will this obsolete the ATf's claims?

Laser knocks down 11ft rocket:

formatting link
With this just on the horizon, I suppose these could be made mobile and placed around all airports..... this in conjunction with the airliner anti missile defense systems should make the ATF claims MOOT about our ability to use HPR to shoot down airliners....?

Perhaps somebody needs to point this out to the ATF?

shockie B)

Reply to
shockwaveriderz
Loading thread data ...

Apparently they've given up the claim that hobby rockets can take out planes. Now they're just saying that hobby rockets could be used to attack ground targets, deliver bio/chem weapons, etc. The new ATF party line is just as stupid as the old party line.

Reply to
RayDunakin

I guess this laser can shoot down rockets on the way down too wouldn't you think? shockie B)

Reply to
shockwaveriderz

Better than cross bows, 10 foot sling shots and flare guns? Better than potato guns, compound bows and starting cannons?

It may be time for the ATF to burn up another van.

Reply to
Chuck Rudy

guns, compound bows and starting cannons?

And Trebuchet!

Reply to
Darren J Longhorn

But they are flexible :)

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Of course, it's taxpayer money, they didn't own the van. They didn't pay for the reloads. It's not their money, they just play the game. They just sit in a cubicle and try to justify their thieving of taxpayer money. The Americans are forced to pay for permits while the thugs laugh and buy ex military surplus, and stockpile and stockpile and stockpile. Hey BATF*(#$ go look for a bad guy. The math and science students will still be here when you finally do something to protect us all. It's not about dotting Is and crossing ts, it's about putting your ass on the line for criminals, not middle America.

Reply to
Chuck Rudy

Yep. Which is why their new argument against rocketry is just as stupid as the last one.

Correct again -- they have no such authority.

Reply to
RayDunakin

So can a car or truck or school bus or USPS package or airliner. With much more accuracy and payload capacity.

The model airplane folks should be VERY scared if they are going to use this excuse.

BTW, where in the BATFE mission is the legislation that allows them to regulate transportation devices that might be used to deliver weapons? back to the judge...

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

Reply to
Bob Kaplow

Soaring deficits, terror threats, a need for armed Marshals on international flights to friendly countries, etc, etc, etc, and harassing licensed hobbyists TRYING to obey the law is what BATFE/DOJ wastes their time, manpower, and money on? You would think that the background checks, fingerprints, and all that information given voluntarily for a LEUP would serve some other purpose for the government than simply giving them a pool of easily identifiable targets. Like, possibly, identifying groups LEAST LIKELY to be involved in terror or illegal activities. I guess not. What, then, is the purpose of a LEUP? What criteria DO they use to separate the "good guys" from the bad?

Lock types. I guess BATFE, using their incredible hi-tech intelligence assets, has determined that a new external lock defeating technology has been acquired, or developed, by internal terrorist cells or criminal organizations. Geez, the technological prowess of these criminals and terrorists is mind boggling; anti-aircraft hobby rockets, anti-tank hobby rockets, and, now, lock defeating technologies. Is there no end?

Thank God our government has a Bureau which can pursue these types of enforcement actions against law abiding citizens even in the face of such a huge resource drain as the War on Terrorism. As a tax paying citizen, I am in awe of those in government who can so deftly shuffle money and manpower from other terror issues in order to fight this heinous threat to American security and safety. I'm certain they can think of nothing else to do which would contribute as much to the welfare of the country. I'm absolutely certain that the Bureau involved the best and brightest they have in the planning and execution of this monumental effort against evil.

As citizens, we have a duty to help our government in this important fight. We are the eyes and ears of America. Let's help them identify those who are causing the most long term damage to our Country.

Send them a mirror.

Reply to
Gary

This should be in the FAQ. And that is an understatement.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Gary wrote in news:Zejnc.9112$iF6.1033602@attbi_s02:

There's no need for paranoia. This is expected organizational behaviour. BATFE now has a significant vested interest in not backing down. They will do whatever they feel they have to to demonstrate that they made the right decisions. It doesn't have anything to do with effectiveness. It's about not admitting to mistakes. Admitting they made a mistake, made bad policy decisions, anything along those lines, represents a major threat to their self perceived effectiveness. They may not know, or may grossly exaggerate what might happen if they were to admit they misclassified APCP, or that the 62.5 gram threshold is irrational and arbitrary, or whatever. That doesn't matter. What does matter is they don't want to find out, because it just might be "bad".

len.

Reply to
Leonard Fehskens

snipped for brevity

Heh. That's a pretty neat idea!

