what did we win in the lawsuit against the atf?

can anyone explain in simple terms what it is that we won in our lawsuit against the ATF? I thought it was that motors are not
considered explosives? why do we still nead a permit for easy access 29 & 38 mm reloads ? seems that nothing has changed and the ATF is nailing vendors for not requiring permits. Thanks in advance for any explanations
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Roy Green wrote:

Mr. Green,
who is "bunny"?
Bob
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark "Bunny" Bundick, president of the NAR.
David Erbas-White
Robert Juliano wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sorry. That's Mark "Bunny" Bundick, President of the National Association of Rocketry.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com 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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
--
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<<
Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

the
all
O.K., I understand that the ball is in the BATFE's court to show that APCP explodes or at least deflagrates. But, I don't think the BATFE will be looking for the "best product to compare with APCP" I'm no propellant guy, nor do I play one on T.V., but my question is, can the BATFE come up with an APCP "formula" that is nothing like hobby APCP that does indeed deflagrate and then say something to the effect that since one formula deflagrates, they all must be rergulated"? Seems the defination of "Composite" is vauge enough that they could throw in something bad along with AP and call it APCP and "show" it deflagrates. This could then be challenged, as not being commercial hobby propellant, but it would further be tied up in court, with the current regs standing, for a very long and expensive time.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Any ideas what the violations were?

As Jerry would say: Point!
Randy www.vernarockets.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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....)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
AZ Woody wrote:

March 17 Update on the ruling- http://nar.org/NARfrompres.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

unless
not
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)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I've
that
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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
AZ Woody wrote:

That's legal talk for, "nothing has changed in reality and be prepared to send more money for legal fees"... (:-)
Fred
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

But we didn't need them to tell us that did we? It's not over, it might be half time.
Randy www.vernarockets.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
--
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<<
Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
writes:

has
related
court
cited
(yet)! <<<

www.nar.org
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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

As far as I can tell, they have all the significance of a piece of paper. IIRC they cited me for 4 violations. I didn't have the easy access motors on my inventory. I didn't have receipts for them. I didn't have a current copy of my license, as the inspection was 2.5 months AFTER my license expired, and they still hadn't sent me the new one. I had to send them a copy back of the notification stating what actions I took. I guess they were satisfied, because a couple months later, I finally got my new license. It took 5-6 months for a RENEWAL!
--
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<<
Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.