NAR BoD declines Wickman leadership in legislative action

Joel Corwith wrote:


Why is it irrelevant that it was illegal before? My point is that nothing significant has changed. Mostly people's perceptions of what is/was legal.

I don't see a problem caused by the change in the laws. The lack of Aerotech motors was due to the start-up in Utah. Other slow downs are due to dealers and flyers misunderstanding the laws.
There is no reason why anyone can't go to a launch and buy/fly whatever they want, just as they always have. If there was a dealer at the launch before and there is now, nothing has changed except the recording of in- state transactions. To legally get around this change, have someone with a LEUP help you purchase the motors. Arrange for storage and transportation for what you don't fly that day. People that were storing and transporting without a LEUP before May 24, 2003 were breaking the law, even with in-state purchases.
Of course, we all want to get the regulations changed. But all this hand-wringing and misinformation about "high power is being killed" is doing just as much to make it come true. I think some people here just like being "the victim" and continue reinforcing each others misunderstanding of the situation. If you all really want to see some revitalization of the HPR side of the hobby, re-read this message and go out and help people FLY ROCKETS!
-John DeMar http://delta.syr.edu/jsdemar
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
27 CFR 55.141-a-8 MOOTS ALL OF THIS:

--
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

can't
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<< Why is it irrelevant that it was illegal before? >>
First off, I don't agree that it was illegal before. But to answer the question, if it were illegal, that fact was irrelevant because there was no mechanism in place to prevent people from buying "regulated" motors.
<< There is no reason why anyone can't go to a launch and buy/fly whatever they want, just as they always have. If there was a dealer at the launch before and there is now, nothing has changed except the recording of in-state transactions. >>
That's a huge "if". Not every launch has a local vendor. In fact, I believe there are entire states that do not have a HPR motor vendor. Furthermore, being able to buy at a local launch doesn't help folks like me who prefer to do most of our flying at private launches.
Currently, we can still get around this (to some extent) due to the fact that the 62.5g limit is not yet in force. But that only works for "easy access" and unless something happens in the courts or Congress, it's just a matter of time before the 62.5g limit becomes law.
<< But all this hand-wringing and misinformation about "high power is being killed" is doing just as much to make it come true. >>
Do we have to wait until it's dead and buried before making a fuss?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
RayDunakin wrote:

You are going to find a lot of people, especially in Congress that will say this change is a good thing.

How had you planned on legally purchasing and storing restricted access motors before?

But, my point is that the law has not changed. People are acting like it has. And, as you apparently are saying, some have given up and think it's "only a matter of time". Nice way to do your part to reduce the hobby right now.

Never said that. It's just a shame that people think the hobby is dead because of the past 9 months of misinformation. As enthusiasts for the hobby (myself at all levels) I think we should all get it straight and spread the word.
-John DeMar http://delta.syr.edu/jsdemar
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Where can I find the term "restricted access motors" in law?
Or any restricted access motors by any other term in law?

So why are your comments well above inconsistent with the statement in this paragraph?

So far this applies to you:
"Life is short and the path is often unclear. It is a great sin to knowingly contribute to someone's confusion."

--
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
<< You are going to find a lot of people, especially in Congress that will say this change is a good thing.>>
Of course. Doesn't make it right though, or even accurate. <<How had you planned on legally purchasing and storing restricted access motors before?>>
Back in the days before ATF illegally decided to regulate APCP motors, there were NO "restricted access" motors, thus no problem.
<<But, my point is that the law has not changed. People are acting like it has.>>
Depends on what you mean by the "law", and how far back you go. Up until just a few years ago, all rocketry was exempt from ATF regs. Then they illegally changed the rules to exempt only motors with grains less than 62.5g. Now they are trying to make than exemption legally, and limit it further to only 62.5g per motor. That has not yet taken place, but it will eventually unless we get relief from the courts or Congress -- ATF certainly isn't going to change their minds.
<<And, as you apparently are saying, some have given up and think it's "only a matter of time". Nice way to do your part to reduce the hobby right now.>>
Who said anything about giving up? I'm just saying, "don't stick your head in the sand and pretend everything's ok."
<<Never said that. It's just a shame that people think the hobby is dead because of the past 9 months of misinformation. As enthusiasts for the hobby (myself at all levels) I think we should all get it straight and spread the word. >>
I agree. However, those who confuse "dying" with "dead" have only themselves to blame.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
RayDunakin wrote:

Not asking about that far back. How about last year? What has changed with regard to your ability to purchase restricted access motors?
Other than that fine point, I think we're in agreement. Why does that scare me? ;-)
-John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

access
there
Sigh,... one more time,...
Before 5/24 you didn't need an LEUP to purchase a restricted motor in-state. Beginning on 5/24 you can't buy one without one.
Joel. phx
http://www.atf.treas.gov/explarson/safexpact/modelrockets.htm "A permit, however, was not necessary if a person acquired and used explosives within his or her State of residence. The new legislation now requires that any person who wishes to transport, ship, cause to be transported, or receive explosive materials in either interstate or intrastate commerce must first obtain a Federal permit issued by ATF. This requirement takes effect May 24, 2003. "

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

Well, there you have it. Some wish it were more than that, but it's not.

