BATF Inspections are NOT Okay!

BATF Inspections are NOT Okay!

Post by Mark G. Haven » Sun, 08 Apr 2001 15:01:38



I'm sorry this post does not have any of the refrences of earlier posts.
Actually, I had a wonderful response written when Compu$hit kicked me off line
right before I hit the "post" button.

On the subject of "My BATF inspectors have _always_ made appointments with me"
argument I wish to point out:

1: The BATF has not led with their tactical team into a rocketry LEUP holders
place _YET_. Just because a bear doesn't show you his claws doesn't make him
friendly.

Several months ago, someone posted a link to a news story where the BATF raided
a gun store over a $10 local license the owner did not have. They destroyed the
collectability of about $30k worth of firearms by tossing all of them into a
trash can. This raid put this man out of business for three months and
destroyed the nest egg he was going to retire on.

If they can do this for a $10 _local_ license, imagine when during one of your
inspections, you can't document that J350 you burned two years ago. The
inspector says, "that's all right, you just fax the information into my office
when you get it, the number's on my card." But at 5am two days later you get a
dynamic entry and an MP5 stuck in your face.

2: When you got that LEUP, you agreed to BATF inspections _any_time_, without
warrant. If someone saw a A3-4T motor sitting on your kitchen table in your
house (and they don't know the difference between an unregulated BP motor from
a regulated AP motor) and dropped a dime on you, the BATF can do the 5am thing
on you on the basis of that uncorborrated call alone.

Now, if someone said I had an M1315 sitting in the middle of my living room,
the BATF would require more evidence and have to swear out a search warrant
from a judge. Why do I get the search warrant and not you? Not because I'm
better looking, but because you've waived that right with the LEUP.

The BATF wants you to believe this is necessary for Public Safety. I shouldn't
have to repeat what Ben Franklin said about Freedoms and Safety.

We should not have to be getting these damned LEUPs in the first place! That's
what the whole fight is about. APCP regulation does not belong with the BATF.
And besides, how many HP motors could you have bought with the money that went
to the license?

One last point, there are three stages to licensing:

1: Make it cheap to get it passed ($25 for three years),

2: Up the price to make some money ($50 a year, 500+% increase),

3: Drive the price to the confiscatory levels ($500 a year) so no one can do
it.

And again, this has happened, many times here in the US, just not to rocketry
people _YET_.

Don't think the present situation is okay and let this happen to everyone.

Mark G. Havener
NAR#76868 Level 1

Mid-South Rocket Society http://msrs.mem.net

 
 
 

BATF Inspections are NOT Okay!

Post by tai f » Mon, 09 Apr 2001 00:23:53


I hear that about restricted access, you only need LEUP if you are buying it
from out of state, and depending on state laws, you may/may not need LEUP to
store restricted access... and Texas doesnt require it... correct me if im
wrong.

--

replace n with s to reply
---
Tai Fu
NAR# 76089

 
 
 

BATF Inspections are NOT Okay!

Post by Jerry Irvi » Sun, 08 Apr 2001 23:46:39




Quote:
> I'm sorry this post does not have any of the refrences of earlier posts.
> Actually, I had a wonderful response written when Compu$hit kicked me off line
> right before I hit the "post" button.

> On the subject of "My BATF inspectors have _always_ made appointments with me"
> argument I wish to point out:

> 1: The BATF has not led with their tactical team into a rocketry LEUP holders
> place _YET_. Just because a bear doesn't show you his claws doesn't make him
> friendly.

Not quite literally true.  With the monthly saga of Kosdon inspired
"reportings" of me to the cops, one of them was an ATF raid.  I was clean
of course, but I can say I was the first.

I never sicked them on Kosdon of course.  I am not only a nice person but
consider the industry above personal revenge.

Quote:

> Several months ago, someone posted a link to a news story where the BATF
raided
> a gun store over a $10 local license the owner did not have. They
destroyed the
> collectability of about $30k worth of firearms by tossing all of them into a
> trash can. This raid put this man out of business for three months and
> destroyed the nest egg he was going to retire on.

> If they can do this for a $10 _local_ license, imagine when during one of your
> inspections, you can't document that J350 you burned two years ago. The

Exactly.

Quote:
> inspector says, "that's all right, you just fax the information into my office
> when you get it, the number's on my card." But at 5am two days later you get a
> dynamic entry and an MP5 stuck in your face.

> 2: When you got that LEUP, you agreed to BATF inspections _any_time_, without
> warrant. If someone saw a A3-4T motor sitting on your kitchen table in your
> house (and they don't know the difference between an unregulated BP motor from
> a regulated AP motor) and dropped a dime on you, the BATF can do the 5am thing
> on you on the basis of that uncorborrated call alone.

True.

