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."

102 of 546 comments (clear)

  1. No Sausage Needed by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
  2. Congrats! by nightfire-unique · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Congrats! by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, but if only it hadn't taken so long. For something that seems like such an obvious ruling (and the judge said so as well), it sure took a long time. Justice that takes 9 years can hardly be called justice.

      --
      Qxe4
    2. Re:Congrats! by camperdave · · Score: 2, Funny

      Justice that takes 9 years can hardly be called justice.

      ... just ice?

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    3. Re:Congrats! by gornzilla · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes, what happened to the old slashdot where you could moderate someone with a +1 for "Like the time I caught the ferry to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for m'shoe. So I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt. Which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on 'em. Gimme five bees for a quarter, you'd say. Now where was I... oh yeah. The important thing was that I had an onion tied to my belt, which was the style at the time. You couldn't get white onions, because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones... "

    4. Re:Congrats! by NormalVisual · · Score: 5, Insightful

      On what basis are you assuming he's Republican? He's just making an observation. You're absolutely right that Bush and his gang did their best to stretch the limits of government power, but he's also correct in saying that Obama, Pelosi, and the rest of their ilk will be doing the same damn thing. And don't forget a Democrat-controlled Congress was in power for the last two years of Bush's term and did exactly squat to mitigate his abuses.

      Lust for power isn't limited to only Democrats or only Republicans.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    5. Re:Congrats! by NormalVisual · · Score: 4, Insightful

      From my perspective there's still no justice in this case. If you or I overstep the bounds of what's legal, we go to jail and/or get fined. When a government agency oversteps their bounds, they just get told, "don't do that again". There needs to be some serious negative reinforcement there to prevent creative interpretations or sheer disregard of the law by those in power.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    6. Re:Congrats! by digitalunity · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually they weren't even told not to do it again. The rule could be recreated provided the BATFE can comply with administrative procedures for classifying APCP as an explosive. As others have noted, that would be very difficult since APCP isn't really explosive.

      I guess my point is when citizens break BATFE rules, they go to prison, get fined or get probation(or all 3). When the BATFE violates it's own rules, they're simply told "No." and given another shot to do it the way they were supposed to.

      --
      You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
    7. 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
    8. Re:Congrats! by digitalunity · · Score: 2, Funny

      I suppose Marijuana does pose a serious risk of starting fires. It is also a leading cause of obesity among stoners.

      Very dangerous indeed.

      --
      You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
    9. Re:Congrats! by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Funny

      Seems to me that the media are the real terrorists, then. Whenever I hear hoopla on the news about "Hamas shooting rockets at Israel," I'm thinking something more like the V2, not a dinky model rocket!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    10. Re:Congrats! by Iamthecheese · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are making a mistake: With or without a degree, with or without a grant, anyone practicing science is a scientist.

      --
      If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    11. Re:Congrats! by MobyDisk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is so important. There's no penalties for passing unconstitutional laws, violating oaths of office, or overstepping legal authority. It kinds defeats the purpose of having limitations on power, if there is no penalty for violating those limitations.

    12. Re:Congrats! by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 2, Funny

      Won't someone PLEASE think about the children!

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
  3. In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    1. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The point is they (the ATF) are a bunch of bungling fools.

    2. Re:In other news by Obfuscant · · Score: 5, Informative
      You know, I'm pretty sure if those wacky religious leaders weren't breaking the law, they'd be left alone.

      You know, the Branch Davidians had a large number of weapons, all LEGAL, and were involved in firearms sales WITH A FEDERAL FIREARMS DEALER PERMIT. The Sheriff knew Koresh personally, and was positive that if ATF had simply asked him to meet with them, he would have shown up. As it was, Koresh was talking to the ATF agents, unarmed, in front of his building when ATF let loose and Koresh was injured.

      So don't go blaming the ATF for the suicidal things nutballs do when the cops come to say no you can't have dozens of 12 year old "wives".

      ATF has nothing to do with "12 year old wives". They are Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. Their search warrant had nothing to do with "12 year old wives", it was based on an allegation already dealt with by the local sheriff that someone had heard "automatic gunfire" coming from the compound. The Sheriff had investigated and determined that nothing illegal was involved. The ATF didn't tell the court this when they got their warrant. In other words, ATF lied.

      Yes, I think it is quite reasonable to blame ATF for shooting someone who is unarmed and standing on their front porch talking to them. It is also reasonable to blame ATF for trying to entrap someone into building them a cut-off shotgun, and to then shoot that person's wife for no cause. (Ruby Ridge)

      Because if you think we should just let people willing to kill themselves be a law unto themselves,

      If you call following federal regulations regarding gun ownership and sales to be "a law unto themselves" because you don't like someone, pretty soon we'll have a society run by your wants and fears instead of the one run by rule of law. I'd say that you were "a law unto yourself" in that case. I know which one I prefer.

