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."
This next season of Mythbusters is gonna be AWESOME!!
Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
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
Kapow!
I hope this verdict doesn't back-fire on them.
OR
It seems ATF's case just blew-up in their face.
I say don't drink and drive, you might spill your drink. Before you get behind the wheel just stop and think.
The ATF announced that they are going to refocus on conducting raids on wacky religious leader's compounds... Because they are much better at doing that.
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
I'm surprised the feds didn't cite terrorist concerns over the deregulation of this rocket propellant. Oh well, I'm sure they'll just lobby to have the laws changed/enacted to bring this propellant under federal regulation. Doesn't anyone else think it's irresponsible to allow anyone to buy powerful rocket motors without a license? Who needs a suicide patsy when you can just set up a rocket? Maybe I'm just being paranoid.
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.
The BATFE is the most redundant element of the US government. The FBI covers the B, the F and the E. The FDA covers the A and the T. What's left?
We still need an explosives license for APCP here, and it is a lot harder for us. FFS, even the largest estes black powder motors can't be sold because they aren't CE approved
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
:-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WF9N4MLFJ0g
This compound is used to fire ejection seats out of aircraft. As well, ammonium perchlorate -- pure, not this compound, is an explosive according to OSHA. How hard would it be to synthesize ammonium perchlorate from APCP? If it is not overly difficult, the BATF has every reason to be worried that mass distribution of this without licensing could open a channel for acquiring explosives materials domestically and in bulk under the guise of "hobbyist". 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).
Perhaps someone with credentials in chemistry beyond self-educated (as I am) could comment on the feasibility of this?
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Ah.. sorry. Footnote: I was referring to the government's interest in controlling various chemicals in my previous example, not trying to imply ephedrine is an explosive. Though, if you take too much of it something will explode. :)
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
as a long time rocketeer, it's nice to see us win one.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
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.
and even more so coming on the anniversary of Robert Goddard's first successful launch of a liquid-fueled rocket, in 1926.
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
Virginia huh?
when you were like 9 did you perchance refer to this same person as your sister?
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Mentos and Pepsi.
-Sean
In the figurative sense certainly, by hiring an 'expert' to do their testing who knew nothing about the field, produced results that were nonsensical and pretty much conducted scientific fraud at the behest of ATFE. Proper expert testimony was provided by rocket motor manufacturers who had worked in the field for the government and/or contractors, still consulted to the government, and worked on other projects like SpaceShip 1. Why ATFE didn't see this coming is a mystery.
They also nearly blew themselves up literally. They 'required' one of the motor manufacturers to sell them motors at market price (he had initially declined). They rented a van, loaded up their rockets and headed to the desert to do some testing. They intended to prove that high powered rockets could be used to bring down an aircraft. They ignored the rules that virtually all rocketers follow regarding distance between launcher and people, rockets and motors. They launched one out of the back of the van. The back blast lit their other motors in the van. Their rented van proceeded to burn merrily to the ground. They denied it, but it was proven otherwise. They started to try to get a gag order but apparently used their one and only Blinding Glimpse of the Obvious on this rather than one the case as a whole.
As for other regulation, high powered rocketry has been well regulated all along, just as its little cousin, model rocketry, is. The rules originated with G. Harry Stine, one time range safety officer at White Sands and pioneer of model rocketry. The high powered rules evolved over time, and have been considered acceptable in development and content by the FAA, the National Fire Protection Association, and similar relevant agencies. We have been trusted for 50 years to develop and follow our own regulations suitable to these agencies. Now we can ignore the arbitrary, stifling, baseless rules concocted by ATFE (put into force without due process) and carry on another 50 years. The regulations we have in place cover all airframes and power systems up through 200,000 newtons, where the FAA's office of space transportation takes over.
The standing regulations for high powered rocketry are available the National Association of Rocketry at http://nar.org/hpcert/NARhprintro.html Only high powered motors were involved in the ruling. Model rockets (including "large model rockets", up to 3.3 pounds loaded and 4 ounces of propellant) were not involved.
As for APCP, although it produces a large amount of exhaust gas which can be channeled through a nozzle to produce thrust (see the space shuttle's boosters for an example), it burns at about the rate of a piece of paper. Thus while it might "conflagerate" it is hardly worth bothering with as an explosive. It is actually more profitable to use small model rocket motors for explosives as they are black powder.
NAR #28965, High Power Certification level 1
Rocketeer since June 1964
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
You can buy binary explosives off the internet in 50 pound lots. You just have to mix it at the point of use on private property and not store it over 24 hours.
Google for boomer shoots and tannerite. Look at the National Firearms Act of 1934 for the definition of what fun stuff is legal with the right tax payment.
-- from Beavis and Butt-Head Do America.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
Tannerite is a common binary explosive. You can order it shipped via USP ground.
