Wouldn't this be a good time for negotiations with the BATFE?

You know, it occurs to me that right now would be the best time there could be to have a pow-wow with the BATFE maggots and come up with a solution
that satisfies both groups before we have to go through the whole legal muck again.
If we NAR/TRA folks don't start negotiating with the feds now, the we stand a good change of losing the PAD exemption we just had vindicated. If there's one thing I do know is that the BATFE it probably right now comming up with the wording for the NPRM that will kill the PAD exemption.
I don't expect that we will get away without SOME form of regulation from the feds. But, I do think that if we try to work with the BATFE in a POSITIVE manner, that we could help draft regulations that aren't so troublesome as they BATFE would want them to be.
What do I think could be done? Optimistically, it would be an addendum to the PAD exemption specifically to deal with rocket motors. It would define what SU, reloadable, and hybrid rocket motors are; what their consitituant propellant components are; and what the properties of the propellant components must conform to (i.e. non-detonatable APCP/ANCP with a burn veloctity not to exceede 1 M/s [I admit that do not know if this figure is accurate, it's just an example]).
Realistically, I know that a full exemption is a pipe dream. The BATFE will NEVER willingly give up regulatory jurisdiction over anything within their sphere of influence. If we can't get a full exemption, we SHOULD lobby for the creation of a specific consumer rocketry license. Since we would only ever be working with a very small range of materiels, we shouldn't have to have a full LEUP with all the onerous storage and inspection requirements it carries. The license would:
1) Not be expensive to obtain or renew. 2) Still require the initial fingerprinting and background checks. 3) Not require the inspections or detailed record keeping. 4) Not place weight limits on individual motors or their components. 5) Allow APCP/ANCP/BP storage in accorance with NFPA regs. (50#, type-4 mag, attached garage). 6) Etc., etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
I know that some folks won't like the fingerprinting and background checks, but it IS the job of the BATFE to keep explosives out of the hands of criminals, AND, Judge Walton did agree with the BATFE that APCP deflagrates , SO the BATFE is justified to put it on the list of explosives. By keeping the background checks a part of the licensing process, the BAFTE can proudly proclaim that they are doing their job. The ability to slap one's own back, or sing one's own praises is critical to federal types.
If the NAR/TRA consortium is not, or has not considered starting an out-of- court dialog with the BATFE, then they need to get of their collective rear-ends and do so. Negotiating never hurt anything. If nothing else, it would give us a guage of just what their stance is.
This is just my ramblings. I doubt anything like this will occur. The NAR/TRA folks don't seem to listen to their members much these days. They seem to have their own agendas, and I for one, haven't been able to figure out what they are.
--
Support your local medical examiner....die strangely.

Jeff Richardson
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jeff Richardson wrote:

The BATFE has shown ZERO interest in any sort of compromise, to date. Whatever makes you think that's gonna change?
-Kevin
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kevin,
Do you know if anyone has tried since Buckles left? Also who from TRA contacted them? If it was back in the Kelly days, it's no wonder there's a problem.
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 18:02:01 -0500, Kevin Trojanowski

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
even though Mr. Kelly is no longer a trustee, I have no doubt that he still is a "power behind the throne"... ie his input is taken into account beofre any major TRA decisions are made or will be made....
face it folks.....the days of the PAD are numbered as is the imposition of the 62.5 g limit is on the horizon.....
What BATFE wants, BATFE will get......
shockie B)
wrote:

could
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<< face it folks.....the days of the PAD are numbered as is the imposition of the 62.5 g limit is on the horizon..... What BATFE wants, BATFE will get...... >>
Thank you for that forecast, Mr. Doom 'n Gloom. You can go back to handwringing now, while the rest of us fly rockets.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 14:04:49 -0400, "shockwaveriderz"

Absolutely. Joe Egan's firm has repeatedly won judgements against government agencies.

Ceeding any quarter to ATF is folly. Unless we pressure them via the NPRM process, the court and the Congress, we will fail.

We haven't even begun to tap our resources, Terry. I submit that if the community can raise the kind of funds it got from the Save Rocketry.com campaign, we can keep pushing on this for quite some time.

With all due respect, the NAR Board passed a balanced 2004 budget at its February meeting. The revenue figure in that budget was based on a 4,500 membership level, and we're staying comfortably above that figure. On what financial basis is it assumed we're currently in a deficit situation?

I have consistently said from the start of the litigation that it could fail.
I repeatedly cautioned members, based on input from both our counsel and legislative advisors, that until the litigation was complete, we should not undertake legislative action. The fact that we're fighting on three fronts, not two, is due to circumstances beyond our control.

