It doesen't sound like you being on the "receiving end" in this instance had anything to do with you having or not having a LEMP or LEUP at the location searched. Sadly, if someone wacko made up a bizzare story about what you were doing in your garage and a judge bought the story, the boys are going to come knocking on your door with warrent in hand. Which in that case wouldn't be a warrentless search. Now if some crackpot phoned in a story to the local ATF branch and they came knocking at your door at 2 AM without visiting a judge and getting a warrent, then you would have a bone to pick with them.
I see where the misunderstanding is. If they took non-exempt low explosives home, they had to be stored "properly", and the local authority had to be notified. It is possible that some states would not allow such storage after notification. I am not privy to individual state's explosive storage laws (that is left as an exercise for the reader). But that is not the same as requiring an LEUP (finger printing, background checks, inspections), being illegal, or 'nothing has changed'. Depending on the State regulations, you COULD take them home legally without a LEUP if you stored them properly and notified the fire marshal. Since you weren't required (pre 5/24) have to have an LEUP to legally purchase low explosives in-state, you could still take them home and store them illegally (obviously not recommended, but practiced). So in my eyes I guess more has changed. Hope this straightens things out.
And instead of just saying that is straight from the Orange book we're all so fond of, here it is:
Orange Book Questions and Answers:
formatting link
Orange book question 38:
I want to buy a small quantity of dynamite from my local dealer to use on my property. Do I need a Federal user's permit? No, provided the dynamite is purchased in your State of residence and not transported across State lines. A user's permit is required when a nonlicensee acquires or transports explosive materials in interstate or foreign commerce (see Question 30). Except for those items and activities given exempt status under 18 U.S.C. 845 (also see 27 CFR
55.141), all persons who store explosive materials must have storage facilities that meet the requirements of 27 CFR Part 55, Subpart K, "Storage". [18 U.S.C. 842(j); 27 CFR 55.29,
55.201(a)]
Orange book question 77:
I bought 12 sticks of dynamite to blast stumps on my property. I have 4 sticks left over. May I give them to my brother, who does not have a Federal explosives license or permit? Yes, if your brother resides in the same State in which you reside and he is not within any of the categories of persons to whom explosive materials may not be lawfully distributed. If either you or your brother store the dynamite, storage must be in conformity with Federal explosives regulations (see Question 66). [18 U.S.C. 842(j); 27 CFR 55.29,
55.201]
Orange book question 78:
Am I re quired to notify my State or local authorities about my explosives storage magazines? Yes. Any person who stores explosive materials must notify the fire department having jurisdiction over the site where explosive materials are manufactured or stored. Notification must be made orally by the end of the day on which storage begins and in writing within 48 hours from the time storage began. The notification must include the type of explosive materials, magazine capacity, and the location of each storage site. [27 CFR 55.11: Definition of "authority having jurisdiction for fire safety", 27 CFR 55.201(f)]
Joel. phx
process
Of course. And I have suggested to people, building their own storage to obtain a LEUP so they can fly {restricted}, that they 'might' want to keep that proposed 1/2" shackle item in the back of their mind while welding up the box. It's a whole lot easier to make provisions now, then to grind things apart to enlarge holes.
there was evidence that the ATF had volunteered unsolicited information (i.e.; lobbied) to Senators staffers since the introduction of S.724. What was done to counter their misinformation ongoingly?
I will look forward to that, especially as it carries Jerry's endorsement. However, it is a few weeks late to influence the Senate Judiciary Committee members. If John K. was so close to the process, could he not know or anticipate the DoJ/ATFE FUD and having done so, prepared or had TRA/NAR prepare a response in a useful timeframe?
insufficiently responsive, for someone with an ear to the rail, you [all] certainly missed a critical opportunity to make a difference in committee. That cost us S.724 as written and let HK724 float easily through.
this fact alone reflects poorly on TRA/NAR's ability to manage the process
nice work by your webmaster. It will be interesting to compare the chronology and directives with John W.'s announcements. Stay tuned.
yes, very nicely done, that
my impression of your description of John K's activities was that he maintained a continuous presence in the Senate buildings, meeting with Senators staffers systematically over an extended period of time. What was accomplished in that time? Please state it in measureable terms (qualitative and quantitative).
Mark, with all due respect, you simply are not answering the question.
Meaningful "status reports" would include individual Senator's positions, how they came to those positions, what actions John Kyte took in remedy, and what observable results were achieved as a result. In all of your "Messages from the President" I see little or none of this information.
What did John Kyte produce relative to the goal? [ not what isolated activities did he engage in, or what you plan to do for the Fall ]
I suggest you hold John Kyte accountable for his time, and insist on the reports I've suggested. From that his degree of effectiveness [in measureable terms] will be undeniably clear. Conduct a proper post-mortem, and take your next steps from there.
is that all you got out of that summary, Mark? I'm truly disappointed.
