BATF says ok, locals say no way.

BATF says ok, locals say no way.

Post by LSLubec » Thu, 22 Jul 1999 04:00:00



I just had my second ATF review and all went well. At their request I was to
contact state and local officials to let them know about my storage of AP and
related materials. The state was to send a permit application about a month ago
but I havent recieved anything yet. The local township said to come in and get
an application. I gave a demo of burning propelant to the fire department. All
seemed ok and I shook hands with the officials and was thanked. Today in the
mail I got my notice of declined permit. The reason was "nonattainable permits"
per a section in the local "Unified Fire Code"  "Explosives containing an
ammonium salt and a chlorate" is nonattainable. I also have the right to appeal
this section.

What are my options at this point? Does anyone have any suggestions? Is there a
lawyer in the house willing to consult with me for free (ha) or at a reasonable
rate with a good chance for success? Or do I just ask Ross for storage space in
his magazine, which I really dont want to do? (My motors My home My storage!!)

Any suggestions or responces are appreciated. I hope this ATF request doesnt
***anyone in RMR. Honesty the best policy? NOT!

Depending how this turns out I may have preapproved storage magazines for sale.

Steve Lubecki

 
 
 

BATF says ok, locals say no way.

Post by John H. Cato, Jr » Thu, 22 Jul 1999 04:00:00


Quote:

> Today in the mail I got my notice of declined permit. The reason was
> "nonattainable permits" per a section in the local "Unified Fire
> Code"  "Explosives containing an ammonium salt and a chlorate" is
> nonattainable.
> What are my options at this point? Does anyone have any suggestions?

Maybe you ought to (tactfully) tell them that a "chlorate" and a
"perchlorate" are NOT the same.  Ammonium chlorate is *extremely*
dangerous (which is why these codes make them 'unattainable' - and is,
in truth, WHAT they are specifically addressing).  But that is a
different 'animal' than what AP is.  While not inert (by any means), AP
is not near the 'beast' that AC is.

Tell them to go back to Chemistry class.  Tactfully, of course <g>.

-- john.

 
 
 

BATF says ok, locals say no way.

Post by Greg Deput » Thu, 22 Jul 1999 04:00:00


It almost sounds like the code/law says an ammonium salt (like AP or AN) AND
a separate chlorate compound (like KClO3or KClO4?)?  Sounds like a beurocrat
(sp?) has some chemistry confusion.

Greg Deputy
tra#2911
Visit the Blast Zone!  http://BlastZone.com



Quote:

> > Today in the mail I got my notice of declined permit. The reason was
> > "nonattainable permits" per a section in the local "Unified Fire
> > Code"  "Explosives containing an ammonium salt and a chlorate" is
> > nonattainable.

> > What are my options at this point? Does anyone have any suggestions?

> Maybe you ought to (tactfully) tell them that a "chlorate" and a
> "perchlorate" are NOT the same.  Ammonium chlorate is *extremely*
> dangerous (which is why these codes make them 'unattainable' - and is,
> in truth, WHAT they are specifically addressing).  But that is a
> different 'animal' than what AP is.  While not inert (by any means), AP
> is not near the 'beast' that AC is.

> Tell them to go back to Chemistry class.  Tactfully, of course <g>.

> -- john.

 
 
 

BATF says ok, locals say no way.

Post by Ted Cochr » Thu, 22 Jul 1999 04:00:00



Quote:

> Today in the
>mail I got my notice of declined permit. The reason was "nonattainable permits"
>per a section in the local "Unified Fire Code"  "Explosives containing an
>ammonium salt and a chlorate" is nonattainable. I also have the right to appeal
>this section.

Unified Fire Code?  Perhaps they mean Uniform Fire Code?  Anyway, no matter.

Before going through an appeal, give them the opportunity to correct a
silly mistake.  How about a letter like this:

"Dear [permit person]:

"I have received your letter declining my request to store rocket motors
in accordance with NFPA 1127 and BATF 27 CFR 55.   Unfortunately, your
reason for declining the permit is based on a false assumption, and I am
sorry if I may have provided unclear or insufficient information in that
regard.

"The commercially manufactured motors that I wish to store are composed of
ammonium perchlorate and a *** binder.  Ammonium Perchlorate is NOT the
same as Ammonium Chlorate--which I agree is a very dangerous substance
indeed--but is a different chemical compound altogether. It is classified
as a flammable solid in small quantities and 1.4c or 1.3c in larger
quantities.  It is on the approved substances list of the BATF, and its
storage is specifically permitted by the Uniform Fire Code Article 1,
Section 101.3 by reference to NFPA 1122 and NFPA 1127.  My proposed
storage in fact exceeds the NFPA standards because the BATF has more
stringent requirements.

