ATF requiring explosive storage for < 62.5 g APCP motors

ATF requiring explosive storage for < 62.5 g APCP motors

Post by Bob Kapl » Mon, 02 Jun 2003 04:02:24



Quote:


>> One L in Marshal (or Marshals).

> Thanks, Fredd.

> --
> David Wallis

Shouldn't that be "David Walis" :-)

        Bob Kaplow      NAR # 18L       TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"
                >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<<
Kaplow Klips & Baffle:      http://www.pleimling.org/le/Phantom4000.pdf
    www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/    www.nira-rocketry.org    www.nar.org

 Save Model Rocketry from the HSA!   http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html

 
 
 

ATF requiring explosive storage for < 62.5 g APCP motors

Post by John DeMa » Mon, 02 Jun 2003 08:58:20


Quote:


> >   I can't find anything in the orange book close to that statement.
> > Could you point me to the "chapter and verse" in that good old book?

> >  -John

> John, I can't find the cite either, so I either misread,
> misremembered, or missed a ubiquitous "not" in the section I was
> reading. My appologies for any confusion caused by this.

   No problem...  the other David pointed me to it.  I was in the middle
of writing my response and thought I might have missed something.

   The more convoluted they make things, the more likely we'll all just
throw in the towel.  It's part of their plan!

 -John

 
 
 

ATF requiring explosive storage for < 62.5 g APCP motors

Post by Jerry Irvin » Mon, 02 Jun 2003 13:43:47




Quote:


> >> Aerotech 29/60 and 29/100 motors.

> > Our 29-100 compatible loads are 80ns actual.

> Our as in USR? AT loads for this casing are 100ns nominal, hence its
> designation.

29-100 is an errortech designation.  Since USR does not make either a
29-100 or a 29-80 case it is typical to adopt the number of the
compatible case for clarity.  It does however illustrate with high drama
the hypocracy of errortech calling them selves ISP in their spare time.

http://www.v-serv.com/usr/rr29mm.htm

http://www.v-serv.com/usr/custom/29mm.1.75.txt

Jerry

--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA

Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration.
Produce then publish.  http://www.usrockets.com

 
 
 

ATF requiring explosive storage for < 62.5 g APCP motors

Post by David Walli » Wed, 04 Jun 2003 00:27:57


Quote:



> > >   I can't find anything in the orange book close to that statement.
> > > Could you point me to the "chapter and verse" in that good old book?

> > >  -John

> > John, I can't find the cite either, so I either misread,
> > misremembered, or missed a ubiquitous "not" in the section I was
> > reading. My appologies for any confusion caused by this.

>    No problem...  the other David pointed me to it.  I was in the
> middle of writing my response and thought I might have missed
> something.

>    The more convoluted they make things, the more likely we'll all
> just throw in the towel.  It's part of their plan!

I'd still swear that I read in some document somewhere a statememt
that said, "just because an explosive material is exempted from permit
requirements doesn't exempt it from storage requirements," or
something to that effect. But I'm frequently confused by the habit
that federal regulations writers have of stacking up negatives in
sentances. I have to fall back on my symbolic logic classes from
college to "prove" the statements and understand what they say... let
alone what they mean.

--
David Wallis

 
 
 

ATF requiring explosive storage for < 62.5 g APCP motors

Post by David Weinshenke » Wed, 04 Jun 2003 08:00:17


Quote:


> > > Aerotech 29/60 and 29/100 motors.
> > Our 29-100 compatible loads are 80ns actual.

> Our as in USR? AT loads for this casing are 100ns nominal, hence its
> designation.

AT catalog rating for the "29/100" reloads is 90 N-s.

-dw

 
 
 

ATF requiring explosive storage for < 62.5 g APCP motors

Post by izz » Sat, 28 Jun 2003 05:11:35


[ reposted rom ROL ]

Name:  Kenneth Holloway
Posted:  6/26/2003 3:40 PM
Subject: Re: As of right now?

