Joint Statement on BATF Litigation, November 29, 2005

[GuyNoir]

https://nar.org/NARfrompres.html

 

[loopy]

Thanks for that - I was wondering what was happening with that.

 

[MattEx]

The papers put forward by our side were *excellent* !
Very strong arguments.

Just thought i'd voice a word of congratulations - hopefully the effort is rewarded with change !

 

[Countdown Hobbies]

wow strong case... it would be ashame to see this not hold up in court

 

[cls]

Mark, well done all around. I especially enjoyed this paragraph in the reply:


There is more at stake here than the regulation of hobby rocket motors. ATF can succeed here only if judicial deference allows an agency to ignore both statutory language and relevant scientific evidence in the administrative record taht is authoritative and uncontradicted. if ATF can succed here, nothing stops it from asserting licensing and regulatory power over dozens of other common activies undertaken routinely by law-abiding citizens, and modern science will no longer be needed to support its technical decision-making.

sad indeed when decisions are not based on facts.

 

[Rocket Guy 1317]

I also like the line CLS put. I've heard a lot about the ATF and I don't know if I should go into details about it or not. I find this thing very interesting you are aloud to store up to I think its either 20 or 50 pounds of gun powder in your house but if you want to store a K550 in your house you have to have an LEUP.

 

[BobCox]

What are the ramifications if NAR/TRA gets the judge to agree with the central point in their lawsuit, that BATFE improperly classified APCP as an explosive? Here's my interpretation, but I'd like somebody who actually knows what they're talking about to confirm or deny this.

1) BATFE could no longer require LEUPs for users to possess or store rocket motors or reloads. This one I'm pretty sure about.

2) NFPA would still apply, so proper storage and magazine labelling would still be required. However, a cheaper magazine, without the heavy-duty theft prevention devices might suffice. True?

3) DOT regulation would be unchanged , so the weight and packaging rules for shipping hazardous material would still apply. Right?

4) FAA notification and waiver requirements would remain unchanged.

5) CPSC limits on sales to minors would remain unchanged.

6) I have no idea how would this affect motor sales? Right now motor vendors will only sell to buyers with NAR/TRA Level certification. I think NFPA will still restrict motor sales to certified buyers.

7) Many motor vendors also require the buyer to present a LEUP. This requirement should go away if the suit is successful.

Anybody with an informed opinion care to weigh in?

 

[Countdown Hobbies]

Yes I would like to know what will change if the case is won

 

[KermieD]

The question is valid, but please anwser only if you are an expert. We don't want a bunch of speculation or argument about this.

 

[Ray Dunakin]

Originally posted by BobCox
What are the ramifications if NAR/TRA gets the judge to agree with the central point in their lawsuit, that BATFE improperly classified APCP as an explosive? Here's my interpretation, but I'd like somebody who actually knows what they're talking about to confirm or deny this.

1) BATFE could no longer require LEUPs for users to possess or store rocket motors or reloads. This one I'm pretty sure about.

That's the big one, but it's reach goes beyond just the ATF. Many states and municipalities regulate materials based on their classification by ATF as explosive. For most people, this makes it impossible to get approved storage. In at least one state, you also have to obtain a state explosives license. Removing rocket motors from ATF regulation would eliminate these problems at the state and local levels.

2) NFPA would still apply, so proper storage and magazine labelling would still be required. However, a cheaper magazine, without the heavy-duty theft prevention devices might suffice. True?

The answer to this one might be considered politically incorrect, but the fact is that the NFPA storage requirements are toothless. It is only enforceable after the fact -- i.e., if you somehow manage to burn your house down, you might be cited for not properly storing your reloads.

3) DOT regulation would be unchanged , so the weight and packaging rules for shipping hazardous material would still apply. Right?

4) FAA notification and waiver requirements would remain unchanged.

5) CPSC limits on sales to minors would remain unchanged.

Correct. Those remain unchanged.

6) I have no idea how would this affect motor sales? Right now motor vendors will only sell to buyers with NAR/TRA Level certification. I think NFPA will still restrict motor sales to certified buyers.

Correct again. Certification is an NFPA issue, not an ATF issue.

7) Many motor vendors also require the buyer to present a LEUP. This requirement should go away if the suit is successful.

That is also correct.

Furthermore, IF we lose the suit, vendors will be forced to be much more restrictive. "Easy Access" would cease to exist, since the ATF doesn't recognize it. I know at least one motor dealer who says he would probably have to close the business if the ATF wins.

Winning the lawsuit is vital to the hobby. It will not be "business as usual" if we lose. We would be much worse off than we are now.

 

[WillCarney]

Originally posted by Rocket Guy 1317
I also like the line CLS put. I've heard a lot about the ATF and I don't know if I should go into details about it or not. I find this thing very interesting you are aloud to store up to I think its either 20 or 50 pounds of gun powder in your house but if you want to store a K550 in your house you have to have an LEUP.

It's up to 50 lbs., but only if you use it in antique firearms.
The exemption does not include other uses like for rockets only
for antique firearms.

Here in Illinois the BATFE agents wants all BP to be stored
properly and require a LEUP to buy & posses any amount for
use in rocketry. Although they have yet to go into hobby stores
and enforce this. Yes even the BP in the 18/20 mm reloads is
considered explosive by the BATFE and require a LEUP and
storage. That's what they say here in Illinois when they visit me.

The two groups really need to get an exemption for BP use in
rocketry before they really start coming down on everyone.
If they do loose the law suit they could easily start to enforce
the BP issue so there would be no ejection charges for motors.

William

 

[KermieD]

Originally posted by BobCox
Careful... This is the kind of political discussion that will get this thread frozen by the moderators.

Bingo. The initial question was asked and answered by Ray (thanks Ray--very informative), and it's clear things were starting to go downhill from there, so we're going to leave it at that.

Bob, sorry for pulling yours. I wanted to axe the quote from it, but accidentally pulled the whole thing.

 

[GuyNoir]

Originally posted by BobCox
Anybody with an informed opinion care to weigh in?

I asked the moderators to unlock this thread so I can offer at least my "informed opinion".

After oral arguements, two documents will come out of the Appellate Court, a Memorandium Opinion and a Memorandium Order. The Opinion reviews the key points in the case, and the reasoning behind the court's ruling, whatever that is. The Order instructs the parties as to what they are to do.

That order could send the case back to the District Court for further work, instruct the ATF to do something or leave things as they are. Any of those, and more are possible. While we would hope that the order would remove the ATF's ability to regulate, in any way, APCP, it's not the only possible outcome.

I would caution folks from speculating what form the Court's order might take.

 

[KermieD]

Thanks for the clarification Bunny. I'm going to lock this down again. If you find the need to clarify anything or add to your comments, please contact any one of us and we'll reopen it for you.