"I hope that after reviewing this information you will be able to issue a
permit and so that I will not have to make a formal appeal over this
obvious error of fact.  I would be happy to answer any other questions you
may have.

"Sincerely, ..."

Good luck,

--tc

My opinions only.

 
 
 

BATF says ok, locals say no way.

Post by Robert Galej » Thu, 22 Jul 1999 04:00:00


When I brought this up with my town's fire chief, I
referred him to NFPA 1127.  Even though Massachusetts
hasn't adopted it into law, he said he would be satisfied
if I followed the guidelines contained there.  He was very
reasonable and was more concerned about less regulated
things like BP, ammunition and gasoline-type liquids.

- Robert Galejs

 
 
 

BATF says ok, locals say no way.

Post by Jim Yan » Thu, 22 Jul 1999 04:00:00


Now this is an excellent example of a helpful posting. He practically WROTE the
letter for you! Thanks are in order!.

Jim Yanik,NRA member



Quote:



>> Today in the
>>mail I got my notice of declined permit. The reason was "nonattainable
permits"
>>per a section in the local "Unified Fire Code"  "Explosives containing an
>>ammonium salt and a chlorate" is nonattainable. I also have the right to
appeal
>>this section.

>Unified Fire Code?  Perhaps they mean Uniform Fire Code?  Anyway, no matter.

>Before going through an appeal, give them the opportunity to correct a
>silly mistake.  How about a letter like this:

>"Dear [permit person]:

>"I have received your letter declining my request to store rocket motors
>in accordance with NFPA 1127 and BATF 27 CFR 55.   Unfortunately, your
>reason for declining the permit is based on a false assumption, and I am
>sorry if I may have provided unclear or insufficient information in that
>regard.

>"The commercially manufactured motors that I wish to store are composed of
>ammonium perchlorate and a *** binder.  Ammonium Perchlorate is NOT the
>same as Ammonium Chlorate--which I agree is a very dangerous substance
>indeed--but is a different chemical compound altogether. It is classified
>as a flammable solid in small quantities and 1.4c or 1.3c in larger
>quantities.  It is on the approved substances list of the BATF, and its
>storage is specifically permitted by the Uniform Fire Code Article 1,
>Section 101.3 by reference to NFPA 1122 and NFPA 1127.  My proposed
>storage in fact exceeds the NFPA standards because the BATF has more
>stringent requirements.

>"I hope that after reviewing this information you will be able to issue a
>permit and so that I will not have to make a formal appeal over this
>obvious error of fact.  I would be happy to answer any other questions you
>may have.

>"Sincerely, ..."

>Good luck,

>--tc

>My opinions only.

 
 
 

BATF says ok, locals say no way.

Post by mrtrito » Thu, 22 Jul 1999 04:00:00


Excellent response!!
    Mark Doty

Quote:


> > Today in the
> >mail I got my notice of declined permit. The reason was "nonattainable
permits"
> >per a section in the local "Unified Fire Code"  "Explosives containing an
> >ammonium salt and a chlorate" is nonattainable. I also have the right to
appeal
> >this section.

> Unified Fire Code?  Perhaps they mean Uniform Fire Code?  Anyway, no
matter.

> Before going through an appeal, give them the opportunity to correct a
> silly mistake.  How about a letter like this:

> "Dear [permit person]:

> "I have received your letter declining my request to store rocket motors
> in accordance with NFPA 1127 and BATF 27 CFR 55.   Unfortunately, your
> reason for declining the permit is based on a false assumption, and I am
> sorry if I may have provided unclear or insufficient information in that
> regard.

> "The commercially manufactured motors that I wish to store are composed of
> ammonium perchlorate and a *** binder.  Ammonium Perchlorate is NOT the
> same as Ammonium Chlorate--which I agree is a very dangerous substance
> indeed--but is a different chemical compound altogether. It is classified
> as a flammable solid in small quantities and 1.4c or 1.3c in larger
> quantities.  It is on the approved substances list of the BATF, and its
> storage is specifically permitted by the Uniform Fire Code Article 1,
> Section 101.3 by reference to NFPA 1122 and NFPA 1127.  My proposed
> storage in fact exceeds the NFPA standards because the BATF has more
> stringent requirements.

> "I hope that after reviewing this information you will be able to issue a
> permit and so that I will not have to make a formal appeal over this
> obvious error of fact.  I would be happy to answer any other questions you
> may have.

> "Sincerely, ..."

> Good luck,

> --tc

> My opinions only.

 
 
 

BATF says ok, locals say no way.

Post by Nick » Thu, 22 Jul 1999 04:00:00


Which republik of the Soviet Union do you live?  Perhaps you should
discuss this with a local member of the poltiburo.

