atfe comments David Weinshenker: Why should there be prima facie presumption that some such oversight is needed? Such a position comes perilously close to "everything not specifically regulated ought to completely forbidden"... Izzy: the issue is not merely one of weight limits, it is our emphatic rejection of an irrational basis for regulation. regulators must be held accountable for the public trust they are charged with. They are not autocrats, unless we are foolish enough to act as though they are! if the hobby provides this positive reinforcement that the ATF can do whatever they like, and after a sufficient period of oppression we will be willing to cede to their right to illegally regulate non-explosive materials, do you not think that that will embolden them? our case is so undeniably clear, that I know we are well positioned to draw the line - but we have to keep ranks! we must not let the neighborhood bully intimidate us. Either we fight the good fight to preserve our liberties, or we resign ourselves to the increasingly invasive and oppressive dictates of those who have no grasp of why America came into existence. if we fail to vigorously pursue whatever legal means are at our disposal to maintain our freedom, I fear what kind of society our children will inherit. That is not idealism. That is patriotism. Robert Fickes: The terms tool, special mechanized device, and gas generator system are very broad and subject to many forms of interpretation. However, I would say without a doubt that a rocket motor could be called all three. If people wish to say that a rocket motor cannot act as a generator they can easily be proven wrong. Tom Binford wrote: It should cover to the point where a rocket is no longer amateur. 200,000 Lb-Sec, about 1000 lb. of APCP. Jerry: Point. BUT even then it is not an explosive. Vendor ID check and hard contact. Heck. Deliver at launch preferred! Ray Dunakin wrote: It's not going to explode, and it can't self-ignite. In a fire, I'd be more concerned about the cans of spray paint or the 5# tank of propane in someone's camping gear. Jerry: Hence 55.141-a-8 knowing we are the safer of the two. Leave it at that. Jerry: There are guidelines now as follows: 1. Budget limit at $100/lb (vendor) distant 2. DOT 1000 lb per shipment or vessel (carrier) 3. State or county limits vary by haz catagory but are large. (AHJ) 4. At launches you are limited by FAA (discharge) 5. Personal transport exempt. 6. Federally exempt. Jerry Irvine wrote: BUT they are general hazmat limits for gross catagories like 1.3 or 1.4 without differentiating APCP or rockets. Rob Ryan: Excellent point on where the weight limit is being focused. I agree Jerry, local limits are applied to the entire category not just APCP. But a blanket federal exemption will not alter those local limits (at least I do not interpret the wording of the bill to do that). As you have pointed out, states and counties can always be more restrictive than the feds but not less, unless specifically proscribed from something. However, my point was that there are already weight limits in place at the local level and therefore additional federal oversight is not warranted for storage. One of the points I made in my NPRM letter was that payload hence weight was already under licensing requirements through the FAA waiver system. This really gets at the weight issue in an effective way. So storage and payload are already covered by statues, why do we need more? Leonard Fehskens wrote: What's really weird about this discussion is that the proposed weight "limit" (really exemption) isn't for storage, it applies to acquisition and use, which in many respects makes even less sense. As Jerry notes above, limits for storage are already adequately addressed. Jerry: That is a very good point Len! David Wallis: Isn't a type 3 daybox for high explosives in the first place? My understanding is that low explosives don't need a daybox at all - they only need to be secured from theft. Yet another case of [ATF] agents making up rules as they go. Mark K Spute wrote: A far better way to go is to simply state that FAA already has size and weight limits on rockets. They regulate this activity intensly. Any rocket over 1500 grams total mass or having more than 125 grams of propellant requires a waiver from FAA to launch anyway. Every vehicle over that size has to go through the waiver process. Penalties for violation can be as high as $100,000 in fines and up to 10 years in federal prison. There is no need for greater federal oversight. We are already regulated near to death. Mark K Spute: But you CAN'T make a bomb out of APCP. In any amount. Fill a U-haul truck with it. It won't make a bigger boom than one engine. It'll just sit there and burn. The gas tanks on the truck are a bigger hazard than a truckload, a railroad carload, heck, a shipload of APCP. You've got as much of a chance to make a bomb out of APCP as you do out of sand. Pete McClure: I've got more "flammable material" in the gas cans in my shed than I'll ever have in APCP. There is no "oversight" needed for that, so why in the world would oversight be needed for APCP which is infinitely [exaggeration] harder to ignite? This whole BATFE regulation of APCP is just one perfect example of a government organization wanting to appear to be doing SOMETHING to increase security in these United States. Never mind there is no realistic threat from APCP and that by regulating it the BATFE is using resources that could be much better spent in other truly effective explosive regulating efforts. So by regulating APCP, BATFE is actually making