    3. 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.

    4. Re:In other news by NormalVisual · · Score: 5, Informative

      It was actually an FBI HRT sniper (Lon Horiuchi) that murdered Vicki Weaver, but that doesn't change the fact that the BATFE isn't much more than a group of thugs that feel they're above the law.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    5. Re:In other news by little_hate_machine · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

  4. 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 Planesdragon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:second amendment rights by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 4, Funny

      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.

      --
      Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
      altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
    3. Re:second amendment rights by MrSteve007 · · Score: 5, Informative

      My good friend is a Stryker brigade C/O. He told me that they deal with and are hit by IED's on a frequent basis, and their APC's take it quite well. He's lost far more guys from snipers. When doing house-to-house searches nothing tips him off more than a quality SKS with a scope.

      Because of snipers using these weapons, they have to essentially 'corral' their strykers, and shoot smoke in the air when they 'mount and dismount.' The main personal hatch is at the rear. Without these tactics, they're picked off one-by-one when exiting. He said they only made that mistake once.

      I'm not downplaying the dangers of IED's but don't disregard the danger of one quality shooter, with a 60 year-old weapon.

    4. Re:second amendment rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      As a mad scientist, I wholeheartedly agree!

    5. 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.

    6. Re:second amendment rights by Ortega-Starfire · · Score: 5, Informative

      No. Read up on Thailand and Israel, where either teachers have guns or armed guards patrol the schools.

      The solution to criminals with guns is citizens with guns.

      --
      ---- Liquid was a patriot ----
    7. Re:second amendment rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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"

    8. Re:second amendment rights by uncqual · · Score: 4, Informative

      Perhaps you didn't notice what "NRA" stands for - it stands for National Rifle Association (not, for example, National Rights Association). Why are you surprised that they don't spend their members' money on issues outside their charter? Other organizations like the ACLU defend a broader range of rights (why, however, the ACLU generally pretends the second amendment doesn't exist perplexes me).

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    9. 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.

    10. Re:second amendment rights by JoshuaZ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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/

    11. Re:second amendment rights by ThePeices · · Score: 4, Funny

      "The solution to criminals with guns is citizens with guns."
      And right there, that comment fully sums up the stereotype the rest of the world sees about US gun laws/ideals.

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

      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 ----
    13. Re:second amendment rights by Renraku · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?
    14. Re:second amendment rights by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
    15. Re:second amendment rights by GooberToo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    16. Re:second amendment rights by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
    17. Re:second amendment rights by theodicey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    18. Re:second amendment rights by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We cannot, however, easily quash a pissed off and unorganized army in a small shit hole of a country.

      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.

    19. Re:second amendment rights by JesseL · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sure; after we disbanded their military, restructured their government, and engineered a retrovirus to genetically alter their genome to rechannel all their aggression into a bizarre pop culture.

      --
      "Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
    20. Re:second amendment rights by uncqual · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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 /.
    21. Re:second amendment rights by GNT · · Score: 4, Informative

      NO. THE PEOPLE HAVE THIS RIGHT. The militia aspect of the 2nd Am is a subordinate inclusive clause, whose presence or absence does not change a RIGHT of the PEOPLE.

    22. Re:second amendment rights by illegalcortex · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    23. Re:second amendment rights by Ortega-Starfire · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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 ----
    24. Re:second amendment rights by Molochi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "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?"
    25. Re:second amendment rights by Osmosis_Garett · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, and look at how safe Thailand and Israel are!

    26. Re:second amendment rights by Anzya · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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)."
    27. Re:second amendment rights by Atario · · Score: 2, Informative

      the ACLU generally pretends the second amendment doesn't exist

      O RLY?

      I think what you meant to say was that their understanding of the 2nd Amendment differs from yours and is therefore invalid.

      --
      "A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
    28. 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 ----
    29. Re:second amendment rights by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.
    30. Re:second amendment rights by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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
    31. Re:second amendment rights by GooberToo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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!

    32. Re:second amendment rights by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Informative

      It so happens that a lot of fatal accidents with guns in the US are caused by guns kept 'under the pillow' as well

      Citation?

      In other words, the rest of us is comparing civilized countries where the rule of law is upheld to other civilized countries and the conclusion can only be: liberal gun laws get a lot more people killed than strict gun laws, if properly upheld

      That's an interesting conclusion. How do you explain how Norway and Finland (two European countries with a lot of civilian guns) have a lower murder rate than Luxembourg (virtually no civilian firearms to speak of) or Poland (very few)? How do you explain how Wyoming and Montana have lower murder rates than New York or California? Could it just be that crime is caused by socio-economic factors and the access to firearms has very little to do with it? I find it interesting how "correlation is not causation" is a standard refrain around here in every argument except those put forth by the gun control crowd.