Get used to it folks.  I see they are putting down general aviation in
the news media because of the JFK Jr. crash.

- Nick

 
 
 

BATF says ok, locals say no way.

Post by Vinc » Thu, 22 Jul 1999 04:00:00


Yup.  Private pilots are an irresponsible bunch, alright, and
it's high time someone passed some kind of a LAW or something
to protect everyone from them (and of course, to also protect them
from themselves.)  That kind of potential danger has no place in a
modern, civilized society.  Individuals can't be trusted with that
sort of awesome, life and death responsibility.
Quote:

>Which republik of the Soviet Union do you live?  Perhaps you should
>discuss this with a local member of the poltiburo.

>Get used to it folks.  I see they are putting down general aviation in
>the news media because of the JFK Jr. crash.

>- Nick

 
 
 

BATF says ok, locals say no way.

Post by John H. Cato, Jr » Thu, 22 Jul 1999 04:00:00


Quote:

> "Dear [permit person]:

> "I have received your letter declining my request to store rocket
> motors in accordance with NFPA 1127 and BATF 27 CFR 55.
> Unfortunately, your reason for declining the permit is based on a
> false assumption, and I am sorry if I may have provided unclear or
> insufficient information in that regard.

> "The commercially manufactured motors that I wish to store are
> composed of ammonium perchlorate and a *** binder.  Ammonium
> Perchlorate is NOT the same as Ammonium Chlorate--which I agree is a
> very dangerous substance indeed--but is a different chemical compound
> altogether. It

I think I would spell it out -- which "it" is 'it'??

Quote:
> is classified as a flammable solid in small quantities and 1.4c or
> 1.3c in larger quantities.  It

Again - remember, we are dealing with 'the ignorant' here -- keep it
plainly idiot-proof.

Quote:
> is on the approved substances list of the BATF, and its

Again.

Quote:
> storage is specifically permitted by the Uniform Fire Code Article 1,
> Section 101.3 by reference to NFPA 1122 and NFPA 1127.  My proposed
> storage in fact exceeds the NFPA standards because the BATF has more
> stringent requirements.

> "I hope that after reviewing this information you will be able to
> issue a permit and so that I will not have to make a formal appeal
> over this obvious error of fact.  I would be happy to answer any
> other questions you may have.

> "Sincerely, ..."

> Good luck,

> --tc

> My opinions only.

My suggestions only.

-- john.

 
 
 

BATF says ok, locals say no way.

Post by Jerry Irvi » Sun, 25 Jul 1999 04:00:00



Quote:

> I just had my second ATF review and all went well. At their request I was to
> contact state and local officials to let them know about my storage of AP and
> related materials. The state was to send a permit application about a
month ago
> but I havent recieved anything yet. The local township said to come in and get
> an application. I gave a demo of burning propelant to the fire department. All
> seemed ok and I shook hands with the officials and was thanked. Today in the
> mail I got my notice of declined permit. The reason was "nonattainable
permits"
> per a section in the local "Unified Fire Code"  "Explosives containing an
> ammonium salt and a chlorate" is nonattainable. I also have the right to
appeal
> this section.

> What are my options at this point? Does anyone have any suggestions?

Yes.  Stop lying to them that the propellants contain any "chlorates"  If
you told them that, they did the right thing to decline you for making
detonable explosives without a HEUP.

Composite propellant contains approx 75% Ammonium Perchlorate, 20% ***
and 5% aluminum.  The finished product is a Flammable Solid 4.1.

Is there a

Quote:
> lawyer in the house willing to consult with me for free (ha) or at a
reasonable
> rate with a good chance for success? Or do I just ask Ross for storage
space in
> his magazine, which I really dont want to do? (My motors My home My
storage!!)

> Any suggestions or responces are appreciated. I hope this ATF request doesnt
>***anyone in RMR. Honesty the best policy? NOT!

> Depending how this turns out I may have preapproved storage magazines
for sale.

> Steve Lubecki

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

 
 
 

BATF says ok, locals say no way.

Post by Ted Cochr » Sun, 25 Jul 1999 04:00:00


In article

Quote:

>Yes.  Stop lying to them that the propellants contain any "chlorates"  If
>you told them that, they did the right thing to decline you for making
>detonable explosives without a HEUP.

I'm sure they did that all on their own.  Mine did :-)

Quote:

>Composite propellant contains approx 75% Ammonium Perchlorate, 20% ***
>and 5% aluminum.  The finished product is a Flammable Solid 4.1.

When transported in interstate commerce in compliance with various EX documents.

It is NOT flammable solid when stored in a magazine by a user.

It's better not to confuse things!

--tc

My opinions only.