the country LESS SAFE. Go figure. Ray Dunakin: Does someone come around to every house, checking to see if you're storing your gasoline properly? Do you have to get a permit, or have your "storage facility" inspected and approved before you're even allowed to buy gasoline? Then why do you keep asking to have storage requirements imposed on APCP? While there may well be storage regulations for gasoline, no one is actually imposing them on individuals. No one makes you get a permit, no one makes you get approved storage, no one inspects your storage or searches your property. That's how it should be for APCP too -- just as it always has been up until the ATF started sticking their big noses where they don't belong. I don't give a flying fig what ATF's supposed "concerns" are. They have no business regulating non-explosives, period. There is no justification for their regulations, period. None whatsoever! << Is it unreasonable to suggest a line of HPR safety code be added simply stating that APCP storage will be secure, as an alternative to continued BATFE regulation? >> Yes, it IS unreasonable, because it's completely and utterly unjustified and without merit. It's buying into the ATF's lies. == cites Robert Fickes wrote: -CITE- 18 USC Sec. 921 01/22/02 -EXPCITE- TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART I - CRIMES CHAPTER 44 - FIREARMS -HEAD- Sec. 921. Definitions -STATUTE- (a) As used in this chapter - (1) The term ''person'' and the term ''whoever'' include any individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, society, or joint stock company. (2) The term ''interstate or foreign commerce'' includes commerce between any place in a State and any place outside of that State, or within any possession of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia, but such term does not include commerce between places within the same State but through any place outside of that State. The term ''State'' includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone). (3) The term ''firearm'' means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm. (4) The term ''destructive device'' means - (A) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas - (i) bomb, (ii) grenade, (iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, (iv) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, (v) mine, or (vi) device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses; (B) any type of weapon (other than a shotgun or a shotgun shell which the Secretary finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes) by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter; and (C) any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into any destructive device described in subparagraph (A) or (B) and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled. The term ''destructive device'' shall not include any device which is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon; any device, although originally designed for use as a weapon, which is redesigned for use as a signaling, pyrotechnic, line throwing, safety, or similar device; surplus ordnance sold, loaned, or given by the Secretary of the Army pursuant to the provisions of section 4684(2), 4685, or 4686 of title 10; or any other device which the Secretary of the Treasury finds is not likely to be used as a weapon, is an antique, or is a rifle which the owner intends to use solely for sporting, recreational or cultural purposes. - After looking at it I would have to say that you are correct, each Roman Numeral is referenced to letter A. So to be a firearm, the rocket would have to be explosive, incendiary, or poison gas and have a propellant charge of more than four ounces. Thanks for pointing that out. - == copy -CITE- 18 USC Sec. 921 01/22/02 -EXPCITE- TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART I - CRIMES CHAPTER 44 - FIREARMS -HEAD- Sec. 921. Definitions -STATUTE- (a) As used in this chapter - (1) The term ''person'' and the term ''whoever'' include any individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, society, or joint stock company. (2) The term ''interstate or foreign commerce'' includes commerce between any place in a State and any place outside of that State, or within any possession of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia, but such term does not include commerce between places within the same State but through any place outside of that State. The term ''State'' includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone). (3) The term ''firearm'' means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm. (4) The term ''destructive device'' means - (A) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas - (i) bomb, (ii) grenade, (iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, (iv) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, (v) mine, or (vi) device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses; (B) any type of weapon (other than a shotgun or a shotgun shell which the Secretary finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes) by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter; and (C) any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into any destructive device described in subparagraph (A) or (B) and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled. The term ''destructive device'' shall not include any device which is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon; any device, although originally designed for use as a weapon, which is redesigned for use as a signaling, pyrotechnic, line throwing, safety, or similar device; surplus