Great stuff. Only caveat is you can not store the stuff except in an approved magazine once it is mixed. The components are stable and only mildly flammable before mixing. Once mixed it is cap sensitive/high impact sensitive. Most common detonation method is high velocity impact. 5.56X45mm is just barely enough. 7.62 NATO works every time.
Explosive are not illegal. Unsafe/improper storage is a crime.
I've been into flying model rocketry since I was in elementary school, and years later I still love it. Nowadays however you can build much larger rockets and fly real instrument packages. To make it even better you can now purchase simulation packages that allow you to construct virtual models of commercial rocket kits as well as fully custom designs. You can then perform virtual flights with different sizes of engines and payloads, prior to actual construction and flight. In actual flight though, there is nothing that beats that crackling roar when modern composite engines shoot off the pad. Regards, Art
This decision only effects those in the district of Columbia, however the bureau may choose to re-write it's regulation.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The right is "to keep and bear arms", that first part is a justification. The sensible interpretation of the first part is that it's one example to justify the right. Anyone who thinks clearly will realise that it wasn't the only justification at the time, but it sure sounds important compared to shooting dinner or robbers and such.
"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.
Yes, indeed. Today we set to find out, whether we can really build a Quassam rocket on a budget.
Tune in for the next week's episode, when we see, if we can successfully hit police station with it.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
"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"
-.....And Uncle Sam takes yet another swift kick to the nuts.....
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
"...vacating the agency's decision will not pose any serious threat to the public's health or SAFETY, the Court will vacate the agency's decision to classify APCP is an explosive pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Â 841(d)." One of the reasons for the judge's decision is the fact that hobby rocketry is so SAFE. Try and find a single rocketry related death or serious injury. I couldn't find a single one.
Good news... finally.
This is a good day for science and imagination.
...and with everyone a criminal, it is just a matter of how much "they" like you, as to whether or not they come after you for a violation.
Some laws are "right", they proscribe a behavior most would agree is wrong. However, some laws claim to prevent a crime, after all, "the law's the law"; But, they're really nothing more than a "Thought Crime", IMHO.
As you suggest, possession of a shotgun, for example, that is "too short" (Say 16" instead of 18.5") is, in and of itself, a "crime". I'd rather have every law abiding citizen own such a weapon against than a single criminal legally owning the 18.5" model. Of course if either group used either weapon in a crime they should be punished in a like manner. After all, if one of your loved ones were criminally assaulted, would you really want the penalty to be any different if they perpetrated the crime with one weapon over another?
There doesn't appear to be any easy way for average folk to get around the law like the privileged can, by simply bowing to the "spirit" of the law. We are stuck with the "letter" of the law...
Also, for reference, here is something I saw recently that seems like a reasonable idea.
Remember, kids, it's not about big scary guns... someday, in a jurisdiction near you, mere possession of strong encryption may mark you as a publisher of child pornography just as much as the possession of brass knuckles makes one a thug.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
At least we're all safe from those evil packages of Sudafed, though!
First, "cold medicines" have been found to be essentially useless. Second, Sudafed is not an allergy medicine- it's a decongestant. Third, there are numerous alternative medicines that achieve the same effect, but they cost slightly more to make. Fourth, I've repeatedly purchased Claratin and other allergy pills without so much as a glance from anyone.
Lastly, the legislation you're talking about was designed to make it harder for meth addicts to make their own meth "at home". Why? Because they kill themselves (and anyone else living in the house/apartment at the time) either by blowing the place up or from breathing in the chemicals involved in the various stages of making the meth...and also in the process, turn the home into a massively contaminated structure that has to be torn down. Hell, even the neighbors nearby are at danger if the wind is blowing the wrong way.
No benefit, readily available alternatives, public safety issue. Closed case to me.
Please help metamoderate.
Triple Q motors here we come! Actually Three Q's for stage 1, and liquid/lox stuff for stages 2 and 3. No air means you have to provide your own.
Conspiracy nuts like you give ordinary skeptics a bad name. While you're busy yammering about Waco and 9/11 "truth", there are real scandals playing out in the government. The louder you yell the less people hear about the actual abuses. It's as if the government planned it that way all along - except that I'm not nutty enough to believe that they could.
't wasn't perchlorate but nitrate IIRC, that destroyed the complete french AZF plant in the city of Toulouse's suburbs, leaving a definitely war-like scenery. Was in sept. 21, 2001 so indeed scary believe me. 29 casualties, countless wounded, explosion was heard 50 miles away.
A friend of mines was working kilometres from there in a building whose complete frontage fell down in front of her.
So well. Not ammonium perchlorate but ammonium nitrate...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AZF?bcsi-ac-ED4481DDE3DE1057=18BDC0EE00000203sh7mtJMzRnjkMofxetcnL1GX+ybEAQAAAwIAAH/ogQAQDgAADQAAAOzTAQA=
Herve S.
