ARSA Legislative Update (WAS: please FAX and Phone Your Senators NOW!)

Advertise with us
Shop deals on ebay
Wildman Rocketry
The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
It seems that rather than build on a substantial gain, Mr. Wickman has chosen to leave everything on the table and roll the dice. I'll bet that Kohl and Hatch, powerful and influential Senators, will not be happy with this approach. It also gives ammunition to ATFE, who has been saying all along that the issue is just too complicated to regulate, so a ban is in order. I wonder how many Congressmen will be saying, "But you told us this stuff won't blow up no matter what?" Will they take the time in the end to make a distinction, or will they take the easy, politically correct out and just listen to ATFE? I wonder if Mr. Enzi will appreciate this strategy after all his hard work? I hope Mr. Wickman has not just rolled snake eyes.
I'd rather see the original bill pass. I also believe, however, that the Hatch/Kohl bill could have been built on either in this Congress as it went through, or in a future session after we'd secured the gains we already have. As it stands, I believe I see torpedoes in the water.
 
To ARSA Members,

I want to bring you up to date on the effort to get an exemption for rocketry from ATFE oversight. We are at a point where I think it will be useful for you to know what we did the first three months of this effort starting in December 2002. It will help put the current situation in perspective. I can reveal this now, as it will not hurt our current and future efforts. I will also fill you in on Hatch-Kohl amendment and what it really means.

In late November 2002, I called Senator Enzi's office after learning about the Safe Explosives Act (SEA) imbedded inside the Homeland Security Act (HSA). I briefed the staffer on the situation and she in turn briefed Senator Enzi. The goal of any potential action was to get rocketry in general out from under the SEA as quickly as possible and certainly before May 24. I cannot emphasize this point enough that the goal was and still is to get rocketry in general out from under the SEA. The goal was never about the process of getting there. We first had to convince the Senator to get involved in what would probably turn out to be a political brawl. He agreed after several days of discussions.

After more discussions, we had two basic approaches. The first was to go directly to the White House and seek an executive order to exempt rocketry from the SEA. This could be done in a few weeks. I can tell that this was a very realistic option. I will leave it at that. The second option was to stick an exemption for rocketry on a technical corrections bill for the HSA. Senator Lott, who was going to be the new Senate majority leader, had planned to introduce this bill early in the January 2003 session of the Senate. This was a bill that would be signed by President Bush and we could be buried in this thick document. The bill would be on a fast track and probably signed into law in February.

Senator Enzi and his staff had a meeting and decided to go with the technical corrections bill. They rejected the White House route as they felt it would receive a low priority by the White House staffer assigned to carry it out. At the time, the White House staff was completely consumed with the details of planning for the invasion of Iraq. It was believed that the technical corrections bill would be a faster and more reliable method of getting to the goal.

As you may remember, Senator Lott made public remarks that cost him the leadership of the Senate. With that loss, came the loss of his priorities as well, including the technical corrections bill. You may recall a letter campaign to the new majority leader, Senator Frist, promoting a technical corrections bill and asking that it be moved up on the calendar. He did not see the importance of the bill and had scheduled it for consideration in the summer. Consequently, the option of riding the technical corrections bill had to be dropped.

Now, we were left with the option we had wanted the least, a stand-alone bill going for a rocketry exemption in the SEA. Everybody knew that this bill standing "naked" by itself would be hit and hit hard by the ATFE and those sympathetic to the ATFE. We knew it would be attacked from all directions and that the ATFE would try to put weight limits on it as well as try to kill it outright. Plans of action were laid out for the various eventualities such as killed in committee, a "wounded duck" coming out of committee, and so on. After several drafts of what would become S724, Senator Enzi introduced the bill to the Senate.

Now, lets skip a couple of months and get to more recent events. What happened in the Judiciary committee? Essentially, Senators Kohl and Hatch gave Senator Enzi what amounted to an ultimatum, "either accept what we give you or we will kill the bill in committee". A contingency plan to minimize damage was implemented, which called for the general definition for non-detonable propellant to be taken out of the bill. If that could not be achieved, then the goal would be for a complete kill in the committee. Even with that change to the bill, it would have a lot of problems and would be damaging. Now, balanced against that damage were other political options if the bill came out of committee as a "wounded duck". These options would permit the bill to get back on track towards it original goal. However, there was danger in pursuing those options. If the amendment passed by unanimous consent, it could be put it on the fast track for a full Senate vote by unanimous consent. That would close off a lot of potential political options to recover the bill. So, it was important that if the Hatch-Kohl amendment was passed by the committee that it not be by unanimous consent. There was also the choice for a kill on what would be the Hatch-Kohl amendment. It was a pretty loaded deck and the decision on what to attempt was Senator Enzi's. He decided to let it go forward to keep political options open. Senator Craig made sure it was not a unanimous vote.