ordnance sold, loaned, or given by the Secretary of the Army pursuant to the provisions of section 4684(2), 4685, or 4686 of title 10; or any other device which the Secretary of the Treasury finds is not likely to be used as a weapon, is an antique, or is a rifle which the owner intends to use solely for sporting, recreational or cultural purposes. == baDBob: 18 U.S.C. Section 845. Exceptions; relief from disabilities (a) Except in the case of subsections (l), (m), (n), or (o) of section 842 and subsections (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), and (i) of section 844 of this title, this chapter shall not apply to: (1) any aspect of the transportation of explosive materials via railroad, water, highway, or air which are regulated by the United States Department of Transportation and agencies thereof and which pertain to safety; (2) the use of explosive materials in medicines and medicinal agents in the forms prescribed by the official United States Pharmacopeia, or the National Formulary; (3) the transportation, shipment, receipt, or importation of explosive materials for delivery to any agency of the United States or to any State or political subdivision thereof; (4) small arms ammunition and component thereof; (5) commercially manufactured black powder in quantities not to exceed fifty pounds, percussion caps, safety and pyrotechnic fuses, quills, quick and slow matches, and friction primers, intended to be used solely for sporting, recreational, or cultural purposes in antique firearms as defined in section 921 (a)(1 6) of title 18 of the United States Code, or in antique devices as exempted from the term "destructive device" in section 921(a)(4) of title 18 of the United States Code; and (6) the manufacture under the regulation of the military department of the United States of explosive materials for, or their distribution to or storage or possession by the military or naval services or other agencies of the United States; or to arsenals, navy yards, depots, or other establishments owned by, or operated by or on behalf of, the United States. It doesn't exempt Airliners, aviation fuel, gasoline, propane, heating oil, fertilizer, etc. When should we expect BATFE to start regulating these? However, 18 USC Section 841 defines Explosives as (d) Except for the purposes of subsections (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), and (j) of section 844 of this title, ''explosives'' means any chemical compound mixture, or device, the primary or common purpose of which is to function by explosion; the term includes, but is not limited to, dynamite and other high explosives, black powder, pellet powder, initiating explosives, detonators, safety fuses, squibs, detonating cord, igniter cord, and igniters. The Secretary shall publish and revise at least annually in the Federal Register a list of these and any additional explosives which he determines to be within the coverage of this chapter. For the purposes of subsections (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), and (i) of section 844 of this title, the term ''explosive'' is defined in subsection (j) of such section 844. Since neither APCP nor rocket motors have "the primary or common purpose of which is to function by explosion" then I would be satisfied for this to be in NFPA 1122/1127. Also, 18 USC Section 921 states (4) The term ''destructive device'' means - (A) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas - (i) bomb, (ii) grenade, (iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, (iv) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, (v) mine, or (vi) device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses; (B) any type of weapon (other than a shotgun or a shotgun shell which the Secretary finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes) by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter; and (C) any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into any destructive device described in subparagraph (A) or (B) and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled. The term ''destructive device'' shall not include any device which is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon; any device, although originally designed for use as a weapon, which is redesigned for use as a signaling, pyrotechnic, line throwing, safety, or similar device; surplus ordnance sold, loaned, or given by the Secretary of the Army pursuant to the provisions of section 4684(2), 4685, or 4686 of title 10; or any other device which the Secretary of the Treasury finds is not likely to be used as a weapon, is an antique, or is a rifle which the owner intends to use solely for sporting, recreational or cultural purposes. This would say that a model/LMR/HPR, which is not designed as a weapon is not a destructive device. This should also be included in NFPA 1122/1127. : 18 U.S.C. Section 845. Exceptions; relief from disabilities > Disabilities is felons for example. (a) Except in the case of subsections (l), (m), (n), or (o) of section 842 and subsections (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), and (i) of section 844 of this title, this chapter shall not apply to: (1) any aspect of the transportation of explosive materials via railroad, water, highway, or air which are regulated by the United States Department of Transportation and agencies thereof and which pertain to safety; > And you have conveniently pointed out why truck and train drivers and depot handling personnel do NOT need background checks. Persons with "disabilities" are exempt while "in transportation". Jerry: ATF exempts