by Bob Kapl » Mon, 02 Jun 2003 04:02:24
>> One L in Marshal (or Marshals).
> Thanks, Fredd.
> --
> David Wallis
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
by John DeMa » Mon, 02 Jun 2003 08:58:20
> > 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.
The more convoluted they make things, the more likely we'll all just
throw in the towel. It's part of their plan!
-John
by Jerry Irvin » Mon, 02 Jun 2003 13:43:47
> > Our 29-100 compatible loads are 80ns actual.
> Our as in USR? AT loads for this casing are 100ns nominal, hence its
> designation.
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
by David Walli » Wed, 04 Jun 2003 00:27:57
> > > 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!
--
David Wallis
by David Weinshenke » Wed, 04 Jun 2003 08:00:17
> Our as in USR? AT loads for this casing are 100ns nominal, hence its
> designation.
-dw
by izz » Sat, 28 Jun 2003 05:11:35
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 ]
by Jerry Irvin » Sat, 28 Jun 2003 07:03:47
> 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.
by AlMax7 » Sat, 28 Jun 2003 12:01:52
typical diferances. I hope the ohio atf "expert" didn't get his facts
from usenet postings.
> 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.
by Bob Kapl » Sat, 28 Jun 2003 21:58:43
> typical diferances. I hope the ohio atf "expert" didn't get his facts
> from usenet postings.
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
by Ken Hollow » Sun, 29 Jun 2003 03:23:41
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
> > [ 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.
by Jerry Irvin » Sun, 29 Jun 2003 04:30:08
> 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?
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
> 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.
by AlMax7 » Sun, 29 Jun 2003 09:44:45
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 ?
> > 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
by Jerry Irvin » Sun, 29 Jun 2003 09:55:07
> 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 ?
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration.
Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com
by Chris Taylor J » Mon, 30 Jun 2003 02:13:43
Chris Taylor
http://www.nerys.com/
> > 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!