt.htm
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

http://www.v-serv.com/usr/ATFexempt.htm
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I agree that the HSA/SEA did not change the 62.5g limit, and Wickman/ARSA/Iz have mis-led the rocketry public about that. This has hurt the hobby.
On the other hand, HSA/SEA did have some real affects. No more in-state transfers of > 62.5g is a very real impact to those of us in NC and other states with no in-state vendors. And, the requirements to get a LEUP got a lot stricter. It's easier to buy a gun and a case of ammo, or a musket and 50 pounds of BP, than a 3 oz hunk of APCP.
-- David
wrote:

blitz
prophets.
the
solution.
responsibility
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That ONLY applies to NON-EXEMPT EXPLOSIVES.
Many/all rocket motors are exempt under 27 CFR 555.141-a-8 and 27 CFR 555.141-a-8

That ONLY applies to NON-EXEMPT EXPLOSIVES.
Many/all rocket motors are exempt under 27 CFR 555.141-a-8 and 27 CFR 555.141-a-8
Are you a retard that cannot read the LAW?
Yes, I thought so.
Jerry
http://www.v-serv.com/usr/ATFexempt.htm
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
A retard? No. But even you have to admit that many dealers changed their shipping policy after HSA/SEA passed, and that HAS hurt the hobby.
And, before you blame TRA/NAR/AT for this, let me quote directly from Wickman's website:
http://www.space-rockets.com/congress
"In the mid 1990's, the ATFE decided that APCP rocket motors with propellant weights over 62.5 grams were no longer propellant actuated devices and were explosives. Even though the 62.5 gram restriction was never put into the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), the ATFE threatened to arrest and prosecute anyone with a APCP rocket motor over 62.5 grams if they did not have an ATFE permit
In August 2002, the ATFE published in their monthly newsletter that they were going to determine whether they would continue with the 62.5 gram exemption. Quoting the ATF newsletter, "In the near future, ATF will engage in rule making to solicit comments on the continuing use of the 62.5-gram exemption threshold'. The implied threat was that the exempt weight limit was going to be reduced to values unknown. Click here for August 2002 ATF Newsletter Article
In late November 2003 [sic], President Bush signed into law the Homeland Security Act. Embedded inside the law was the Safe Explosives Act, which imposed new restrictions on American rocketry. The new restrictions were that individuals, private colleges and businesses needed an ATF permit to purchase rocket motors using APCP from instate sources. Individuals and private organizations who made their own APCP also needed an ATFE permit to move APCP within the state it was made. Prior to this, a permit was only required when APCP was transported out of the state it was made in. Also, black powder commonly used in ejection charges for deploying parachutes could not be purchased for this purpose without an ATFE permit."
Note that the November 2003 date is a mistake on the website, not mine.
-- David

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Of course I blame TRA for this. TRA alone has FORCED dealers of TRA "certified" (sic) motors to also NOT sell perfectly legal motors offered using other compliance methods entirely. Performance Hobbies for example was dragged into the TRA BOD meeting at LDRS Lucerne and threatened with expulsion and blackball unless he stopped selling USR product. Not just at TRA launches. At all.
Further you will note that TRA vendors are asking for LEUP for motors as small as >62.5g G's RIGHT NOW after guidance from TRA and national and club leaders of TRA.
CLUBS are the problem. Changing CLUB policies is the solution. The ONLY solution.
The only reason I didn't mention NAR is they have been less militant but they have been just as misguided and have asked for LEUP's as well.
And if you have corrections for the ARSA site, I have a suggestion. Email the webmaster and suggest them, especially if you have a conflicting cite! Then I will be on board with YOU!
Also I have a law cite website. Any cites you want to add would be welcome if you have the skill to find them.
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David,
I relayed your ARSA webpage errata to JW, and he sent this note of appreciation
- iz
--
From: "John Wickman"
To: "Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed wrote:

David,
I relayed your ARSA webpage errata to JW, and he sent this note of appreciation <<<<<<
As a, what did you call yourself? Oh yes, facilitator of communication (isn't that an oxymoron given the way you have answered?).
Please facilitate to John Wickman if he embraces John Cato's statements which you cross-posted on RMR (for the future of the hobby as you put it) and included Wickman's name with when you posted it.
- George Gassaway
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
go fish
- iz
GCGassaway wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jerry Irvine wrote: << Many/all rocket motors are exempt under 27 CFR 555.141-a-8 and 27 CFR 555.141-a-8 Are you a retard that cannot read the LAW? >>
I'm sure David isn't, but apparently the leaders of the ATF are.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.