possibilities for creating a bill to avoid regulation of model rocketry

ok, before i even start. lets try not to turn this into a rant about all the things that went wrong or havent been done inthe past to keep rocketry out of the regulators hands. you got the whole of RMR ro do that.
lets try to work out a bill.
First off, the ATF seems bound and determined to regulate model rocketry. either by declassifying motors as PADs or trying to regulate propellants such as APCP.
what we need is a bill (or number of bills) that we can introduce to our heads of rocketry organizations so they can pass them allong to the bill committee.
I suggest we find bills already introduced that are similar and adapt them to our needs (why re-invent the wheel?)
anyone got any ideas? or maybe some places to point to so we can see how we can proceed?

  Quoted Text Here  
Why not? It is HIGHLY instructive of what to expect in the future! The obstructionism of the clubs against the Wickman/Enzi bill (which helped everyone), was a fact and cannot be ignored.
So simply reintroduce that bill. It was perfect.
Your predisposition to ignore the pink elephant in the room is telling.
Jerry
  Quoted Text Here  

  Quoted Text Here  
Better yet, attach it to one of the Tsunami Relief bills...
    Bob Kaplow    NAR # 18L    TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"         >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle:    http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org
... One nation under surveillance, divisive, with liberty and justice for none.

Bob Kaplow wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Better yet, a "domestic partner" healthcare reform bill for senior citizens.

tater wrote: << ok, before i even start. lets try not to turn this into a rant about all the things that went wrong >>
Jerry replied: <snipped usual ranting BS>
Well, that didn't take long. I think that may be a new record for Jerry.
Bob K. wrote: << Better yet, attach it to one of the Tsunami Relief bills... >>
Good idea, but not a guarantee of success. I could see ATF, Schumer and Lautenberg holding a press conference about how the Evil Republicans are Exploiting Innocent Tsunami Victims and Selling Out America To The Terrorists.

(RayDunakin) writes:
  Quoted Text Here  
But these PAD thingies are used by the coast guard to send rescue lines to stranded ships, and by the military to clear mine fields in Iraq.
Maybe there's a different back door: how are the PADs used in the general aviation parachute deployment systems licensed?
    Bob Kaplow    NAR # 18L    TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"         >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle:    http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org
    Voting for "the lesser of two evils" is still voting for evil.

kaplow snipped-for-privacy@encompasserve.org.TRABoD (Bob Kaplow) wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Aircraft part.
Yes, really.
  Quoted Text Here  

Introducing a bill will do nothing. the bill must get through a committee and that is where it will be CHANGED to be used against everyone. Just like the last ultra-expensive bill disaster (that we were warned QUITE clearly about in advance, but folks went off and did it anyway).
The Sentaor from NY - using fear of terrorism - was determined to not let the bill pass as it was.
-Fred Shecter NAR 20117

Ack. It is a tough ride which seems to elicit defeat among many. Very many will balk. Already many have walked. I truly wish I had faith that such a measure could be undertaken successfully.
I remember how I first felt when I saw HP. Besides the deep gutteral "whaaaahaahaa!" that escaped my lungs, I felt a tremendous and deep appreciation for the freedom we then had to enjoy such a thing. Now those freedoms are being contested by some both inside and outside the organization.
Right regulation is being attempted from the explosives front. If hybrids become popular, then what?
~ Duane Phillips.
  Quoted Text Here  

A little clarification... in the sentence "Right regulation..." I meant that corrective legislation from the perspective of whether APCP is an explosive, was attempted / has been attempted / is being attempted... to seemingly no avail. I was in a bit of a hurry when I pounded out that last sentence.
If hybrids become mainstream (thereby reducing the TCO overall; increasing supply) how is it to be kept free? Will not the same terroristic fears attack this also? Remember, certain of our legislators hyped the terror of the rocket, not the explosiveness of the propellant. There appeared to be very little concern from those certain legislators about APCP actually being used as an explosive. The explosive angle was the easiest way to control the issue... the propaganda FUD was the rocketry. Their angle was/is similar to, "If it is shaped and painted to look like an elephant, then we must apply the rules of elephanteering."
~ Duane Phillips.
  Quoted Text Here  