As of this morning I was ordered by my BATFE agent to transfer all of
my "Easy Access Motors", Black Powder, and Electric Matches to an LEUP
permit holder to be stored in approved storage until I receive my
LEUP. All of the subject material was purchased prior to 6-July-2002.
She was quite nice about it but very firm that *only* motors with <=
62.5 grams of propellant that have grains of a size that do not fit
into cases that can contain > 62.5 grams of fuel are legal without a
LEUP or other permit. She even took the time to check with the local
(Ohio) expert to confirm that her ruling *was* in line with the
BATFE's policy.

Ken Holloway, NAR #78336, L-1

[ reposted from ROL ]

Quote:

> We have a couple of incidents scattered throughout the US of the ATFE telling people that APCP reloads/motors under 62.5 grams need to be put in an explosive magazine.

 
 
 

ATF requiring explosive storage for < 62.5 g APCP motors

Post by Jerry Irvin » Sat, 28 Jun 2003 07:03:47



Quote:

> [ reposted rom ROL ]

> Name:  Kenneth Holloway
> Posted:  6/26/2003 3:40 PM
> Subject: Re: As of right now?

> As of this morning I was ordered by my BATFE agent to transfer all of
> my "Easy Access Motors", Black Powder, and Electric Matches to an LEUP
> permit holder to be stored in approved storage until I receive my
> LEUP. All of the subject material was purchased prior to 6-July-2002.
> She was quite nice about it but very firm that *only* motors with <=
> 62.5 grams of propellant that have grains of a size that do not fit
> into cases that can contain > 62.5 grams of fuel are legal without a
> LEUP or other permit. She even took the time to check with the local
> (Ohio) expert to confirm that her ruling *was* in line with the
> BATFE's policy.

I bet YOU didn't take the time to read 55.141-a-8 to THEM!

Quote:

> Ken Holloway, NAR #78336, L-1

> [ reposted from ROL ]



> > We have a couple of incidents scattered throughout the US of the ATFE
> > telling people that APCP reloads/motors under 62.5 grams need to be put in
> > an explosive magazine.

--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA

Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration.
Produce then publish.  http://www.usrockets.com
 
 
 

ATF requiring explosive storage for < 62.5 g APCP motors

Post by AlMax7 » Sat, 28 Jun 2003 12:01:52


and the atf at a sea meeting in the Michigan area said the oposite
about easy access. They said easy accces would be easy access until
and if the comments went into rule by the timeline on the atf website.
and that's what the law also would have to be, if real law.

typical diferances. I hope the ohio atf "expert" didn't get his facts
from usenet postings.

Quote:

> [ reposted rom ROL ]

> Name:  Kenneth Holloway
> Posted:  6/26/2003 3:40 PM
> Subject: Re: As of right now?

> As of this morning I was ordered by my BATFE agent to transfer all of
> my "Easy Access Motors", Black Powder, and Electric Matches to an LEUP
> permit holder to be stored in approved storage until I receive my
> LEUP. All of the subject material was purchased prior to 6-July-2002.
> She was quite nice about it but very firm that *only* motors with <=
> 62.5 grams of propellant that have grains of a size that do not fit
> into cases that can contain > 62.5 grams of fuel are legal without a
> LEUP or other permit. She even took the time to check with the local
> (Ohio) expert to confirm that her ruling *was* in line with the
> BATFE's policy.

> Ken Holloway, NAR #78336, L-1

> [ reposted from ROL ]


> > We have a couple of incidents scattered throughout the US of the ATFE telling people that APCP reloads/motors under 62.5 grams need to be put in an explosive magazine.

 
 
 

ATF requiring explosive storage for < 62.5 g APCP motors

Post by Bob Kapl » Sat, 28 Jun 2003 21:58:43


Quote:

> and the atf at a sea meeting in the Michigan area said the oposite
> about easy access. They said easy accces would be easy access until
> and if the comments went into rule by the timeline on the atf website.
> and that's what the law also would have to be, if real law.

