NAR Members - Call for Political Action

CALL FOR POLITICAL ACTION:

IMPORTANT: We need members from New York and New Jersey to send letters to their Senators as outlined below as soon as possible. These letters are designed to assist our legislative effort to secure an unregulated future for sport rocketry.

Members from other states should NOT take action at this time.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Frank Lautenburg (D-NJ) have placed "holds" on S.724, the Senate bill introduced by Sen. Mike Enzi designed to provide some limited relief for hobby rocketry. While the bill as amended in the Senate Judiciary Committee is far from perfect, we need to get it voted out of the Senate so we can bring that process to close, for the time being, and focus our efforts on getting a better bill moving in the House of Representatives. As such, we believe letters from New York and New Jersey residents to their Senators will be helpful in removing the "holds," and we are asking that you send letters by fax to their offices as soon as possible.

Attached below is a sample letter to either Senator.

The letter should not be copied word for word, but is designed to provide some guidance as to contents. Please adapt this draft to your own situation and experience, and please remain polite and respectful toward the Senators.

Please do NOT specifically reference them having a "hold" on the bill.

You can mail or fax your letter to:

NEW JERSEY MEMBERS = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Sen. Frank R. Lautenburg

825 A Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510

Fax: 202-228-4054

NEW YORK MEMBERS = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Sen. Charles E. Schumer

313 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510

Fax: 202-228-3027

Mark B. Bundick, President National Association of Rocketry

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

SAMPLE LETTER:

PLEASE USE THIS SAMPLE AS A GUIDELINE AND DO NOT COPY WORD FOR WORD.

BE SURE TO INCLUDE YOUR NAME, ADDRESS AND DAYTIME PHONE NUMBER.

BE SURE TO SIGN YOUR LETTER.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Dear Senator

As a constituent and hobby rocketry enthusiast, I have become aware that you may have some concerns with S. 724, a bill originally introduced by Sen. Mike Enzi and for which a substituted was offered in Committee by Sens. Hatch and Kohl. That bill is now awaiting Senate floor action.

I am also aware that shortly before the bill was brought before the Judiciary Committee, the Department of Justice sent a letter to Sen. Hatch offering their viewpoints on the bill. That letter contains numerous factual and scientific errors, including assertions that APCP rocket fuel has been used to make explosive devices, and that hobby rockets could be used to attack aircraft or land targets up to five miles away.

These allegations have no basis in fact or science. APCP propellant is not an explosive and cannot be easily converted to bomb-making material, and hobby rockets cannot be used to accurately or effectively attack air or ground targets. No examples of any such use, or attempted use, exist.

A recent National Research Council study "Containing the Threat from Illegal Bombings" listed the top 29 common explosive and precursor chemicals that have a history of criminal use. The report did not list APCP, or recommend controls on it or rocket motors.

Furthermore, hobby rockets have long-burning motors and do not have sophisticated guidance systems, making them wholly inaccurate as weapons against air or surface targets. The U.S. government tried in the 1940s to develop just such a system and it failed totally and was abandoned. Hobby rockets are designed to go straight up into the air and float back to earth under a parachute. It is already illegal to add a dangerous payload or guidance system of any kind, not to mention that such efforts would require a level of sophistication generally possessed only by government agencies.

Put simply, the DOJ position fails any test of actual rocket science, and appears designed only to cause unnecessary fear and additional regulation of a safe, educational hobby enjoyed by tens of thousands of people across America, including hundreds in New York/New Jersey. Hobby rocketry products and activities are already well-regulated nationally under safety codes of the National Fire Protection Association, the Consumer Products Safety Commission (prohibiting the sale of larger motors to non-adults), the U.S. Department of Transportation (determining detonability and regulating transportation) and the Federal Aviation Administration (regulating rocket launches).

During the last 40 years, these organizations and the hobby rocket community have worked together to establish and enforce a common national safety code, rigorous technical and safety certification standards for hobby rocket motors, and proficiency certifications that are required for adult hobbyists before they can purchase larger hobby rocket motors. Hobby rocketry, and its safeguards, was developed specifically to ensure that a safe means exists for students and hobbyists to build and fly rockets in a manner that does not pose any threat to public health and safety.

