[Planet News] AeroTech Statement on New ATF Regulations Effective October 10, 2006

I wouldn't take it to be obvious with this particular agency. Alex notes what might be an additional 'rub'. There are others, but lets not discuss those for them, shall we?

Exactly...

Smokeless powder is exempt for small arms ammunition. A rocket ejection charge is not small arms ammunition.

However the excerpt from Q&A offers some ambiguity saying "smokeless powder designed for small arms ammunition" is exempt since it doesn't specify use. I'll go with your interpretation....

NARflier wrote:

No. Smokeless powder is "a component of small arms ammunition". That makes it exempt. (the words "for", "use", "intended" do not appear in the exemption)

Exactly how many charges have been filed against users of BP, which has never technically been exempt for this use for all these years?

Never to my knowledge..that's not proof of illegality though...

How many flier's have been charged with using AP motors in excess of

NARflier wrote:

Okay - poor choice of wording. :-)

Actually... it's not, since I'm not a US citizen.

And at any rate, I'm working to get myself 'legal'. I have most of the paperwork complete to make a 'Relief of Disability' application. Assuming that it's approved, the next step is my non-storage LEUP application...

Pyrodex ejection charges?

That's what I thought...

What part of "small arms ammunition" does a high power rocket fit under?

I asked that question because it is possible that a new orange book superseeds the online version and thus my comments wouldn't apply. No one has said exemption 4) has changed. There are 2 parts: small arms ammunition is exempt as are components of small arms ammunition.

Is smokeless powder a component of small arms ammunition?

Yes - it is exempt No - it is not exempt

It is designed for and used small arms ammunition. It is exempt from explosives regulation.

I think the poster to your forms would say "you guys really want more regulation".

"jdMARS" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

It's not a rocket... it's a smoothbore, muzzle loaded, cannon. It happens to be airborne at the time the charge goes off and the "wadding" is ejected. We prefer our wadding not get lost, so we tie it to a length of recovery harness.

ScottE

We are not determining legality, only a court case can determine that. We are trying to avoid the prosecution which would be costly.

None, and a court case would be tossed out because the evidence that it is not an explosive would be presented. Also the atf issuing a rule change on it means the rules weren't clearly defined and they knew it.

BP is an explosive and fairly clearly only exempt for use in firearms. Yet there are no known prosecutions for recovery. Has an atf agent even told anyone it cannot use it for recovery?

PGI attendees were notified they had to have a permit to transport explosives, even for their own use. No prosecutions reported.

Recently the atf notified an igniter manufacture that they were manufacturing and selling explosives without proper permits to non-permitees. They're working with him to get the proper permits. Gads, the sky is falling.

How many have been investigated because they have those igniters and don't have permits/storage?

If questioned, point out that your recovery system is simply a propellant activated device.

Until that point however, go out and fly rockets. The industry could use the cash.

My thoughts too -- An Ejection Cannon...

Yes.

Airborne celebratory cannons!

I have used nothing but Pyrodex since I started in HPR. Never had a problem.

well.. what if it's a _small_ rocket then?