Popular Science article

Poor Jerry

Weenies

Yes, but my point is this, You don't need a LEUP to have a magazine and store homemade propellant in it.

I'm not talking about manufacturing. Once I make the motor, intending to use it myself, I become a user, therefore don't I need a LEUP? If storage is not an issue for a manufacturer, then it surely has been for the user for the past 10 years. Just because it didn't come from a manufacturer, licensed or not, doesn't mean I shouldn't have to follow the same rules as the guy who got it from Aerotech.

Wow. If BATFE doesn't care about storage for EX motors, they're dumber than I thought, or its prima facie evidence that the court should find for NAR/TRA. (I know, I know... "it's the gummint, it don't need to make sense.")

Roy nar12605

yea, but if i *buy* from others, i have to have a LEUP and proper storage. Why is that different from billy bob and joe stump blowers? Once they mix it, they probably have to store it until they're ready to use it. After all, it is a low-explosive, and they're going to use it. Doesn't the BATFE, according to BATFE, have a legislated mandate to control it and be sure it is safely and securely stored? If not, that's a hole big enough to drive a shuttle through and makes me understand why EX is so popular.

Sad but true.

Still I'd like to have evidence that that is what they have said.

Roy nar12605

Only if you buy explosives.

Exempt items are, well, exempt. Jerry

Or both.

The NFPA codes may be intended to "discourage" amateur rocketry, but they do not prohibit it and I hope they never do.

That's what the "NAR weenies" used to say about high power, and some are still saying it.

Right, just like we "used" high power to recruit new members when NAR was turning them away by the droves.

Look, it's really very simple... If you don't like high power, don't do high power. But don't try to screw with those who do want do high power. If you don't like EX, don't do EX. But don't try to screw with those who want to do EX.

NAR finally learned that lesson, it's a shame that some of its members still haven't learned.

=EB

Wow, you really are an idiot! I said we should do our best to watch what we say "to the media". This forum is not "the media". I said, "show me an example in which I've been quoted in a national magazine or TV show". This forum is neither a magazine nor a TV show.

I'm not the one who told a reporter that "we're not happy" unless a certain government agency "is nervous". I'm not the one who told a reporter that "we love to watch rockets blow up". I'm not the one who told a reporter his rocket's name is the "flaming pyramid of death". Nor did I ever ask a reporter if he was an undercover FBI agent, as someone once did.

I don't agree with that assessment. Catoes and lawndarts are a fact of rocketry, with or without EX. You can't hide them unless you bar the media away from all launches, and that would only make us look worse. At least this article made it clear that the people doing this hobby aren't a bunch of brainless yahoos, and that this hobby is safe despite the occasional flight or motor failure.

Besides, since you don't do high power, you don't do EX, you don't make or sell motors, and you can't legally make or sell motors, it looks to me like it's really not your problem. Let those of us who are actually IN the hobby worry about whether or not it gives us a "bad name".

Oh, one more thing I forgot to mention: There were no rockets of any kind on the cover of PopSci! The only rocketry photos were inside the mag, a fact you would be aware of if you had actually seen and read the magazine.

It's stated on your own website, Jerry: "ATF "knowingly and falsely" claimed PADs are not exempt despite 27 CFR 555.141-a-8."

If you think the ATF has changed their minds (and policy), go ahead and ask them, and post their response here. If you do, be sure to get names this time so we can verify that you're not just lying again.

=C4

Since you are still here and still misrepresenting your actions and blaming your problems on others, it is necessary to keep reminding people of the truth.

Yeah, that cover blurb sucks and is the biggest thing wrong with the whole story. But there's no indication that blurb came from anyone at the launch; more likely it was some editor who concocted it. To my knowledge no one at the launch or in the hobby was even told about this blurb or asked about it prior to publication, so there was no way anyone could have prevented the mag from using it.

Are you a commercial motor manufacturer? If not, then the motor that you made, for your own personal use, does not need a LEUP. All that the BATFE requires is that you store the motor/s properly, which means in a magazine.

Hijacking nearly every topic in every forum that hasn't already thrown you out, just so you can lie and slander TRA/NAR, is a fairly significant impact on the hobby.

If that's true, it's because you got busted for your illegal operations.

Yet you still list motors on your website, and still rant about TRA/NAR's refusal to cert your illegal motors.

Funny, just a few weeks ago you said you couldn't post your alleged LEMP because of "pending issues". If those issues are no longer pending, how about posting the LEMP you claimed to have?

I think the point DaveG is trying to make is that you can have proper storage without having a LEUP. Whether or not the ATF would be satisfied with that arrangement is another story.

Except of course, when the ATF says they aren't exempt items. Then you have to take them to court to force them to recognise the item as exempt. Or you can pretend the item is exempt, in which case you can get busted for possession of a "destructive device", right Jerry?