I have no idea who actually wrote the Hatch-Kohl amendment. Besides, Senator Kohl, nobody seems ready to "belly up to the bar" on that one. I do know we had nothing to do with it. Various numbers had been floated around, but that was all we knew. I wish I could convey to you the frustration of Senator Enzi's staff. They knew nothing about what was really going on with the bill or even when it was going to be voted on in the committee.

Now, let's talk about the Hatch-Kohl amendment to S724. You can read an analysis of the amendment on the ARSA web page https://www.space-rockets.com/congress. It is important to note that this amendment was written with the approval and participation of the ATFE. That should tell you a lot. Let me point out three little goodies in the amendment. The first is that the exemption only applies if the APCP is used in model rocket motors. Nowhere are they defined in the bill. Guess who defines them? The ATFE. Will it be defined as "rocket motors made of cardboard tubes and clay nozzles" or "with an impulse not to exceed 160 Newton-seconds" or "single use applications only". We don't know. The second goodie is the term "recreational model rockets". Again, it is not defined in the bill and will be defined by the ATFE. Will that definition be "made of cardboard tubes, wood fins and plastic nosecones" or "not to exceed a lift off weight of 3 lbs" or "not to exceed a diameter of 3 inches and length of 48 inches"? We do not know. I would not expect the ATFE to write definitions for us that will be favorable to the future of rocketry.

The last goodie in the amendment is that the 0.9 lb of propellant applies to both non-detonable 1.3 APCP and detonable 1.1 APCP as the phrase "ammonium perchlorate composite propellant" is used with no distinction between classes. You will notice that the same phrase is used in the ATFE proposed rocketry regulation with no distinction in classes. So what is the big deal? Why is it important in one and not the other? The difference is that in one case the phrase is used in a federal regulation and in the other United States Code. The federal regulation can be changed at will by the ATFE, but only Congress can change the United States Code. If you do not make a distinction between classes of APCP in the US code and 1.1 class APCP 0.9 lb motors start floating around out there, the ATFE can only revoke the exemption by going to Congress and having the law changed, which is a time consuming process.

If you don't think Senator Kohl would have pointed this out on the floor of the Senate, you are kidding yourself. Of course, these things could be fixed with additional amendments on the floor, but something very interesting will happen if you do. Add definitions for "model rocket motor" and "recreational model rockets" and Senator Kohl will oppose it along with others. If you are successful in getting that added, and that is a very big if, you will need to fix the last item with wording defining what APCP is exempt. If you get by that hurdle, Senator Kohl and the ATFE have one last bombshell to drop on you and it is a beauty. If you hated the letter from the ATFE, I guarantee you are going absolutely detest what they are going to show on the floor of the Senate. I can assure you they will play this card when they feel it is necessary.

The amended S724 is an empty bag and political ploy to make you thing the Judiciary committee did something for you when in fact you got nothing. It is a political illusion. I know some people are satisfied with the amendment. If you are one of them, ask the ATFE to give it to you now. You don't need an act of Congress to get it. The ATFE approved it so they should have no problem taking that amendment and simply writing it into regulation along with their definitions.

In a few days, I will be sending you another email on where we go from here and why.

If you are receiving duplicate emails or what to be off the list, let me know.

This may be reposted.

John Wickman
ARSA
 
Ok, so we have S 724 amended with the weight limits, with no determination between classes of APCP propellent, and no definitions of "model rocket motor" or "recreational model rocket". If the bill passes, it means you can even get the detonable version of APCP propellent as long as each rocket motor weighs less then .9 pounds.

It would seem acceptable to most people, but if Izzy is right, this could mean that the bill was ammended for the purpose of being defeated in the senate. The issue of the detonable propepellent can be brought up on the floor by Senator Kohl, and reduce the chances of the bill to clear the vote, apparently.

Or. They could have a bill that passes, and have the ATFE determine what a model rocket is, size, weight, all that sort of stuff. Then, determine what a model rocket motor is. This could have an affect on reusable motors and possibly hybrids. I doubt that hybrids would be affected though, but you never know.

