WASHINGTON, District of Columbia USA — As the inevitable final round draws closer, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) was back in court yesterday to file their reply in support of their renewed motion for a partial summary judgement in the case brought by the Tripoli Rocketry Association and the National Association of Rocketry.

The case in U.S. District Court seeking to end the ATF's regulatory oversight of ammonium perchlorate composite propellant (APCP), the primary solid propellant used by members of both organizations in single-use rocket motors and reloadable rocket motor reload kits, is still dragging on in the courtroom of District Court Judge Reggie B. Walton. 

Counsel for the Tripoli Rocketry Association and the National Association of Rocketry also appeared to file their reply to the ATF's opposition to the plaintiff's motion for summary judgement as well as a supporting affidavit taken from Gary Rosenfield, owner of RCS Rocket Motor Component, Inc., the parent company of AeroTech Consumer Aerospace and Industrial Solid Propulsion.

ATF's motion was yet more of the same rhetoric of insisting that safety fuse is indeed a reasonable baseline for the measurement of deflagration, demanding that the court defer to its expertise and arrogant posturing of the imminent wisdom of the submitted administrative record and their expert witnesses.  Fact need not be a consideration for the agency, since "the law does not require that an agency's record be free of conflicting information, just that its resulting decision be rational," as quoted from their filings.

ATF appears like a stubborn blood-covered brute entering the 15th round of a championship prize fight, although the facts of the case don't really stack the score for ATF to win by decision. Plaintiff's counsel doesn't appear to be letting up and appears extremely determined to go the distance, letting the judge determine the outcome.

Citing case law as not allowing a federal agency repeated attempts to "get it right," plaintiff attorney Martin Malsch laid the scenario out in plain language: "the agency's half-hearted and woefully inconsistent attempts to regulate APCP in rocket motors is just a 'solution in search of a problem,' even assuming that uses of APCP beyond its 'primary or common purpose' were relevant."

In another footnote, Malsch questions ATF's position that "because APCP is commonly used to fly rockets far enough into the air to require clearance by the FAA, it somehow follows that APCP must function by explosion.  But the FAA is equally concerned about 'unmanned free balloons.' Does ATFE maintain that unmanned free balloons are explosives?"

It's like a comedy, no less, a sad commentary on the United States and its federal government, where apparently much credence can be given to the statement, "It's the government, it doesn't have to make sense."  Is seasoned rationale, common sense and fact enough to overcome in the U.S. judicial branch?

Clearly anyone reading the ongoing saga and plowing through the legal documents can plainly see that not only does the ATF not know what it's doing, it is also painfully obvious that they are committed to covering that fact up and they are extremely inept in doing so.  In spite of this, the most important question at this point is whether it's as painfully obvious to Judge Walton.

The documents filed yesterday consisted of:

• Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendant's Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgement.pdf (579.0KB PDF file)
• Affidavit of Gary Rosenfield for Plaintiffs.pdf (129.9KB PDF file)
• Defendant's Reply in Support of Renewed Motion for Partial Summary Judgement.pdf (92.8KB PDF file)

04-11-2007 10:59 AM  #1
herefishy Certified Level Two   Joined: Mar 2007 Posts: 56	I think that the (Plaintiffs) should determine the radial burn rate of the safety fuse, and enter that data into the record as evidence. MW

04-11-2007 11:28 AM  #2
Aphyle Hot HCl and rubber @ AM   Joined: Dec 2006 Posts: 107	All 14 CFR 101 says about balloons is about their potential for impact with an airplane. It doesn't say what the balloon is filled with. In fact, NWS weather balloons are/were typically filled with hydrogen instead of helium. Is there some other part of the federal register that talks about what balloons are to be filled with if they are to be considered explosives? Eric

04-11-2007 10:08 PM  #3
jsprague New Member   Joined: Sep 2006 Posts: 2	ATF 'linear' burn rate can be shown invalid Our council has missed at least one point in criticising the ATF's incorrect calculation of APCP burn rate. A thought experiment shows that if a motor with identical grain, but half the length, is tested. Their calclation would show a 50% lower number for a burn rate. Or a 100% increased number if the motor is twice as long. Not a very hard measure to discredit.

04-11-2007 10:24 PM  #4
Steve_Shannon When in doubt, ask Keenan   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 1819	Burn rate should be considered a material property and as such should be measured in a way that removes grain geometry from the test. Gary did a super job of explaining strand burner tests so I hope that will carry the argument. All in all I think our team all did a great job. We just have to wait for the outcome and help fund the legal team now.