- iz (still waiting on a substantive answer to the original question)
BTW, Senators serving on committees are represent the nation _as a whole_ in their capacity as 'committee members'. They do not just represent their home states there, or the vast majority of states would be disenfranchised. You still haven't gotten that.
True, but I'd like to do more. For instance, it would be nice to be able to take some J90's along, but now thanks to the HSA/SEA I can no longer purchase and store them without a LEUP. That means I can only fly those and other "restricted" motors at club launches.
It's not supposed to. What can be done now, and the impending threats to the hobby, are two entirely different issues.
They haven't been paying attention very well then, have they?
This is one issue on which I agree. While it's certainly possible that ATF will go after modrocs someday, or at least restrict sale of modroc-size APCP motors, I think it was a mistake to present this as an imminent threat.
Nice slogan but not literally true.
Was Paul Revere "giving up" when he rode through town yelling "The British are coming"? While some today are figuratively riding through town spreading the word that the enemy is coming, you're running along behind telling everyone, "Pay no attention, they aren't here yet."
Did you read that? "Except for those items and activities given exempt status under 18 U.S.C. 845 (also see 27 CFR 55.141)"
I cite 27 CFR 55.141-a-8. I thus and therefore aplies to the subsequent questions as well since the focus of the questions are clearly "non-exempt materials".
Keep in mind this information has been "in stock" for better than a decade and all NAR/Kyte had to do was dust it off and send it. It may have been in its current form addressing different end goal/issue (78MRT/82LMR/84HPR), but with a cover letter the inherent data and tests could have applied to THIS PROBLEM on a TIMELY BASIS in under 24 hours. Had I been NAR President, whether or not I informed Wickman (who NAR considers a loose cannon outsider) I would most certainly have brought our own internal guns to bear on an instantaneous basis.
I claim that was the intent. Based on the above statements by me. NAR/Kyte had knowledge of HK724 before Enzi/Wickman did. NAR has said so.
One thing you CANNOT accuse NAR of is the secrecy typical of TRA. God bless the NAR for that.
All you can rightfully accuse them of is being a bull in a china shoppe.
"You can look for this." - 1972 Enerjet Catalog (Larry Brown)
"You can look for this." - 1972 Enerjet Catalog (Larry Brown)
"Thank you for your input." - Mark Bundick in emails 2003
Just Jerry
If only we could have this conversation with Trip Barber, we may only get one or two additional sentences and maybe one additional commitment, but they would each be hugely meaningful and successful.
" Sadly, if someone wacko made up a bizzare story about what you were doing "
The following individuals made the reports: Franklin Kosdon Sue McMurray Bruce Kelly Charles E Rogers others I will not be listing due to impacts on likely litigation.
Yes, in your case it would be difficult to have some one meet you in the middle of nowhere. And file for a waiver in advance of your vacation plans. And get permission from various land authorities. But, staged J90's would be very nice for a long onboard photo sequence, though!
So, what do you suggest we do... hide under a rock? Bury our reload casings in the backyard? Nonsense. And non-American.
I happen to think it's better to continue flying legally, help others fly and buy whatever they want, and spread some positive information on how to keep the hobby rolling. Keeping vigilant on the regulatory changes is important, but not to the point of making it a self-fulfilling prophecy of doom.
One could ask the same thing of Mr. Wickman or even Senator Enzi. Never mind all that stuff about "TRA/NAR didn't tell us" -- surely they could have foreseen the possibility that ATF would do something like this, or at least found out about it on their own since they are the self-proclaimed leaders/experts.
Shoot some holes in the sky. (ok, not the best bumpersticker idea) Don't drink and fly rockets (?) Astronauts drank Tang, but I couldn't stand the stuff (you might need to be older to get that one)
You seem to be advicating the BS part. It is NAR and TRA that are responsible for the NFPA codes we have, the fact THEY insist on ATF permits for all despite 55.141-a-8 and are the only party that did NOT initiate legislation but now are PROPOUNDING HK724.
If I'm going to walk down a dark alley I would rather do it with my eyes wide open. Some may choose to take a different path. Call it whatever you want, it does not alter reality, or perception.
We may find friends in unusual places whose assistance could benefit everyone. As you imply, groups with feelings against pro-regulatory officials are a good place to start. Groups opposed to certain male NY Senators could be another, for example. ;)
A PAC would be ideal, though they can get pretty expensive. If any rocketry organization (or even a group of them) spun off a PAC with sufficiently broad goals and objectives (read "includes as large a cross section of rocketeer interests as possible"), count me in as a contributor.
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.