I don't know, I guess we will all have to just wait and see what happens. I have to wonder, though, if the ATFE is continuing their requirement for storage of motors less then 62.5 grams. I should comb the local hobby shops and see if they're still in stock.

MrCoffee
 
This could have an affect on reusable motors and possibly hybrids. I doubt that hybrids would be affected though, but you never know.

MrCoffee
Click to expand...

Hybrids (and most EX motors for that matter) are not covered or even mentioned by the HSA, the SEA, or the NPRM right now. Discussion of the ATF's intentions in the future is not appropriate in this forum.

I don't mean to come across as harsh here, but there have been a number of posts on this thread that have come very close to violating the no politics rule the Admins have wisely applied to The Rocketry Forum across the board. This discussion thread is designed to be one for news updates regarding our plight in the Senate (at least at the moment).

There are many avenues to engage in lively debate about the pros and cons of the current legislative efforts. Rocketry Online is one of the most civil. Around here, we're more interested here in what you're building or launching right now (pictures are mandatory of course).
 
Sorry for the inconvenience. Yes, I do have a rocket by the way. It's a Vaughn Brothers Extreme 38, possibly scaled down to a 29. I would like to see if an Adept ALTS2 is still available, if not then I'll have to set it up for timed discharge instead.

MrCoffee
 
ok correct me if I'm wrong
if S724 is passed the House it goes to the president to sign and then thats it. Its probably a long ways form being signed.

I hope it goes through, because I'm duing to get my L1.
 
Originally posted by MrCoffee
Sorry for the inconvenience.
MrCoffee
Click to expand...

I'm sorry. I really didn't mean to imply that you "blew it". I was just trying to head that angle off before it got started. You didn't do anything wrong at all.

I seem to have this nasty habit lately of coming across harsher than I intended. :(
 
there is a new first-hand report that an ATF agent insisted, after confirming with the Ohio office, that any grain regardless of size which can fit into a case which can accomodate > 62.5 grams, requires a LEUP and storage. This would include 29 and 38 mm single-grain reloads, as well as all Easy Access.

this is what I anticipated back in mid-April

my April post:

--------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe the ATF wording is

"model rocket motors consisting of ammonium perchlorate composite propellant, black powder or other similar low explosives containing no more than 62.5 grams of total propellant weight and designed as single use motors or as reload kits capable of reloading no more than 62. grams of propellant into a reusable motor casing."

operative phrases being "designed as ... reload kits capable of reloading ... into a resuable casing"

the use of the word "a resuable casing" as distinct from "it's resuable casing" opens the ground up for the interpretation that the grain might be used in a different size casing, and therefore be illegal.

under this interpretation, reload grains would have to be designed with dimensions that prohibit it from being used in alternate cases; e.g.; F and G reload grains are made for a 32 or 42 mm case, and so would be useless in a longer 29 or 38 mm casings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

- iz
 
yes, but was only iterated in the NPRM 968, which still has an open comment period (recently extended) until July 7th, and which was not scheduled to become effective until January 2004.

as the NPRM is not a regulation at this time, the legality of the ATF's position vis.a.vis. 62.5 g single grain motors is unclear.

- iz
 
It is my understanding that 'easy access' style reloads are just enforcement policy anyway. For that matter since the 62.5 g limit isn't in law anywhere, and APCP is on 'the list', I suspect it is not hard for them to flip flop.

We should expect the lawsuit and senate bill will aggrevate the ATFE and they will continue to make it as hard on us as they can. These efforts must prevail!
 
from https://www.space-rockets.com/arsanews

July 5, 2003 - MSNBC and Fox News have written stories for their web sites on the current situation of rocketry in America. The MSNBC story combined its coverage of how the Safe Explosives Act affected rocketry with its affect on fireworks. Their story further documented the financial ruin facing small businesses due to ATFE regulations. Both news organizations pointed out the inadequacy of the Hatch-Kohl amendment to Senate bill S724. Fox News reported on how ridiculous the ATFE claims were of using rockets as terrorists weapons.