Some years back some taxpayer organization urged people to mail their Congresscritters teabags...figured they'd get the point! (They did but didn't care. Nowdays the folks sending teabags would probably be accused of bioterrorism, attempting to spread plant disease or something.)

+McG+
Reply to
Kenneth C. McGoffin

Gary wrote in news:a4Coc.80159$kh4.4738193@attbi_s52:

Again, it isn't about wanting to regulate us. It isn't about a revenue stream.

If they don't pursue this they are afraid they will be perceived as having made a mistake. That's what they can't afford to let happen. Having started this all years ago by declaring APCP to be an explosive, they now have to act as if they mean it.

len.

Reply to
Leonard Fehskens

Well, I tried to give a few examples why in my first post. It just doesn't add up to me, that's all. Len says they are simply trying to save face. Could be. Many think the BATFE has an "issue" with rocketry. Possible as well. And I'm sure there are those who believe BATFE is simply doing its job in the post-HSA/SEA environment.

Based upon existing law and regs at the time, BATFE took no enforement actions for years prior to HSA/SEA. They issued their infamous letter and just let things be. If they had an "issue" with rocketry, an anti-PAD NPRM could have been initiated years ago, or the letter simply recinded and enforement actions taken. Even if they were to have eventually lost legal actions then, a rocketeer under prosecution for explosives violations would have put a considerable chill on the hobby; something I would expect of an agency who had an "issue" with us.

Things changed after HSA/SEA, and there is grounds there for them to do so.

But they have acted in a manner which makes me suspect their motivations and beliefs in what they are, ostensibly, trying to accomplish. They are the experts in NPRM processes and procedure. The incompetency required to mess up their own procedures makes me suspect. Its as if they are being goaded into something which they are not comfortable with and gave it minimal attention and effort. So little, that their effort on the proposed NPRM was overturned in court.

The post 9/11 terror paranoia within Congress and the Nation gave them, IMHO, all the "backing" necessary to REALLY lower the boom if they so desired. Instead, their efforts are STILL subject to further legal challenges.

I just have this impression that the BATFE would not have pushed things on its own. The DOJ letter in response to Enzi's Bill is also evidence that no homework is being done prior to acting.

I think someone in the HSA or Congress has the "issue" with us, and rockets, and is behind this push for more regulation. If the scenario is even plausible, we might want to expand our view a little on who is looking at us and why.

Reply to
Gary

I think the real "issue" Congress has is not with us, per se, so much as a fear that anything _other_ than a "pure anti-terrorist line" is going to make them vulnerable... same reason HSA passed with so much bad law amended into it. Any opposition to it (even on the most reasonable of grounds) would have been perceived as a "retreeat from anti-terrorist vigilance"... something that might be used as an attacking-point by some election opponent (or hostile reporter): said opponents/reporters may (at any given point in time) be completely hypothetical... it doesn't matter to these folks. As far as their decision-making reflexes go, the name of the game is to never say or do anything that could leave an opening for such things to ever be said.

Anyone who is "still on the island" in the "survivor-game" of national government almost certainly has that sort of "positioning" down to such an art that they're long past being able to let anything else affect their behavior... and in a political climate infected with the "9/11 changes everything" virus, that means that opposing sport rocketry looks "more anti-terrorist" than attempting to support it, and therefore one inclines thus, to increase one's probability of keeping one's job in the next election.

This is what we're up against; I wish I had more concrete thoughts on what to do about it...

-dave w

Reply to
David Weinshenker

More articles like WSJ and more efforts like Fly Rockets NOW.

Local motion.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Gary wrote in news:3S3pc.91211$Ik.6987392@attbi_s53:

It's about more than just "saving face". I think they are afraid that if they admit they made a mistake, their whole empire will come crashing down around them.

len.

Reply to
Leonard Fehskens

What has changed (in ATF actions or attitudes) since then? They issued an NPRM, but that was in response to lawsuit, not HSA/SEA. I really don't think HSA/SEA had much to do with the ATF's longstanding animosity towards rocketry. The only impact the HSA/SEA had was that it allowed ATF to stick their noses into areas of rocketry which were formerly out of their reach.

I think it just shows how a devious unwillingness to do things right. They worded the NPRM to make it appear that they were granting an exemption to an existing limit, when in fact no such limit existed. Then if they didn't enact the "new rule", they would say there was no "exemption" at all. They just hoped we weren't smart enough to see through the deceit and call them on it.

Reply to
RayDunakin

I don't mean to minimize your position, Len. I have seen much evidence of what you speak of in other issues, ie, firearms legislation.

I just "see" something else here as well. Just not sure what.

Reply to
Gary

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.