      The anti-social behaviour of people wanting to be able to 'defend themselves', at great cost to society at large, is despicable.

      A) You haven't demonstrated any "great cost" to society, B) This statement borders on trolling and I'm surprised nobody with mod points caught it. If you are interested in looking at a real study here is an interesting one from Harvard of all places. They set out to disprove the notion that more guns = more violence. It's a pretty compelling read.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    33. Re:second amendment rights by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Informative

      They don't bother with the second amendment because there's another group NRA dedicated to that amendment alone.

      Actually, no, they don't bother with the 2nd amendment because in their own words: "In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue."

      Thanks for playing though. Next time trying actually reading their position on the issue before opening your mouth.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    34. 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.

    35. Re:second amendment rights by Ailill · · Score: 2, Informative

      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 posed the question to an ACLU member. His response was: "There is an entire well funded organization which specifically focuses on second amendment issues. If it were the case that citizens could not get free quality representation on such issues, we would likely cover more second amendment cases. Additionally, since the NRA is more focused they typically have more expertise." His response makes sense to me. Basically, there are many civil liberties which need to be protected. If one is protected exceedingly well by another well funded group, the ACLU should focus on others.

    36. Re:second amendment rights by npsimons · · Score: 2, Insightful

      (why, however, the ACLU generally pretends the second amendment doesn't exist perplexes me).

      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.

    37. 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 /.
  5. Wow by stonedcat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Wow by Darkness404 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But similarly, who can afford them? They aren't just sold for $10 at Wal-Mart. And generally those who can afford them and buy them will be the people who know much more about rockets then either you or me. The thought that because these things are regulated will suddenly make them be only in the hands of those who are good is a myth, it will only make getting them a pain. Remember 9/11. The planes weren't hijacked by anything that is regulated (or hopefully will be regulated) they were hijacked by boxcutters, today anyone can go into a hardware store and buy boxcutters, even most bomb attacks were not bought as bombs but as fertilizer or other "non-explosive" compounds.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    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:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because something is potentially dangerous it needs to be regulated?

      God, I hate that mentality.

    4. Re:Wow by SpartaChris · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We already have regulation. We have FAA regulations, NFPA regulations and our own regulations. We don't need any more.

    5. 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

    6. Re:Wow by anegg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sure, like we regulate the purchase of gasoline and cars... highly dangerous to neighbors, friends, and enemies. And all you need to buy either one is money... Regulation may be a reasonable solution *if there is a problem that needs a solution*. But lets not go assuming something is a problem when there is no evidence that it is.

  6. Re:terrorists? by TheMeuge · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  7. BATFE is redundant by Migraineman · · Score: 5, Informative

    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?

    1. Re:BATFE is redundant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The BATF (when did they add the E anyway?) was never supposed to be a law enforcement agency. They were created as revenuers, all they were originally supposed to do is make sure the moonshiner's were paying their booze tax.
       

    2. Re:BATFE is redundant by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Funny

      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?

      Yeah, as somebody once mentioned, it's much more reasonable to have it as the name of a store rather than the name of a government agency. I'd go there...

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:BATFE is redundant by PachmanP · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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
  8. If only the UK were more sensible by damburger · · Score: 2, Informative

    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?
  9. Re:terrorists? by thenewguy001 · · Score: 2, Funny

    But those things have far more uses than just destructive activities. Not much use for rocket engines than to deliver a malignant payload. Do amateur rocketeers really need more powerful rockets to shoot into the sky just for kicks? Do they do anything close to scientific research, or is it just "haha lookit my rockit go!"?

  10. 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.

  11. Re:terrorists? by Darkness404 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  12. Re:In defense of the BATF? by bigtangringo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  13. 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.

  14. Re:terrorists? by lenester · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  15. 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!"

  16. 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.

  17. Re:In defense of the BATF? by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 4, Informative

    How hard would it be to synthesize ammonium perchlorate from APCP?

    Pretty difficult. APCP consists of AP and a powdered metal (Al or Mg) locked in a matrix of synthetic rubber. The material has about the consistency of a pencil eraser. Anything that would dissolve away the rubber binder would most likely react with the AP.

    Besides, AP itself was not regulated by the BATFE, except for a VERY finely granulated (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".

    First of all, this whole court decision was based on the fact that APCP is NOT an explosive. Even contained in a sealed metal pipe, it is pretty worthless for building a bomb. And second, these motors will not exactly be "mass distribution" type items you will find on the shelves at Walmart or whatever. Purchase will STILL require certification through one of the 2 national rocketry organizations (NAR or Tripoli), HAZMAT shipping (which can only go to a valid address, not a PO box) and legally using them still requires airspace waivers from the FAA.