Terror fallout dims rockets’ red glare
https://www.msnbc.com/news/934033.asp

By The Rockets' Red Glare..
https://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,91043,00.html


also from https://www.space-rockets.com/congress

July, 4 2003 - Senator Hatch and Senator Kohl amended S724 in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The effects of the amendment are discussed in the preceding section. It is important to note that this amendment was written with the approval and participation of the ATFE. That should tell you a lot. There are three land mines buried in the amendment. The first is that the exemption only applies if the APCP is used in model rocket motors. Nowhere are "model rocket motors" defined in the bill. Guess who defines them? The ATFE. Will it be defined as "rocket motors made of cardboard tubes and clay nozzles" or "with an impulse not to exceed 160 Newton-seconds" or "single use applications only". We don't know. The second land mine is the term "recreational model rockets". Again, it is not defined in the bill and will be defined by the ATFE. Will that definition be "made of cardboard tubes, wood fins and plastic nosecones" or "not to exceed a lift off weight of 3 lbs" or "not to exceed a diameter of 3 inches and length of 48 inches"? We do not know. However, no one expects the ATFE to write definitions that will be favorable to the future of rocketry.

The last land mine in the amendment is that the 0.9 lb of propellant applies to both non-detonable 1.3 APCP and detonable 1.1 APCP as the phrase "ammonium perchlorate composite propellant" is used with no distinction between classes. You will notice that the same phrase is used in the ATFE proposed rocketry regulation with no distinction in classes. So what is the big deal? Why is it important in one and not the other? The difference is that in one case the phrase is used in a federal regulation and in the other United States Code. The federal regulation can be changed at will by the ATFE, but only Congress can change the United States Code. If a distinction between classes of APCP in the US code is not made and 1.1 class APCP 0.9 lb motors start floating around out there, the ATFE can only revoke the exemption by going to Congress and having the law changed, which is a time consuming process. This land mine was placed in the amendment for Senator Kohl to point out should the amendment come to the Senate floor for a vote. The purpose was to sink it on a floor vote.

The amended S724 is an empty bag and political ploy to make it look like the Judiciary committee did something for rocketry. It is a political illusion and a cruel hoax on the rocketry community that sought legitimate legislative relief.

- iz
 
you can fly Cesaroni's Pro-38 133G69-12A [ www.pro38.com/curves/133G69.jpg ] without a LEUP or storage. It is a single grain 62.5 g, in a reload 'module' that prevents it from being combined with other grains in a larger casing. So it qualifies for the ATFE exemption even under NPRM 968.

you can pick up the case an reload from Ross at Magnum [ www.magnumrockets.com/p38.html ], or your favorite supplier. The assembly instructions in PDF format at www.pro38.com/Pro38Instns.PDF

otherwise you can fly any AT SU motor up to 62.5 g, or small AT single grain reloads that don't fit in multi-grain casings

methinks clustering and/or using a timer to airstart staged Pro-38 G69's can be pretty interesting if you've not used these techniques before. Get out to the pad and have some fun!

- iz
 
from "Insurance woes cancel liftoffs for rocket buffs", published in the Edmonton Journal on July 3rd:

"The Canadian Association of Rocketry, with 400 members across Canada, including 20 in Edmonton, lost its insurance when it went to renew with Royal and Sunalliance, even though it has not filed a claim in its 37-year history."

for the complete story, see

https://www.canada.com/edmonton/edmontonjournal/story.asp?id=A8706035-38AD-4C4B-9778-622BE769277D

or, if wrapped, try

https://tinyurl.com/gh41

- iz
 
In the words of another frustrated 'jouster-of-windmills' who is also trying to make progress in our wonderful government system:

"The Washington area . . is best described as a 17 mile wide logic free zone"
-NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe
(Aviation Week & Space Technology, Vol 159 No 1, July 7 2003, p. 33)
 
July, 11 2003 - Senate bill S724 picked up another cosponsor on June 27th, Senator Jim Talent. It is unknown at this time whether Senator Talent is cosponsoring due to the Hatch-Kohl amendment or supports S724 as originally introduced.

As reported earlier, Senators Hatch and Kohl amended S724 in the Senate Judiciary Committee. A more accurate description would be that Senators Hatch and Kohl struck out the original bill and simply wrote a new one. The Hatch-Kohl S724 or H-K S724 is filled with loopholes for the ATFE to exploit. It introduces the concept of exemptions from the Homeland Security Act based on APCP propellant weight. The effects of H-K S724 on rocketry in America are discussed by clicking here.