propellants as explosives in 55.141-a-8. So this provision/restriction does not apply to rocket motors. Robert Fickes wrote: USC and CFR are not the same. Look at the title headings and you will see that they are different. USC is supposedly the general and permanent law of the United States. CFR is not the law of the United States itself, it is the regualtions of federal agencies within the United States. In theory sections of the CFR could possible be found unlawful through sections in the USC. The law of the United States would superceede everything except the U.S. Constitution. For USC Headings: http://uscode.house.gov/download.htm For CFR Headings: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html#page1 Jerry: That's handy to know. Thanks. Wanna do some legal research for a brief? NFPA shockwaveriderz: all I'm going to say on this "NFPA can only pass codes that conform to federal law" is this: In 1968 the NFPA in Code for Model Rocketry 41L created a new 62.5 g limit for model rocket engine size...... AT this time there was NO federal or state law that said a model rocket engine was restricted in size other than the FAA 4 oz(113 g) limit....... If what you say is true, then this 62.5 g limit passed by the NFPA was illegal then, as it "created" new federal and state laws that did not previously exist.. If what you say is true, then the NFPA should have passed a 113 g limit instead of a made-up 62.5 g limit.... If what you say is correct, then how did the NFPA raise the 113 g limit to 125 g limit for LMR, when there was no preexisting Federal or State Law....( I believe the NFPA 125 g limit appeared in NFPA code before the NAR sued the FAA to allow such and it became federal law) Now of course the ATF would now be saying that anything > 113/125 g requires a LEUP and the NAR/TRA would still agree with that....... Dealers Jerry: I did not raise discrimination. Asking for an explosives lisence to sell to someone a material exempt from that explosive lisence and its issuing agency is illegal. Not discrimination. A crime. : Cite, please? What specific law is a motor dealer breaking by refusing to sell his non-explosive wares to someone who isn't licensed to handle explosives? It makes about the same amount of sense as refusing to sell to people unless they wear green shirts, but I hardly see any reason it would be illegal. Irrelevant? Of course. But the dealer's decision, to be sure. Jerry: REQUIRING an explosives lisence as a CONDITION OF SALE of a non-explsoive is the CRIME. Rick Dickinson: What specific law is a motor dealer breaking by refusing to sell his non-explosive wares to someone who isn't licensed to handle explosives? Jerry: They should just quietly stop it now. At Countdown. At Magnum. and elsewhere. Rick Dickinson: I agree 100% that they should stop. But, you keep claiming that it is illegal for them to continue, and I've not seen any evidence yet that that is a true statement. In light of the way our discrimination laws are structured (and despite what you say, this is discrimination), there is nothing illegal about discriminating on the basis of lots of seemingly irrelevant things. You should know by now that I like to actually see copies of the laws that people claim to be stuck living under.... Buzz McDermott uttered in a miniFAQ 1994-10-09 21:59:53 PST: Rec.Models.Rockets mini-FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions): Weekly Summary Last Modified: 9 October 1994 This FAQ will be posted approximately once a week, on Sunday evenings. I. The BATF has begun to show a great deal of interest in high power rocktetry activities. It may become necessary for High Power enthusiasts to obtain low grade explosives licenses from the BATF. The exact requiremtns and details of BATF rulings are still undecided, though. A meeting between the BATF and the various consumer rocketry organizations has been tentatively scheduled for sometime in September or October. The ATF has indicated to both the NAR and Tripoli that high power rocketry may continue "as-is" until that time. Some HPR dealers are already requiring ATF low-explosives permits before they will sell you HPR (Class B) motors. See http://www.atf.treas.gov/explarson/fedexplolaw/qanda.pdf page 10 (page 62 of the "Orange Book") 66. Who must meet storage requirements? All persons who store explosive materials must store them in conformity with the provisions of Subpart K of the regulations, unless the person or the materials are exempt from regulation. [18 U.S.C. 842(j), 845; 27 CFR 55.29, 55.141, 55.164, 55.201(a)] Note the reference to 55.141. Mark Lewis: Many of you are now realizing what we in the shooting sports have known for quite some time. The Federal government is doing it's best to deny your freedoms. One by one they pick at rights they consider "dangerous". Rights that a few in a small minority exercise. They begin to outlaw these rights first through regulation, then finally bans. My point is simple. Benjamin Franklin said "He who gives up his right for the sake of security shall loose both and deserve neither". Take those words to heart folks. Your rights are at stake. Who knows how oppressive the Homeland Act will become? Who knows how it will be perverted later? And it will be perverted. Remember the Federal Firearms Licence? In the 1960's it was put forward to allow Mom and Pop gun dealers to purchase firearms from distributors through the mail. So that people who lived in remote or rural areas could have access to firearms after the Gun Control Act of 1968. Look what it has become today. The government has found that they cannot get away