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."

19 of 546 comments (clear)

  1. second amendment rights by fermion · · Score: 5, Interesting
    People obsess over their right to bear arms, and I do no dispute the inherent importance of killing an animal or blowing off the head of your fellow person, but how long has it been since such primitive weapons as promoted by the NRA has actually really defended a country. The Iraqis defended themselves with IED. The Israeli's depend on missiles. In both cases an understanding of explosives is important, and in the later case the people must understand rocketry. sure, in some sense the NRA is right. If there is enough cannon fodder around with simple to use guns, of the type they support, battles can be won. This is proved by the weapons smuggled into Mexico from the US and used against the Mexican legal authorities. But really, such things are toys and the people who obsess over them are just playing games. The real action is rocketry, and anyone who infringes on our right to practice rocketry is risking the security of the free state.

    Let the toy soldiers wear their camouflage underwear and play with their guns. Those of us in the know see the key in chemistry, physics, and the willingness to build a gadget that will solve the problem. For better or worse.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    1. Re:second amendment rights by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      One addendum to your point. Back in the day, when the Clinton administration was pushing clipper and crypto regulation, there was not a peep from the NRA. Janet Fricken' Reno said that NIST and the Department of the Treasury were going to be escrow keyholders for all encrypted communications in the US. Seriously. And, IIRC, crypto was already regulated as a munition at the time.

      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.

    2. Re:second amendment rights by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Last I heard, the NRA was also interested in pistols, shotguns, submachine guns, and the like, not just rifles. 2nd amendment stuff generally. If the feds say that something is A) a munition and B) not allowed, that would seem to be enough to fall under their purview.

    3. Re:second amendment rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Mexicans streaming over the border with American automatic weapons

      Prove that a single *automatic* weapon from an American FFL has been used in a crime inside or outside the US by any Mexican, or shut your ignorant hole.

    4. Re:second amendment rights by Ortega-Starfire · · Score: 4, Interesting

      >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.

      Bullshit. Look at states that have enacted shall issue conceal carry permit laws. Violent crime goes down. Look at Illinois, which has the highest "gun control" laws in the nation, and has one of the highest if not the highest rate of gun crime in the USA. This statement of yours was made by the gun control activists in every state where shall issue CC laws were passed. This unintended consequence everyone feared NEVER HAPPENED.

      >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.

      Non-lethal weapons have a tendency to not work on everyone. Bullets work on everyone. People who get permits to carry weapons concealed go over the legal uses of lethal force in a class they have to take before they can have said permit and those people overall have a very good record of only using lethal force when appropriate.

      If you create a non-lethal weapon that does work on everyone with a higher success rate than small arms do, give the police and military a phone call, they'd all be very interested, as would gun owners that carry for self defense.

      --
      ---- Liquid was a patriot ----
    5. Re:second amendment rights by winwar · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "People who get permits to carry weapons concealed go over the legal uses of lethal force in a class they have to take before they can have said permit..."

      Depends on the state. In Washington all I have to do is answer ten or so questions (are you crazy, are you a felon, etc.), get fingerprinted and pay the fee. If I pass the background check, I get the permit.

    6. Re:second amendment rights by uncqual · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The ACLU doesn't pretend the second amendment doesn't exist; they are neutral in regard to it

      As your own post seems to point out (and as I did a few posts up), they are NOT neutral with regard to Second Amendment. In fact, they openly and specifically state that they disagree with the SCOTUS interpretation in Heller -- which is, I believe, the only SCOTUS precedent that addresses the bogus "collective rights" position that the ACLU takes. Because they take a discredited position to support the claim that "neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue", they are hardly neutral IMHO.

      To say that the ACLU is neutral on the Second Amendment is only barely more credible than asserting that an organization that claimed that the Fourth Amendment's protections:

      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

      are referring to a collective right so the police only need warrants to search government property. Would you consider that position "neutral"?

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
  2. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The large 5 five foot long 6" in diameter rocket motors that you are talking about are only done by professionalsm, are extremely rare, and are generally not for sale to the public. Before launching something of that size, there are other agencies that have to be coordinated with such as the FAA who require distances, maps, trajectories and all sorts of information. I am not up to that level yet, but I'm close to that level. The biggest concern for the rocketry community with this lawsuit is that people were not able to aquire a rocket motor because of the paperwork involved in getting the license. Many people simply couldn't because they lived within 75 feet of a neighbor.
    My biggest thrill was watching us give a demonstration to the ATF when they visited us, we lit the rocket motor (or explosive as they refer to it) and then watched all these agents lean forward to look at this thing on the ground that was burning like a road flare.

  3. Re:terrorists? by sjames · · Score: 2, Interesting

    While APCP is the best choice, common table sugar and potassium nitrate makes a decent propellant as well in a pinch.

    If absolutely necessary, potassium nitrate can be had by peeing into straw bales and letting it ferment for a while. Even the ATF isn't stupid enough to try to ban peeing without a license.

