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.