    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!

    --
    Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
  18. Re:terrorists? by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  19. 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.

  20. Re:In defense of the BATF? by tylerni7 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

  21. 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.

  22. Next up on the ATF list of banned substances: by cutecub · · Score: 5, Funny

    Mentos and Pepsi.

    -Sean

  23. Re:terrorists? by HBI · · Score: 2, Funny

    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.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
  24. Re:In defense of the BATF? by JustJonK · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  25. Re:terrorists? by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  26. Re:These have to be said.... by Penguinshit · · Score: 3, Funny

    APCP sales just skyrocketed!

  27. ATFE Blows Itself Up by DynaSoar · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
  28. Tannerite anyone? by BobBoring · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  29. Re:terrorists? by georgewilliamherbert · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    This is simply not true.

    First, the FAA (Office of Commercial Spaceflight, or AST) regulates rocketry unless it's intended to be a weapon. I.e., don't load it with explosives or flash powder, or fire it horizontally from a tube, and it's fine.

    Second, guided rockets are fairly ok now.

    The old FAA regulations for rockets treated guided rockets as needing permits or waivers for flights. Now, if you're under certain altitude thresholds and far enough from an airport, it's fine - hovering flight under guidance out on a ranch for example just requires calling the nearest airport and notifying them.

    A flight out of one of the (few) unregulated airspace locations in the US (Black Rock desert, for example) to any altitude, with a rocket with less than 200,000 pound thrust-seconds of impulse (up to about a thousand pounds of propellant, give or take some performance normalizing) also requires no permitting or waiver, other than notifying the nearest airport a day ahead of time.

    Larger rockets, or rockets flown near airports, or not far from innocent bystanders, are subject to increasing scrutiny for safety (of the general public and overflying aircraft).

    Even if you do reach the size or performance that requires a waiver or permit, doing the paperwork is being found by experience to be less burdensome than doing a decent job of designing the rocket and testing it. It just isn't the hardest part of it. If you're spending six months to a year building it, what's a month or two's part time effort on the paperwork?

    If you're in that performance regime and flying near where you could conceivably kill someone, the FAA will quite reasonably give you plenty of free advice on how not to do that, as will plenty of other amateur and semi-professional and professional rocketry people... John Carmack's Armadillo Aerospace has helped other companies and groups out a lot with advice and moral support, and he's far from the only one.

  30. You don't read very well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    The 2nd amendment guarantees your right to a militia.

    "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.

  31. Re:Build your own Quassam at home! by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Funny

    Today we set to find out, whether we can really build a Quassam rocket [wikipedia.org] on a budget.

    I hope they are building them on a budget. 1700+ launches for 28 dead Israeli's doesn't seem like a good ROI to me ;)

    if we can successfully hit police station with it.

    Why am I picturing Adam Savage saying something like "Alright, the way I figure it, we've got a 10% chance of hitting the police station, a 50% chance of it blowing up on the launchpad and a 40% chance of getting arrested! Let's do this thing!"

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  32. 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.
  33. Re:In defense of the BATF? by Alpha830RulZ · · Score: 3, Informative

    You can also buy ammonium nitrate and diesel, by the truckload. Black powder is for pikers.

    Field and Stream, the hunting and fishing magazine, once published an article showing how to build duck ponds to support duck populations. There, in black and white and color, in the library of my junior freaking high, was an article teaching you how to build bombs. It was great.

    --
    I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
  34. Re:Build your own Quassam at home! by Maxmin · · Score: 4, Informative

    1700+ launches for 28 dead Israeli's doesn't seem like a good ROI to me ;)

    Nope, it doesn't. The Israelis do far better... in fact the kill ratio is 100-to-1 in their favor. During the Gaza adventure, IDF killed 1,434 Palestinians, while 13 Israelis were killed (3 by rockets fired.) 5,303 Palestinians injured.

    No wonder the Americans invest in Israel, they're the winning horse...

    --
    O lord, bless this thy holy hand grenade, that with it thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.
  35. Re:In defense of the BATF? by terrymr · · Score: 2, Informative

    How hard would it be to synthesize ammonium perchlorate from APCP?

    Makes about as much sense as buying 4 cases of soda because you need 2 cups of sugar for a recipe.

    All kinds of chemicals you can make explosives out of are mostly unregulated, why goof around trying separate AP out of commercial rocket propellent.

  36. Re:Build your own Quassam at home! by rohan972 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Good luck with hitting anything with an unguided rocket,

    We'll make up for that by doing volume!

  37. Say what? by R2.0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "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
  38. Good Decision! by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The BATF argued that they could regulate model rocket engines, because ammonium perchlorate is an explosive.

    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
  39. Re:Build your own Quassam at home! by The+FNP · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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".