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."
second amendment rights (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Wow (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.
Re:terrorists? (Score:3, 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.
I've been dreaming of this day (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:second amendment rights (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:terrorists? (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!"
Re:terrorists? (Score:4, 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.
This was a smackdown (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Wow (Score:5, 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
Re:terrorists? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:In other news (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.
Re:second amendment rights (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Congrats! (Score:1, Interesting)
We do not have a justice system, just a legal system. Do not confuse our current legal system with anything having to do with justice.
Re:terrorists? (Score:3, 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.
Re:Congrats! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:second amendment rights (Score:1, Interesting)
Prove that a single *automatic* weapon from an American FFL has been used in a crime inside or outside the US by any Mexican, or shut your ignorant hole.
Re:second amendment rights (Score:5, 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.
Re:second amendment rights (Score:3, 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.
Re:second amendment rights (Score:3, 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 [slashdot.org] 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"?