My LEUP Nightmare



Witness account.

Challenge.
Blather.
--
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
Phil Stein wrote:

Thanks for so succinctly summing up Jerry's standard response to any request for proof of his outrageous claims.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I tried to fix that and was one vote away from success when a MRC member objected.
--
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
Precisely the reason I hope we get relief with the lawsuit. I believe there shouldn't be any issues of anyone storing APCP in small amounts. I would like to be able to keep a few L1-L2 type engines around so I can have them when I travel to an appropriate launch site that has the appropriate waivers for flying.
I'll say it again. I find it stupid one could legally load up their house with a pile of BP and APCP engines of a smaller size to equal the force of some larger motors but yet have to go through a bunch of red tape just to keep a few H through M motors. Doesn't make sense. Besides, due to the costs of the larger motors, I would only have the means to keep a few on hand. What is the problem with that?
It is a lot less work to legally possess a firearm and one can do a heck of a lot more damage to other humans with that than model rocketry.
How many people get murdered everyday in the U.S. ?
How many people get killed at rocket launches?
Kurt Savegnago
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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.
shockie B)

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

This should be in the FAQ.

--
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
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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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....
and 911 made matters worse.
shockie B)

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

That's SOOO twentieth-century...
These days, the goal of a bureaucrat is to rise PAST their highest level of incompetence... <G>
David Erbas-White
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Erbas-White wrote:

Exactly like the FCC :(
I wonder if the BATFE and the FCC going bowling together?
Ted Novak TRA#5512 IEAS#75
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Sounds great, pinheads and bowling pins !
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

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

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.
Alan
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
We are talking about APCP not liquid propellants, huh???
wrote:

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

I think Alan was being facetious.
Kurt Savegnago

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 23:42:39 -0400, "Jeff Grey"
That is obvious, but explain it to the BATFE just in case. Use a loud booming voice to get their attention. ;)

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

Sounds like a job for Mythbusters.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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:
http://www.v-serv.com/atf/62.pdf
Do not be confused by "verbal rulings" and "letter rulings". Those only apply to permit holders, not exempt users.

--
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
ahh Jerry, you forgot NAR/NFPA,etc....
shockie B)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kurt <ksaves2-at-sbcglobal> wrote:

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!
Glen Overby
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.