> typical diferances. I hope the ohio atf "expert" didn't get his facts
> from usenet postings.

Try getting this IN WRITING from anyone.

THey had a similar meeting in WI. many of us couldn't make it. We asked for
it to be videotaped. The BATFE refused to allow any permanent record of the
"breifing".

        Bob Kaplow      NAR # 18L       TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"
                >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<<
Kaplow Klips & Baffle:      http://www.pleimling.org/le/Phantom4000.pdf
    www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/    www.nira-rocketry.org    www.nar.org

 Save Model Rocketry from the HSA!   http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html

 
 
 

ATF requiring explosive storage for < 62.5 g APCP motors

Post by Ken Hollow » Sun, 29 Jun 2003 03:23:41


Jerry,

No, I didn't quote 55.141(a)(8)to her.  I'm trying to obtain an LEUP,
not get myself added to a list of subversives by being an
argumentative bastard.  In any case if I do finally obtain an LEUP,
it's been on hold for months because the Pittsburg office doesn't have
time to inspect our storage in Wattsburg Pennsylvania, I will be
working with this agent for years to come.  Why in Heaven's name would
I want to get her PO'd at me?

Ken Holloway, NAR #78336, L-1

Quote:



> > [ reposted rom ROL ]

> > Name:  Kenneth Holloway
> > Posted:  6/26/2003 3:40 PM
> > Subject: Re: As of right now?

> > As of this morning I was ordered by my BATFE agent to transfer all of
> > my "Easy Access Motors", Black Powder, and Electric Matches to an LEUP
> > permit holder to be stored in approved storage until I receive my
> > LEUP. All of the subject material was purchased prior to 6-July-2002.
> > She was quite nice about it but very firm that *only* motors with <=
> > 62.5 grams of propellant that have grains of a size that do not fit
> > into cases that can contain > 62.5 grams of fuel are legal without a
> > LEUP or other permit. She even took the time to check with the local
> > (Ohio) expert to confirm that her ruling *was* in line with the
> > BATFE's policy.

> I bet YOU didn't take the time to read 55.141-a-8 to THEM!

> > Ken Holloway, NAR #78336, L-1

> > [ reposted from ROL ]



> > > We have a couple of incidents scattered throughout the US of the ATFE
> > > telling people that APCP reloads/motors under 62.5 grams need to be put in
> > > an explosive magazine.

 
 
 

ATF requiring explosive storage for < 62.5 g APCP motors

Post by Jerry Irvin » Sun, 29 Jun 2003 04:30:08




Quote:
> Jerry,

> No, I didn't quote 55.141(a)(8)to her.  I'm trying to obtain an LEUP,
> not get myself added to a list of subversives by being an
> argumentative bastard.  In any case if I do finally obtain an LEUP,
> it's been on hold for months because the Pittsburg office doesn't have
> time to inspect our storage in Wattsburg Pennsylvania, I will be
> working with this agent for years to come.  Why in Heaven's name would
> I want to get her PO'd at me?

You wouldn't of course.

Politely ask her to do her job and comply with the LAW and be very sure
not to ask you to store exempt propellants or gasolines in your magazine
or log it.

Thank you.

BTW it actually works, but you HAVE to ask.  We have all heard the
stories of the ATF party line to the contrary.  All those stories and
worse are TRUE.

Jerry

Quote:

> Ken Holloway, NAR #78336, L-1





> > > [ reposted rom ROL ]

> > > Name:  Kenneth Holloway
> > > Posted:  6/26/2003 3:40 PM
> > > Subject: Re: As of right now?

> > > As of this morning I was ordered by my BATFE agent to transfer all of
> > > my "Easy Access Motors", Black Powder, and Electric Matches to an LEUP
> > > permit holder to be stored in approved storage until I receive my
> > > LEUP. All of the subject material was purchased prior to 6-July-2002.
> > > She was quite nice about it but very firm that *only* motors with <=
> > > 62.5 grams of propellant that have grains of a size that do not fit
> > > into cases that can contain > 62.5 grams of fuel are legal without a
> > > LEUP or other permit. She even took the time to check with the local
> > > (Ohio) expert to confirm that her ruling *was* in line with the
> > > BATFE's policy.

