NAR Members - Call for Political Action

I doubt it.

Just a quick note:

Frank Lautenberg's last name was not spelled correctly in Dick's note.

The Senate's web site has his office address as:

324 Hart Senate Office Building

__________________

The fax number is correct!

We have active, consistent representation directly in the offices of Congressional staffers through John Kyte. He'll make sure that your issue will stay up in front of the right people at the right time to make a difference.

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

That's good to hear and that's what I'm sure, we're ALL counting on. My hat is off to ALL those involved with working on a solution we can live with. Good luck and my prayers to EVERY ONE of them.

Randy

Good guide? Its inaccuracy would be interpreted as either a willful attempt to mislead the Senators, or a demonstration of the writer's naivete regarding the Hatch/Kohl substitute.

As I pointed out previously in this thread, the statement excerpted below is false. In response to my emailed comment, Bunny sent the following revision to relevant the NAR members.

"The substitute S. 724 will exempt certain amounts of the safe propellant materials used in hobby rocket motors while leaving in place necessary and legitimate protections against the possession of dangerous weapons and true explosives."

But I'm afraid that this revision merely makes the inconsistency less apparent. The fact that the Hatch/Kohl substitute does not distinguish between detonable and non-detonable APCP effectively exempts APCP formulations which contain detonable and/or explosive constituents.

Therefore it is inaccurate to describe the propellants exempted by the substitute bill as "safe propellant materials" in contrast to "true explosives". While this statement is true of the original S.724 as proposed by Sen. Enzi, but not of the substitute bill.

- iz

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.

Nice esxcuse cutoff Woody!

Jerry

It was my mistake.

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

Then I must ask, why was Kyte not included in the review? Seem that if we (NAR and TRA members) are paying him $10k/month, so he can have input to posts dealing with efforts in the US Senate/House, as that is EXACTLY why we are paying $10k/month!

Either Kyte was involved and it's his mistake, or he wasn't, and then the BOT did this, ignoring the "knowledge" that cost $10k/month!

Seems in either case, there's a problem!

Good thing this is the President of the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ROCKETRY talking, eh?

We are led by morons.

Jerry

One that is CERTAIN to be swept under the rug and NOT adressed openly and honestly by a non-profit organization or its leaders.

Jerry

He was.

I grabbed the wrong file from my PC when I composed the message.

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

I'd like to think you helped out. Thanks.

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

If 25# were the limit, most rocketeers would be OK. However most dealers would be out of business, from Hobby Lobby to Ring to SMS. Right now, there is NO limit on how much AP you can have, provided that it's in small chunks. Adding a 25# limit to AP will kill off the dealer network. And without dealers, were are you going to get your next AP fix???

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

There is no small chunk limit in 27 CFR 55.141-a-8

From Jerry?

Jerry

It was my impression that most if not all dealers who sell rocket motors with grains larger than 62.5g already have a LEUP. Do you have specific evidence that is not true?

I have specific evidence it is NOT REQUIRED.

This is independent of what DOT classification they might have INCLUDING Explosive 1.3C.

Focus on 27 CFR 55.141-q-8

You will find NAR, TRA, AT, all AT dealers have difficulty focusing on that, and indeed are CAUSING the very problems we are having right now.

Jerry

Jerry,

Do you have any SPECIFIC evidence that any dealer besides USR believes in this defense?

Do you have any SPECIFIC evidence that any ATFE agent besides yours agrees with this defense?

The ATFE agent for my area specifically disagrees with your assertions, and she has the power to enforce her interpretation.

"David"

Simply do what I did.

Tell your agent you want to operate in compliance with the LAW not some arbitrary policy. The LAW states in 55.141-a-8 (In the orange book) that propellant actuated devices are EXEMPT. Simply tell your agent you wish to never again log in a propellant actuated device AS DEFINED BY THE LAW (not some agent opinion, not some letter, not some newsletter). THE LAW.

Stick the law in her face and say DO YOUR DUTY. Force the issue civilly and by agreeing to follow the EXEMPTION in the law JUST for Propellant Actuated Devices.

Try it, you'll like it.

The whole TRA/NAR/AT procedurs admitedly confue the issue in reverse and makes it harder work to follow the law, but the benefits are hard to describe.

Jerry

"most if not all dealers who sell rocket motors with grains larger than 62.5g" who do not have a LEUP have dropped HP rocket motors from their product offering. Some anticipate closing their doors.

Even those with LEUPS are facing going out of business due to reduction in sales arising from customers inability to obtain LEUPS, or LEUP-holders paranoia preventing them from making purchases.

Cases in point are Ross at Magnum in OH, and Kevin at Countdown Hobbies in CT.

Another case in point is Zeppelin Hobbies in NJ, where Lou reports that diminished sales do not justify the expense of a hazmat permit.

- iz