The Extreme Rocketry Article NAR Did Not Want You To Read & Censored !!
Submitted for publication on Dec. 8, 2002 to Extreme Rocketry magazine at their request. Censored from publication on Dec. 12, 2002 by Mark B. Bundick, President of NAR.
I posted this information to my rocket club mailing list and these two interesting bits of information popped up
Fehskens, Len wrote:
Once more with feeling: the NAR did not "censor" this article. NAR counsel advised the NAR President that they thought publication of the article was inadvisable in the current litigation climate. The NAR President communicated this opinion to the publisher of Extreme Rocketry. The publisher agreed.
Tha NAR has no authority whatsoever over the publisher of Extreme Rocketry.
len.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Eric, Jack and the rest of you.
As a follow-up to Jack's comments, I think that it is important to realize that 3 separate issues are being addressed as if they were all the same. They are not.
1.) The modification, and/or revocation of existing laws and regulations interfering with HPR by the judicial system intervention. This is a reactive approach and is what the NAR lawsuit is all about.
This course of action takes a lot of time and a lot of money. I have personal experience here. I spent 18K$ to overturn a zoning appeals board decision that granted to a neighbor a variance to build a new commercial building in a residentially zone neighborhood. This is explicitly unallowed by the town zoning by-laws. I was countersued by the neighbor on frivolous grounds (his lawyer could have been disbarred for bringing this case to court) which was also ruled in my favor. The whole thing took more than 2 years to reach a conclusion. Our lawsuit may be definitive, but objectively it will take a long time to conclude in spite of what anyone says.
2.) Lobbying the legislature to get a new law enacted. This is a proactive approach and is what John Wickman is doing.
The success of lobbying depends greatly on who you know. If you don't know anyone it can be very expensive and ineffective since only numbers count to elected officials. Let's get real and face the facts: There are only several thousand adults involved in HPR out of the more than 100,000,000 potential voters. At most we're a pimple on the butt of the legislature. Collectively we have no political clout. If John has the connections, he should go for it.
I don't see any conflict between NAR's lawsuit and John's lobbying. They may accomplish the same end effect but their efforts are totally different. I also don't see what Bunny's concerns were over John submission to Extreme Rocketry. It is a factual representation of what will happen under the new HSA regulations. Anyone following the new regulations already knew everything he stated. I think everyone over reacted. IMHO Bunny should not have said anything and the editor should not have asked. Don't ask, don't tell. Anyway it's over and done with, lay it to rest.
3. UPS and FEDEX's apparent refusal of rocket motor shipments. As private companies, they can pick and choose what they transport. Period. End of story.
Shipping rocket motors of any kind and/or size has to be done by ground only, and always required a HAZMAT fee if you use private shippers. The USPS has always been cheaper and faster. The private carrier loss is not a big deal for the model rocket crowd, but it makes it harder for the HPR folks. You still can use common carriers for HP shipping but you will have to have a LEUP for interstate HP motor commerce. For those without a LEUP HPR is less certain. Instate I believe you will need the new Federal permit to buy and transport high power but I'm not clear on this aspect of the new regulations. There's always hybrids.
In the proposed new ATF regulations there is a specific exemption for model rocket motors as currently defined, specifically motors with not more than 62.5 grams of any propellant type including APCP, BP etc. Nothing has changed here, and there are no restrictions on the sale and transport of MODEL ROCKET MOTORS. There is no exemption for reloadable motors with more than 62.5 grams of propellant in the new ATF regulations, but I'm not sure there ever was a formal written exemption for "easy access" reloadable motors. So right now L1 and L2 HP folks appear screwed if they don't have a LEAP. This is really the problem that NIR and John should be addressing.
My two cents.
Bob Krech
So in summary, the NAR is doing all it can to keep model rocketry safe and available here in the states. They have serious education programs for teachers. They have self training programs for hobbyists. They are taking legal action against the BATF. You can't ask much more of an organization. Check out www.nar.org for more information.
--- eric
