Rocket Hobbyists Prevail Over Feds In Court Case 546
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."
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow (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.
Re:terrorists? (Score:4, 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.
Re:second amendment rights (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.
Re:Congrats! (Score:1, Insightful)
Actually, you would be the reason for terrorist attacks... If no one can work on their hobbies (chemistry sets, rocketry, electronics, sound waves), then there will be very little progress made by the backyard / garage inventors who have provided many improvements during the past in many areas of scientific research.
You DO NOT have to be a scientist to love science and want to work with different topics that the government would love to restrict today.
Keep on trying to restrict what we can and can't do, and eventually the terrorist win... America won't have ANY freedoms left.
Dumbass!!!!
Re:Congrats! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wow (Score:2, Insightful)
Some of the motors are 6" in diameter and 5 feet long and weigh a couple hundred pounds and have a thousand pounds of thrust. I generally agree that APCP is not explosive but it's not silly to at least think of some sort of regulation. These aren't black powder 1/2A6-2s from Estes.
Brett
Re:Wow (Score:2, Insightful)
In all fairness, model rocket engines (above the Estes A-D types) are seriously nothing to play around with. A poorly-made engine could easily explode, and licensing the larger ones in the interest of public safety isn't a bad thing. But still, I think the government has far bigger problems to deal with than mis-labeling a rocket propellant and ruining hobbies.
Re:Congrats! (Score:0, Insightful)
Except the "We Know Best"-ocrats are in charge now. The court just ruled that Congress never gave the BATFE power to regulate that chemical.
So expect a rider in one of the "economic stimulus" bills to be snuck in to given them that authority.
Can't be allowing people the chance to hurt themselves, can we?
Re:Wow (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
Because something is potentially dangerous it needs to be regulated?
God, I hate that mentality.
Re:terrorists? (Score:5, Insightful)
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....".
Re:In defense of the BATF? (Score:5, Insightful)
You realize you can buy black powder, by the pound, in cash, with no identification, right?
Re:terrorists? (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.
Re:second amendment rights (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Wow (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:terrorists? (Score:4, 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.
Re:second amendment rights (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:In defense of the BATF? (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re:In other news (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:second amendment rights (Score:2, Insightful)
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"
Re:BATFE is redundant (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:second amendment rights (Score:1, Insightful)
Who in the hell was talking about Israel? This is the United States and United States law.
Re:In defense of the BATF? (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.
Re:second amendment rights (Score:1, Insightful)
true, but no doubt a lot of the techie libertarians who are part of the NRA, are also part of the EFF. The NRA is one organization, focused on the 2nd. The EFF is another, focused on the 1st and 4th. No organization can spread themselves thin, defending every single right.
Re:terrorists? (Score:5, 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.
Re:Wow (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:second amendment rights (Score:3, 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/ [xkcd.com]
Re:second amendment rights (Score:5, 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.
Re:second amendment rights (Score:5, 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.
And yet we won (Score:1, Insightful)
"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.
Re:second amendment rights (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.
Re:second amendment rights (Score:5, 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.
Re:second amendment rights (Score:5, 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?
Re:second amendment rights (Score:3, 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.
Re:second amendment rights (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Congrats! (Score:5, Insightful)
Lust for power isn't limited to only Democrats or only Republicans.
Re:Congrats! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Congrats! (Score:1, Insightful)
terrorists' care about terror not efficient. as long as the jews have to run and hide on the hour every hour, there job is done. put the hobbyists away, for there own good.
Re:Congrats! (Score:2, Insightful)
On what basis are you assuming he's Republican?
Because everybody who questions Obama must be painted as a neo-con who agreed with every single stupid policy of GWB. That way can dismiss them without having to think about whether or not they are making valid points.
Love Obama or hate him he's using some of the exact same political tactics that most of his fans deplored when it was Bush using them. Claiming that he'll "halve the national deficit in four years" comes to mind. Yeah, he might be able to pull that off, but it really isn't that impressive when half of the current national deficit is still greater than the biggest deficits GWB managed to saddle us with. Nor is claiming that he's "removing politics from science" (the stem cell decision) -- hmm, when have Federal funds of any sort ever come without politics?
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.
It's worse than not mitigating them. They actively aided and abetted some of them. Obama had a hand in it [senate.gov] too.
Re:Congrats! (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.
Re:In other news (Score:1, Insightful)
no, the Waco Siege pretty much proved that lies and unsubstantiated rumors about non-existent full-automatic weapons and underage brides can summon a mass-murderer like Janet Reno with homicidal goons to use incendiaries to start fires and gun down those that try to flee.
Give it up. Yeah; your version of reality is closer to the truth, but sooner or later everyone that saw what happened is going to die off, and only the "official" government version of what happened will be available in the history books.
Governments write the history books. Ask any kid today about the bonus march massacre, and you'll get blank stares.
Re:second amendment rights (Score:3, 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 [aclu.org] 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).]
Re:second amendment rights (Score:5, 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.
Finally some good news (Score:1, Insightful)
Good news... finally.
This is a good day for science and imagination.
Re:In other news (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:second amendment rights (Score:1, Insightful)
I think it's fair to say, society has changed since then.
Then amend the constitution.
It's nice to say the constitution is a "living document" but go through the proper process instead of "interpreting" until it becomes toilet paper.
If you don't like it then change it, but don't ignore it.
Re:second amendment rights (Score:3, 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 [wikipedia.org] 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.
Re:second amendment rights (Score:4, 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.
Re:second amendment rights (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Congrats! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:second amendment rights (Score:1, Insightful)
The law of unintended consequences strikes again. If you tell criminals that everyone is armed and dangerous then they will shoot first. Instead of getting mugged or robbed you will get murdered and looted. Guns will be easier to steal. More crimes of passion will result in death.
Furthermore, I wonder why it's so important to score the kill. Why can't you arm yourself with a nonlethal weapon? Is the additional security of a gun really worth the added risk? I suspect that hormones are playing a larger role than reason in the minds of those who feel they need their gun for protection.
Re:second amendment rights (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 :)
Re:In other news (Score:1, Insightful)
When you resort to lawyers, as long as you can find a decent judge, the one with the best case wins.
It's not just a matter of firepower or $$$$.
Re:second amendment rights (Score:3, 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.
Re:Congrats! (Score:5, 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.
Re:second amendment rights (Score:3, Insightful)
Say what? (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.
Re:second amendment rights (Score:3, 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!
Good Decision! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Build your own Quassam at home! (Score:3, 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".
Re:second amendment rights (Score:3, Insightful)
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 [aclu.org]). 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 [wikipedia.org] 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.