Quote:

> Now, if someone said I had an M1315 sitting in the middle of my living room,
> the BATF would require more evidence and have to swear out a search warrant
> from a judge. Why do I get the search warrant and not you? Not because I'm
> better looking, but because you've waived that right with the LEUP.

> The BATF wants you to believe this is necessary for Public Safety. I shouldn't
> have to repeat what Ben Franklin said about Freedoms and Safety.

Yes you should.  To them.

Quote:

> We should not have to be getting these damned LEUPs in the first place! That's
> what the whole fight is about. APCP regulation does not belong with the BATF.
> And besides, how many HP motors could you have bought with the money that went
> to the license?

and the magazine
and the resources expended to prep for inspections
site prep
attorney fees if any
more things you failed to list.

Quote:

> One last point, there are three stages to licensing:

> 1: Make it cheap to get it passed ($25 for three years),

> 2: Up the price to make some money ($50 a year, 500+% increase),

> 3: Drive the price to the confiscatory levels ($500 a year) so no one can do
> it.

> And again, this has happened, many times here in the US, just not to rocketry
> people _YET_.

> Don't think the present situation is okay and let this happen to everyone.

> Mark G. Havener
> NAR#76868 Level 1

> Mid-South Rocket Society http://msrs.mem.net

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

Bring common sense back to rocketry administration.
 
 
 

BATF Inspections are NOT Okay!

Post by Dan G » Mon, 09 Apr 2001 18:42:18


In most rocket motors (aka, Aerotech), 54 mm and above reloads require an
LEUP no matter where you are and no matter what you're doing with them. 38 &
29 mm reloads can be stored without one, but cannot be transported across
state lines (is this part correct?). The reason the smaller reloads are OK
is that the individual GRAINS are less than the 64.5 g (or whatever). So
couldn't a larger motor be built using smaller grains in the 54 mm size?
yes, the burn profile would be screwed, but no LEUP!

--
"I had discovered that learning something, no matter how complex, wasn't
hard when I had a reason to want to know it."
- Homer H.Hickam, Jr., from his memoir Rocket Boys

Quote:
> I hear that about restricted access, you only need LEUP if you are buying
it
> from out of state, and depending on state laws, you may/may not need LEUP
to
> store restricted access... and Texas doesnt require it... correct me if im
> wrong.

> --

> replace n with s to reply
> ---
> Tai Fu
> NAR# 76089

 
 
 

BATF Inspections are NOT Okay!

Post by Ben Fische » Mon, 09 Apr 2001 22:45:53



Quote:
> In most rocket motors (aka, Aerotech), 54 mm and above reloads require an
> LEUP no matter where you are and no matter what you're doing with them. 38
&
> 29 mm reloads can be stored without one, but cannot be transported across
> state lines (is this part correct?). The reason the smaller reloads are OK
> is that the individual GRAINS are less than the 64.5 g (or whatever). So
> couldn't a larger motor be built using smaller grains in the 54 mm size?
> yes, the burn profile would be screwed, but no LEUP!

You could use smaller grains but you may have to get creative with grain
design it you want to keep a neutral burn curve.  Either that or live with a
pretty big regressive burn.
--


still not a lot at http://home.iprimus.com.au/jfischer

Quote:

> --
> "I had discovered that learning something, no matter how complex, wasn't
> hard when I had a reason to want to know it."
> - Homer H.Hickam, Jr., from his memoir Rocket Boys


> > I hear that about restricted access, you only need LEUP if you are
buying
> it
> > from out of state, and depending on state laws, you may/may not need
LEUP
> to
> > store restricted access... and Texas doesnt require it... correct me if
im
> > wrong.

> > --

> > replace n with s to reply
> > ---
> > Tai Fu
> > NAR# 76089

 
 
 

BATF Inspections are NOT Okay!

Post by tai f » Tue, 10 Apr 2001 04:13:22


How about some kind of adhesive to bond the grains together (like
Nitrocellous lacquer or Composite fuel in its individual components mixed up
and bonds the grains together..?) then have the grains cut up to less than
62 grams...

--

replace n with s to reply
---
Tai Fu
NAR# 76089

 
 
 

BATF Inspections are NOT Okay!

Post by JDcluste » Tue, 10 Apr 2001 07:39:35


I heard some where that the ATF doesn't like it when you try to
thin slice the grains to get around the clause .
This will only enrage them & force them to tighten the noose .
Maybe do away with Easy access all together ...

Who knows ????

JD

Quote:

> How about some kind of adhesive to bond the grains together (like
> Nitrocellous lacquer or Composite fuel in its individual components mixed up
> and bonds the grains together..?) then have the grains cut up to less than
> 62 grams...

