My dialog with the AAG's letter.


Caution: profanity below

Back to the Future
----------------------------------------------------------

We write to offer the views of the Department of Justice on S.724, a bill to exempt certain rocket propellants and other rocketry-related explosive materials from the controls contained in Federal explosives laws. This bill, which seeks to afford high-power sport rocketry enthusiasts the ability to pursue their hobby without regard to the restrictions imposed by law on the acquisition and disposition of explosive materials, is clearly well intentioned.

In fact, there are already restrictions in place on both rocket motors and explosive materials used in rocketry. Certification levels and age limits must be met to purchase hi-power motors. You are just setting up your readers for the remainder of the letter by asserting the initial positions that all materials used in rocketry are explosive materials and that rocketry enthusiasts believe themselves to be above the law ( ..."without regard to the restrictions"... ).

Unfortunately, however, if it becomes law, S. 724 will harm homeland security be providing terrorists and other criminals with unrestricted access to rocket motors containing large amounts of explosive material,

Two problems here, Mr. AAG. First, BATFE can call APCP an "explosive" because it is listed on BATFE's List of Explosive Materials. Unfortunately for Americans, BATFE's only requirement to add a substance to the List is that the BATFE "deems" it necessary; the substance need not meet any testable standard for BATFE to include it. By simply stating it is an explosive, BATFE makes it one. Of course, calling it an explosive is patently false in the case of propellants in general and APCP in particular. Rocket motors do not explode when operated, nor are they intended to operate in an explosive manner. However, once designated an explosive, the material is trapped within the circular definitions of the BATFE and other government regulatory bodies. The problem with all this is that Congress intended for the BATFE to minimize the criminal mis-use of explosives, not to impose restraint upon all materials or devices capable of causing an explosion. BATFE takes it upon itself to determine whether or not materials are explosives, disregarding Congress' intent and any valid and lawful use or application of those materials. Trying to regulate everything that might cause an explosion is impossible and unnecessary. There are so many possible candidates (an infinite number) for regulation that picking any single one boils down to a capricious and arbitrary choice, especially in light of the fact that there are no standards to be met to gain entry onto the List. Congress' failure to limit your ability to classify a material as an explosive does not give you the Right to restrain or limit lawful activity outside your lawful purpose. Congress did not intend for the BATFE to eliminate any and all potential explosion generating materials or devices from American soil.

Secondly, it is neither BATFE's nor DOJ's job to assess terrorist risks or set anti-terrorism policy for America. You should check out the new Department of Homeland Security; it was formed precisely because the DOJ could NOT handle the job. BATFE is a taxing and regulatory agency, not an anti-terrorist organization. BATFE has neither the expertise nor the authority to identify terror risks or implement anti-terrorism regulations. BATFE cannot take it upon itself to base regulatory considerations on it's uninformed opinion of terrorist risk. There are real experts in real anti-terrorist organizations working on the terrorist issue. The real terrorism experts will notify you if they believe additional regulation is required in order to fight terrorism.

as well as to igniters and fuses that can be used to initiate explosive devices.

A rocket motor igniter is a piece of wire coated with a pyrogen in order to ensure the ignition of a relatively hard to ignite grain of rocket propellant. Pyrogen can be made without explosive material content. An explosive device initiator does not even require pyrogen and can be as simple as a piece of plain wire and a flashlight battery.

The Department believes this to be an unnecessary and unacceptable risk

Risk? You're evaluating terrorist risk again? If you have information on terrorist activity involving consumer rocket motors, you should notify the DHS and American people immediately in order to mitigate the consequences. I have actually tried to get "explosive incident" reports from BATFE; FOIA requests for statistics on the use of APCP, or other rocket motors, in explosive incidents are returned to the requesters with all information "blacked out". There is precisely zero available evidence that hobby motors require any regulation at all, let alone additional regulation.

in the current security environment, particularly in view of the fact that significant action (in the form of a regulatory exemption) has already been taken by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to accommodate rocketry hobbyists.

A boldface lie. You are trying to make it appear that the BATFE has been working with rocketeers all along and has made a regulatory exemption "for" us, to "accommodate" us. You do not mention that the "accommodating exemption and regulations" are the very reason S-724 was introduced in the first place. You are trying to shift the "blame" for S-724 from oppressive DOJ actions to "unreasonable rocket hobbyists". Rocketry has done nothing but comply with regulations; YOU keep changing them.

Accordingly, we are strongly opposed to S. 724.

OF COURSE you are; you have to justify your existence somehow.

As you likely are aware, the Federal explosives laws impose certain controls on the manufacture, distribution, and storage of explosives. Under these laws, which are codified at 18 U.S.C.841, et. seq., ATF is required to publish an annual list of explosives deemed to fall within the law's coverage.

There are NO testing or official requirements to be found at the BATFE or DOJ regarding materials or devices to be added to the List of Explosive Materials itself. Regulations establishing the List pointedly mention, "Explosive materials include, but are not limited to, all items in the List of Explosive Materials...". Under this definition, ANYTHING can be regulated by the BATFE. And experience shows the BATFE attempts to do just that.

Since publication of the first such list in 1971, ammonium perchlorate composite propellant (ACPC), the propellant used in many high-power hobby rocket motors (and, for that manner, in the boosters for the Space Shuttle)...

Thanks for pointing out that APCP is safe enough to be used in manned space flight missions and does NOT explode even in the midst of the terrific chaos of a shuttle launch. A lot of government and industry testing has ensured that APCP is as safe as possible.(Note to self: Why don't WE pursue this line? NASA takes extreme care to avoid explosions in their rocket motors and they decided upon APCP as a manned flight rated propellant. If it's not going to detonate inside an SRB, it's never going to detonate. Let's get NASA's opinion on whether rocket propellants, burn, deflagrate, detonate, or operate in an explosive manner. At NASA, as in sport rocketry, an explosion is a disaster, not a launch.)

...has been appropriately classified as an explosive in accordance with the law's definition of explosives.

You mean, inappropriately classified. Consumer APCP meets none of the accepted definitions of an explosive. Explosive regulatory law was intended to regulate those materials designed to exhibit explosive behavior. The largest non-nuclear explosive device on the planet is is a fuel-air bomb. Why aren't hydrocarbon fuels on the List? Gasoline powers our car engines by combusting in an "explosive manner". Let's regulate gasoline. Water heated in a closed container will explode. Pressurized spray paint cans "explode". We cannot, nor did Congress intend that we should, regulate every material or device capable of causing an explosion. Can APCP cause an "explosion"? Certainly. Is it an "explosive"? Certainly not. Being included on the Explosive Materials List is more a comment on the technical incompetence of the BATFE than on the explosive nature of APCP rocket propellants.

That APCP has been correctly classified as an explosive is underscored not only by the generally-accepted scientific understanding of the nature of propellant explosives but also by the fact that APCP is susceptible to use in improvised bombs1.

It is NOT generally accepted that consumer APCP is an explosive. And a million other unregulated materials can be used in an improvised bomb. Does Tim McVeigh ring any bells?. Why pick on rocket propellants?

Moreover, it bears noting that hobby rocket motors containing large amounts of APCP can power extremely large rockets more than 20,000 feet into the air, frequently requiring high-power rocketry hobbyists to obtain waivers from the Federal Aviation Administration prior to a launch.

Oh, that's why; rockets themselves.

These large rocket motors could potentially be adapted by terrorists for use in surface-to-air missiles capable of intercepting commercial and military airplanes at cruise altitude and for use in "light anti-tank" weapons capable of hitting targets from a range of nearly five miles.

Oh...My....God. I can't believe that an adult is saying this to US Senators. It is so inane, so ludicrous, that I can barely force myself to acknowledge it by responding. Okay, deep breath, calm down, talk slowly and to the point ... Are you fucking kidding me??? Adapt an M-class APCP RMS motor to a missile capable of tracking and engaging a jet aircraft at altitude? Are you plain stupid, or just incredibly ignorant? Just how low an IQ does it take to get a job at DOJ? Yeah, I believe this scenario could happen. All you would need besides a hobby rocket motor are the acquisition and targeting radars, an active/passive seeker for the missile, a computer controlled flight and guidance system, HE expanding rod warhead, a dynamic flight capable airframe, control systems, and several backup Copperhead igniters with a 12v launch system. Jeezuz J. Krist, what a load of bullshit. How much tax money was wasted coming up with this imbecilic scenario? Engaging a tank at five miles with an N-2000 powered, remotely targeted, wire guided, computer controlled, all-terrain, shaped charge warhead, 1/2" launch lug with epoxy riveted fin can terror weapon? Get a fucking clue. Hello???? Ever hear of suicide bombers? Car bombs? Airliners and box cutters? Ryder trucks??? How many jet aircraft at cruise altitude have terrorists EVER shot at with homemade rockets or missiles? How many tanks, or anything else, have terrorists ever engaged at five miles with home-built rockets or missiles? How many military organizations WITH military rockets and missiles can do it? What the fuck are you talking about? You think terrorists can construct such weapons and you worry about fuse, igniters, and hobby motors??? What in the hell are you idiots DOING over there with our tax money?? Are you pursuing terrorists and implementing terrorism policies and laws based upon garbage like this??? Is this your plan? Do you realize that the entire fucking world will see your letter??? Do you realize how inane and incompetent it makes you and the American Government look?? If you seriously believe that a terrorist group capable of constructing the weapons you mention exists within the the borders of the United States and would use a Dr. Rocket reloadable hobby motor for the propulsion of those weapons, we have already lost the "war" on terrorism. For cryin out loud, try to get a grip on the REAL issues and REAL threats. I cannot fathom the mindset that would prompt a government agency to use such inane examples in such a desperate attempt to sway the United States Senate. Simply unbelievable. It's what you get when administrators and bureaucrats think they are lawmakers and terrorism experts. Anyone involved in the drafting of this letter should be fired and charged with the mis-use of public funds and resources.

S. 724 purports to provide an all-encompassing, statutory exemption from the Federal explosives controls for only those rocket motors, fuses, and igniters, that are intended to be used in rockets that do not carry an explosive payload. However, the bill provides no mechanism, nor can the Department conceive of a mechanism, to ensure that only rocketry hobbyists or others with lawful intentions will be able to avail themselves of the exemption.

The operative phrase and telling admission here is, "...[N]or can the Department conceive of..." The inability of the Department to even conceive of possible solutions is the root PROBLEM. Your inability is being thrust upon citizens in the form of unnecessary and burdensome regulation. We should not be held responsible for the poor performance and low abilities of the BATFE and DOJ. Perhaps we need to replace those of you in the Department who cannot solve problems in a fair and reasonable manner or even admit that the problems are so complex that a fair and reasonable solution will take time to work out and implement. Instead of working for a reasonable solution against terrorists, you impose unnecessary and short-sighted regulations on private citizens to make it appear you are, at least, doing SOMETHING to help fight terrorism. Quit helping; you're making the problems worse.

Therefore, the unfortunate face is that, if this bill becomes law, it will become very easy for terrorists or other criminals to acquire large rocket motors, fuses, igniters and other materials for use in bombs and/or for use in rockets that have been designed or redesigned as weapons.

Jeezuz. You admit to having had a policy exemption on motors for a long time, but if Congress wants to exempt them, you are opposed to it? Haven't hobbyists, terrorists, and criminals had access to large motors the entire duration of the policy exemption anyways? Has there been a hobby motor rocket attack you haven't told us about? What kind of double-standard... Ohhhhhh, wait a sec... hmmm, okay, now I see; you lose the power, don't you? If Congress exempts motors by law, you no longer have control over them. It would set a precedent for all propellants, wouldn't it? You would lose leverage over citizens. And you would have to do regular taxation and regulatory work dealing with real explosives instead of hassling law abiding citizens in the name of fighting terrorism. Get over yourselves. Now I see why you are objecting to an exemption law; power loss. That's why you don't mention the fact that terrorists and criminals already have access to unlimited amounts of Black Powder, Smokeless Powder, Ammonium Nitrate and Fuel Oil, Gasoline, Fireworks, Nitric and Sulphuric acids and Glycerin, and matches. That's why you don't mention that some of the largest sport rockets flown are NOT based upon APCP. That's why you don't mention R/C plane/glider/vehicle, kite, or balloon delivery systems. That's why you don't mention that any amount of APCP and any number of igniters can be acquired simply by purchasing enough of your exempted motors. You lose power if Congress enacts laws. Lack of regulatory authority decreases your power. It's about power, isn't it, AAG?

Additionally, when these explosive materials are used in a bombing or other terrorist or criminal activity, a lack of required records will make it impossible for law-enforcement authorities to trace the materials to their most recent legal purchaser, thus hindering efforts to bring perpetrators to justice and to prevent additional bombings, rocket attacks, or other incidents.

Rocket attacks, again. You are fixated. Record keeping does not require regulation nor permits. It simply requires record keeping.

The potential for terrorist and/or criminal misuse of rocket motors containing APCP or other propellant explosive is, of course, only one side of the equation when balancing homeland security needs against the ability of law abiding citizens to participate in hobby rocketry activities. We are fully aware that hobbyists have a legitimate and lawful desire to acquire explosive materials in pursuit of their recreational activities.

No, we have no desire at all to acquire explosives. We only desire propellants; materials used to perform work by the controlled generation of gases.

We also understand the role that hobby rocketry plays in inspiring our nation's youth to pursue and further their education in such important fields as physics and mathematics.

No, you don't. If you honestly believed that, you would be on our side. You would understand that sport rocketry contributes to the fight against terrorism by promoting American technological competence and leadership. You would understand that the benefits far outweigh the actual (zero), or potential, mis-use of any rocketry related material. You would promote, rather than regulate, sport rocketry. Your actions speak louder than your words.

Accordingly, and in keeping with congress's intention that the Federal explosives laws not be administered in such a way as to place upon law-abiding citizens any restrictions that are not reasonably necessary to protect against the misuse and unsafe or insecure storage of explosives, ATF has maintained a longstanding policy exemption from the Federal explosives controls for hobby rocket motors containing up to 62.5 grams of propellant explosive.

Accurate, but misleading. The ATF simply chose not to enforce regulations on APCP used in rocket motors, though the actual explosive laws required regulation; your so-called "policy exemption". Large motors were readily available for hobby, terrorist, and criminal uses, though there was never a single instance of a terrorist consumer APCP rocket attack or criminal mis-use of APCP motors during the policy exemption stage. Or at any other time in the history of consumer APCP rocket motors.

This exemption covers more than ninety percent of all rocket motors that are sold to hobby rocketry enthusiasts and encompasses all rocket motors that can lawfully be possessed, pursuant to regulations promulgated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, by children under eighteen years of age.

Your 90% figure is composed primarily of small BP type motors, which were always exempted by BATFE regulation, and it does NOT speak to the number of purchasers who fly both large and small rocket motors. The insinuation is that 90% of rocketeers will not be affected by the new regulations and no children will be. The 62,5 gram limit for kids affects only what the kids can personally purchase and use by themselves. Parents were able to purchase large rocket motors for their kid's rocket and monitor their flights. Many rocketeers fly BP and APCP motors. A real statistic is that your regulations will affect 100% of hi-power rocket motor users and manufacturers.

In view of the ATF's policy exemption, as described above, hobbyists acquiring rocket motors that contain up to 62.5 grams of propellant explosive are not required to obtain a Federal permit or to store their motors in accordance with Federal regulations.

Any number. So I can have ten 62.5 gram motors (and ten igniters) in my garage without a problem. But if I need a single 150 gram motor to fly my camera rocket with, I need a LEUP and a Type-4 magazine to store it in. Yes, that makes a lot of nonsense. Obviously, propellant weights are not the real concern at all as a terrorist could simply buy 10, 50, or 100, 62.5 gram motors and have all the APCP they needed. The real concern, then, must be the SIZE of the rocket that can be launched by larger motors, as you so inelegantly alluded to previously. Then again, very large sport rockets are routinely flown with motors that do not contain APCP at all, so that doesn't make total sense, either. What, exactly, do you see a 62.5 gram exemption accomplishing, other than keeping my camera rocket grounded? I don't understand your concerns, nor your logic.
But in any case, reloadable motors (a very popular motor design developed to lower launch costs) are still affected by the 62.5 gram exemption. The regulation is worded so as to make any reloadable motor or motor user potentially subject to increased regulation, even to the point of making a reloadable motor user a "manufacturer" and requiring then to comply with manufacturing regulations (LEMP) as well.

This will not change under the expanded permitting controls that were set forth in the Safe Explosives Act of 2002 and that took effect on May 24, 2003. Under these newly expanded controls, a person wishing to purchase explosive materials (including rocket motors containing more than 62.5 grams of propellant explosive) will be required to undergo a background check and acquire a Federal permit, even if his acquisition of explosives will be within his own state of residence.

Besides the lack of justification for increased regulation, the Federal permit requires local explosive storage magazines which are not available to many due to the rewording of existing LEUP storage requirements. And how can a Federal agency regulate intra-state commerce (purchase of motors)? Congress does not even have the authority to do that. The DOJ is so far out of whack with reality that it is imposing upon State's Rights in it's blind pursuit of regulations against rocketry.

In formulating the 62.5-gram exemption, ATF determined that this threshold afforded a reasonable balance between the need to prevent terrorists and other criminals from acquiring explosives and the legitimate desire of hobbyists to have easy access to explosives for lawful use.

How many times can you call a propellant an explosive in one letter? Do you think that repeating it enough will convince someone it is true? How did you arrive at the 62.5 gram threshold? The BATFE has NEVER tested APCP for explosive characteristics. You obviously have no concept whatsoever of the technical aspects of sport rocketry, so how could you possibly make a threshold determination that was balanced? Tell me; what information or criteria did you use to arrive at the threshold? What sport rocketry endeavor requires a 62.5 gram motor? What endeavor requires more? Less? What size motors do terrorists need? How much APCP do they need to make their improvised bombs? Why don't you just admit that the 62.5 gram motor exemption was established years ago by other agencies for matters completely unrelated to terror activity? The BATFE simply chose to continue using it AFTER the SEA and HSA were enacted. It had absolutely nothing at all to do with terrorism before, and it has nothing at all to do with terrorism now.

ATF is currently involved in a rulemaking that would establish the 62.5-gram threshold by regulation. As part of the rulemaking, we will consider comments on what the appropriate exemption threshold should be. We believe that, by establishing the threshold through rulemaking, we will be better able to balance the interests of hobby rocketry enthusiasts with the important security concerns at stake. In contrast, S. 724 would establish a statutory exemption that would afford any and all persons (including terrorists and other felons) unrestricted untraceable access to even the largest explosive rocket motors.

What a crock. "Congress, don't worry yourselves over this issue, the BATFE will take care of it for you. Cause if you get involved, you might take away our administrative law power and we really don't want that to happen. We know what's best for America in these trying, terror-ridden times." Your power trip is showing again. And let me give you a hint: stay focused, would you? Are you trying to limit access to possible homemade terrorist weapon propulsion systems, propellant explosives, explosives, APCP, or explosive rocket motors? Your obvious ploy to associate rocket motors with explosives is overworked, inconsistent, and makes your arguments hard to follow. Go back and replace all your various terms and phrases with, "Dr. Terror's evil flying explosive projectiles of doom." It will be more consistent, to the point, and entertaining.

If we can be of additional help to you or other members of the Committee on the Judiciary as you consider S.724, please do not hesitate to call upon us. Thank you for your attention to this matter. The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no objection from the standpoint of the Administration?s program to the presentation of this report.

Sincerely,

William E. Moschella
Assistant Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Legislative Affairs


1. Although APCP and other rocket propellants do not typically detonate, they do function by deflagration (a very fast burning reaction) and are, therefore, properly classified as low explosives.

A suspiciously accurate statement of fact, followed by an erroneous conclusion. Consumer formulated APCP does not detonate: true. Propellants function by deflagration: true as well. Properly classified as a low explosive: false. A tricky ploy to catch the unwary, Mr. AAG. BATFE defines an explosive in terms of deflagration, not the reverse. An explosive deflagrates by definition. Deflagration does not define nor imply an explosive. Deflagration is simply a self-sustaining exothermic combustion reaction, typically in a fuel/oxidizer mixture. The wood burning in your fireplace can be called a slow deflagration. Of course, rocket propellants deflagrate faster than air/wood, but simple deflagration does not imply an explosion, operation in an explosive manner, nor an explosive. You have simply affirmed that rocket motors and rocket propellants do NOT operate in an explosive manner and that they function by a "very fast burning". Thank you for confirming one of my original assertions.

