NAR President on Further Legislative Comments

I'd like to offer further comments regarding the current status and strategy of legislative efforts to secure relief for the sport rocket hobby.

  1. Even during this Congressional recess, John Kyte remains hard at work meeting with staffers in both houses. John has also provided assistance to NAR members who have met with their representatives locally as opportunities arose. Anyone who wants to take advantage of his considerable experience and expertise should contact me directly via email and we'll get you connected to John. At least one of these contacts has resulted in positive progress in the House.

Suggestions that John's assistance has harmed our effort simply aren't supported by facts. People need to be reminded that John's an HPR certified rocket guy, too, with a couple of young sons he'd like to leave fun hobby to. Keep that image in mind when you read something about how John's out there screwing things up for you. There's simply nothing behind any of the accusations made here and in other places about John's work other than petty rocketry power struggles.

  1. Within the couple of weeks, the NAR and TRA will release the results of a multi-week technical analysis of the DOJ views letter. House and Senate staff made it clear to us that the Views letter was received very seriously by Congress. They said only solid, third party research would work to counter the issues raised by that letter in the minds of staff and members. Our technical team, led by NAR Vice President Trip Barber, used the results of multiple professional, military and government studies, not hobby rocket work, to factually refute every point raised in the Views letter. Portions of the analysis have already been put to use in John Kyte's meetings on the Hill.

  1. The best chance of successfully passing legislation remains first to pass S724 out of the Senate. Failure to do so will be fatal to the effort. Suggestions that our efforts there are out of synch with the Senator's wishes and direction on this are completely off base. Suggestions that a new bill or further amended versions of S.724 might be coming are also unfounded. These suggestions lack any practical means to move such legislation through a very crowded fall agenda in the Senate.

  2. The House path remains to launch a companion bill which addresses the issues raised around the amended S.724. We continue work with multiple House members on preparing such a bill for introduction in the fall session. That work includes contacts with staff for sponsors, co-sponsors and key committees.

  1. For those readers interested in strictly rocketry related politics, these final points.

5a. I've worked carefully and repeatedly with all organizations that wanted to be in partnership with the NAR on legislative matters. I would like to particularly applaud TRA President Dick Embry in that regard. Dick and I have continued to clearly communicate and work cooperatively, despite occasional difference of opinion in strategy, issues and tactics. We work quietly and effectively through those bumps and continue to press on towards passing legislation into law.

5b. Additionally, both the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) and the National Space Society (NSS) have been fully supportive and cooperative, and continue to volunteer the resources of their organizations in our support.

5c. Suggesting that the NAR and TRA are outside the primary strategy loop, that there are other strategies being actively pursued by members of Congress, or some other legislative strategy afoot are all smoke and mirrors, folks.

As always, NAR members are welcome to offer their comments, ideas, suggestions and questions directly via email at mbundick - at - earthlink - dot- net.

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

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

Reply to
Alex Mericas

To what end?

At what cost?

I agree it has had good PR progress with some congressmen. Point.

However it has NOT forwarded the bill at issue ot the basis of the bill to have NO mass limits on the simple basis that propellant is not an explosive as defined or as regulated. What's worse is all the discussion and rhetoric I have seen surrounding this issue ASSUMES both that the government defined propellant as an explosive WHICH IT DOES NOT, except for DOT, and that ATF PERMITS ARE CURRENTLY REQUIRED UNDER LAW, which they are NOT under current law.

Your entire discussion is misdirected, in error, making the problem worse, and training legislators to think, believe, and act, as if propellant is already regulated and is an explosive, neither one of whivh is true. YOU are harming rocketeers nationwide (and oilfield users and many others) and doing so like a bull in a china shop.

I am NOT exaggerating either.

Please read and understand the above. IF there is any aspect of this at all you either do not under stand or agree with, lets have a discussion in email at least until we are on the same page. Until that happens we are at odds with each other to our mutual assured destruction.

TOTALLY irrelevent to the facts as stated above.

Nice sentiment, and that is ALL.

Thank god!! Everything Trip touches turns to gold, and may I be the first to strongly commend this effort. THIS is what NAR is good for.

Starting at zero is not bad. The only issue then is BP and even that has not been on any enforcement radars for a long time except in rare cases.

You seem to manage to agree on asking members, vendors and manufacturers to come up with ATF permits for motors and reloads your own attorneys agree are exempt under current law!!!!! Fix that. IN ONE hour!!

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

It is a monologue. That is always easy. You will note he does NOT reply to posts directed at him specifically, especially the 55.141-a-8 issues.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

I'll second that and even challenge the notion that it is a "hostile crowd." I'd be willing to bet that 90+% of the rocketry (and rmr) community fully supports Mark and the NAR and TRA's efforts to date. There is a small but vocal group that does not, and that is most of what gets posted. So, keep up the good work and remember the "silent majority" that fully supports all of your efforts...and thanks for the update. Keep us posted! Art T South Jersey Area Rocketry Society NAR# 34201 L1

Reply to
SirWmOsler

Agreed. I think Mark is doing a great job in an all-around bad situation. All the factionalism and half-truths being bounced around have not helped. All of the public speculation and posturing have not (and *will not*) helped.

All of the hard work and behind-the-scenes effort will have an effect, and I commend Mark and the NART BoD for their efforts on the behalf of all of us.

Thank you, Mark, for everything you have done, are doing, and will, I'm sure, continue to do.

(Yes, I do have to get my membership renewed!)

Reply to
Anonymous

snipped-for-privacy@aol.comcomcom (SirWmOsler) wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@mb-m21.aol.com:

Indeed, it appears to comprise all of two people...

len.

Reply to
Leonard Fehskens

DOZENS of people successfully do all the time.

It is NAR/TRA associates that are the EXCEPTION to the rule and need to be trained to follow the law.

But how do you overcome fear monger logic like "if I follow the law I might be arrested for a felony"?

It is hard to argue with a moron. You cannot educate it, and you cannot medicate it. It just is an irreversable condition.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

You will have to find a word that really applies. Such as a person with whom some disagree with as a matter of default. Or a person who generates polar arguements in the minds of the recipients :p-

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

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.