Currently, a group of Senators along with the Tripoli Rocketry Association (TRA) and the National Association of Rocketry (NAR) are working hard to pass the H-K S724 by unanimous consent in the Senate. TRA and NAR are writing an "improved" version of H-K S724 to be introduced in the House of Representatives. This "improved" H-K S724 would have the support of the House Judiciary Committee before its introduction to ensure the bill's speedy passage in the House. Then, H-K S724 and the "improved" H-K S724 would be reconciled in Conference committee. The Conference committee would consist of Senators and Representatives who are assigned the task of reaching a compromise that they feel the House and Senate would accept. This compromise bill would be reported to the floor of the House and Senate in the form of a Conference committee report. The full Senate and House would then vote on whether to accept the compromise by the Conference committee. The hope of those promoting this plan is that the Conference committee will come up with a compromise to their liking based on H-K S724 and the "improved" H-K S724. ARSA does not support this approach and is working on an alternative.

[ from www.space-rockets.com/congress ]

- iz
 
Mark Bundick posted a "Call for Political Action" on ROL NewsWire today

The statement from his provided sample letter, excerpted at the bottom of this message, is inaccurate. The original qualification of non-detonable propellant in S.724 that was "struck out" in HK724 is as follows:

(a) NON-DETONABLE ROCKET PROPELLANT DEFINED- Section 841 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(t) `Non-detonable rocket propellant' means any material, chemical, or chemical mixture consisting of fuel and oxidizer that provides thrust to a rocket, or generates hot, high pressure gas for doing work in the actuation of various power or mechanical devices, and is classified as a non-explosive by the Department of Transportation or classified by the Department of Transportation as a Class 1.3 Explosive or lower.'.

No corresponding qualification exists in the Hatch/Kohl substitute bill. The result of this omission is that both detonable and non-detonable APCP will be exempted under that bill.

- iz

ROL NewsWire excerpt:

> The substitute S. 724 will exempt certain amounts of the non-detonable (non-explosive) propellant materials used in hobby rocket motors while leaving in place necessary and legitimate protections against the possession of dangerous weapons and true explosives.
 
the inaccuracy in NAR's proposed letter would be interpreted as either a willful attempt to mislead the Senators, or a demonstration of the writer's naivete regarding the Hatch/Kohl substitute.

in response to this discrepancy, NAR's published the following revision:

"The substitute S. 724 will exempt certain amounts of the safe propellant materials used in hobby rocket motors while leaving in place necessary and legitimate protections against the possession of dangerous weapons and true explosives."

but I'm afraid that this revision merely makes the inconsistency less apparent. The fact that the Hatch/Kohl substitute does not distinguish between detonable and non-detonable APCP effectively exempts APCP formulations which contain detonable and/or explosive constituents.

therefore it is inaccurate to describe the propellants exempted by the substitute bill as "safe propellant materials" in contrast to "true explosives". While this statement is true of the original S.724 as proposed by Sen. Enzi, but not of the substitute bill.

this issue would definitely come up on the floor, which would kill any move for unanimous consent. That would be a good thing in the current situation, as it would open the bill up for debate, ammendment and possible restoration to its original form.

sneaking it through the Senate with a move for unanimous consent as per the TRA/NAR strategy would be a very bad thing, with the undefined references to "recreational model rocket" and "model rocket motor". These would leave interpretation of these terms to the ATFE as the regulating agency, which could very well reduce exempted rocketry to cardboard tubes, balsa fins and single-use motors. 0.9 lbs of propellant wouldn't be very useful in such a situation.

- iz
 
This is plain wrong. Most of the definitions that John Wickman proposes to be open to ATFE interpretation are not so, as they are already defined in other aspects of the CFR as laid out by other governing agencies. ATFE does not have the authority to rewrite definitions that are already entered into law, despite assertions to the contrary. The difference betwen detonable and non-detonable APCP are also covered where necessary.

While John Wickman has stated outright that Senator Kohl intends to have this bill introduced and subsequently trashed by his own efforts, I, being a constituent from Wisconsin, have a letter in my hand right this second stating an assurance from Sen. Kohl that he intends to fully support this bill as it has been amended. I also have confirmation from a number of other Wisconsin rocketeers that they've received the same. We've all responded that we'll be watching. I am not happy with where it is, but it's better than we've had since the new laws took effect.