> > I bet YOU didn't take the time to read 55.141-a-8 to THEM!

> > > Ken Holloway, NAR #78336, L-1

> > > [ reposted from ROL ]



> > > > We have a couple of incidents scattered throughout the US of the ATFE
> > > > telling people that APCP reloads/motors under 62.5 grams need to be put
> > > > in
> > > > an explosive magazine.

--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA

Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration.
Produce then publish.  http://www.usrockets.com
 
 
 

ATF requiring explosive storage for < 62.5 g APCP motors

Post by AlMax7 » Sun, 29 Jun 2003 09:44:45


Quote:
>>The BATFE refused to allow any permanent record of the

"breifing".

WOW, that would be against the law. if we look hard , we can find a
law saying we are allowed to record for the record goverment
briefings. and they say they can say what they want, and citizins can
not have a record ?

I would have taken a dictiphone pocket model in my suit pocket. keep
one in my desk drawer for meetings all the time, just for the record.

BOB, how can they do this ?

Quote:


> > and the atf at a sea meeting in the Michigan area said the oposite
> > about easy access. They said easy accces would be easy access until
> > and if the comments went into rule by the timeline on the atf website.
> > and that's what the law also would have to be, if real law.

> > typical diferances. I hope the ohio atf "expert" didn't get his facts
> > from usenet postings.

> Try getting this IN WRITING from anyone.

> THey had a similar meeting in WI. many of us couldn't make it. We asked for
> it to be videotaped. The BATFE refused to allow any permanent record of the
> "breifing".

>    Bob Kaplow      NAR # 18L       TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"
>            >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<<
> Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://www.pleimling.org/le/Phantom4000.pdf
>     www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/    www.nira-rocketry.org    www.nar.org

>  Save Model Rocketry from the HSA!   http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html

 
 
 

ATF requiring explosive storage for < 62.5 g APCP motors

Post by Jerry Irvin » Sun, 29 Jun 2003 09:55:07



Quote:

> >>The BATFE refused to allow any permanent record of the
> "breifing".

> WOW, that would be against the law. if we look hard , we can find a
> law saying we are allowed to record for the record goverment
> briefings. and they say they can say what they want, and citizins can
> not have a record ?

> I would have taken a dictiphone pocket model in my suit pocket. keep
> one in my desk drawer for meetings all the time, just for the record.

> BOB, how can they do this ?

"Problem is nothing has changed and all the laws in the world are not
going to stop determined people. Rocketeers are like Dolphins snared in
the regulatory tuna net." - Chuck Piper 6-03

--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA

Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration.
Produce then publish.  http://www.usrockets.com

 
 
 

ATF requiring explosive storage for < 62.5 g APCP motors

Post by Chris Taylor J » Mon, 30 Jun 2003 02:13:43


why did someone not make a permanent recording anyway ?

Chris Taylor
http://www.nerys.com/


Quote:


> > and the atf at a sea meeting in the Michigan area said the oposite
> > about easy access. They said easy accces would be easy access until
> > and if the comments went into rule by the timeline on the atf website.
> > and that's what the law also would have to be, if real law.

> > typical diferances. I hope the ohio atf "expert" didn't get his facts
> > from usenet postings.

> Try getting this IN WRITING from anyone.

> THey had a similar meeting in WI. many of us couldn't make it. We asked
for
> it to be videotaped. The BATFE refused to allow any permanent record of
the
> "breifing".

> Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"
> >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<<
> Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://www.pleimling.org/le/Phantom4000.pdf
>     www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/    www.nira-rocketry.org
www.nar.org

>  Save Model Rocketry from the HSA!

http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html