In what manner has the NAR Board failed to communicate to members what we have done? At every juncture in which we had information to offer members, we did so. Check out http://www.nar.org/legislative.html for that chain of communication.

I respectifully disagree. I suggest NAR members keep an eye open for developments yet to come.

Agreed
I respectifully disagree. NPRM 968 is legally flawed, and the process has a long way to go to get the ATF out of that situation.

I submit that if the end state is that LEUP's and storage are required to fly HPR, the hobby will shrink to 25% or less of its current pool of flyers. I submit this is not a state of affairs that will allow the hobby to propser, either in terms of association memberships or cottage industry support. Unless we can challenge ATF's ability to impose this kind of illegal and unnecessary regulation, we're headed towards becoming a buggy whip collection society. . .
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Mark B. Bundick mbundick - at - earthlink - dot - net NAR President www - dot - nar - dot - org
"A dark night in a city that knows how to keep its secrets, but high above the quiet streets on the twelfth floor of the Acme Building, one man is still trying to find the answers to life's persistent questions. Guy Noir, Private Eye."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Doing "something" is not nearly as interesting as doing "anything effectively".
Jerry
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
After re-reading the NAR/TRA response at the bequest of Bob Kaplow, it does appear that the NPRM 968 is indeed flawed, to the point, such that it is no longer a slam dunk as I once thought....
So I guess this will be the next battleground in th legal strategy.... But even if the NPRM 968 is flawed, and we sue based upon its flaws, don't all the BATFE have to do is redo the NPRM and this time make sure they don't make introduce any flaws into their NPRM process?
As far as the deficit budget, perhaps I used the incorrect termonology.. But didn't the NAR spend more than it took in last year? So that ended the fiscal year in the RED ?
Is it possible that IF the hobby did shrink to 25% of its present size, that over time, as people discovered the hobby and were aware upfront that theywould have to get an LEUP, that would just be considered as a cost of doing business? And the hobby would grow slowly over time filled with people that have LEUP's?
Why hasn't either the NAR or the TRA done anything to determine what perceantge of its Senior members currently have LEUPS? Don't you think this would be a valuable number to know? I mean lets say for the sake of argument that 75% of the current 80% of the Senior membership that are L1/2/3 certfied already have bitten the bullet and gotten LEUP's. Don't you think it would mean something if such a large number of the current NAR certified members already may have LEUPS? It would tell me 2 things: It would tell me that the NAR's past 10 years campaign encouraging members to get LEUP's has been wildly successful and it would tell me that a large majority of the NAR membership will not be affected by anything the BATFE does regarding APCP. SO If the above circumstances exist, would reason do we have for going forth with the lawsuit? If the majority of the senior NAR membership who is certfied has already gotten a LEUP, then it means they are certainly comfortable with the idea of having to get a LEUP to do HPR. WHO is the lawsuit and legislation for then?
Now what about those NAR members that haven't gotten a LEUP yet or Never will for what ever reasons? Well theres always the sponsoring or helper route. Perhaps the NAR is they knew which members have LEUP, and which members with LEUP have storage facilities, could then do a geographical analysis which would put LEUP holders with non-LEUP holders. It could put LEUP holders into contact with LEUP holders that only have contingent storage. Why would NAR members who already have LEUP's have any motivation to donate money for a lawsuit that will not benefit them personally? It seems to me that the fact that a large majority of current NAR members who are certfied and have also gotten a LEUP, may have already made their decision on the lawsuit.
Don't you think knowing some of the above information would help the NAR decide what they should do?
Mark: if you prefer to answer my questions offline, be my guest. You know as well as I do, the fact that you ahev even replied to me here In RMR and my above comments will bring out the good, the bad and the ugly.........
shockie B)
wrote:

agency
money....instead
dry"
doing
show
that
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
shockwaveriderz wrote:

Why do you think they worded NPRM-968 the way they did - i.e., making it sound like they were "adding" an exemption? Makes it harder to challenge that part. ("Oh, you're suing because you _don't_ want the exemption?")
Any putative future NPRM exempting propellant from the PAD exemption won't be able to pull that sort of sleaze.
-dave w
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Shock wrote: << Is it possible that IF the hobby did shrink to 25% of its present size, that over time, as people discovered the hobby and were aware upfront that they would have to get an LEUP, that would just be considered as a cost of doing business? And the hobby would grow slowly over time filled with people that have LEUP's? >>
And the folks who can't afford it, or can't get it, are just screwed? Nice.
Besides, look at how long it took the hobby to grow to this point, without LEUPs. How much longer, if ever, would it take to reach this level if everyone had to get a LEUP before even entering the hobby? And that's assuming the hobby could survive for long with drastically reduced numbers.
<< Why hasn't either the NAR or the TRA done anything to determine what perceantge of its Senior members currently have LEUPS? Don't you think this would be a valuable number to know? >>
No. Why would it be valuable? It doesn't help anyone who doesn't have a LEUP. It doesn't help in the fight against the ATF and government over-regulation of a benign hobby.
<< SO If the above circumstances exist, would reason do we have for going forth with the lawsuit? >>
"So if most folks are paying excessive taxes to King George, why should the colonies rebel?"
Come on, Shock! You surely you have more spine than that.
<< If the majority of the senior NAR membership who is certfied has already gotten a LEUP, then it means they are certainly comfortable with the idea of having to get a LEUP to do HPR. >>
Just because someone is forced to do something doesn't mean they are "comfortable" doing it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (RayDunakin) wrote:

Never.
Point.
I doubt it.

Horrificly bad idea.

--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
ray: you almost getting as bad as JI when it comes to "selective responses"..
comments inline shockie B)
ps I was wondering how long it would be before this post was found....

that
doing
that
Nice.
.......
obviously you didn't read the part of my post about sponsoring/helper....... the cost of a LEUP is a canard on your part Ray...IF a person can afford to do HPR, they can afford the cost of a LEUP......
.........

everyone
hobby
........
I would submit that a large number of people have been doing just that: getting LEUPS to participate in HPR over the past 10 years...... I mean both the NAR/TRA has been recommending that its members do so for at least that long....
........

this
LEUP.
over-regulation of

......... again Ray, selective response, I pointed out why it would be important to know...
IF the NAR/TRA right now knew who had LEUP, and who had storgae, they could implement a program that would put LEUP holders with storage into contact with LEUP that only has contingent stoarge. It would facilitate HPR instead of restrict it...
You like the NAR/TRA do not want these figures known, because it will put to rest the question about whether we should even have a lawsuit. Think about it... If the overwhelming majority of NAR/TRA senior members, RIGHT NOW, have a LEUP, then what is the purpose of the lawsuit? Who is the lawsuit for? It certainly isn't going to benefit those people who already got LEUPS now is it? I guess all the people who have taken the time to get LEUP's in your eyes are considered traitors to the cause? They must also not have any backbones huh? .........

forth
the
already
of
......
well perhaps...perhaps they just see the writing on the wall and decided to bite the bullet, so to speak....
........

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

The problem is not the cost. It is the approvals for an unneeded magazine.

Both now deny it interestingly.
So post a summary of links of them making the recommendations for FAQ fodder.

Only because the rest have dropped out. The 80% drop in business happened.

Just Jerry!

True.
Jerry
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JI: well it appears they have scrubbed any references to getting LEUPS......damn I feel like i'm in the novel 1984, where history is revised on a regular basis.....whoa...
more responses inline..
shockie B)

the nAR and censure him.

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

--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Al Gloer wrote:

I think for many it's not so much the money as having be "officially registered as a person not distrusted by the government" - the whole fingerprint/"background check"/etc. business... I know some would say, "well if there's nothing alarming in your Federal Background you shouldn't mind" but I know that a lot of folks just don't want to put up with that. (We know that we're _so_ "not-Terrorists" that we'd resent being expected to jump through hoops to prove it...)
Also, the "aren't all the HPR folks getting LEUP's anyway" ignores the fact that until this time last year they were only required to "acquire 'Explosives' in interstate commerce", not from dealers from one's own state.
-dave w
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Sometime you should try for a Top Secret security clearance. I know, it's not really relevant. It's just that the only person not to go over me was a gastroenterologist. The LEUP forms were a cakewalk.
And, before anyone really thinks that providing the information is too intrusive, you should take a long look at what happens to the information you give to get a credit card.

either!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
First time - $100 for 3 years ( + one time photo and fingerprint: <$20 in my case) (~$40 year -cost of what, an HPR motor or 2 a year?) Then $50 for 3 years (renewal) ~$16/year (far less than NAR/TRA dues and many club's dues) The pain isn't the permit or cost - it's storage - unless you have "contingent storage".
What's $100 every couple of years?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You are obviously a newbie since you've never seen Ray say that he can't get a LEUP. He's been saying it for years. Notice I said can't not doesn't want to or it's not needed.
On Tue, 4 May 2004 17:33:09 -0400, "shockwaveriderz"

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I hope no one thought I was implying that Ray is a bad guy. If they did, I appologize.
On 05 May 2004 01:32:35 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (RayDunakin) wrote:

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.