Rocketry Wins ATF Lawsuit
- Thread starter Dave A
- Start date
Help Support The Rocketry Forum:
This above... Why are we kicking at a sleeping dog with this thread???
Last edited:
Wasn't trying to stir a hornet's nest just wondered why it was a flammable solid but also an explosive. People ask me all the time, isn't that dangerous. Oh, no it's not an explosive. That depends who you ask.
Moderator can lock this thread anytime you want.
Moderator can lock this thread anytime you want.
No hard time intended, just voicing my concern...
The dog has fleas and needs a bath . . .
OK, I'll bite... DOT reclassifications are an issue that are between the hazmat manufacture and DOT. As long as manufactures are happy/compliant with DOT hazmat classification and exemptions, nothing will change. Changing a DOT hazmat classification, once determined by DOT, is very difficult.
So was beating the BATFE . . .
Prevailing in the lawsuit was an existential issue. This is not. Fred’s explanation in the next post is better at explaining the issue.
Last edited:
A hazmat classification by DOT is all about the combined chemical content of a hazmat material and its potential as a hazardous material. Associated DOT exemptions are all about handling conditions under and during shipping and storage.. On the other hand, ATFE's classification of a hazmat as an explosive is based on its function as an explosive. In the end, ATFE could not prove and articulate that APCP rocket motors, although classified as an explosive, functioned in normal usage as an explosive; and as a result, our case prevailed... The sleeping dog is the legislative branch/congress and if further explanation is needed, PM me...
No, no further explanation is needed.
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2015
- Messages
- 3,957
- Reaction score
- 2,714
BATF isn't often isn't even aligned within itself, and you want 2 different entities to be aligned? 
Which was summarized in the egg on the stove picture.BATF isn't often isn't even aligned within itself, and you want 2 different entities to be aligned?
Glad you mentioned that pic . . .
One small detail in it that goes unnoticed at a glance . . . The handle of the frying pan is directly over the lit gas burner.
Last edited:
In March, it will be ten years since we won the lawsuit. Ken Good, who was front and center during much of the lawsuit, has written an absolutely excellent account of the course of the lawsuit for the new Tripoli Report which will be available freely to all Tripoli members soon.
I’m amazed at the job Ken and Tom do turning out the Tripoli Report.
I’m amazed at the job Ken and Tom do turning out the Tripoli Report.
THAT is something I remember. Flabbergasted when the court said on Friday that they'd made a decision and would release it soon. They had that decision out on Monday. HO-----LEEEEE----SH*T! Sometime the government works right. The good chill that goes through your stomach and chest, up to your heart, when you realize that WE WON!
I've done a lot of stuff in my profession, MUCH more than I ever expected when I started teaching. But with all of that, the biggest, proudest achievement of my professional career was that small contribution to a lawsuit that told BATFE "You're WRONG and we're RIGHT!"
I still get a thrill when I think of it.
Best -- Terry
I've done a lot of stuff in my profession, MUCH more than I ever expected when I started teaching. But with all of that, the biggest, proudest achievement of my professional career was that small contribution to a lawsuit that told BATFE "You're WRONG and we're RIGHT!"
I still get a thrill when I think of it.
Best -- Terry
As you should. What you all did is why many of us are able to fly rockets today without needing special licensing. Ken credits your and Gary Rosenfield’s testimonies.
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut, once in a while . . .
DaveW6DPS
Well-Known Member
I am looking forward to that. The whole ATF issue caused me to back away from the hobby for a while, since I worked in nuclear power and couldn't afford any "imperial entanglements"...
That reminds me, it will be 10 years in late April or early May since I packed up all my LEUP records and sent them to the ATFE records section. The icing on the cake was about 6 months later I received a call from an ATFE agent at the Baltimore field office, wanting to schedule an inspection. After I explained to him I no longer held a license, he said, " no problem, sorry to have bothered you and thanked me for lightening his work load" It was and continues to be , "a great day in the neighborhood". Once again, thanks to all who lead and supported the effort--still have the tee-shirt, "BE ONE"...
It is hard to believe it has been ten years. I still get reports of some agents or may one agent in SC that is / are continuing to push the contingency storage on LEUP holders. I think it is a lack of understanding or poor interpretation of the previous regulations. I recommend each person to contact NAR/TRA. Sometimes, I wond if they are ATFE plants that are yanking my chain.
In the form of a current meme:
If you try to baffle the judge with over 1000 pages of bullsh*t that include claims like "burn rate of APCP is hundreds of feet per second" based on the time it takes for the flame at the top of the motor to reach the bottom...while the other side presents less than 20 pages describing over 300 scientific refereed papers/articles, none of which describe a burn rate in excess of 1.2 inches per second...you're gonna have a bad time.
Best -- Terry
Chuck: What you describe does not surprise me. According to the Orange Book, if you maintain a LEUP, you are required to have storage, either LEUP holder approved storage or contingency storage, in order to be fully compliant . It has always been like that. Its just that some agents turned a blind eye and some didn't. I remember when I first got my license/permit, storage was not an issue. However, several years latter it was. First I was allowed to use my motor vender, then latter due to the vender having issues, I and several others were abruptly told to find contingency storage else ware, which we did.
The odd thing is the last guy has own storage but the agent still wanted a contingency plan for rocket motors purchased on the field. I did not fully understand and never thought to ask what regulation the agent was enforcing. I suggested he be cooperative and calm. I also directed him to NAR and TRA and never followed up.
I am not currently an LEUP holder and do not plan to get one.
I am not currently an LEUP holder and do not plan to get one.
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2016
- Messages
- 8,993
- Reaction score
- 3,518
I wasn't around, but going back and reading about it all makes me very grateful, every time.
This is the part where I always remind people to join TRA & NAR both; as well as the last two nearby clubs you've flown with.
The average rocketeer has no reason to have an explosives permit. Having one obligates the permit holder to allow inspections. NAR and Tripoli still have annual meetings with the leaders of the ATF. If we know about complaints by people who feel their agents have overreached, we can bring it to their attention. They want things to go smoothly as well.
I explained that to the individual by email and suggested that he remain calm and cooperate. Nothing good comes from resisting the man with the gun and authority. It is better to do that in court.
He felt obliged to keep the LEUP in case there was a legal reversal. I may reach out to him again and see how it ended up. I will suggest he discontinue his LEUP if he does not have another reason for it.
Once reached, the court decision was clear. I believe that the only way that we would ever see APCP on the list again would be if our legislators put it there. While that’s not impossible, I think it’s improbable. Our actions on and off the field are the best way for us to avoid that.
Will we be allowed to burn stuff under the Green New Deal? Not being political, I really want to know! If they want to eliminate all fossil fuels, does APCP count?
I’ve not heard anything, but there is a cleaner burning oxidizer than AP. It’s called Ammonium dinitramide (ADN) and it doesn’t give off the hydrogen chloride that APCP does, which become hydrochloric acid when dissolved in water.
