what did we win in the lawsuit against the atf?

Nothing has changed. ATF gets a chance to go back to the court and defend their interpretation. However, it forces ATF to make some hard choices about what really *is* an explosive, instead of the semantics games they've played for the past 35 years.

I've read about some complaints coming from people about some ATF heavy-handedness recently, and that Bunny was none too happy about it, but that's about as much as I've heard. It's possible that ATF is making sure people know that nothing has changed -- for now.

Mr. Green,

who is "bunny"?

Bob

Mark "Bunny" Bundick, president of the NAR.

David Erbas-White

Robert Juliano wrote:

David,

Thank you for the info. I apologize for not running across that earlier, but I'm still getting back into the swing on things, and 3 teaching courses a semester is still teaching me the zen of time management.

Bob

David Erbas-White wrote:

I don't think we have won anything at this point Le, but as Bunny said last week we have them between a rock and a hard place. The ATFE want to regulate AP propellent because it deflagrates, the court has told them to define this in scientific terms - which we think they can't do. If they define deflagration as the burn rate of APCP they have also banned many household products - Mark says your shirt burns at the same rate as APCP!

Dale Greene SPAAR 503

Sorry. That's Mark "Bunny" Bundick, President of the National Association of Rocketry.

Exactly correct. The best product I can think of the compare to APCP is the safety flares used by police and found in emergency kits. It burns vigorusly, at about the same speed, is not put out by water, and is freely available. It must be shipped hazmat just like our stuff. But it's not an explosive.

Gasoline, matches, flash paper, cotton, steel wool, and Christmas trees all have higher burn rates than APCP.

You're right, nothing has changed yet - I've just heard that Performance Hobbies got a visit from the friendly BATF inspectors a few days ago and was sited for violations. The lawsuit hasn't been won yet.

Dale Greene SPAAR 503

Any ideas what the violations were?

As Jerry would say: Point!

Randy

Just to show how the current situation has been mis-understood, I found this in a club's newletter:

" Decision leads to reduced restrictions Classification of APCP as an explosive imposed regulatory restrictions of the handling of the product by all users. These regulatory controls on members were felt to be unfair by the Appellants (TRA & NAR). The decision effectively removes these restrictions in handling of Ammonium Perchlorate Composite as a rocket fuel. "

In reality, nothing has changed.

Per the statement (Feb 10, 2006) by Good and Bundick, and here's what I'd go by:

" We are currently discussing next steps and practical, regulatory implications of the Court's opinion with counsel, and will offer further feedback after we've completed that discussion. We expect to offer that feedback to members sometime in the next week to ten days."

Here it is 5 weeks later, and there's been no additional feedback from NAR/TRA, so we can only assume that nothing really changed. That is unless Good and Bundick have provided additional feedback to NAR/TRA that I've not seen! (nothing on ROL, RMR, the TRA listserver, etc....)

March 17 Update on the ruling-

Thanks for the link - I'm wondering why it was not a joint statement with TRA and posted in the usual places, but then again, it basically says, that for now, nothing has changed.... (ask me again in 45 days)

The noteworthy part as to "what has changed" is:

(d) Cautions - We have received reports from members wondering about specific elements of ATF field inspections and license renewals. Counsel has advised that pending further court action, APCP classification and related regulatory requirements remain in effect. Member currently holding Low Explosive User Permits (LEUP) approaching renewal dates should consider proceeding with their renewals as we do not know any firm dates for court action at this time.

In other words:

1. Nothing has changed for the average HPR rocketeer ATFE permit holder.
2. Stay tuned for additional court proceedings sometime in the next 45 days or future, (we are not sure of the real date).
3. Report any unusual or suspected heavy handed enforcement by BATFE agents in the field.

I guess there is still hope...

Fred

snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

That's legal talk for, "nothing has changed in reality and be prepared to send more money for legal fees"... (:-)

Fred

The problem is that we still hav BATFE field agents trying to enforce the

62.5g provision of the NPRM that never made it past NPRM status. THey cited me at my remewal for not having the easy access motors listed on my inventory, yet when I challenged them for where the 62.5g limit was in writing, all they could product was the NPRM. I even pointed out where it said PROPOSED on the top, but it did no good.

(yet)!

Bob,

What's the story on citations like that? Is it a fine? Are you screwed, or is there a hearing or an appeal process that can come into play?

James

It WAS a joint statement, and has been posted multiple places. I've seen it in at least three.

No, it's not on the TRA website yet; I just received it last night, saw it was multiple places already, so I didn't take a "drop everything and post it NOW" approach.

-Kevin

In the words of that famos Cable guy, " you are not to reason why, just "GET-ER-DONE". (:-)))) I'm sorry Kevin, just couldn't resist.

Fred, my wife is calling me; I guess I better "GET-ER-DONE".....