I personally don't see how the lawsuit will result in the BATFE applying uniform standards and interpreattions across the board. I mean, wasn't that one of the original reasons we filed the lawsuit? To get uniform interpretaions across the country, instead of one ATF person here saying one thing and the ATF guy over they saying something completely different?
I think this is an internal institutional problem that no lawsuit will ever fix....face it, the BATFE is broken....no lawsuit will fix that.
These are high powwer rocket motors, not model rocket motors. The HPR motors could leak liquid fuel and/or fill the enclosed building with flamable vapors, which could be ignited by the sparking device, even though storage of gasoline is not a BATFE concern.
It's the gov'ment, dammit; it does not have to make sence.
Ditto. Plus 2 cars, snow thrower, rototiller, weed wacker. If I listed the most dangerous things in my garage in case of a fire, the magazine wouldn't even make the top 20.
That's because the regulations as written do NOT require it.
You have to read the regs to the agent to get it now that Tripoli/AT/RCS/AMW/Loki has trained ATF to BELIEVE permits are required for "Restricted Access-sm" motors.
"a society in which people can do and say what they want will also tend to be one in which the most efficient solutions win"
- Paul Graham
ALL "sport motors" are ATF exempt.
Period.
Here's the law that shows that:
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.
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:
formatting link
Do not be confused by "verbal rulings" and "letter rulings". Those only apply to permit holders, not exempt users.
I wonder if she is reading these messages? ATF monitors this site and cringes everytime I simply post the regs as they exist right now.
Then they relax again after Ray and his ilk post saying ignore the regs, the club rules and ATF verbal notices and letter statements override the regulations.
They love it when a plan comes together without the hassle of public comment.
Shockie is correct, without uniform issuance of compliance, (i.e. letting one party store with a mower, and the other not), there is little or no chance of a legal victory insuring "blanketed" or uniform allowances in the future. The best way to begin to comprehend how government beaureaus operate, is to view each office as a franchise of the "corporation". Overall, each office supports the same mission statement, offers the same services, but how those goals are achieved is dependent on the parameters set forth by supervisory personnel of that given location. For what it's worth, the best suggestion I could offer would be to obtain any recommendations from ANY official in writing, and use that/those documents for reference in any future processes. Just remember, JJ, it's all POLITICS, don't let it discourage you.
You're right. The BATFE should [arbitrarly, without notice] change the rule to disallow the smaller motors, too.
This probably isn't the solution you're looking for (it certainly isn't one I'd want) but it would resolve your complaint. Be careful what you wish for!
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.
Ok so how do we ensure continuous uniform compliance by all of the franchises? Doesn't that somehow imply, the fox is in the henhouse? I mean doesn't the fedgov have a top down hierarchical management style? Why can't the BATfE HQ Brass seem to rein in, control and manage their charges out in the great outback? Why is that so difficult for the BATfe to do, i.e. to get every body on the same page at the same time?
This doesn't to me, seem to be a recent problem with the BATfE, they have been doing this now for 10 years. You would think with the lawsuit, the BATFE, would realize that , yes indeed, their franchises are running roughshod over their "fiefdoms" and it has to cease. These bureaucrats only goal is to rise to their highest level of incompetence.
What good will it do us, after a million bucks and 10-15 years of litigation, if the BATFE remains broken and arbitrary in their ways? We would have won a hollow victory. Do we sue again? and again and again until what? Its the people and the culture in the BATFE that has to change and I don't think any lawsuit will ever do that.
I think both Ruby Ridge and Waco proved beyond a doubt the BATFE is seriously broken, was anything ever really done to institute change from within? NO....
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.
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.