What is everyone working on now that its cold and windy?

However, if you use the lock, you won't be the easy target.. (:-)

Come on Philip, your a smart guy, it would be more than a few "less motivated and competent". Look how long it has taken to clean up the Jersey marshes/coast line and other such places; most all of that, the result of an era of little or no hazardous polluting regulations..

Fred

Not necessarily.

Some consequenses are treasonous. That's pretty bad. Death. Some are felonies. Not quite as bad. Some are misdemeanors which is still a crime.

Some are administrative (ie DOT fine) Some are civil. Some are injunctive.

Some are employer imposed.

Some are simply "extra legal."

Jerry

According to who?

Jerry

The entire time they are, they claim they are not. Gullible members BELIEVE them too!!

But then they claim HPR being late and absorbing money is not their problem despite the continuing endoresement of HPR as the EXCLUSIVE, OFFICIAL magazine of TRA.

It's a "separate entity". As if that matters. Gullible members BELIEVE them too!!

Much of it was probably made in violation of SOME law. Why not require a ATF-LEMP for bread making just to add the "air" of compliance?

It makes just as much sense as for EXEMPT PADs.

Jerry

The BATFE, for one.

RD> A necessary act in the process of making high RD> power rocketry legal.

To be perfectly honest, that is a highly debatable on both sides. Had we not done so, we could have either been outlawed or ignored competely. I wasn't there at the time, so I cannot say which was more likely to occur. However, based on examining the history of regulatory bodies in the US, I tend to believe the latter would have been more probable. The fact that we did get into bed with them, and regulation continues to escalate tends to support that somewhat. Granted, it's anecdotal evidence but it's about all we have.

Philip

PD> > Actually, locks don't even deter petty thieves it just causes them to look PD> > for a new (easier) target.

True. But let's disect our analogy and look back at the original debate.

Thief = rouge APCP maker. Lock = LEMP

The presence of the lock (LEMP) doesn't stop the thief (rouge) from pursuing his trade. It merely makes him relocate.

Even more absurd, is that licensing seeks to protect us be requiring that every potential thief first go and purchase a lock.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not arguing that law enforcement doesn't work. Just that licensing doesn't work. As evidence, I cite a 2000 report doee by AAA Auto that found that 1 in 5 auto crashes involved someone driving without a license. I don't know exactly how many crashes occurred in that time period, but you can easily surmise that a heck of a lot of people are driving without a license. If licensing was remotely successful, that number should be more line 1 in 100 or less.

The bottom line, is that people who aren't afraid of jail time from the injuries or deaths they may cause, are highly unlikely to fear fines or jail time as a result of failure to complete a licensing process. The proceed with impugnity and deal with the consequences as they occur. Again, I argue that licensing doesn't work.

Now you're talking regulation (law) and law enforcement. There, you and I agree.

WRT, commercial motor making I disagree. I think that the cost and logistics of running a profitable chemical manufacturing business deter far more wanna-be's than the hassles associated with getting a LEMP. There would probably be an initial surge until a few went bankrupt and word spread that running a business is still difficult no matter what the product is.

Again, we're talking regs vs. licensing. I feel confident that most would be manufacturers once unburdened from LEMP requirements would next find themselves with regulations imposed by the local and/or state FM. As an example, take used car sales. I need no license to engage in that business, but if I were to practice it out of my driveway it would not be long before the county informed me that it is illegal to run a car lot out of a residence. And if I were out in my garage with a hobart cranking out pallets loads of enerjetic materials (and making and receiving shipments, etc.), it would not be long before the neighbors got wind of that and put a stop to it.

That is, of course, unless I live far enough from my neighbors that they are unable to find out. In which case, they are probably pretty safe. So, is it really any of their business anyway?

Philip

P.S. All that said, I think it's only fair that I disclose my position on the ever encroaching Federal Govt. I don't think the feds should have ANY jurisdiction in ANYTHING I manufacture (legal or illegal) unless I 1.) attempt to deprive another person of their constitutional rights or 2) attempt to engage in that activity across state lines.