Duane Phillips wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
I think it's prefab, off-the-shelf solid propulsion products that scare the Regulators the most, and are the least defensible on the "looks like a potential weapon-enabling product that could be adapted to deliver some sort of destructive device" issue.
Hybrids, with all the plumbing and stuff, aren't going to look as much like "something that people might think a terroist would want to use".
-dave w

  Quoted Text Here  
Pretty soon that's all they will be able to get and THAT will become what they will use if they ever use any consumer stuff.
After 45 years the only two "attempts" to use consumer rockets resulted in effective notice.
Jerry

  Quoted Text Here  
Alas, the BATFE's job is not to regulate delivery devices. If it were, they'd ahve to ground all commercial airliners, Ryder trucks, etc.
  Quoted Text Here  
I doubt that will cross their minds, or stop them from trying to regulate the devices.
But they won't be able to regulate hybrids, or for that matter liquids or new formulation solids as explosives. It's only that the listing of APCP as an explosive occured 35 years ago that is really keeping us from forcing it off the list.
Say, what else besides APCP can be used to make rocket motors that is NOT currently on "the list"? A simple propellant change might solve our problems.
    Bob Kaplow    NAR # 18L    TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"         >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle:    http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org
... One nation under surveillance, divisive, with liberty and justice for none.

Bob K. wrote: << Say, what else besides APCP can be used to make rocket motors that is NOT currently on "the list"? A simple propellant change might solve our problems.>>
You're forgetting the ATF's wonderful catch-all that says that just because something isn't on the list of regulated explosives, doesn't mean it's not a regulated explosive.

(RayDunakin) writes:
  Quoted Text Here  
But as we saw when we tried to challenge APCP being on the list, if it's not already there, the burden is on them to PROVE that the item is an Explosive, instead of something that burns real good.
I'd like to see a change to the law that adopts the scientific / industrial definitions for explosive and deflagrate and that would remove our motors from the list. But I don't see that getting through congress either.
    Bob Kaplow    NAR # 18L    TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"         >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle:    http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org
    Voting for "the lesser of two evils" is still voting for evil.

al max wrote: << I might be incorrect, but was not ANCP NOT on the list awhile ago. >>
Yep. The problem is, there's no scientific, or even legal, basis for adding any material to the list of regulated "explosives". Some bureaucrat at ATF just decides, "oh yeah, let's add that one" and voila! Which seems to make it difficult to prevent anything from being added to the list, or to challenge someone after it's been added.

(RayDunakin) writes:
  Quoted Text Here  
Based on the court ruling, I'd think we'd have grounds to challenge the addition of an item for 3-7 years after it was added. The problem with APCP was that it was added 30 years before our challenge.
Which makes me wonder: haven't old established laws been challenged and even taken to the supreme court. Civil rights comes to mind.
    Bob Kaplow    NAR # 18L    TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"         >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle:    http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org
    Voting for "the lesser of two evils" is still voting for evil.

Duane Phillips wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Hybrids are already popular. 100% permit free. Try it, you'll like it!

  Quoted Text Here  
I keep seeing this statement. It overlooks the pesky little issue of ejection charges. BP is not permit free. In the state where I live, even to buy pyrodex you need a gun permit.
So this statement is true only if you are planning on a very expensive lawn-dart.

Then the problem is not the status of APCP but the status of the ejection charge. Even if APCP where 100% permit free you would still have an ejection charge problem. Even if the ejection charge is considered a PAD, BP is on the explosives list and NFPA has rules about its storage (called sporting powder). My Fire Department requires a magazine for over 1lb and limits the total stored to 2lbs in an non-sprinklered building.
CO2 solutions do exist. Not ideal, but as I said the problem isn't unique to hybrids.
Luckily I live in a "right to carry" state (although you do need a permit to carry concealed.
spudzilla wrote:
  Quoted Text Here