Rocketry Planet

After a conference with our legal counsel, we provide the following information to our members on how to proceed in the aftermath of the favorable decision by Judge Walton in our lawsuit to eliminate the unjustified regulation of Ammonium Perchlorate Composite Propellant (APCP) imposed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE).  We cannot offer legal advice to individual members, and members should consult their own legal counsel if there are any questions about how to proceed. 

First, we should assume that the judge's decision "vacating", or rendering null and void, the BATFE regulation of APCP will not take effect until the period for appeal by the BATFE has passed without their filing an appeal.  This will be approximately 60 days from now. However, even if an appeal is filed, it is possible for the Court’s judgment to be in effect and BATFE regulation to be nullified while the appeal is pending.  We will advise you if this is this is the case.

If BATFE should appeal the decision, regardless of the fact that there is almost no credible basis for such an appeal or for the appeal to be approved by the Department of Justice, we should await the results of the appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals before assuming that BATFE no longer regulates APCP in the long term.  However, unless the appellate court grants the agency a “stay of judgment” (which they may request, should they appeal) final judgment will be considered in effect at the end of the 60 day period mentioned above.  At that time, the Judge Walton’s decision will take effect and could only be nullified by an overturn on appeal.  Should the appellate court grant BATFE a stay of judgment, we will have to await the decision of the court before Judge Walton’s decision would be considered final and in effect. An appeal could take up to six months, and possibly more time.  If there is no appeal, then the regulations are automatically cancelled even if BATFE chooses not to publish a notice of such cancellation. 

We will keep our members advised of the status of any appeals and will let you know the exact official date on which the regulations are no longer in effect.  After this official date, you will not be required to have BATFE licenses or be subject to BATFE inspection or oversight for sport rocketry operations with APCP in any quantity and should show a copy of the Court judgment to any BATFE agent who takes an opposite position.

Second, members should proceed for now on the basis that all these BATFE regulations remain in effect.  Appropriate licenses are still required to buy, sell, possess, and/or store APCP until such time as the regulations are cancelled.  If you have a license up for renewal between now and late May (or whatever later date may be determined by any BATFE appeal process), you will have to renew it if you wish to perform any of these transactions.

Third, once the regulations are canceled, members are reminded that high-power user certifications are still required for purchasing or using high-power motors even if BATFE licenses are not.  We have a great reputation as a self-regulating group of responsible hobbyists and our future success in defending the freedom we just won back could depend on maintaining this reputation.

Fourth, this Court decision did not change the regulated status of other sport rocketry items such as black powder, some kinds of igniters, etc.  To the extent that any of these items previously required licenses and magazine storage, nothing has changed.  Nor does the decision affect licensing and regulation by other federal, state or local government agencies. 

We thank our members for their continued patience and for their sustained moral and financial support as we have fought this long battle successfully together.

Ken Good, President
Tripoli Rocketry Association

Trip Barber, President
National Association of Rocketry

Reader comments:

#1 Re: Article: Joint TRA/NAR statement on the lawsuit vs. BATFE

My crow is in the freezer!!!!

rcktnut on 03-18-2009 09:14 PM

#2 Re: Article: Joint TRA/NAR statement on the lawsuit vs. BATFE

First of all, a big thanks for those protecting our "pursuit of (rocket) happiness." My Tripoli dues seem all of a sudden a bargain.

In reading through many of the court records, I can see the point made by the legal team that an appeal is unlikely- the judgment was based on the administrative record available to ATF at the time of their decision. Their decision was arbitrary and capricious because they never even attempted to define burn rate thresholds for regulation, all the while using burn rates as a reason for regulation. Further evidence cannot be used to appeal this ruling. This was my favorite quote from the appeals court:
'the agency seeks to invoke its institutional
expertise as a license for making unarticulated findings.'

There is the potential, if BATFE has nothing better to do, that they could come back and present a rulemaking proposal that defines a threshold burn rate encompassing AP. Or perhaps only faster burning formulas of AP, like Warp 9. They seemed to have gotten tripped up by their own regulatory strategy of limiting regulated AP to 62.5 grams, so I sort of doubt they will take that approach again. I can only hope the pragmatic approach that Obama is trying to lead by will trickle down to the various agencies and they will realize the threat of evildoers using AP for acts of violence is really small.

On a final note, though the BATFE acted poorly in this regard, using vague reasoning and fear to restrict the freedom of its citizenry, I hope readers will realize that not all federal agencies and employees are so inept or spiteful. In fact, some of them are rocketeers and work an honest day.

Chad

chadair on 03-18-2009 09:33 PM

#3 Re: Article: Joint TRA/NAR statement on the lawsuit vs. BATFE

Quote:

Third, once the regulations are canceled, members are reminded that high-power user certifications are still required for purchasing or using high-power motors even if BATFE licenses are not. We have a great reputation as a self-regulating group of responsible hobbyists and our future success in defending the freedom we just won back could depend on maintaining this reputation.

Fourth, this Court decision did not change the regulated status of other sport rocketry items such as black powder, some kinds of igniters, etc. To the extent that any of these items previously required licenses and magazine storage, nothing has changed. Nor does the decision affect licensing and regulation by other federal, state or local government agencies.

NAR is entitled to a full reimbursement of legal fees considering the ruling. In addition they should seek "costs" so the labor applied can be deducted as a taxable event thus reducing the individual tax returns by about 1/3 that commitment.

Next step DOT. APCP falls below the burning rate threshold of Flammable Solid at under 1.0 ips.

Just Jerry

Jerry

Just Jerry on 03-18-2009 10:16 PM

#4 Re: Article: Joint TRA/NAR statement on the lawsuit vs. BATFE

This ruling does not address the BATFE regulation of ignitors and BP, correct?

I've yet to see anything concerning these items.. So we got AP, but you can't ignite them, or fire a recovery charge without a permit.

Don't just take this a "cup half full" guy, as the BATFE may be looking for something they can still enforce..

What does the BOS/BOD of TRA/NAR say about these items? I'd really like to see them make a call, or will we have another 9 year lawsuit?

jmiller on 03-19-2009 01:45 AM

#5 Re: Article: Joint TRA/NAR statement on the lawsuit vs. BATFE

Tried to include this, but anyway:

"Fourth, this Court decision did not change the regulated status of other sport rocketry items such as black powder, some kinds of igniters, etc. To the extent that any of these items previously required licenses and magazine storage, nothing has changed."

So like I said, You can have AP, but what about the other key parts? "I can buy this O motor without the BATFE, but an igniter to fire it it requires a permit"

jmiller on 03-19-2009 01:49 AM

#6 Re: Article: Joint TRA/NAR statement on the lawsuit vs. BATFE

Quote:

Tried to include this, but anyway:

"Fourth, this Court decision did not change the regulated status of other sport rocketry items such as black powder, some kinds of igniters, etc. To the extent that any of these items previously required licenses and magazine storage, nothing has changed."

So like I said, You can have AP, but what about the other key parts? "I can buy this O motor without the BATFE, but an igniter to fire it it requires a permit"

I guess you will just have to buy igniter kits and dip your own. I doubt that they can get pyrogen off the list. As far as BP goes, I just do not see why it is on the list anyways. You can buy it all day long without a permit to begin with.

DM1975 on 03-19-2009 02:09 AM

#7 Re: Article: Joint TRA/NAR statement on the lawsuit vs. BATFE

It is my understanding that igniters included with reload kits, or sold by motor manufacturers as "replacement parts" for those reload kits are exempt from BATFE regs. So if motor manufacturers include igniters with the motor, we're good to go.

As far as ejection charges, there's always Pyrodex or one of the other exempt "black powder substitutes", as well as CO2 ejection systems.

SCE to AUX on 03-19-2009 08:08 AM

#8 Re: Article: Joint TRA/NAR statement on the lawsuit vs. BATFE

I make my own ignitors and will continue to do so. I hate paying for them if one fails and mien are more reliable in my experience.

Chuck

cwbullet on 03-19-2009 08:20 AM

#9 Re: Article: Joint TRA/NAR statement on the lawsuit vs. BATFE

I'm not sure I understand the - wait for the appeal - part of this with the language that we see. But I'm not a lawyer and I didn't sleep in a Holiday Inn Express and I don't have an Easy Button...

To quote my nine-year-old daughter... "Crud Monkeys"!

UncleVanya on 03-19-2009 08:43 AM

#10 Re: Article: Joint TRA/NAR statement on the lawsuit vs. BATFE

Quote:

As far as BP goes, I just do not see why it is on the list anyways. You can buy it all day long without a permit to begin with.

You are allowed to buy up to 50 lbs. of BP for use in firearms, but you are not allowed to use any of that in a rocket without a LEUP. The exception was carved out by congress for shooters only. The enforcement of the rest of it is probably impossible to realistically do in the absence of other charges but none of us wish to be the example.

Steve_Shannon on 03-19-2009 08:59 AM

Comments 1-10 of 54 shown. Click here to read comments 11 through 54.

Registered users can add comments and discuss this article. To participate, please login or register.