Sciencemadness Discussion Board

Rocketry Assoc. beats ATF in court: APCP not an explosive

CyrusGrey - 16-3-2009 at 18:18

Quote:
WASHINGTON, District of Columbia USA — District Court Judge Reggie B. Walton for the District of Columbia today issued an order finding in favor of the Tripoli Rocketry Association and National Association of Rocketry vs. The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The decision followed a status hearing this past Friday in Washington.

Walton's order granted a summary judgment motion in favor of the plaintiffs TRA and NAR, denied the summary judgment motion of BATFE, and vacated the classification of Ammonium Perchlorate Composite Propellant (APCP) as an explosive.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

http://www.rocketryplanet.com/content/view/2788/30/

A small victory of liberty! I saw this article and thought of Sciencemadness.
I havent been here a while because of college classes, but maybe I can find
the time to hang around more.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iEYEARECAAYFAkm/HvEACgkQ2GSt2Y9gf6jS8QCeIFZk4rTCFMzUk/dwHX+HyY7B
XB8AnRTwzrQJfVJGHcudvUKr8gQvFxJh
=KXa0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Edited on 16-3-2009 by CyrusGrey]

Magpie - 16-3-2009 at 18:46

Yes, Cyrus, this is a small but wonderful victory for reason. It's inspiring to see such a court decision after 8 years of eroding personal liberties. Let's hope the tide is turning.



[Edited on 16-3-2009 by Magpie]

kclo4 - 16-3-2009 at 21:31

Sweet! :)

CyrusGrey I didn't notice you were in charge of the Home Chemistry society until today.. Nice job! :D

joeflsts - 17-3-2009 at 04:03

Quote:
Originally posted by Magpie
Yes, Cyrus, this is a small but wonderful victory for reason. It's inspiring to see such a court decision after 8 years of eroding personal liberties. Let's hope the tide is turning.



[Edited on 16-3-2009 by Magpie]


LOL.. It is a victory - ushered in by George W. Bush.
Joe

[Edited on 17-3-2009 by joeflsts]

watson.fawkes - 17-3-2009 at 04:57

Quote:
Originally posted by joeflsts
LOL.. It is a victory - ushered in by George W. Bush.
In order to be effective, it's vital to understand that most individual restrictions of administrative origin are non-partisan. This lawsuit was filed in 2000, when Clinton was still in office. The rule making that predicated the suit happened even before that. Bush did nothing to vacate these rules, though, and he took more direct control of his administration than anybody in recent memory.

hissingnoise - 17-3-2009 at 05:27

That cretin would have had trouble pronouncing the acronym, never mind the entire phrase.
It is, though, one small step for (a) judge; one giant. . .etc!
Does this mean a similar ruling on double-base propellants is in the offing. . .?

[Edited on 17-3-2009 by hissingnoise]

Magpie - 17-3-2009 at 08:56

Oh oh... we are already paying the price for such poor decisions. Cheney is saying "we are less safe now."

hissingnoise - 17-3-2009 at 09:15

A personal take on Cheney---he should be more locked-up than listened to. . .
And Obama is already dispelling the toxic aura of Cheney paranoia people had gotten used to!

joeflsts - 17-3-2009 at 10:05

It was Bush that appointed the judge that rendered the opinion...

Joe

hissingnoise - 17-3-2009 at 12:37

I can't see how he deserves any plaudits for that action. . .
But this ruling on propellants may not stand for long---AP/fuel mixtures are just a bit too borderline, IMO.

watson.fawkes - 17-3-2009 at 18:05

Quote:
Originally posted by hissingnoise
Does this mean a similar ruling on double-base propellants is in the offing. . .?
No. The technical fact at issue was speed of deflagration, not composition.

hissingnoise - 18-3-2009 at 04:05

That's what I thought, and I expect the ruling will be overturned, I regret to say, on the grounds that CPs can be made to detonate.
They'll cite Challenger's "Major Malfunction", for one thing. . .
And the Pepcon blast!

[Edited on 18-3-2009 by hissingnoise]

CyrusGrey - 19-3-2009 at 17:26

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Eeek. How did this get turned political?

I hope this kind of ruling gets repeated, however, I think its probably just an isolated
event. Or maybe I'm just cynical.

IIRC Challenger didn't explode per-say. Rather it disintegrated from aerodynamic
forces followed by a deflagaration of part of the fuel.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iEYEARECAAYFAknC8O4ACgkQ2GSt2Y9gf6gi2wCggPlccMEW/2nGIxCdaax84S71
T2IAnjPmJrNBxwhbQCSdAYQicDKhViOT
=GTz7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Polverone - 19-3-2009 at 17:42

No more presidential discussion in this thread, please.

Definitions

MadHatter - 20-3-2009 at 01:13

This is a victory of sorts because BATFE used to differentiate high explosives from low explosives
in the following manner:

1) High explosives - explodes unconfined
2) Low explosives - explodes when confined

Definition #2, when changed to "deflagration" really loosed up the rules in favor of BATFE.
Think about it. Under such loose restrictions matches, road flares, and propellants
defined as "explosives" with the potential for abuse that BATFE has been notorious
for. As it is matches and propellants are usually designated as flammable solids.
Even slow-burning thermites could be classified this way. The potential for BATFE abuse
is extremely high !

This is a licensing issue more than anything else. The rocketeers objected to the
requirement for a low explosives license for their high performance rocketry.

I'll bet CPSC, the biggest enemy of amateur pyrotechics and rocketry lost their minds
upon learning of the ruling. Give them some valium ! :D

CyrusGrey - 23-3-2009 at 19:50

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

kclo4: I'm not really the leader of the HCS. There isn't really any leader to the HCS.
Woelen is probably the most influential member though. I was one of the founding
members/fathers.

MadHatter: I suppose this means that a whole class of things is no longer under their
licensing scheme? Or would that require another ruling? I never understand all these
legal and political mechanations...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iEYEARECAAYFAknIWH8ACgkQ2GSt2Y9gf6gSsACfVhng31CSMsKYZcTvkZrmZrrF
AMkAnRwIZ/G+yFEugSANTk7Laqk69dn1
=JlsG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

MagicJigPipe - 24-5-2009 at 21:00

No, it just means that they can't do anything else stupid--with this particular substance and only until a rocket loaded with ammonium perchlorate "explodes" in some infant's face. Because that's what explosives do. They kill babies!

Come on guys. You should be rooting for the ATF here! I mean, after all, it's for the children!

hissingnoise - 25-5-2009 at 04:45

Come on MagicJigPipe, the chances of infants getting their little hands on high powered rockets are rather remote. . .
Quote: Originally posted by MagicJigPipe  
Because that's what explosives do. They kill babies!

Yes, they do kill, unfortunately, but why would you think babies are more vulnerable than anyone else?
Babies should be kept out of harm's way as much as possible, obviously, and a launch pad is no place for a baby or a toddler, but babies are in more danger of injury falling out of their prams than they are from rockets exploding in their faces. . .



[Edited on 25-5-2009 by hissingnoise]