04-12-2007 02:48 AM  #5
Raider Rocketry Low Power Enthusiast   Joined: Mar 2007 Posts: 128	I had a thought... If the document submitted to the court by the BATFE is a work of fiction, which I believe true in that the methods used to propagate it had no scientific value whatsoever, does that make the document, sworn to be true, perjury? Now that would be funny. "I hereby order this transcript forwarded for review for perjury."

04-12-2007 04:32 PM  #6
crontab Certified Level Three   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 204	Hey, thanks for posting the court filings. The ones posted on the Tripoli website are incomplete. As usual, we can count on Rocketry Planet to be the most comprehensive news site for rocketry there is.

04-12-2007 05:01 PM  #7
ddmobley Administrator   Joined: Jul 2006 Posts: 2533	Quote: Hey, thanks for posting the court filings. The ones posted on the Tripoli website are incomplete. As usual, we can count on Rocketry Planet to be the most comprehensive news site for rocketry there is. Hey, thank James Lipe! He's the great user who is always Johnny-on-the-spot with the filings. It is the users who make Rocketry Planet what it is, I just provide you all with the playground to play in.

04-12-2007 09:34 PM  #8
Len_Lekx Certified Level Two   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 49	It's funny - the BATFE is beginning to sound like the Separatist movement in Quebec. They've held referendum after referendum, trying to support their assertion that they should be an independent country. They've never won yet, but insist that they will keep trying... until the 'Winning Conditions' are met.

04-13-2007 12:05 AM  #9
crontab Certified Level Three   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 204	Pissed off. Tonight, I encountered something that I simply do not understand. On The Rocketry Forum, people were discussing the latest round of court filings and the various takes people had on the subject, again, based on the filings. Along comes Mark Bundick, who posts this: Quote: Folks, I will, as I have after every step in this legal process, caution folks against speculation about our case. BATFE actively monitors rocketry forums on the Net, and the less said about the particulars of the NAR / TRA legal strategy the better. Ken Good, TRA President, and I hope to have a joint statement about the litigation out shortly. Thanks for your ongoing moral (and financial) support: https://blastzone.com/nar/NARfrompr....html#donorform __________________ Mark B. Bundick, President National Association of Rocketry http://www.nar.org http://www.rocketryforum.c...ad.php?s=&threadid=35166 Of course, this was grounds for TRF moderators to close the thread, which they do with every thread which has a modicum of emotion attached to it. But I am extremely confused by what caused Bundick to take this position in this post, because NO ONE THAT I SAW was discussing the NAR/TRA legal strategy. NO ONE knows what the NAR/TRA legal strategy is except the NAR/TRA legal team and associated counsel. BUT, that did NOT stop Bundick from sticking his hand out, yet again, and asking for more money. Personally, I am not a member of the NAR and never will be after witnessing this continued approach by Bundick. I personally find it extremely insulting for the president of the organization to say "SHUT UP BUT PAY UP" in the same breath. If the NAR/TRA legal strategy is so weak that it won't stand up to the people who are paying for it discussing various outcomes, then perhaps we ought not be in the courtroom. Perhaps we ought to be in line at the local ATF offices filling out applications to get our national clubs licensed as LEUP holders. God knows we have spent enough money on this lawsuit to outfit every club for both the NAR and TRA with an explosives permit, pay for a storage magazine and probably have enough left over to give every member 3-4 reloads. I am just sick of this attitude from the people who we have electeed who think we are a bunch of idiots with deep pockets. No matter what the outcome of this lawsuit is, I think it's time to clean house in the national organizations, particularly the NAR. That type of treatment is uncalled for and utterly ridiculous.

04-13-2007 09:40 AM  #10
Steve_Shannon When in doubt, ask Keenan   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 1819	Quote: Personally, I am not a member of the NAR and never will be... (snipped rant about Mark Bundick) I am just sick of this attitude from the people who we have electeed So, how did you elect him and why would you have any say in what NAR does?

