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