We are getting to the point where our own leadership is misleading us just as much as the opposition is. The definitions are already there and not open to interpretation, despite what you're told. They cannot be altered by the ATFE. Nowhere else in legislation is there a distinction between detonable APCP and non-detonable APCP...the distinction doesn't belong in this legislation either. Even non-detonable APCP is really hard to make on a homemade basis and this is, I suspect, why Wickman himself uses KNO3 motors instead. Detonable APCP is not a viable explosive material from a cost and availability perspective for either private citizens or terrorists, regardless of what this bill turns out to be and the distinction doesn't even merit consideration from either side.

I'd like to see the exemption be a bit bigger than it is (I still wanna reshoot my L2 attempt on a K) but it's time to face reality. There WILL be a limit on what's allowable. There will never be legslation that completely exempts motors. Does this suck? Yes. Is it inevitable? Also, yes. Our country has gotten to the point where politics are all dealmaking and finding compromises. We could all band together and raise as much noise as we could and we would never, EVER make the bill that passed the Senate look like the ideal one that Enzi proposed. It just doesn't work that way anymore. All we would accomplish is to kill it this year, only to go through the exact same thing next year with the exact same results. Kohl isn't going away in your or my lifetime and he's the guy you have to get through.

Knowing that you're from the political action area, please do what you can to get us what we can get in the real world instead of making us go through the whole thing again next year to the exact same effect.
 
We may not have time to wait this out because vendors are starting to drop like flies already. When Ross says that he's within two months of folding up Magnum, then the whole hobby's in trouble. And I'm just as guilty as the rest...I've put off getting L1 because I just can't afford a LEUP & storage in addition to club dues. Not to mention the actual kit, casing, and reload!

The SEA went into effect at about the worst possible time...right at the beginning of flying season. I pray that S724 passes and gets through the House, because at the very least it will put "Easy Access" into law. It'll hopefully get vendors selling again because anyone flying motors bigger than those already needed a LEUP (correct me if that's wrong). That indicates the H-J spectrum is a pretty big chunk of the HPR business.
 
[ from ROL Re: Mark Bundick 'call to action' issue at 7/23/2003 12:51 AM ]

TRA and NAR endorse the Hatch-Kohl amendment and that is what they are trying to push through the Senate. NAR and TRA are not trying to get Enzi's S724 passed by the Senate. If you do not support the Hatch-Kohl version of S724, do not write or fax letters to Senators to get hold removed.

I have been working on a compromise verison of S724 based on an idea from Senator Enzi that will not require rocketeers to have ATFE permits no matter what size motor, yet satisfy the concerns of Senators and Representatives. It more than goes halfway to meet any legitimate concerns.

I have been working with a group of individuals that represent a good cross-section of amateur, HPR and hobby shop owners. We think we have something that will be acceptable to most everyone. I plan to post this compromise version in a few days.

This compromise S724 based on Senator Enzi's idea is what the Senate should pass and what many of us will be pushing for. We do not endorse the Hatch-Kohl version of S724 and do not want to see that passed by the Senate. Consequently, we do not support the NAR-TRA "call to arms".

John Wickman

[ posted here by iz ]
 
We are anxious to have this handled before 2003 ends, but in a way that rocketry as a whole can prosper. Amateur rocketry is important to R&D and maintenance of the human resource pool the U.S. requires to maintain our competiveness, if not leadership, in aerospace. Other countries not quite on the news horizon have substantial initiatives in this area, and any compromise of our capability would give them a considerable opportunity to overtake us. This would mean economic losses to us as a nation, and more importantly loss of a critical strategic advantage.

TRA/NAR are not looking at the impacts of regulation at this scale.

Just FYI, as the DOJ/ATFE had a hand in the HK 724 substitute bill, we are asking the DOJ to direct the ATFE to grant us a increase of the propellant weight exemption from the current 62.5 to the 0.9 lbs in regulation now, as it is within the power of the ATFE to do so. If they concur with this higher limit through legislation, they (theoretically) should have no issue with implementing it in regulation in the interim. That would give vendors some immediate relief, and even faster than a House / Senate Joint bill.

Senator Enzi remains committed to the original S.724, and John Wickman is shoulder to shoulder with him in the struggle. TRA/NAR recalcitrance is unfortunate and only makes it harder, but rest assured that we are quite serious in pursuing our original objective.

