Slashdot Mirror
Rocket Hobbyists Prevail Over Feds In Court Case
Ellis D. Tripp writes "DC District Court judge Reggie Walton has finally ruled in the 9-year old court case pitting the model rocketry community against the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The ruling is a 'slam dunk' for the rocketry community, stating that the BATFE ignored scientific evidence and overstepped its bounds by classifying ammonium perchlorate composite propellant (APCP) as an 'explosive.' Effective immediately, the BATFE has no legal jurisdiction over hobby rocket motors, and a federal Low Explosives User's Permit will no longer be needed in order to purchase APCP motors. The full text of the Judge's decision is reproduced at the link."
For most of my adult life it felt like we were constantly taking steps backward. It's nice to see freedom win over "safety," for a change. May this be the first of many rulings that empower people and encourage the academic spirit.
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
I can't believe this was ever actually up for debate.
Seriously.... model rocket engines..... ya know lets just ban shoes since they could be used for terrorist acts.
You can't take the sky from me.
How about we just realize that life is dangerous and grow the fuck up.
Otherwise we should ban cars, liquor, cigarettes, saturated fat, and the jonas brothers... cause these have caused far more strife, suffering, and death, than the terrorists could ever hope for.
how long has it been since such primitive weapons as promoted by the NRA has actually really defended a country. .... The Israeli's depend on missiles
Take away the Israel's rifles, and I guarantee that the terrorists will stop resorting to bombs. They'll just get the rifles, and make sort work of anyone who gets in their way.
A rifle is used EVERY DAY to defend a country. It's only one tool in the box, but it's an important one. I wager that, still, more battles were won by rifles in Iraq or Afghanistan than were won by missile strikes.
When has regulating anything done anything to stop potential terrorist or other criminal activity? Almost never. When has regulating made it an absolute pain to do something? Always.
We should not regulate or ban things just because they have potential destructive uses. Heck, even if someone just wants to see a rocket shoot up into the air very fast, let them. Most useful scientific research doesn't happen from lab technicians in sterile environments doing everything exactly to the scientific method, it comes from people who just wonder "What if....".
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
You realize you can buy black powder, by the pound, in cash, with no identification, right?
Yes, I am a smart ass; it's better than the alternative.
My girlfriend (cue +5 Funny reply) told me about her home state of Virginia moving the fences along the freeways back to 50 feet, because they were concerned about kids climbing over them on a dare. Since they didn't figure they could stop this behavior, they decided to make it safe ("over the fence" is no longer a traffic zone).
Then and now, I don't see why they have fences in the first place. Without fences, a kid will die... and then everyone will know the story about the kid who died, and the idiocy will be stopped cold for at least five years (i.e. one high school rotation).
With fences in place, in the public eye it's the fault of the fence-builders for building insecure fences, not the kid for winning a Darwin. It's an outrage, not a lesson. And due to a false sense of safety, people get just as hurt just as often.
The real action is in biology, though it isn't as sexy as a rocket. One person with a petri dish of bugs can cause a lot more damage than a group of rocketeers. Actually, you don't even need the bugs, given the blind panic which will be caused by any white powder.
Even the ATF isn't stupid enough to try to ban peeing without a license.
Don't be too sure about that... Never underestimate the stupidity of a government agency.
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
Just like Japan in WWII. Remember when the U.S. stormed Tokyo...
Extracting ammonium perchlorate from APCP wouldn't be too difficult--the AP is basically just mixed in with a bunch of other compounds that control the rate of deflageration.
However, I think you're missing the point here. APCP is not an explosive. That is the issue. The BATFE does not control chemicals that can be used to make explosives. In fact, binary explosives, ammonium nitrate, and black powder in quantities of less than 50 pounds are all supposed to be out of their jurisdiction. Why then, should they be investigating a mixture that doesn't even detonate?
The point is they (the ATF) are a bunch of bungling fools.
Far more soldiers are lost to snipers (and automatic rifle fire) than IEDs and suicide bombers combined.
As the older brother of 2 soldiers serving in the Gulf, not only do I find your ignorance offensive, but I wish I was a member here so I could moderate you -1 for "dumbass"
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be a convenience store not a government agency.
You're thinking small. Why miniaturize the laser, when we could instead enlarge the sharks? -John Searle
Who in the hell was talking about Israel? This is the United States and United States law.
It wouldn't be the first time -- pseudoephedrine can be readily broken down to ephedrine, which is one of the components needed for methanphetamine production (and derivatives).
Which makes for a major PITA for law-abiding citizens who now have to get the 3rd degree from a pharmacist to get a pack of allergy pills. Meanwhile, the meth keeps pouring in from the "superlabs" south of the border. At least we're all safe from those evil packages of Sudafed, though!