The substitute S. 724 will exempt certain amounts of the non-detonable (non-explosive) propellant materials used in hobby rocket motors while leaving in place necessary and legitimate protections against the possession of dangerous weapons and true explosives. This simple approach will not create a new opportunity for terrorists to access devices or materials that can be used as weapons or explosive, but it will preserve a hobby that has a proven safety record and tremendous educational and scientific value.

I urge you to allow the substitute S 724 to be voted out of the Senate.

Sincerely,

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Mark B. Bundick mbundick - at - earthlink - dot - net NAR President

formatting link

Reply to
Mark B. Bundick
Loading thread data ...

And ARSA has a different view. You know the guy who initiated the legislation in the first place?

NAR zig, ARSA zag.

"July, 11 2003 - Senate bill S724 picked up another cosponsor on June

27th, Senator Jim Talent. It is unknown at this time whether Senator Talent is cosponsoring due to the Hatch-Kohl amendment or supports S724 as originally introduced.

As reported earlier, Senators Hatch and Kohl amended S724 in the Senate Judiciary Committee. A more accurate description would be that Senators Hatch and Kohl struck out the original bill and simply wrote a new one. The Hatch-Kohl S724 or H-K S724 is filled with loopholes for the ATFE to exploit. It introduces the concept of exemptions from the Homeland Security Act based on APCP propellant weight. The effects of H-K S724 on rocketry in America are discussed by clicking here.

Currently, a group of Senators along with the Tripoli Rocketry Association (TRA) and the National Association of Rocketry (NAR) are working hard to pass the H-K S724 by unanimous consent in the Senate. TRA and NAR are writing an "improved" version of H-K S724 to be introduced in the House of Representatives. This "improved" H-K S724 would have the support of the House Judiciary Committee before its introduction to ensure the bill's speedy passage in the House. Then, H-K S724 and the "improved" H-K S724 would be reconciled in Conference committee. The Conference committee would consist of Senators and Representatives who are assigned the task of reaching a compromise that they feel the House and Senate would accept. This compromise bill would be reported to the floor of the House and Senate in the form of a Conference committee report. The full Senate and House would then vote on whether to accept the compromise by the Conference committee. The hope of those promoting this plan is that the Conference committee will come up with a compromise to their liking based on H-K S724 and the "improved" H-K S724. ARSA does not support this approach and is working on an alternative."

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

The statement from the provided sample letter, excerpted at the bottom of this message, is inaccurate.

The original qualification of non-detonable propellant in S.724 that was "struck out" in HK724 is as follows:

(a) NON-DETONABLE ROCKET PROPELLANT DEFINED- Section 841 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(t) `Non-detonable rocket propellant' means any material, chemical, or chemical mixture consisting of fuel and oxidizer that provides thrust to a rocket, or generates hot, high pressure gas for doing work in the actuation of various power or mechanical devices, and is classified as a non-explosive by the Department of Transportation or classified by the Department of Transportation as a Class 1.3 Explosive or lower.'.

No corresponding qualification exists in the Hatch/Kohl substitute bill. The result of this omission is that both detonable and non-detonable APCP will be exempted under that bill.

- iz

(non-explosive) propellant materials used in hobby rocket motors while leaving in place necessary and legitimate protections against the possession of dangerous weapons and true explosives.

Reply to
izzy

jerry: I'm the last person in the world to talk politics, but it does seem to me that the approach the NAR/TRA is taking,

  1. writing an improved version of s.724 in the house
  2. getting it written such that it solves the s.724 problems
  3. getting it agree to by the house judicary panel beforehand
  4. going to conference committee to resolve any differences

is the way politics works up on the hill.....

"ARSA does not support this approach and is working on an alternative."

SO, what is ARSA's objection to this approach which seemes reasonable and prudent to me and what is the alternative they are working on and with whom? The ARSA on their website list their problems they have with the current s.724...and I agree 100% it has problems that need fixed.....BUT thats the purpose of the NAR/TRA House Bill approach...to fix those s.724 problems..... IS this just sour grapes on ARSA's part? Didn't they get their shot, ie s.724 and screwed the pooch, so to say? AND whats good for NAR/TRA is not necessarily good for ARSA or EX and vice-versa.... And if push comes to shove......I have no doubt NAR/TRA will sacrifice ARSA/EX and homebrewers to the rocket gods....