So before the question is asked. Yes, I understand that that flies in the face of a dozen or more federal court rulings. Generally, I disagree with those rulings but they do not surprise me since their outcome further empower the Federal government and the decisions were made by Federal courts.

And yes, I do believe that I should be able to manufacture (and use) liquor, drugs, explosives, etc on my property so long as I do not leave my property nor allow the results of my actions to affect those on neighboring property. If I leave my property, I then fall under appropriate city, county, state regulations. But not federal except as specified above.

You don't need to say it. The evidence is VERY clear.

Generally correct.

Licensing is a tax, pure and simple.

Correct.

The government disagrees of course. And Tripoli will enforce "for them", and deny that they do. :)

Even I am not THAT extreme. :)

Jerry

Ignored.

It took "Restricted Access-sm" to get ATF's attention via repetitious NATIONAL ads (in HPR magazine) on NEWSSTANDS.

Proof:

Tripoli. Not "we".

Authored by TRA and NAR via NFPA.

Nope. I witnessed it!

I was in the room!

Jerry

False and you REFUSE to listen to REGS, reason, or proof.

Or even actual ATF practice (as opposed to loud blustery noises).

Jerry

Phillip D. wrote:

That memo was itself motivated by:

huh?

AFFIRMED by a judge!

But the BATFE doesn't get to regulate something because it gets popular. it gets to regulate something because congress passes a law which requires them to do so. Which it has not done. Or because they go through the legal process of proposing a rule change, accepting comments, responding to those comments, then issuing a new rule. Which they have only begyun to do.

Thus the simplest response in the 1990 Orange book is still in effect which says that our rocket motors are exempt as PADs. It's never been legally changed.

QED.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

It may suprise you, but I am of the same opinion, as to the FEDs. I am a states rights advocate. No laws that regulate individual and business activities, that do not cross state lines should be inacted or enforcable.

I agree with you..

I agree with this, although drugs is not my thing.(:-) It would be nice if the same application of law that is normally applied to alcohol consumption, was applied to other normal activities: You can drink all you want, but public drunkenness, operating motor vehicles, airplanes, and boats, under the influence, will get you busted if caught. Those laws make sense as they are a direct deterrent to behavior detrimental to public safety.

Fred

It is well established such laws are NOT a deterrent to the activity. They increase the incentive to invest in methods and techniques to not get caught (radar dectectors are an example).

Many studies have been done on murder in particular. Many statistical and behavioral studies have concluded that laws against murder and penalties, even death penalties are not a deterrant for those that do commit murder.

The evidence on those who do NOT commit murder is less clear since proving and studying a negative is difficult.

But the fact is, punative enforcement is a failed policy and only serves the sense of revenge of society at large and gives a sense of "something being done", no matter how expensive, socially destructive to the non-criminals vialoss of rights, or ineffectiveness.

Jerry

I will actually recommend a book! Scary, eh? Against Leviathan: Dovernment Power & Free Society by Robert Higgs

Magnum decided it would rather go out of busness than simply follow that.

TRA decided they would rather restrict the market from at least four willing motor makers (starting way back in 1991 with Vulcan and ACS, and later in 1997 with USR and KOS) than follow that.

Aerotech decided to literally lead the way in NOT folowing that [exemption] through their "innovative" "Restricted Access-sm" marketing methodology which each of its dealers and its primary certifying authority for those products, Tripoli, conformed to.

Jerry

At our collective peril.

Drunk driving laws have decreased the percentage of drivers operating vehicles drunk and there are many studies that statistically support that premise.

Most murder is a crime of passion and as a result, no amount of deterence will significantly effect such crime. Societies only response to such crimes as murder is to punish, by whatever means society determines appropriate, in a court of law. However, I agree in general, the death penalty has had no deterent effect to the crime of murder.

We obviously have a different perspective on punitive enforcement or at least to what degree it oversteps the line of reasonable application. As an example, I believe there is a need for hazardous material and anti pollution regulations, and they need to be tough laws when applied to commerce, with provisions for exemptions as common sense applied determines. On hazardous materials, at least, I believe you do not agree with my perspective.

Fred

jerry, I thought usr didn't manufacture motors?

Are you telling Us now, it was all a lie?