Exactly, Ellis. It doesn't stop a small group of people going to every pharmacy in the area to buy one box of Sudafed at each so they can use them in their meth lab.
true, but no doubt a lot of the techie libertarians who are part of the NRA, are also part of the EFF. The NRA is one organization, focused on the 2nd. The EFF is another, focused on the 1st and 4th. No organization can spread themselves thin, defending every single right.
I dunno, do we really need to allow you to drive beyond the city limits? I mean, if freedoms are defined as "what you really need to get along", why I bet I could deprive you of pretty much all your freedoms.
Freedom means having to put up with things that may be inherently dangerous. There's an old saying by a guy named Benjamin Franklin about that, but then again, since I'm thinking of removing your freedom to use the Internet or look at books, I don't suppose you'll ever know about it.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Just think about that. Janet Reno said that the Department of the Treasury would have its grubby hands all over something that was classified as a munition, and the NRA didn't utter a word, even on general "we hate the Clinton administration" principal. It is undeniably the case that guns are very effective tools; but the 2nd amendment lobby is, I think, rather myopic. They get admirably worked up about specifically gun related stuff; but are oddly passive on relevant ancillary issues. Without encryption, that "well regulated militia" isn't going to last long against the Feds.
Obligatory XKCD: http://xkcd.com/504/
Well here, let me use a few more catchphrases for you:
"An armed society is a polite society."
"When you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns."
And what is wrong with this?
2nd amendment + heller decision = The [individual] right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. If you want to ensure the security of the States and the Union without giving up essential liberty, logic dicates that you educate citizens in the way of the modern warrior and arm them accordingly.
---- Liquid was a patriot ----
You mean to say, don't underestimate the dangers of the native population using guerrilla tactics against an invading force.
They get a bonus for knowing the land. They get a bonus for not identifying themselves as combatants. They get a bonus for being able to accurately identify their enemies, who are loud and obvious. They get a bonus for being sneaky.
The odds are stacked against us, even with all of our equipment and training.
We can take care of any traditional army in the world without much trouble, barring larger countries like China and Russia. We cannot, however, easily quash a pissed off and unorganized army in a small shit hole of a country. Russia learned this years ago, as they made the same mistake, and they were better prepared than we were!
The moral of the story is that snipers, IEDs, and guerrilla warfare, are all coming together in places like Iraq and Afganistan. A single civilian with a rifle or a 150mm shell can take out an entire squad of Marines and still make it home for lunch.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
"The odds are stacked against us, even with all of our equipment and training."
And with those odds against us, the Americans won. There's probably the same level of violence in Baghdad as there is in NYC. The primary difference is the hookers and alcohol are better in NYC.
And right there, that comment fully sums up the stereotype the rest of the world sees about US gun laws/ideals.
And yet for all the gun control in Germany they still have mass casualty school shootings. For all the gun control in Russia they still have one of the highest murder rates on the planet.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
The 2nd amendment guarantees your right to a militia. What's needed is a new amendment to guarantee your right to a strategic arms program.
Actually, that was all but explicitly understood until fairly recently when anti-gun crazies took power. People are all too much in a hurry to forget, not so many years ago, your neighbour might have a CANNON in his garage for the local militia. His neighbour, in turn, might have a mortar...so on and so on. Let's not also forget many powerful warships were actually privately held, and in many cases, owned by private merchant consortiums. Please keep in mind, warships were the strategic arm of their day.
Even as recently after WWII, it was common for soldiers to retire with their weapon - which include BAR machine guns, .45 cal "Tommy Guns", and .45 cal pistols. Additionally, during WWII, civilians living on strategic coast lines were trained and ISSUED artillery to be used against any enemy ships or submarines found off the coast. And let's not forget CAP pilots, flying privately owned aircraft, dropped military issued bombs on U-boats off the coast, inside US waters.
The simple fact is, our Constitution guarantees military grade weapons are to be available to militia. Its only been in fairly recent times anti-gun, anti-Constitution, anti-second amendment nuts have been empowered enough to spit on our forefathers with the ignorant applause of the majority. Simple fact is, our forefathers would be the first to spit in the face of these anti-gun, crazy people.
And to clarify, many, many different types of weapons are categorized as "strategic arms" - which even includes air planes. Simple fact is, according to our forefathers and the US Constitution, militias have this right. And up until not so many years ago, this right was implicitly understood.
why, however, the ACLU generally pretends the second amendment doesn't exist perplexes me
This is the main reason I'm not a card carrying member of the ACLU. Bunch of fucking hypocrites.... American Civil Liberties Union, eh?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I think you've answered your question. Why should the ACLU lift a flying finger to protect the 2nd Amendment? The NRA has a laserlike focus on the 2nd, has more resources, and doesn't give a damn about the rest of the Bill of Rights.