But is this necessarily a bad thing? Well of course from the POV of the Amateur group it would be, if they where singled out for over regulation....But people seem to want to forget that there is alot of differences between people "pouring their own" versus going to a dealer and buying that "commercial" O motor......Remember, NAR/TRA represents those who beleive in regulation, (NFPA/CPSC/FAA/DOT,etc) while the AR/EX people don't beleive in ANY regulations.....

From the ARSA website:

"Our local societies permit amateur rockets to fly along side high power and model rockets at the same site and at the same time. There is no certification process for motors or flyers."

THIS is the crux of the problem ...... Some regulation versus NO regulation......The problem with the AR/EX people is they refuse to see the writing on the wall.....IF you wanna play with APCP in this world you gotta be regulated, so I guess it boils down to how much regulation are they willing to agree to?

shockie B)

Reply to
shockwaveriderz

Mark Bundick posted a "Call for Political Action" on ROL NewsWire and RMR today

The statement from his provided sample letter, excerpted at the bottom of this message, is inaccurate. The original qualification of non-detonable propellant in S.724 that was "struck out" in HK724 is as follows:

(a) NON-DETONABLE ROCKET PROPELLANT DEFINED- Section 841 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(t) `Non-detonable rocket propellant' means any material, chemical, or chemical mixture consisting of fuel and oxidizer that provides thrust to a rocket, or generates hot, high pressure gas for doing work in the actuation of various power or mechanical devices, and is classified as a non-explosive by the Department of Transportation or classified by the Department of Transportation as a Class 1.3 Explosive or lower.'.

No corresponding qualification exists in the Hatch/Kohl substitute bill. The result of this omission is that both detonable and non-detonable APCP will be exempted under that bill.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Low probability of success defined as original language.

Low probability of success defined as original language.

Low probability of success defined as original language.

Low probability of success defined as original language.

And this IS the point. Resolving the diferences is typically done by COMPROMISE. Any compromise on weight limits are inherently bad.

See above.

You and NAR and TRA do not proffer how to fix the problems only how to forward a defective bill for vote.

The term fix in this context means compromise.

Listen to my words and as time passes and I am proven right time after time, just take note and remember:

Jerry told you so.

NAR and TRA even sacrificed ATF permits to the CONSUMER rocket gods despite 27 CFR 55.141-a-8 clearly stating NO ATF PERMITS WHATSOEVER are needed for manufacturers, dealers, consumers. Yet both TRA and NAR require them at all of thoise level and for all of those entities and ENMFORCE that illegal position. They need their balls cut off.

Jerry

Jerry told you so.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

..

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

So you advocate a "separate peace" for consumer rocketry at the expense of the rest of us?

-dave w

Reply to
David Weinshenker

dave: No I advocate nothing of the sort...I merely am commenting on what I see as the inherent dichotomy between NAR/TRA and ARSA/EX forms of rocketry ........

Everybody wants everybody to think that NAR/TRA rocketry and ARSA/EX rocketry are one and the same, and THEY ARE NOT THE SAME, have never been the same and will never be the same.....

Until we admit that to ourselves, it becomes clear that what the NAR/TRA wants and what the ARSA/EX wants are not the same thing and therein lies the problem....

shockie B)

Reply to
shockwaveriderz

Lots deleted.

See what happens when you let a state run an illegal election. You get an old goat like Lautenburg who doesn't even want to be in the Senate controling the fate of our hobby. If NJ wasn't such a liberal bastion, he'd have never been allowed to run after the deadline for filing passed.

Mark Simpson NAR 71503 Level II God Bless our peacekeepers

Reply to
Mark Simpson

Jerry,

I disagree with your approach....

1st. Democratic Lawmakers from the Northeast traditionally do not like anything that shoots or flies and they will fight any legislation tooth and nail. Charles Schumer is a perfect example he does not need the ATF to tell him how to vote. This bill is going nowhere.

2nd, You seem to be an all or nothing kind of guy. Since you cannot have it all, you want nothing? This makes no sense at all. APCP is going to be further regulated whether you or anyone else likes it or not. ATF does what it wants to, regardless of insanity, stupidity, or opposition.

3rd. Would not your love of attacking the NAR and TRA be better used against the Senators and Congressmen that oppose the relief bill? You are attacking the people who are fighting with you. I know you have issues with both NAR and TRA but, lets put them aside and try to win this battle first. I told you so's do not help.

4th. ARSA is in this for ARSA's sake. If BP motors were being outlawed, you would not hear word 1 from them. And likewise from TRA. Just like if J-O motors were being banned, you would not hear from NAR.

