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?
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 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
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
and 911 made matters worse.
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.
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.
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
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:
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: firstname.lastname@example.org>
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!
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.