Didn't the ATF read Judge Walton's Ruling?

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

airwolfe1

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2004
Messages
107
Reaction score
0
The following has been posted to the ATF Online Website under "Breaking News": "Questions and Answers - Hobby Rocket Motors "

I guess they didn't read Judge Walton's ruling?

You can find it yourself at: https://www.atf.gov

Or go straight to the .PDF
https://www.atf.gov/explarson/0504rocketryqa.pdf

It's their interpretation of the ruling I guess, but it seems to be clearly contradictory to Judge Walton's Ruling.
 

powderburner

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
7,399
Reaction score
6
Without trying to sound like I am bashing the government, I have to say that the little list of Q&A put out by the ATF seems to be a bit over-the-top.

Answer #4 states that igniters are classified as explosives. Period. So, that makes all the little Estes (and even the Quest MMX) igniters 'explosives' too? After all, it says 'igniters' and does not distinguish between the various types . . .

Answer #8 states that motors fueled with propellant mixtures including potassium nitrate are classified as explosives. Period. So, that pushes all the A, B, and C motors that use BP into the 'explosives' category also. Again, the ATF words do not distinguish between the various types . . .

I think someone needs to take a copy of this list of ATF stuff and give it to the judge. Let the judge take care of these questions.
 

DynaSoar

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2004
Messages
3,022
Reaction score
0
Originally posted by airwolfe1
The following has been posted to the ATF Online Website under "Breaking News": "Questions and Answers - Hobby Rocket Motors "

I guess they didn't read Judge Walton's ruling?

You can find it yourself at: https://www.atf.gov

Or go straight to the .PDF
https://www.atf.gov/explarson/0504rocketryqa.pdf

It's their interpretation of the ruling I guess, but it seems to be clearly contradictory to Judge Walton's Ruling.
First, please specify what portions are contrary to the ruling. Seriously, I'd like to know, because I find it all confusing.

Second, once identified, please forward the information to NAR and TRA boards. Judge Walton asked to be notified by them of any reports from any members of ATF actions contrary to the ruling. I recommend locating and sending directly to the individuals, at least at NAR. I've sent email to NAR HQ and it's been ignored.

Third, if and only if it can be shown that stuff on that document are directly and obviously contrary to the ruling, collect and collate the relevant information from scratch, and contact the General Accounting Office's Federal Fraud, Waste and Abuse site at https://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm Tell them the story from the get-go, including the judge's request to be notified (implying he expected them to try it again).

If ATF insists on wasting tax payer money perpetrating non-lawful activities (ie. making up, publicizing, and especially attempting to enforce laws of their own without approval), tax payers have the right to recover the money wasted in doing so, and be relieved of workers who perpetrate such fraud. That's what GAO does. Getting the GAO involved means getting people from within the problematic organization involved, from a point well above where the problem originates. I'm betting Ashcroft gets a summary notice of any GAO Fraudnet actions relating to ATF. Not that he'd be likely to do anything about it, but you can bet the people that need to be impressed by this will be more impressed knwoing he's heard about them getting the GAO called on them.

And if the GAO takes action (actually does something, not just takes in the information) the media would certainly like to know. When people go rogue within an agency, and that goes public, more usually happens that just them stopping. Washington Post loves this kind of story.

Since **it rolls down hill, if you're going to start it rolling, start as high as you can. But to start with, let the people who are designated as the big rollers start it rolling, as bombarding judges and agencies with complaints when one would do is unlikely to help matters.

I'm doing my part by requesting FOAI releases from ATF on incidents of APCP (not just AP) used in illegal explosives. My money says they've over-reported the numbers to the judge.
 

rbeckey

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
1,560
Reaction score
26
Another thing in there says that a licensed dealer may not sell motors except at his place of business. He may deliver them to a launch site, but not sell them there.
 

DavRedf

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2003
Messages
291
Reaction score
0
Aint government agencies any government, any agency, a hoot?
They always seem to think (think???)that the public are ignorant and wont notice. Anyway we are government so they must do as they are told. (see the UK )
Better stop before I go too far.

David
 

cls

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
2,242
Reaction score
4
this is a very interesting thread, good to get this news so we can go to work on it. if igniters are "explosive" then I guess that roll of nichrome wire in my garage is a high explosive! sheesh, ya just can't make up this stuff.

I'm doing my part by requesting FOAI releases from ATF on incidents of APCP (not just AP) used in illegal explosives. My money says they've over-reported the numbers to the judge.
right on, man!!
 
A

Austin

Dave...good stopping point and good comments. :)

Please note that the thread was created to deliver information; before it gets ugly, I want to make sure everyone is aware we do not need comment further as our orgs are aware now and personal views could be misconstrued as political in nature.

TIA,

Carl
 

airwolfe1

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2004
Messages
107
Reaction score
0
Thanks for clarifying Carl as it was indeed my intent to strictly inform members of some information they might find interesting. This came across on Tripoli's e-mail forum last night and I was glad someone passed it along and I figured I'd do the same for this forum. That's all....I wasn't trying to instigate a "Call to Arms". Rest assured this info has spread like wildfire and I trust our NAR and Tripoli leaders will pursue it to the best of their ability. Lets let them do their job.
 

powderburner

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
7,399
Reaction score
6
Carl, are you like a big-time Skyray fan?
Do you have much in the way of data?
Email me or PM if you want to talk jets . . .
 

GuyNoir

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
1,433
Reaction score
123
Location
Woodstock, IL
Originally posted by airwolfe1
The following has been posted to the ATF Online Website under "Breaking News": "Questions and Answers - Hobby Rocket Motors "

I guess they didn't read Judge Walton's ruling?

You can find it yourself at: https://www.atf.gov

Or go straight to the .PDF
https://www.atf.gov/explarson/0504rocketryqa.pdf

It's their interpretation of the ruling I guess, but it seems to be clearly contradictory to Judge Walton's Ruling.
Patience please. Counsel was alerted to this as soon as it was posted and is investigating.
 

KermieD

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2009
Messages
3,019
Reaction score
5
Thanks for the update Bunny. Your work is appreciated.
 

n3tjm

Papa Elf
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
7,623
Reaction score
527
Location
Penns Creek, PA
Bunny is a great guy :). Met him at a CMASS meeting :). He is doing a lot for us rocketeers. When this APCP issue is finally settled, I think someone should buy him a K250 :D. A long burn motor to represent the long battle he helped fight for us ;).
 

cls

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
2,242
Reaction score
4
Bunny, thanks for posting right away - I am glad everyone is aware of it already!

hopefully this comment won't be taken as political but I put a little extra in my check to NAR this year (about a K445's worth) and hope others will do the same.
 

shockwaveriderz

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 25, 2002
Messages
2,472
Reaction score
1
AS Mark Johnson, former NAR Trustee and very longtime model rocketeer and NAR member said over on RMR and I quote:

"ATFE needs to be reminded that the publication of a "Q&A" document does not constitute rulemaking per the Administrative Procedures Act. In order for the Bureau to get out of its current corner as imposed by the court, they MUST issue an NPRM, allow for a comment period, then publish a Final Rule that gives motors > 62.5 grams the status indicated in the Q&A document...
If they do otherwise we are entitled to injunctive relief...
 
Top