My LEUP Nightmare

jj wrote:


Ask them if there was an acceptable modification to the shed or magazine. I.e. build a firewall around the magazine (a couple of layers of drywall perhaps). If the shed is big enough, a "room" within the shed may satisfy them. And remember, a "room" doesn't have to be big enough for YOU to fit into, just big enough for the magazine.
They may be concerned about a RUNNING lawn mower. Do you drive the mower into the shed? Discuss their concerns with them and try to find out if there is a compromise you can both agree to. Then get it in writing.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
No they said it was a spark producing device. But I guess a hammer in the shed when it hits a piece of metal is a spark producing device. The problem is that this is not my property some making a mod on the shed may not be an option.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The requirements for approved storage is an onerous (for many of us) impediment to getting the permit. It's seemed to me that this is just a way to keep people from participating in high-power rocketry. This sounds like yet another tightening of rules to keep people from getting permits.
I'm sure they've heard enough "problem getting a LEUP" stories, but yours is current. For that reason I suggest letting your national rocketry association leaders know about the problems you've encountered.
Glen Overby
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Glen Overby wrote:

You give the individual ATF Investigators (they got new titles now that they're part of DoJ) way too much credit. The ones I've talked to consider the Rocketry community as a waste of their time, keeping them from their "real" job. They are used to dealing with "real" explosives and the laws make no distinction between 50 pounds of BP and 50 pounds of APCP (ask your Fire Department which they're more concerned about). So they treat your magazine as if it was holding 50 pounds of "real" explosives. As in any bureaucracy, the fundamental rule is CYA. If something happened on your site, they don't want to be the one who approved an "unsafe" situation.
BTW. Even if we get rid of LEUPs, we still have the storage requirements. NFPA 1127 specifies storage requirements. If your town/city/village has incorporated NFPA 1 as their Fire Code, 1127 applies to you.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

(and most states have incorporated NFPA 1 without knowing that it also incorporates the NFPA 1122/25/27 codes also via chapter 65 , this little bit of code courtesy of the NAR NFPA rep I might add). Our NFPA rep, J.Patrick Miller, former long time NAR Prez has told me he wants to codify AR/EX into the NFPA codes! DOH?
which makes me ask the following question:
why did the NAR/TRA place these storga erequirements into nfpa 1127 and then on the other hand go to court with the BATFE, saying in essence, the storage requirements are too restrictive?
and of course I guess many of you forget that the NFPA codes will not allow rockets motors unless they are explosives? this also courtesy of our brillant NAR/TRA leaders.
I can't tell which side who anybody is on anymore. This is the old "speaks with a forked tongue syndrome" as I call it. Our leaders have done a fantatstic job of propanganding and using mis and disinformation.
On one hand, the NAR/TRA leadership wants YOU, the NAR/TRA member to donate money to the lawsuit against BATFE, and at the same time, it is making the BATFE's job for it easier by implementing the exact same oderous regs into the NFPA codes.....
Why aren't we sueing the NFPA too? Or at least placing people from our organizations that support such regulation? By the way the NAR NFPA reps are J.Patrick Miller and Mark Bundick. while the TRA reps are Bruce Kelly and Scott Bartel.
does anybody, beside sme, see the dichotomy in all of this?
we are spending a million bucks on a lawsuit to prevent the BATFE from enforcing and controlling HPR, while exactly at the same time, our own leadership has put into state codes, the exact same enforcement and control mechanisms?
The BATFe will say( and believe me they have done so in their legal papers), hey, we are just trying to institute rules and reg that have already been put into place by the NAR/TRA through their NFPA reps....sheesh......
see folks my position on this is quite clear: I support the Lawsuit against BATFE, but I am not going to donate any monies to it, while our own leadrship policies, are doing exactly the same thing we are fighting against.
when are you people going to wake up and smell the coffee? when are you people going to wake up and relaize we are doing it to ourselves? Do you want me to post the relevant passages from the NFPA codes to show you what we are doing to ourselves? while at the same time spending our selves into a financial purgatory ?
I chalenge and dare any current senior NAR/TRA member to ask their BOT/BOD why we are doing this to ourselves? See what responses you get. I betca they will try and change the subject or try to shut you up or just ignore your questions on this topic.
I think it would be in the best interest of all NAR/TRA memebrs to confront their leadership on this issue. Let them take a public stand and voice their position on this .
somebody is pulling somebodies leg here , and they better let go!
shockie B)

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

I don't know what you are griping about here. NFPA 1127 requires that motors regulated by the ATF be stored in compliance with ATF regulations. Exempt items are to be stored in a recloseable noncombustible container. No weight limit, which is better than you get with model rocket motors which do have a weight limit.
Surely that isn't too restrictive.

Again, NFPA 1127 requires you to comply with ATF regulations when storing regulated motors.

