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

Umm, Mark, exactly what part of law precluds the NAR from contacting any federal body to discuss proposing such a rule? I really would like to see a cite on this.

You're not responding if a rule hasn't been proposed, you are proactively discussing the future of the hobby. In other words, if a portion of existing rules or law is found to be onerous on the hobby, you're telling me that we can't discuss the possibility of adding rules that would make it LESS onerous on us (no pun intended)?

David Erbas-White

I re-read the NAR/TRA NPRM968 response and I now see the "flaws".... this could get interesting and I guess this will be the next step in the battle... shockie B)

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

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."

I confess that I don't have the cite, only my recollections from discussions with counsel that says agencies must make particularly certain that they don't discuss possible rules with one group in private. In this case, that means I don't believe the ATF has the ability to directly include NAR or any other group in discussions about possible rules.

Do a Google Groups search on this subject, Dave. You'll see I spent $N thousand traveling to Washington, DC in 1999 trying to have these discussions. Every time we tried to negotiate a solution, we were rebuffed. I can't imagine that things have necessarily changed since then. I'd be more than happy to discuss a compromise solution, but as I've stated repeatedly here, and in other forums, if the other party doesn't pick up the phone, it's impossible to carry on the discussion.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 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."

Doing "something" is not nearly as interesting as doing "anything effectively".

Jerry

No.

You mean like Gary self-defining "easy access and restricted access"??

have you paid off on that fine yet?

I generally agree EXCEPT that this is Phase 1 of a multi-phase addressing of the issues.

I suggest you read very carefully what the government says and note the MANY direct falsehoods, many of which rely on Fred's statements as being true, which they are not.

Jerry

I had such a discussion with two agents at a NFPA meeting. The solution we mutually agreed to was rebuffed by NAR and TRA as "coming from Jerry". I suspect they were able to discuss off the record but not on.

I still propose record of sale to preclude future ATF permits.

I am glad to see SOMEONE get true PLEASURE from other's pain.

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)

money....instead

No, just your pain.

Your mom says hi.

It's good to see that in the face of huge fines you have a sense of humor.

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

I guess Fred is real proud of himself for being a snitch and a cop-sucker. Here he had a chance to rat out the JBGT's and he took their side instead.

-dave w

I am just glad people *I* respect see the truth.

Now that it is in public, I remind NAR this gives the jurisdiction and evidence needed to make rwal progress with DOT. I may be expendable, but the issue of proper classification on non-explosives is not.

To Mark Bundick, I have forwarded the file to Egan.

Jerry

Speaking of which, what's the link to the original ACS document anyway? I don't have it bookmarked, and I wanna double-check something to make sure that I'm not jumping at imaginary shadows!

-dave w