with an outright bans on firearms. So they go after the next easiest thing to get. The components for reloading ammunition. Which brings us to rocketeers. Black powder, smokeless powder, propellant compounds, electric matches, etc. all fall under this classification. Wake up, smell the coffee! Give to the NAR/TRA legal fund. Your country depends on it's freedoms. We are loosing ours. Time to put a stop to it. Jerry: > > The ACTUAL language is: > > > > § 845. Exceptions; relief from disabilities > > > > (a) Except in the case of subsections (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), and (i) > > of section 844 of this title, this chapter shall not apply to: > > > > (5) commercially manufactured black powder in quantities not to exceed > > fifty pounds, percussion caps, safety and pyrotechnic fuses, quills, > > quick and slow matches, and friction primers, intended to be used solely > > for sporting, recreational, or cultural purposes in antique firearms as > > defined in section 921(a)(16) of title 18 of the United States Code, or > > in antique devices as exempted from the term "destructive device" in > > section 921 (a)(4) of title 18 of the United States Code; and Robert Galejs: I'm not a lawyer, but it certainly seems plausible to interpret the key clause, "in antique firearms", as only applying to "cultural purposes" and not "sporting" or "recreational". Jerry: Now the devil's advocate position: (5) commercially manufactured black powder in quantities not to exceed fifty pounds, percussion caps, safety and pyrotechnic fuses, quills, quick and slow matches, and friction primers, intended to be used solely for sporting, recreational, *OR* [my emphasis] cultural purposes in antique firearms as defined in section 921(a)(16) of title 18 of the United States Code, or in antique devices as exempted from the term "destructive device" in section 921 (a)(4) of title 18 of the United States Code; Gary Bolles: I am concerned with personal storage amounts and requirements for motors and reloads delivered to consumers and how/why BATFE sets limits. So far, there is zero evidence from the literature or BATFE that shows any use/storage dangers from end-user APCP products. There are hundreds of highly flammable, explosive, and oxidizing materials that have zero regulation. Any of them cause more injury and damage than does consumer APCP rocket propellant. Any or every one of your neighbors may have 50 lbs of BP and smokeless powder in a wooden box in their garage or basement right this moment. Regulation and limited LEUP purchasing ability will INCREASE local storage requirements and exacerbate consumer safety and security issues. No one stockpiles easily available materials; only scarce, hard to find items are hoarded. If the motors are easily available, it renders storage almost moot. The overwhelming majority of the people who will be affected by this regulation are the very ones who understand the motors and propellants the best, obviously much better than the BATFE or Congress understands them. As with firearm propellants, no one will buy 2,000lbs of APCP just because they can. Even if some do, THAT is a number that will be statistically insignificant. A LEUP will not instill common sense nor prevent misuse by idiots. Criminals and terrorists are unconcerned with laws and another regulation upon law abiding citizens will do absolutely nothing to enhance security. Jerry: No it changed to intrastate from interstate. It changed to shippers being required to get background checks, and exempting choo choo's is barely a tick on the back of the great dane of the trucking and commerce trade. States rights are dead. Common Carriers are now under the thumb where they were clearly and overtly excepted before. And why? Because the pilots left the doors unlocked and APPEASED the "hijackers". As they were ORDERED to by the government and their employers. No judgement allowed! The government is evil. The constitution tells me so! Steve:>(d) Except for the purposes of subsections (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), >and 0) of section 844 of this title, "explosives" means any chemical >compound mixture, or device, the primary or common purpose of which is >to function by explosion; the term includes, but is not limited to, >dynamite and other high explosives, black powder, pellet powder, >initiating explosives, detonators, safety fuses, squibs, detonating cord, >igniter cord, and igniters. The Secretary shall publish and rise at >least annually in the Federal Register a list of these and any additional >explosives *which he determines to be within the coverage of this >chapter. * > >The infernal legaleeze "gotcha". baDBob: And it would be hilarious to see the Secretary, under oath, testify that he had determined that APCP should be on the list because he wanted it to be there. In this context, determined means that there should be some evidence to justify an item being included on the list. Also, the argument that its on there becuase it was on there before does not hold water. The Secretary should have in his possession the justification and should be able to produce it. In fact, under the Freedom of Information Act, anyone can request a copy of the justification for APCP being on the list. I'll bet that TRA/NAR never did that. David: Then why does Jerry insist that everyone use this defense? Why are people saying "Jerry was right all along"? John Marvin: Because he is right. Or so I believe and so does NAR/TRA. The fact that the ATF also agreed in the past will certainly be a factor that the judge uses in making his decision.