They're actually very complementary organizations, but don't tell that to an NRA member, because he'll probably go for the rifle in his pickup's gun rack.
Sure we can. If we decided so, we have a number of options which can easily quash all resistance in Iraq. Exercising those options would require anywhere from about 20 minutes to a few weeks, depending on which option is used.
If we showed exactly the same level of care for innocent bystanders as the insurgents in Iraq do, we could end this as quickly as we desired.
no, the Waco Siege pretty much proved that lies and unsubstantiated rumors about non-existent full-automatic weapons and underage brides can summon a mass-murderer like Janet Reno with homicidal goons to use incendiaries to start fires and gun down those that try to flee.
Give it up. Yeah; your version of reality is closer to the truth, but sooner or later everyone that saw what happened is going to die off, and only the "official" government version of what happened will be available in the history books.
Governments write the history books. Ask any kid today about the bonus march massacre, and you'll get blank stares.
Well, actually, I don't think that's the reason. (Of course, my question was rhetorical as I know the answer).
It's because they disagree with the Supreme Court that the Second Amendment refers to an individual right -- preferring to embrace a modern notion, never endorsed by the Supreme Court, that it's some sort of "collective" right. It's odd that an organization which so vigorously (usually rightfully) defends individual rights would choose to read the word people as state in one, and only one, place in the United States Constitution while using the conventional understanding of the word people everywhere else it occurs. Oh, and that they would insult their readers' intelligence by claiming that Miller supports their collective rights view (of course, they are careful to cover their ass on that one by claiming that they don't rely on Miller to reach their conclusion -- I think because they realize that's so easy to disprove and accepted by so few scholars).
[Miller lost his case for a variety of reasons. Certainly the fact that he was already dead and that his lawyer didn't appear at oral arguments probably didn't help much. But, the primary relevant reason was that he (or his representatives) didn't convince the court that short barreled shotguns actually had a military use. The strongest implication that one can reasonably draw from the court's analysis in Miller
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
is that the Second Amendment recognizes the right to keep and bear weapons that might be generally useful in a militia -- not that the right is restricted to the "militia". (Also, the notion of a "militia" "bearing" arms seems like very odd wording to me -- but arguing linguistic nuances of 200+ year old writings can be fraught with difficulties).]
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
Simple fact is, our forefathers would be the first to spit in the face of these anti-gun, crazy people.
Though likely a good number of them would also be the first to spit in the face of black's or women's right's activists.
This has always been one of my least favorite lines of defense. Why not base your arguments on what we find to be right at the current time? The founding father's certainly don't have a monopoly on good ideas, and they never had to fit them into conditions that exist in the present.
Good news... finally.
This is a good day for science and imagination.
If your smart, you fight the ATF with lawyers. It might take 9 years but they won. If you are dumb you shoot at ATF agents, barricade yourself in armed cult compound and have the nerve to be surprised when Janet Reno shows up and kicks your butt.
I think it's fair to say, society has changed since then.
Then amend the constitution.
It's nice to say the constitution is a "living document" but go through the proper process instead of "interpreting" until it becomes toilet paper.
If you don't like it then change it, but don't ignore it.
YM: "An armed society is a police society."
arm them accordingly.
I really, honestly think bazookas are the best "tool" for modern warrior.
Actually, I bet the citizens of Grand Lake, CO probably would agree with you after watching Killdozer blow through their town a few years ago.
Extremes aside, if every citizen was trained with handgun, shotgun, and rifle proficiencies (and allowed to carry where they wished to), just about any violent crime issues could be quickly solved by the local populace. Eventually you run out of criminals or the criminals decide to seek new business opportunities.
---- Liquid was a patriot ----
"Rifle" is the general term for a longarm that has a rifled barrel. Hunting has never had anything to do with classifying something as a rifle. Rifles have been standard military issue for longer than the NRA has been around. At the time of their founding the the issued weapon for a US soldier was a singleshot breachloaded rifle (the springfield). It was popular for those with the funds to replace this weapon with a 16 shot, Lever Action, Henry Rifle. This was the state of the art, medium range, antipersonnel weapon of its day and it was a civilian weapon. Today it would be like being able to buy a SAW machinegun compared to an issue M-16. In 1871 there were no restrictions. Put a canon in the front yard? No prob. Mount a Gatling gun on your coach? Good idea. But we were coming out of the Civil War and there was a strong push to increase Federal powers over individual freedoms and the NRA was formed to oppose this.