    APCP is used in rocketry primarily because it is a decent propellant that is safe to ship, store, and use with simple precautions. Plenty of other propellant options are available as well without a license but are considerably more dangerous to handle. I doubt that would stop a terrorist, but it does significantly deter harmless rocket hobbyists trying to get their kids interested in science.

    If you still think solid rocket propellant without a license is a problem, you will also want household ammonia and/or bleach and pool chlorine banned. I'm guessing that banning gasoline and diesel is right out of the question, but combined with an oxidizer, they have plenty of power.

    Considering that hobbyists have jet propelled r/c planes and helos available these days, the terrorist angle might be a hard sell to the courts.

  4. I've been dreaming of this day by SpartaChris · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Man, what a great day. It reminds me of the quote by Margaret Meade: "Never doubt that a small group of people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." The more important issue is that a Federal Judge just told a government agency that they were no longer allowed to impede on the rights and freedoms of private citizens "just because." So while it's a tremendous day for rocketry, it's also a great day for the American People at large.

  5. Re:terrorists? by TechWrite · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why in the world is "haha lookit my rockit go!" not a valid purpose? I would wager that for many a future engineer, physicist, astronomer, etc model rocketry is what set the hook of their interest in their future profession. I guess if we want everyone to be writers (and not that there's anything wrong with that, I'm one) we don't need to encourage private experimentation and exploration and the sciences. But if we ever aspire to be more than that, we sure better encourage more kids to "haha lookit my rockit go!"

  6. Re:terrorists? by Nyeerrmm · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In addition to not being a trivial exercise, the Feds tend to view building a guidance system as going beyond model rocketry to building a guided a missile, which they frown on. You might be able to get away with very small ones, but I don't really have a good feel for what the minimum weight you could get for servos, control computer and sensors would be, and what size rocket that would indicate.

    We build ~150-lbf thrust hybrid rockets for our senior design projects, and in the past few years its become more and more difficult to do anything interesting because of increased restrictions, from the school administration, the FAA, and Department of Homeland Security. Having a launch site that was pretty near Crawford, TX also made things difficult, had to find a new launch site.

  7. This was a smackdown by NemoinSpace · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I found this to be a hollow victory. The bureaucrats at ATF were just too full of themselves to respond to the order of the court to clarify themselves the first time. So when they came back and told the Judge "we've explained enough" the Judge sent them packing. They came this '' close to making criminals of 12 year olds. They won't make the same mistake next time...(but their asshole lawyers probably will)

    United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. - 437 F.3d 75 In defense of its unbounded comparative analysis, ATFE insists that it had no burden to make more particularized findings. The agency concedes that it "certainly could have conducted experiments or otherwise researched burn rates specific to APCP used in model rocket motors to bolster its conclusion that APCP is capable of deflagration," but claims that "nothing in the OCCA or the APA required it to do so." ATFE's Br. at 15. Unsurprisingly, then, rather than resting on concrete evidence to support its judgment, ATFE simply points to evidence relating to the properties of "rocket propellants" and claims deference on the basis of its presumed technical expertise and experience. The purported evidence cited by the agency does not support its determination in this case, and the cry for deference is hollow.

  8. Re:Wow by Brett+Buck · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Those are not being used by professionals and certainly ARE available for sale to the public. I have been to plenty of HPR launches and "professional" is not part of the equation.

          I am not arguing the BATFE case because I think they were wrong. But with this decision, the only policing to be done will be self-policing by Tripoli and NAR. And my actual point is that the original poster trivialized the entire issue. It's arguable point, but it's not trivial.

            After having seen numerous LMR and HPR models shot through civilian roofs, carports, leave large divots in blacktop, and generally shot into uncontrolled areas and over crowds, with full oversight from the NAR and Tripoli, I really don't think self-policing is viable. I mentioned this on rec.models.rockets a few years ago and nearly got lynched, I briefly exchanged emails with Mark Bundick on the topic, but while several people saw the issue, the LMR/HPR crowd seems bound and determined to keep going until they kill someone, and I wasn't about to tilt at that windmill.

            Brett

  9. Re:terrorists? by JustJonK · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Actually, yes we do something "close to scientific research." The rocketry club I am with launches a large rocket every year which carries experiments devised by middle and high school students. They've done everything from testing the durability of common electronic devices to studying the effects of acceleration on non-Newtonian fluids.

  10. Re:In other news by rubycodez · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  11. Re:Congrats! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    We do not have a justice system, just a legal system. Do not confuse our current legal system with anything having to do with justice.

  12. Re:terrorists? by Daniel_Staal · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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....".

    It's also how most Darwin Awards happen.

    Also a worthwhile human endeavor.

    --
    'Sensible' is a curse word.
  13. Re:Congrats! by NormalVisual · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Agreed. We're already suffering enough from kids not developing an interest in science without the government doing more to inhibit it.

    --
    Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas