Thursday, July 16, 2009

Email from TRA RE. continued conflicts with the BATF

This is a letter sent out recently to certain TRA members.

"TRA Prefects:

I would like to urgently obtain some information related to any inappropriate BATFE actions which you may be aware of since the court judgment was considered "final" (May 15, 2009). I have already been informed of several cases where the agency has sent out obsolete materials for LEUP renewals (such at their "model rocketry" information from 2003), to cases where agents were planning to actually inspect a LEUP-holder's magazine containing APCP motors. While we have been dealing with these on a case-by-case basis, and forwarding the information to the legal team, the continued apparent failure of BATFE to enact the administrative changes required by the court judgment makes a recap of all known enforcement anomalies desirable.

Accordingly, it would be greatly appreciated if you could respond to me with information on any cases you or your members have experienced with BATFE in which the agency has acted in a manner inconsistent with the court judgment, which effectively required them to vacate APCP as a regulated explosive. Please include as much detail as you can, but at a minimum the following would be appreciated:


Name of member
BATFE office involved
BATFE agent name (if known)
Date of occurrence(s)
Brief description of incident
Member response (if any) to agent/agency Agency response (if any) to member response.

It would be appreciated if you could send me, or direct the member involved to send me, an e-mail response within the next 2 or 3 days (send to ken.good@tripoli.org). NAR members will also be requested for responses by Trip Barber, so in cases of dual membership, the message can be sent to both Trip and me.

If you have already reported this to me, please just re-send your original message so I will ensure I don't miss it in my accumulation of incidents.

With this information, we plan to escalate our objections to BATFE's inaction and possibly petition the US District Court for relief from the agency's frustrating lack of responsiveness to enacting changes required by that court's judgment.

Thanks for your assistance.

Ken Good"

2 comments:

DTH Rocket said...

Sorry this isn't related, but I have question. I've heard you say before that for maximum efficiency in multistage rockets, the upperstage motor should have about 1/4 the thrust of the booster, like a G to an E or an S to a Q. Why is that? I'm doing a project on multi-stage rocketry and I just wanted to verify what I thought I heard. Thanks!

~DTH Rocketry

R2K said...

Man what is this guys problem?