04-13-2007 01:34 PM  #11
crontab Certified Level Three   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 204	Still pissed off. Quote: So, how did you elect him and why would you have any say in what NAR does? Steve, the quotes are right there where you put them. I didn't say I elected him, I said we elected them. I help elect the representatives of TRA that the non-TRA member has to live with sitting on boards, committees and teams that draft rules and has input on issues that effect every rocketeer. The same goes for members of NAR who help elect representatives that do the same. Together, WE, elect the people who sit together in their seats in high places that do the things that effect every person in this country that is currently participating in the hobby, who would like to be participating in this hobby or may at some point in the future like to participate in this hobby. Remember, it wasn't that long ago that people could purchase high power motors, go off by themselves and enjoy the pursuit of high power rocketry if they so desired. as long as they followed the approved state and federal laws. Thanks to the do-gooders from the NAR and TRA who sat on the NFPA's Committee on Pyrotechnics, a tax-paying American can no longer enjoy that freedom. Now, thanks to NFPA 1127 and NFPA 1125 that those committee members created, a tax-paying American who wants to pursue high power rocketry now must also belong to a national organization. But I suspect this is nothing new to you, which only makes me wonder even more why you took the approach you did. Tell me, Steve, do you like having your elected organization president tell you that you aren't capable of having this discussion because you aren't intelligent enough to conduct it in a manner that won't assist the ATF? Do you like the implication that you aren't as smart as he is? Do you like to be told to SHUT UP AND PAY UP in the same breathe? If you do, that's fine. But I don't. And I don't expect anyone else to give me grief for the way I feel. This isn't the USSA yet.

04-13-2007 08:58 PM  #12
jimmyc-rocket Certified Level Two   Joined: Mar 2007 Posts: 68	crontab I gather from your post that you are or at least where a member of TRA and the TRA was also involved in the NFPA committee. As NFPA is not law but a guide line set up to assist States in FIRE protection. and Not all states follow NFPA and some states Incorporated it in the laws. Who says you can not fly HPR rockets? If you own your own land and none of your rockets could land off your land what would stop you from doing so. Oh you would still have to follow FAA regulation and BATFE Regulation as they would still apply. TRA and NRA supply the insurance most of us require to obtain lands to fly on and there participation in NFPA was to assist in getting the insurance need by the clubs. Insurance companies need some sort of rules or guide lines to base coverages on. Now I am a member of NRA and TRA and a club that is self insured so only partly follow the safety codes set forth by both national org's. they use the safety codes to a point as we fly Research and consumer rocket motors at every launch. there has never been any reason this would need to be except the fact the safety codes say you can not do it. once again this is for the insurance purposes set forth by the insurance companies. it is kinda like you pay higher rates if you own a Corvette in stead of a Ford focus. The danger of you speeding according to the insurance company is greater in a Vette then in the Ford Focus, Performance versus economy. Now all that said if anyone post on a forum and make statements of their personal opinion the must also expect comments back that my differ in opinion or may be perceived as "being given grief" you are correct we still have a right to freedom of speech and with that freedom you will get opposing comments ,that freedom applies to all . sit back, say what you want, read the comments laugh the keep going on your merry way. life is to short to get all bent out of shape when you get replies to things you say if they do not agree with you. By the way Steve only did to you what you did to Bunny, get over it and lets keep this a nice place to pass on information to each other. Let Freedom Ring and Have a nice day

04-13-2007 09:55 PM  #13
crontab Certified Level Three   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 204	Quote: crontab I gather from your post that you are or at least where a member of TRA and the TRA was also involved in the NFPA committee. As NFPA is not law but a guide line set up to assist States in FIRE protection. You are correct about my organizational affiliation, as required by state law. Jimmy, I don't know how well you have followed the development of NFPA 1122 and 1127. This was started back in the mid-90's and it wasn't for insurance purposes. It was to try and put in place a self-policing mechanism, and along with the multi-leveled certification programs, was offered as an olive branch alternative to BATF and/or other federal regulation. It didn't deter the federal government one iota, and in the end, NFPA 1122 and 1127 in their base form have became included in state law in 42 states currently via the International Fire Code (http://www.iccsafe.org/government/adoption.html). By default, NFPA 1127 calls for the sale of high power rocket motors and reloads to be made ONLY to those individuals who are members of a nationally recognized hobby rocketry organization. This is in addition to any state or federal requirements, obviously, but before the creation of the NFPA code recommendations and the inclusion of that content into the lawbooks of 42 states, a non-member individual could purchase rocket motors if they saw fit. Not so in 42 states today. In the end, we not only have to toe the line on BATF regulation, but we are saddled with national organization membership, written tests and their certification programs. We ended up with MORE, not LESS regulation! Who can you thank for that? Why, the NFPA Pyrotechnics Committee members from the rocketry organizations, who else? For the record, I don't expect to be given a pass for the things I say because the 1st Amendment only protects the rights of citizens from censorship by the government. Last time I checked, Rocketry Planet was not a government agency, so I don't expect freedom of speech here. But I do get tired of people defending Bunny's apparent God complex simply because the people are NAR members. I am challenging them to look at what the current leadership has gotten us: MORE regulation and a running legal bill well into the six figures, a figure that would have been better spent outfitting every local section and prefecture with a magazine, a permit and a gatekeeper. Everyone thinks this lawsuit is a panacea when in fact, after it's all said and done, even if we win, doesn't do a damn thing to remove the regulation for igniters and other explosive mixtures. It is pure folly to expect that even if we win this lawsuit, that the ATF will remove APCP from the list of explosives and walk away, never to be heard from again. The membership has been sold a bill of goods and for the leadership to stick their hand out while at the same time telling the members they can't discuss the proceedings publicly is a insult and an affront, and personally I am sick of the entire charade.

04-14-2007 12:55 AM  #14
Raider Rocketry Low Power Enthusiast   Joined: Mar 2007 Posts: 128	For the record: Not being involved in HP rocketry, but looking forward to becoming involved in the inderminate future, this case doesn't affect me nearly as much as those of you already involved in the HP side. I appreciate everyone here expressing their viewpoint on matters which have become public record, ie: the filings. The ongoing commentary is wonderful and I'm glad I have a place to discuss them here. I'm not sure discussing another forum is a matter to bring to this one. I'm not saying the complaint isn't valid - truth be told I find it disturbing - but my opinion is that it would be better to take it to the mods in a very calm and measured manner. This is just my opinion though. If'n ya wants ta PM me and complain, I'll be more than happy to, and that goes for everyone. I have nothing but time on my hands and a love for the Raiders, the hobby, my guinea pigs, and my children in accending order. I love being here and love the people here, each one of you. There is one point I cannot help but agree with though. We, being members or not being members, of the organizations which have the biggest impact on our hobby affect it. We elect by voting or by not voting who leads us all in the manner of regulations and such. I enjoy, as a person who isn't a member of any of these organizations, what the have accomplished and suffer, sometimes unknowingly, where we have failed to regulate ourselves or are losing ground to a government who becomes at every turn more and more intrusive in our daily lives. Be a member, vote your conscious, support a cause you find just, and stop and smell the rocket fuel. Life is too short to stay angry. I'm with ya Corn. Lemme know if I can help. Thanks, DD, for providing us a place to vent, get information, and enjoy our hobby together.

04-19-2007 11:03 PM  #15
Steve_Shannon When in doubt, ask Keenan   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 1819	Quote: Tell me, Steve, do you like having your elected organization president tell you that you aren't capable of having this discussion because you aren't intelligent enough to conduct it in a manner that won't assist the ATF? Do you like the implication that you aren't as smart as he is? Do you like to be told to SHUT UP AND PAY UP in the same breathe? If you do, that's fine. But I don't. And I don't expect anyone else to give me grief for the way I feel. This isn't the USSA yet. I would not like it if he said that, so I went back and read through what you posted. Here is the quote, from your earlier message: Quote: Folks, I will, as I have after every step in this legal process, caution folks against speculation about our case. BATFE actively monitors rocketry forums on the Net, and the less said about the particulars of the NAR / TRA legal strategy the better. Ken Good, TRA President, and I hope to have a joint statement about the litigation out shortly. Thanks for your ongoing moral (and financial) support: https://blastzone.com/nar/NARfrompr....html#donorform __________________ Mark B. Bundick, President National Association of Rocketry http://www.nar.org What he said seems reasonable: Be careful what we say because ATF is probably listening and thanks for the financial support for the lawsuit which is still needed. I guess I just don't understand why you object so much to that. You represent it as rude, but the way he phrased it is anything but. It seems you just have some issues with TRA and NAR. I'm sorry for that because I really do believe that overall both organizations have been very postive for the hobby. Perfect? No, but nothing is.

04-19-2007 11:46 PM  #16
ddmobley Administrator   Joined: Jul 2006 Posts: 2533	What he said doesn't make sense. He said "the less said about the particulars of the NAR / TRA legal strategy the better." I don't know about you, but I personally don't know what the particulars of TRA/NAR legal strategy are. As far as I know, the only people who do are the TRA/NAR legal team, so if those people have been publicly discussing the particulars of the TRA/NAR legal strategy, it's news to me. Organizations such as TRA and NAR can't operate in a vacuum, and for them to expect their members to pony up contributions in excess of six digits and then keep quiet about the outcome of the contributions is asking a little much. I also like how Bunny refers to it as the "NAR / TRA strategy." The reason that's interesting is because originally the NAR was totally against the idea of a lawsuit, so TRA went ahead on their own. After the fact, the NAR decided to jump on the bandwagon and so now in all the NAR references, it is referred to as the "NAR / TRA lawsuit," while the court documents clearly identify the proper lineage. Very interesting, indeed.

04-20-2007 04:06 PM  #17
crontab Certified Level Three   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 204	Quote: What he said seems reasonable: Be careful what we say because ATF is probably listening and thanks for the financial support for the lawsuit which is still needed. I guess I just don't understand why you object so much to that. What could we possibly say that would undermine their legal work? Like Darrell said, supposing the lawsuit was able to operate in a perfect vacuum and we came up with some stellar legal manuever that won the lawsuit for us, that same strategy would be open to challenge on appeal by the ATF if they so desired. And you can write it on the wall, if the hobby wins the court decision, the ATF will appeal. In fact, if the judge decides in favor of the hobby, he will probably stay any action on the result pending the outcome of any appeal by the defense. As for Bundick thanking members for their financial support, that's a bit facetious. I can thank you without sticking my hand out, and he could have too. If he truly only wanted to thank the members for their support, a simple thank you would have been sufficient. But a thank you coupled with a URL to give even more is clearly seen for what it is. It isn't a thank you. It's a request for more money, a-n-d thank you for what you've already given. It's even more facetious when you thank them majorly for moral support and minorly for financial support, and then include a URL for more of that minorly mentioned financial support. The financial support is "minorly" referenced because it doesn't even rate it's own sentence in his post — it only rates being included in parentheses! Bundick's sentence that begins with "I will, as I have after every step in this legal process..." is nothing more than thinly disguised contempt. He is angry that yet once again, he has to continue to remind the brain-dead membership to keep their mouths shut. He probably uses this same approach with his kids: "I will, as I have every day this week, pick your bicycle up out of the driveway yet again." And can I ask exactly why it takes more than 10 days to put a joint statement together? These documents were filed with the court on the 10th and we are still waiting for this joint statement. The legal process isn't rocket science, but even if it were, they should be able to handle that equally as well.

04-21-2007 11:09 AM  #18
Steve_Shannon When in doubt, ask Keenan   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 1819	Quote: What he said doesn't make sense. He said "the less said about the particulars of the NAR / TRA legal strategy the better." I don't know about you, but I personally don't know what the particulars of TRA/NAR legal strategy are. As far as I know, the only people who do are the TRA/NAR legal team, so if those people have been publicly discussing the particulars of the TRA/NAR legal strategy, it's news to me. Nor do I know the strategy, but when tens of people publicly parse, analyze, and discuss every word in the TRA/NAR filings that can reduce the resources that need to be dedicated by the ATF lawyers (and by the same token our own lawyers). I guess it is a double edged sword. Quote: Organizations such as TRA and NAR can't operate in a vacuum, and for them to expect their members to pony up contributions in excess of six digits and then keep quiet about the outcome of the contributions is asking a little much. I agree wholeheartedly. Like others I want to be deeply embroiled in the discussion. I want to be the one who has the eureka moment and finds the smoking gun in the ATF documents. I guess I just tend to be less suspicious of intentions than you and Crontab. Quote: I also like how Bunny refers to it as the "NAR / TRA strategy." The reason that's interesting is because originally the NAR was totally against the idea of a lawsuit, so TRA went ahead on their own. After the fact, the NAR decided to jump on the bandwagon and so now in all the NAR references, it is referred to as the "NAR / TRA lawsuit," while the court documents clearly identify the proper lineage. Very interesting, indeed. Not surprising though. TRA was started by people who were less content with the status quo, people who then wanted to push the envelope and still do.

04-21-2007 01:08 PM  #19
ddmobley Administrator   Joined: Jul 2006 Posts: 2533	Quote: Like others I want to be deeply embroiled in the discussion. I want to be the one who has the eureka moment and finds the smoking gun in the ATF documents. I guess I just tend to be less suspicious of intentions than you and Crontab. It is human nature to want to read and discuss your reading. And when you pay for the privilege of belonging to an organization, when in fact it is your collective dues that allows the organization to run, you feel like it is your right to read and discuss. And it is irritating to be told not to do something that is natural, especially if you paid for the right. I am not suspicious of intentions. I fully understand them. Some people like to think nobody can do what they are doing any better than they can, they're the best, and because of this, they stay in a volunteer position for DECADES instead of letting others have a hand at things. When you see a person who gets in an office and refuses to let someone else have a turn, you have evidence of someone who has let power go to their head. That's not suspicion, that's pure fact. The result is s-t-a-g-n-a-t-i-o-n, and if you don't think we don't have some stagnant rocketry organizations, then you probably don't spend very much time with the organizational levels. While the field levels seem more immune to this problem, it can happen there as well but not as bad.