Correction: YOU CAN STILL BUY WHATEVER YOU WANT, in state or out of state. You now need any of the following (which were still required previously for out of state purchases):
1) A LEUP with storage. 2) A LEUP without storage plus contingency storage through a LEUP holder. 3) No LEUP plus a friend with a LEUP to help buy/transport/store. 4) No LEUP plus a dealer or friend with a LEUP to assist at launches.
The above is ONLY for restricted access (beyond 62.5 gram/grain) motors. Everything else is the same as before 5/24/2003. If the regulations change next year, the above will be required for >62.5 grams/motor.
The sky is not falling. Spread the word. Erase the FUD. Help people without a LEUP. Get this hobby rolling again!
-John DeMar http://delta.syr.edu/jsdemar
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

in-state.
not.
WHO wishes there was more to it than that?!! I haven't see that in any message I've read.

Except Jerry.

state.
Ok John. Now it is you spreading the BS. YOU have to have an LEUP to purchase a low explosive, PERIOD. YOU cannot BUY whatever you want. THAT IS FALSE. If it's your friend that has the permit, HE can purchase the motor, but YOU cannot take it home. That is not OWNING the low explosive as you could prior to 5/24 (in-state).
I agree, you can still --FLY-- whatever you want, BUT ONLY at a launch that the OWNER (LEUP holder) of the propellant is present. That is different, that is not LEGALLY owning the propellant, as you could before (in-state). If he gets paged from work while you're prepping your motor and has to leave, the motor goes with him.
I'm sure someone will say it's only a matter of semantics, but here it is... people who used to buy motors from a launch with a dealer (say Phoenix) cannot take those motors home to fly at their local, dealer-less launch (say Tucson). John-bob in Utah cannot buy from in-town, to fly at his ranch.
Rules HAVE changed and many people (in my state) are affected. Implying that is not the case is BS.

for
"which were still required previously for OUT OF STATE purchases". I didn't NEED an LEUP to fly in-state, now I (or someone I fly with) do(es).

holder.
launches.
motors.
change
Yes, only talking HPR motors here. Great wrap-up by the way.

By the way, FUD means Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt. It implies an intentional act. Such as the Justice Department's "hit a tank at 5 miles" report. I believe the term is being over used as I don't see anyone -intentionally- misleading on the requirements associated with an LEUP. There is confusion around the legal aspects of our hobby, which will no doubt increase as new regulations are thrown our way.
The difference is flying versus buying. I completely agree people shouldn't panic over -flying- when others are able/willing to get an LEUP and able/willing to assist non-LEUP fliers do HPR. I don't agree people are spreading "fud" to say not everyone is going to be able to fly HPR under these new requirements.
Joel.. phx

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

You are obviously one of those who wishes there were more to it that there is. PLEASE qualify public postings with 'RESTRICTED access motors'. Many people read this as ALL rocket motors are affected by the change in in-state purchases. As you say, semantics are important!
The BATFE has stated that they do not care who actually has the money in the transaction. It is the independent possession, transportation, and storage that they are concerned about. I have helped several people purchase restricted motors WITH THEIR OWN MONEY without doing anything else but stand there and watch. And make sure they use the motor at the launch, or return it for storage.

That statement in itself is spreading FUD. What new regulations? When exactly will they happen? Why should it stop us now from enjoying the hobby? "The boogie man is around the corner... I think, maybe... so I'd better hide inside my house." Don't let them win!
You may not realize it, but you are helping to spread misinformation. Please correct yourself and not pass along the FUD. Errr.. I mean stop adding to the confusion. ;)
If past experience repeats itself on RMR, you and others will turn this thread into a completely useless pointless unhelpful self-ego fulfilling mess. How about putting some energy into solutions and helpful information instead?
-John DeMar http://delta.syr.edu/jsdemar
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Joel Corwith wrote:

Those who purchased restricted access before 5/24/2003 could NOT take them home legally either. This is a fact. It's in the BATFE orange book. You are still thinking that more has changed than it has.

Of course I know. [http://delta.syr.edu/jsdemar/nprm968reply.pdf ] Keep on topic with helping to improve the hobby right now. The NPRM process will take some time, so will the lawsuit. In the meantime, it's important to let people know they can still buy and fly.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

point
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: http://www.atf.treas.gov/explarson/fedexplolaw/qanda.pdf
Orange book question 38: 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: 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: 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

may
attention to

process
to
Of course. And I have suggested to people, building their own storage to obtain a LEUP so they can fly , 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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Facts are ALWAYS superior to speculation!!

Read this:

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".
Facts are ALWAYS superior to speculation!!
STRAIGHT from the horses ass ^h^h^h mouth.

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
RayDunakin wrote:

All true, but certainly not well known or reinforced by the majority of the all-knowing self-appointed spokespersons for the hobby.
I believe it is EXTREMELY important for the health of this hobby for people to do the best to stop the FUD and start helping people who don't have a LEUP. It will take some time to undo the belief that rocketry is banned or severely limited right now.
-John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Money talks, BS walks.
Donate today
NAR donation page: https://secure.consumersinterest.com/nar/NARfrompres9911.html#donorform TRA raffle fund page: http://www.tripoli.org/Documents/Raffle.html
Joel. phx
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)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Are they on the wrong side of EVERY issue?
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

Motors and propallnt afor motors are exempted as "explosives" by specific LAW 27 CFR 55.141-a-8. Same with gasoline and we all KNOW it can "seem like" an explosive in practice.

Except "exempt materials".

--
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

<<Not asking about that far back. How about last year? What has changed with regard to your ability to purchase restricted access motors? >>
What changed is that in-state purchases of "restricted" motors now requires a LEUP, or cooperation with a person possessing a LEUP. That limits me to club launches if I want to fly "restricted" motors.
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.