- iz
 
[ from www.space-rockets.com/ars...compromise ]

July 26, 2003 - Today, ARSA revealed a compromise version of S724 for the United States Congress to consider. The compromise bill was reviewed and fine tuned by a "focus" group drawing members from a wide cross section of people in the various groups of rocketry. Members of this "focus" group are affiliated with TRA, NAR, hobby shops, university rocket programs, amateur rocketry and high power rocketry. While maintaining that original S724 goal, a compromise bill was developed that should satisfy most Senators and Representatives who are concerned about rocketeers stockpiling propellant or purchasing large rocket motors without government oversight.

to learn more, visit www.space-rockets.com/congress

[ posted here by iz ]
 
News Statement

For release: July 29, 2003

Enzi decries hobby rocket opposition

Washington, D.C. -U.S. Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo. disagreed with two senators' efforts to block legislation introduced by Enzi that would shield some model rocket enthusiasts from Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) regulations that have threatened the hobby.

U.S. Sens. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J. held a news conference today promoting regulation of hobby rocketry.

Enzi made the following comments after the news conference.

"It's a sad state of affairs when we see a government agency and senators go to such lengths to squash efforts to preserve a constructive, educational and important hobby enjoyed by millions of Americans. This kind of opposition to my legislation serves to discourage innovation and darken spirits. It doesn't make Americans that much safer, but it does make us more fearful and less free.

"When I introduced this bill I hoped it would pass quickly. I thought that surely it was not Congress' intent when it passed the Homeland Security Act to make it more difficult for young people to enjoy model rocketry and hobby shop owners to make a living, but it appears this was the intent of at least two members.

"You can drag out all the dressed-up props you want, high-powered rockets are already regulated and this would not change under my bill. My legislation, after modification and passage by the Judiciary Committee, represents a compromise that takes into account the concerns of other senators regarding potential terrorist activity even though there is no known pattern of attempts by terrorists to use unguided hobby rockets as weapons. My bill would simply allow rocketeers to transport and purchase rocket motors that contain less than .9 pounds (409.5 grams) of APCP rocket propellant without being required to obtain a permit from the ATF.

"My bill is not a license to build bombs and the senators know it. A National Research Council study, Containing the Threat from Illegal Bombings, listed the top 29 common explosive and precursor chemicals with demonstrated potential and history of criminal use. It did not list APCP or recommend controls on it. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.

"My colleagues must be hearing complaints from back home about their holdup of my bill. I hope rocketeers will continue to educate their elected leaders about the merits of my legislation. I will continue to work to pass this common sense bill."

-end-

[ posted here by iz ]
 
Ya know...As a republican I should be outraged but I'm NOT!
With the exception of a few unfortunate uses of the word "explosive" the Senators remarks are understandable and really very close to the mark.
I've stayed quiet on this subject for a long while, thinking we as a group would see the problem, and try to help make things safer for the country..apparently not, so consider this:

Sport rocketry mag. a couple months ago featured a HPR project "Bee-Two" I believe was the name, a Large scale V-2 which was flown to an altitiude of 3000 feet on an L motor. This rocket required 9 pounds on concrete "Nose weight" to be stable on that 3000ft flight.

Just for fun, Lets replace the 9lbs of concrete, a couple pounds for unnecessary Chute and recovery hardware..we can load up 10lbs or so of Sintex or C-4. a simple contact fuse or detenator cap is all the extras needed. Launched from the back of one of those Big Box Trucks we've heard so much about and this little puppy is very mobile! At 40 degrees angle this thing will go ballistic about a mile on that same L motor, much futher on a larger motor. It doesn't have to be guided, it doesn't have to be controlled, it isn't necessary to even be "aimed". Hell, it doesn't even have to hit anything specific, but it will hit something and that my friends is a "TERROR WEAPON". See it's not so much about APCP being an Explosive and it is about being Cheap and dirty DELIVERY Vehicle.

I'm for the BATFE's restrictions on these motors, These reg's may not completely stop would-be terrorist from using our hobby as a vehicle for Harm, but its a **** GOOD start. Izzy; you guys really have to start thinking about what were saying! If the NAR and TRIPOLI keep it up, Congress MAY ban all rocketry. this narrow minded, short sighted insistance on being able to do whatever we want, whenever we want just will not fly in a post 9-11 world. There are way to many people out there that just want to do the USA harm!
PLease Think about this! Get the permits and move on!
John
 

Similar threads

SPONGE
Get Ready To Write Your Senator
Replies
21
Views
2K
raw9jr
raw9jr

Latest posts

Back
Top