"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
While APCP will not detonate, it will deflagrate (which is what it is designed to do).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflagration
APCP when burning produces large amounts of gases quickly, which if confined, will cause the container to burst (dry ice also bombs work on this principle). For safety reasons (more than fear of terrorism), the US Department of Transportation regulates shipping materials that strongly deflagrate as explosives under the HAZMAT cateogory of Class 1.3 explosives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAZMAT_Class_1_Explosives
There is a large misconcetption between a detonation and explosion. All conventional military bombs desgined to explode use a detonation as the mechanism because it is easier to control, more powerful, and more precise, but explosions can be caused by other mechanisms as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detonation
Rockets are powered by materials that will explode under confinement (like gunpowder), but will usually not detonate.
Congratulations to the National Association of Rocketry, and the rest of the team defending model rocketry.
Well done, guys!
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Model rocketry (the NAR code) specifically prohibits guidance systems in these rockets. As for FAA permitting, new rules went into effect two months ago, and the requirements for larger motors - 40,960Ns of impulse - are severe, including 6DOF flight simulations and fallout prediction for every launch. http://www.rocketryplanet.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2740&Itemid=28
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
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
AP explodes... The PEPCON explosion demonstrates that (at about 2:24): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8RY_ibNq3c
AP is the oxidizer in the APCP propellant.
We really need to get rid of the BATFE. They're modus operandi is to overstep their bounds and push for more power and restriction in all sectors. They've got no business as a part of our government.
The ATF/BATFE came into existence as a way to shore up Prohibition era anti-alcohol agents. Instead of fire them, they created a new regulatory agency for them to work within. It's been nothing short of a disaster: a quick look can see that they're made mistake after mistake, and tend to operate carelessly and with little regard for the laws themselves. Instead, they rely on internal ATF regulations.
This rogue agency has burnt to death over 80 men, women and children at Waco, executed a woman and her baby at Ruby Ridge, MT, and have killed unarmed home owners at a multitude of illegal raids nationwide. They destroy honest gun dealers by illegally confiscating millions of dollars of inventory, and even lying under oath in court. The regulations they subject people to are vague, contradictory, and onerous. They constantly try to destroy the status quo of firearm ownership - and the standing of the 2nd Amendment - through regulation, outside the context of the 2nd Amendment (ignoring it outright).
This organization really needs to go. It's like having the RIAA as a legit part of the government with its own enforcement squads, which if obviously completely unacceptable.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Posting anon to not undo mods...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_March
Short version: US Veterans marched on DC for better veterans benefits. After the DC police fired on the marchers, killing 2, the US Army was called in... which responded to the marchers with a cavalry charge and bayonet attack.
The BATF tried to argue that Ammonium Perchlorate Composite fuel was an explosive, not Ammonium Perchlorate by itself. There is a very big difference.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
As was recognized by SCOTUS in its recent 2nd Amendment decision, our founding fathers were well aware that the biggest danger to a democratic form of government was a standing army. (A "well regulated" militia is an army, as opposed to the citizen's militia, which is not "well regulated".) However, an army was needed to protect the nation from invasion.
So: a standing army being necessary to the security of the government, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed... to act as a counter-force to the well regulated militia, if necessary.
In other words, we have the right to keep and bear arms in order to protect ourselves from our own government, and its army. This is exactly why, historically, it was our right to possess military grade arms that was protected.
Neither the NAR Model Rocket code or the High Power safety code prohibit active guidance syatems.
http://www.nar.org/NARmrsc.html
http://www.nar.org/NARhpsc.html
They both prohibit launching a rocket AT A TARGET.
In fact, a rocket with active guidance (a "sunseeker") won a NAR R+D award a few years ago. George Gassaway built it, but his webpage seems to be down at the moment...
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
You should qualify that, however. Where I live, and also in California and certain other states, if someone is forcefully invading my home, I have the right to keep them away using deadly force if necessary.
Plain and simple: if someone tries to force their way into my home, they are going to get shot. I don't give a damn whether they make me fear for my life or not. And it is specifically spelled out in the law that this is self-defense, not murder.
Some years back, California legislators got tired of all the bullshit lawsuits by burglars against homeowners who shot them. They passed a law that specifically stated that if someone is forcefully trying to enter your home, you have the right to shoot them. And it is the same in my state.
You have the irrevokable right to do anything you believe is right if you have the means and can get away with it. You also have a duty to know what is right with confidence commensurate with the effects of your actions IMHO.
...
Alright now I can build the rocket that I never wanted! 8==D
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.
And now we come full circle, as the first gun control laws targeted free blacks to make them easier to lynch. Unarmed women are also easier to rape.
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.
The nature of humanity has not substantially changed in 250 years. Our toys have, and the extent that we bullsh*t ourselves about our current superiority has, but human nature? Unchanged.
Some principles, facts and philosophies are timeless. Others change with the season. I doubt you can differentiate between the two.
If 'right at the current time' is the sole basis of a legitimate 'right', then rights are subject to being argued away by charlatans and sophists. I'll pass, thank you, and fix my rights to be eternal and unchanging.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.