So I don't think the NRA has expanded the scope of their purview. If they were to have lobbied for a citizen's 2nd amendment rights to equal what we had when they were founded in 1871, we could all own our own Abrams tanks and Apache helecopters for the daily commute. They stuck to lobbying pro infantry weapons, because what you want in a militia are people that know how to shoot infantry weapons. Frankly, given their charter I think they're way behind in what they should be pushing for.
"The Adobe Updater must update itself before it can check for updates. Would you like to update the Adobe Updater now?"
Yes, and look at how safe Thailand and Israel are!
The law of unintended consequences strikes again. If you tell criminals that everyone is armed and dangerous then they will shoot first. Instead of getting mugged or robbed you will get murdered and looted. Guns will be easier to steal. More crimes of passion will result in death.
Furthermore, I wonder why it's so important to score the kill. Why can't you arm yourself with a nonlethal weapon? Is the additional security of a gun really worth the added risk? I suspect that hormones are playing a larger role than reason in the minds of those who feel they need their gun for protection.
Yay mob rulez! :)
Hang them high!
Might makes right and so on...
On the other hand, if all guns are outlawed the police could just go around popping anyone with a firearm. No need to ask them if they have permit, just shoot them on sight :)
"This message was brought to you by Sarcasm and Troll Feeders United (or STFU, for you un-hip people)."
That's why I laugh when those idiots think their guns will help them against "their" government.
When you resort to lawyers, as long as you can find a decent judge, the one with the best case wins.
It's not just a matter of firepower or $$$$.
Who are you kidding? Russia is run by the Mob, and they're not big on gun control.
That's kind of the point isn't it? Regular citizens aren't arm themselves at all in Russia (handguns are outlawed, rifles/shotguns are hard to get and useless for self-defense outside the home in any case) so they are at the mercy of criminal elements that don't give two shits that handgun they are carrying is illegal.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
You might find this podcast interesting. Seems the intent of the 2nd amendment was to discourage america from having a large standing army that sapped resources and wagged the dog. If everyone has guns and there is an effective nationwide draft in the form of a militia, then the population of the US would be far more resistant to going to war. The founding fathers apparently recognised the downfall of every large civilisation was imperialism and wanted to build in a resistance to it. The world wars seem to have destroyed that mechanism though.
(1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
"The anti-social behaviour of people wanting to be able to 'defend themselves', at great cost to society at large, is despicable."
That statement is simply breathtaking.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
What good is your right to collect semiautomatic weapons against a tank or jet fighter?
You need to learn some basic history. Bolt action rifles shot down jets during Vietnam. Afghanistan shows us semiautomatic weapons work wonders against tank crews; they all have to eat, sleep, go to the restroom, and refuel. Just ask the Russians. In fact, it took helicopters to turn the tide back in Russia's favour - to wit the US provided AA-missiles to shift things back the other way.
And in the end, your point is exactly the point I was making. The 2nd amendment's entire point is to ensure the public has access to military grade weapons exactly so they can defend their country from both external armies and internal corruption.
The 2nd amendment, as you said, is toothless only because anti-gun crazy people have been empowered enough to spit on the Constitution - in attempts to make it toothless.
The ultimate safeguard to ensure the American people would never again be victimized by their government.
Exactly!
The National Association of Rocketry argued that ammonium percholorate is not an explosive (it is in fact an oxidizer) and appended massive amounts of technical information to show that it is not.
The BATF replied "we don't give a damn about the facts, we will regulate it and you can't stop us."
And, after nine years, the judge ruled that the facts actually are relevant, and the BATF is allowed to regulate only the things that they are legally allowed to regulate.
Congratulations, NAR.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Go look at the Interwebs and see the Bomb Shelter BUS STOPS they have in areas bordering Gaza and the West Bank. It's not just the rockets, its the fact that Isralis are living in a land where when they hear the rocket warning alarms, they have mere seconds to be inside the nearest bomb shelter. These people are as trained in what to do when a rocket is incoming as members of the US Military and they have daily "drills".
The ACLU doesn't pretend the second amendment doesn't exist; they are neutral in regard to it, and take the interpretation that it's a collective right and not an individual one (more details). I also think they stay off second amendment cases because other groups (I can think of two of the top of my head) are much more well funded and hyper focused on it.
The ACLU will generally help those who ask for it when they think the person has had their civil rights violated, and has even been on the same side as the ACLJ when defending the right of students to pray in school. The ACLU is about as non-partisan as you can get.
Another point the ACLU makes is that they don't think that the possession of guns raises a civil liberties issue. As much as the gun nuts like to say that "the second amendment guarantees the others", we've seen that obviously isn't true. And who would want to live in a country where you would have to kill to exercise your freedom of speech? If all we have left to protect is the second amendment, we've got bigger problems on our hands.
Nathan's blog