> --

> replace n with s to reply
> ---
> Tai Fu
> NAR# 76089

--

"If it doesn't fly straight: stick a bigger motor in it we'll make it
fly straight  "

Don't forget to remove:"spambuster" from reply Address .


Jeff Davenport
http://www.users.nac.net/jdcluster/JDindex.html

METRA  B.O.D & Web Master
http://www.users.nac.net/jdcluster/Metra.html

TRA: 4486 L2.999
NAR: 63238 L2.999

 
 
 

BATF Inspections are NOT Okay!

Post by Jerry Irvi » Tue, 10 Apr 2001 09:20:56


Quote:

> I heard some where that the ATF doesn't like it when you try to
> thin slice the grains to get around the clause .

It only annoys them because the tighter the grip the greater the incentive
for leaks.  Exempt all consumer rocketry and 1.4 propellants in full.

Just Jerry

Quote:
> This will only enrage them & force them to tighten the noose .
> Maybe do away with Easy access all together ...

> Who knows ????

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

Bring common sense back to rocketry administration.
 
 
 

BATF Inspections are NOT Okay!

Post by David Walli » Wed, 11 Apr 2001 00:23:52


Quote:

> In most rocket motors (aka, Aerotech), 54 mm and above reloads require an
> LEUP no matter where you are and no matter what you're doing with them. 38 &
> 29 mm reloads can be stored without one, but cannot be transported across
> state lines (is this part correct?). The reason the smaller reloads are OK
> is that the individual GRAINS are less than the 64.5 g (or whatever). So
> couldn't a larger motor be built using smaller grains in the 54 mm size?
> yes, the burn profile would be screwed, but no LEUP!

Not quite.

What the BATF *intends* to regulate is any APCP motor with more than
62.5 grams of propellant in *total*. They screwed up the wording in
the last revision of the explosives reqs such that items they intended
to exempt would have been regulated (e.g., caps and BP motors). So
they backed off on enforcement, and only motors with greater than 62.5
grams per chunk (grains for reloads, total weight for SU motors) are
regulated. Essentially, Aerotech Easy Access is making use of a
loophole in the BATF regs.

Currently, all RMS motors through the 38mm reloads can be purchesd,
stored and transported across state lines without a federal
permit. State and local laws may still require some sort of permit or
license.

As far as I know, you only need the LEUP if you are buying or using
restriced motors in other than your home state. If you buy and use in
your own state, you only need to store them in a magazine that meets
BATF requirements. You also must fill out ATF form 5400.4 (explosives
transaction record) for every purchase. I've heard of some vendors
refusing to use these forms, and thus would only sell to LEUP holders.

--
David Wallis

 
 
 

BATF Inspections are NOT Okay!

Post by RayDunak » Wed, 11 Apr 2001 14:24:27


Great post, Mark!
 
 
 

BATF Inspections are NOT Okay!

Post by Mark G. Haven » Thu, 12 Apr 2001 03:17:13


Quote:
>Great post, Mark!

Thank you. I am a life member of the NRA and up until a year or so ago I had a
sufficient collection of arms. Unfortuneatly my fortunes of life dictated their
sale, and I am not in a position to start rebuilding my collection any time
soon.

But over the years I have kept a*** of firearm related events concerning the
BATF and the former Administration. I know what they have done by and large,
and what they are capable of doing.

We haven't had the dynamic entries for Rocketeers yet because they've been busy
elsewhere.

BTW, for those of you who don't know what a 'dynamic' entry is, that's the term
used by SWAT teams, and you've seen it on COPS.

This is preferably done at 4-5am, when it is the greatest possibility that
everyone is in bed.

First step, they knock your door off it's hinges.

Second step, they toss a 'flash-bang' grenade into the room.

Third, a half-dozen armed agents rush in and locate all occupants of the house
and subdue them, including children. Any pets that show aggression are probably
shot.

Then you're drug out of bed and questioned with an MP5 in your ear.

OBTW, if they miss and raid you instead of your neighbor, I don't think you'll
get any reperations for damage to your house.

Any BATF agents monitoring this newsgroup is free to straighten me out.

A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take
it all away. - Barry Goldwater

Mark G. Havener
NAR#76868 Level 1

Mid-South Rocket Society http://www.FoundCollection.com/

 
 
 

BATF Inspections are NOT Okay!

Post by Jerry Irvi » Thu, 12 Apr 2001 06:02:27




Quote:
> >Great post, Mark!

> Thank you. I am a life member of the NRA and up until a year or so ago I had a
> sufficient collection of arms. Unfortuneatly my fortunes of life
dictated their
> sale, and I am not in a position to start rebuilding my collection any time
> soon.

> But over the years I have kept a*** of firearm related events
concerning the
> BATF and the former Administration. I know what they have done by and large,
> and what they are capable of doing.