Be sure to include 4.19.2.5

--
David W. Schultz
http://home.earthlink.net/~david.schultz /
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
david: so basically what you are saying, is that all the NAR/TRA is really doing is "aligning" the nfpa codes (which become state laws) to correspond with the current Federal laws?
what about the fact that the NAR is still sueing the BATFE over their definition of APCP as an explosive? IF the NAR truly thought that APCP was not an explosive material, then it wouldn't need a storage magazine and there would be no need for any language in nfpa 1127. they would not be helping the ATF, by "alignin" the NFPA codes with current federal laws.
the lawsuit is not about we being able to horde 100,000 pounds of 62.5g exempt apcp motors. the law suit is about having restrictive magazine storage for the larger HPR motors, which does have a weight limitation just like model rockets.
shockie B)

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

No I am not saying that the NAR/TRA have inserted this language. I am not a member of NFPA and I haven't asked Pat Miller about what happened so I can't make any claim to know what happened. But the code does require (redundantly) that you comply with ATF storage regulations.

If the NAR/TRA appeal succeeds and APCP is declared to be exempt from ATF explosives regulations, then you can store your motors in a recloseable noncombustible container. Or whatever your local law requires.

The ATF is a voting member of the NFPA pyrotechnics committee. Perhaps they had something to do with this part of the code.

The weight restriction on storage of regulated motors is the result of federal regulations which are repeated in NFPA 1127. If the motors are exempt from ATF regulation then there is no weight limit.

--
David W. Schultz
http://home.earthlink.net/~david.schultz /
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
If the motors are

If??
--
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

What is a regulated motor?
Be specific.
--
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
Jerry Irvine wrote:

you know, the ones felons are prohibited from possessing.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 13:41:17 GMT, Dave Grayvis

I was thinking they would be the ones that are not 'Model Aircraft Parts.' 8-)
Welcome back Jerry.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Phil Stein wrote:

Full moon is Friday. RMR traffic will start picking up!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
http://home.earthlink.net/~david.schultz/regulation/atf.html#model
Wherein you will find:
1) The regulations. 2) The ATF's position. 3) My opinion.
Which are all different.
But you already know this so why bother asking? I know, so you can spout your usual cry of "PAD".
Even though I arrived at it independently, my opinion is closely aligned with that of RCS/Aerotech and I haven't heard of any ATF enforcement action against them. So that position does have some validity.
Jerry Irvine wrote:

--
David W. Schultz
http://home.earthlink.net/~david.schultz /
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So your standard of correctness is enforcement actions (of which there are few or none), from an agency regularly accused of overstretching, and not what the regulatoions actually say which are considerably more lax?
So rights are designed to be unilaterally surrendered in your opinion too?
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
Jerry Irvine wrote:

You want an enforcement action do you? How about Al's Hobbies?
http://home.earthlink.net/~schultdw/regulation/Als%20Hobby%20Affidavit.pdf
--
David W. Schultz
http://home.earthlink.net/~david.schultz /
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No. I want him to understand his legal defense.
He does not.
He cannot afford an apporpriate attorney.
BATFE has a massive hoard of attorneys. They absolutely count on this discrepency.

--
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
Jerry Irvine wrote:

No, rights are to be fought for, in this case through the courts. Now, the smart way to do it is to file suit to have the court settle the issue. Then there's Jerry's way, which is to pretend you're legal, hide your business dealings behind shell games, and demand that TRA/NAR put their necks on the line in place of his own. As Jerry has proven, this method brings with it the risk that one will eventually rack up some big fines and be shut down. You might even get to do some jail time for "possession of a destructive device".

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

The same Judith Bender that cited me by enforcing the 62.5g limit that does not yet exist. I asked her to show me IN THE REGS where the 62.5g limit came from. The ONLY document she could point to substantiating that claim was NPR 968, which was clearly labeled on top "proposed" rules.
She should be fired and prosecuted for illegal abuse of power. As should any other BATFE agent that illegally tries to enforce nonexistant regulations.
--
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<<
Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bob, that's all fine and dandy, but you left out the pat, where this Judith Bender BATFE agent went up the chain of her command, to wit:
"I received confirmation from Specialist Gary Patterson, ATF HQ, Explosives Industry programs Branch; ATF Counsel Erika Ritt; and Chicago SOI Curtis Gilbert, that PADs containing over 62.5g are still regulated by the ATF and are subject to storage requirements"
And herein lies the crux of the problem, in the eyes of a large portion of the BATFE, there already is a 62.5 g limit. (Ahh wait a minute, the NAR thru the NFPA also says there is a 62.5 g limit too. Maybe there is a 62.5g limit and WE just don't know it yet! Now I'm really confused. We are all the way back to square one. i.e., where the ATF arbitrarily interprets its rules in whatever fashion they so desire and their interpretations vary from field office to field office. Nobody is on the same page. Again. Yet.
Somebody explain to me how a 10-15 year long lawsuit, spending perhaps millions of dollars is going to change the "culture" of the BATFE internally?
And if you read the violations carefully, Mr. Al was in violation of the checkin-checkout enumeration logs required. .....seems some pretty large motors there had kinda disappeared and were unaccounted for.... ouch.
I betcha good money that if the BATFE swooped down tomorrow on every HPR dealer in the country, they would find so many records violations and descrpencies, it would show just how lax this business really is towards self-regulation. And folks you know that in this current climate , thats not a good thing.
shockie B)
ps BOB, I'm surprised the Illinois explosives authorities haven't come after Mr. AL.... guess the BATFE don't talk to the state people huh? As I know the Illinois explosives laws are some of the tougest in the nation.
writes:

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.