Jerry, I have learned much from you. I continue to learn from you. I would never kill file you or anyone else in this discussion group. Each has a contribution to make in the debate. Your points are valid even though you have the tact of an earthquake. I would love to buy US Rocket motors for my low and mid power rockets.

Just my opinion for what its worth,

Mark Lewis

Reply to
Mark Lewis

mark: HERE HERE!!!!! shockie B)

Reply to
shockwaveriderz

It's not that simple. This bill, as trashed by Hatchet/Coleslaw is a small step forward, and a GIANT LEAP backwards. And it's got loopholes in it that only Sadaam or Osama could love.

IMHO, we're better off hoping that one judge will do the right thing than we are pressing this piece of legislative dog doo through the senate, house, and into law.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

Reply to
Bob Kaplow

Yes it should.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Yes it does. Right now "nothing" is an in-place unlimited mass exemption. So the status quo is far better for APCP than the hacked bill. The BP porovisions are an improvement, but that's it.

No it is not.

55.141-a-8 is law and is not proposed for change.

No Senators are actring out of ignorance and only know what we trach them.

NAR anf TA see the exemption we have right now and do not merely ignore it, they INSIST all vendors, dealers, consumers get ATF permits ATF itself does not require!!!! Shoot yourself in the balls with a double barrel, reload and repeat?

No thanks.

Exact opposite the truth.

This is NOT about if they kicked me out or why. My response to that was to go away. This is not about illegal decertifications. My response was to go away. No matter how much they chased me down to attack me subsequently.

This IS about impacts TRA and NAR are having on my amateur rocket freinds by acting as if ATF permits for propellants are an assumed condition despite obvious exemptions well recognized for decades. They are setting horribly bad precidents ATF will soon exploit unless NAR and TRA stop this illegal shit.

They better stop or someone will make them. By force.

There has never been a more critical time to listen and BELIEVE me with a PASSION.

Jerry

Or less.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

FWIW and apologies if already mentioned, correct the spelling:

Senator Frank R. Lautenberg

This letter makes some very good points and is good guide for any letter writers.

George Wagner, NAR 22964, Flanders, NJ

"Mark B. Bundick" wrote:

Reply to
George Wagner

that the approach the NAR/TRA is taking,

It should but... I have to wonder how long the attention span of the average congress critter is. I just hope they stay with us long enough to make it to the end.

Randy

Reply to
Stephen DeArman

I dunno, but I had a 15 minute talk with Senator Durbin (D, IL) back in May, and 3 days later he signed on as a cosponsor for S724. Could be coincidence, of course.

Reply to
jsk

It's the British accent. Americans are suckers for it.

Doug

Reply to
Doug Sams

I agree with a lot of what you say. But lumping ARSA & Amateur rocketry together with EX represents a pretty naive view. I participate in EX. I pour my own 38mm and 54mm motors. I participate in EX in the same power range that most high power users participate in commercial activity. It is not true that I don't believe in ANY regulations. And it is not true that I need an unlimited exemption to enjoy my hobby.

I think that ARSA, given their particular need to support amateur rocketry at Universities, needs a higher limit to be "unregulated" than the average high power user. If 25 pounds were exempt, my entire rocketry (commercial and EX) participation would be un-regulated by the ATFE. That would be good, because I believe that the propellant I use is not an explosive. ARSA has to push the purist view, because they need a much higher limit. No limit is the only practical limit for them. If I had to choose between the current/pending 62.5g limit and a 5% chance of getting no limit, vs. a pretty easy 0.9 lb limit and 25 pound exemption, I'd take the latter. From a purist perspective, that's a compromise, since APCP doesn't explode. But I see political decisions made every day that fly in the face of logic, reason, and science, and I have no illusion that the current political effort will be any different.

David

that the approach the NAR/TRA is taking,

prudent to me and what is the alternative they are working

s.724...and I agree 100% it has problems that need

fix those s.724 problems.....

ARSA/EX and homebrewers to the rocket gods....

Amateur group it would be, if they where singled out for

differences between people "pouring their own" versus

NAR/TRA represents those who beleive in regulation,

and model rockets at the same site and at the same time.

regulation......The problem with the AR/EX people is they refuse to

you gotta be regulated, so I guess it boils down to how

Reply to
David

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.