> We haven't had the dynamic entries for Rocketeers yet because they've
been busy
> elsewhere.

Don't worry the one of the largest increase item was firearms enforcement
in the Bush budget.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> BTW, for those of you who don't know what a 'dynamic' entry is, that's
the term
> used by SWAT teams, and you've seen it on COPS.

> This is preferably done at 4-5am, when it is the greatest possibility that
> everyone is in bed.

> First step, they knock your door off it's hinges.

> Second step, they toss a 'flash-bang' grenade into the room.

> Third, a half-dozen armed agents rush in and locate all occupants of the house
> and subdue them, including children. Any pets that show aggression are
probably
> shot.

> Then you're drug out of bed and questioned with an MP5 in your ear.

> OBTW, if they miss and raid you instead of your neighbor, I don't think you'll
> get any reperations for damage to your house.

> Any BATF agents monitoring this newsgroup is free to straighten me out.

> A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take
> it all away. - Barry Goldwater

> Mark G. Havener
> NAR#76868 Level 1

> Mid-South Rocket Society http://www.FoundCollection.com/

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

Bring common sense back to rocketry administration.
 
 
 

BATF Inspections are NOT Okay!

Post by Mark G. Haven » Thu, 12 Apr 2001 13:31:47


Quote:
>Don't worry the one of the largest increase item was firearms enforcement
>in the Bush budget.

I don't have a problem with _enforcement_. There are too many laws for them to
enforce anyway.

If they would _enforce_ the Brady Law, where a felon lies on his 4473 and gets
5 years for that, I think that's good.

When a felon gets caught with a gun, no matter what happens in state court he
gets 10 years in the FedPen, I say bring it on!

I sincerely hope Ashcroft brings Project Exile on-line nationally. I hope most
of that _enforcement_ goes toward that.

I have more hope with this Administration that enforcement will be of the laws
on the books, rather than political agendas.

Mark G. Havener
NAR#76868 Level 1

Mid-South Rocket Society http://msrs.mem.net

 
 
 

BATF Inspections are NOT Okay!

Post by Travis Stae » Thu, 12 Apr 2001 13:48:39


Enforcement of existing laws was what was missing from the Clinton years.  I would
love to see the existing laws enforced, because there is a vocal group that is
complaining that the existing laws are not enough and that we need more, while
ignoring that the existing laws are not being enforced.

Travis

Quote:

> >Don't worry the one of the largest increase item was firearms enforcement
> >in the Bush budget.

> I don't have a problem with _enforcement_. There are too many laws for them to
> enforce anyway.

> If they would _enforce_ the Brady Law, where a felon lies on his 4473 and gets
> 5 years for that, I think that's good.

> When a felon gets caught with a gun, no matter what happens in state court he
> gets 10 years in the FedPen, I say bring it on!

> I sincerely hope Ashcroft brings Project Exile on-line nationally. I hope most
> of that _enforcement_ goes toward that.

> I have more hope with this Administration that enforcement will be of the laws
> on the books, rather than political agendas.

> Mark G. Havener
> NAR#76868 Level 1

> Mid-South Rocket Society http://msrs.mem.net

 
 
 

BATF Inspections are NOT Okay!

Post by Chris Taylor Jr » Thu, 12 Apr 2001 22:31:29


Anyone rushes my house like that will be met with deadly force

Period

Chris
http://www.FoundCollection.com/



Quote:
> >Great post, Mark!

> Thank you. I am a life member of the NRA and up until a year or so ago I
had a
> sufficient collection of arms. Unfortuneatly my fortunes of life dictated
their
> sale, and I am not in a position to start rebuilding my collection any
time
> soon.

> But over the years I have kept a*** of firearm related events
concerning the
> BATF and the former Administration. I know what they have done by and
large,
> and what they are capable of doing.

> We haven't had the dynamic entries for Rocketeers yet because they've been
busy
> elsewhere.

> BTW, for those of you who don't know what a 'dynamic' entry is, that's the
term
> used by SWAT teams, and you've seen it on COPS.

> This is preferably done at 4-5am, when it is the greatest possibility that
> everyone is in bed.

> First step, they knock your door off it's hinges.

> Second step, they toss a 'flash-bang' grenade into the room.

> Third, a half-dozen armed agents rush in and locate all occupants of the
house
> and subdue them, including children. Any pets that show aggression are
probably
> shot.

> Then you're drug out of bed and questioned with an MP5 in your ear.

> OBTW, if they miss and raid you instead of your neighbor, I don't think
you'll
> get any reperations for damage to your house.

> Any BATF agents monitoring this newsgroup is free to straighten me out.

> A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to
take
> it all away. - Barry Goldwater

> Mark G. Havener
> NAR#76868 Level 1

> Mid-South Rocket Society http://www.FoundCollection.com/