When confined, APCP can produce a violent explosion.

There are no non-violent explosions; another emotional plea. Regardless, almost any reaction producing a state change from solid or liquid to a gas can cause an explosion if confined. Propane can produce an explosion if contained. Dry Ice can produce am explosion through simple phase change (sublimation). This is just a statement of the obvious included for emotional appeal.

Hobby rocketry motors, igniters and other rocketry-related explosive components were involved in at least 258 explosives incidents (bombings, attempted bombings, etc.) from 1997 through 2002.

Any accidents in there, Mr. AAG, or were these all criminal acts? How do APCP propellant or motors figure into those stats? The BATFE doesn't say, even when asked via the Freedom of Information Act. I would guess that the already exempted Estes BP motors constitute the bulk of motors in these incidents. Igniters, fuse, and loose BP could be the the majority contributors as well. Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. Your statistic is useless unless specifics are given to relate it to the issue at hand; APCP rocket motors and propellants of 62.5 grams or more.

2. The requirements for receipt of a Federal Explosives permit are not overly burdensome, and, in fact, are rather simple and straightforward.

Another boldface lie. Let's send a LEUP application to the Senators on the Judiciary Committee and see if they can get one in a simple and straightforward manner. I can't get one because of HOA covenant requirements and Type-4 magazine location variance denials.

High-power hobby rocketry enthusiasts who do not fall within any of the statutory categories of persons prohibited from possessing explosives and who have access to suitable storage magazines for any explosive materials they plan to store will continue to receive their permits in an expeditious fashion under the Safe Explosives Act.

You forgot to include; "...and meet the new requirements of the reworded exemption storage definitions...". Such as "highway", or "inhabited building". Redefining the storage requirements is an insidious way to prevent users from obtaining a LEUP, I must say, Mr. AAG.

----------------------------------------------

A "modified" version of SB-724 (HK-724) was released by the Judiciary Committee and submitted to the Senate. Shamelessly invoking the tragedy of 9/11 for their own personal agendas, Senators Shumer and Lautenberg held a press conference announcing they would block even the modified version of the original exemption legislation. In concert with the DOJ letter above, the Senators revealed the true intent of the HSA/BATFE rules; the regulation of sport rocketry, not explosives.

We are left with the following results of BATFE/DOJ actions post HSA:

1. Politicians are supporting inane regulations in order to promote the illusion they are fighting terrorism. Unable to effect real measures against real terrorists, Congress and the Administration are turning their frustrations against the American public. This is simply a self-serving promotion which they feel is justifiable since the number of sport rocket flyers in America is relatively small and their votes and contributions will not affect re-elections or poll results.

2. The BATFE/DOJ will go to almost any length and trample any American principle or ideal in order to maintain or increase their administrative law-making powers. Current BATFE rules impose restraint on intra-state commerce and trade; something the Federal Government is not allowed to regulate by the Constitution of the United States. BATFE is chartered to regulate explosive materials in the context of industrial and public safety. They are NOT chartered to regulate citizen actions or activities. Regulating sport rockets by making their motors illegal is contrary to the intent of BATFE regulatory powers.

3. The Government, in general, is kowtowing to the terrorists. The threat of violence by the terrorists is shown to be an effective means of imposing hardship and change upon societies. Our Congress does not have the moral fortitude to stand up to the terrorists and maintain the Liberty and Freedoms of our society in the face of potential terrorist violence. They are letting the terrorists win.

4. Terrorists and criminals are not dissuaded by rules, regulations, or laws. That's why they are called terrorists and criminals. Thousands of explosive materials, ingredients, and devices are readily available and are completely unregulated in America, even after the HSA. The explosive used in the Oklahoma City Bombing is available at your local nursery or home improvement store in unlimited quantities. Sport rocket motors are absolutely rare in comparison to any other potential terrorist device. The government has singled out sport rocket motors because the majority of Americans are simply unfamiliar with them and will readily allow the government to pass regulations on activities they don't understand. No one is likely to oppose regulations on "rockets". It is just a device the government is using to acquire more power and control over citizens using 9/11 and terrorism as an excuse. Regulating sport rocketry will do absolutely nothing in the fight against terrorism. It will simply destroy a beneficial, educational, and family oriented hobby. It will also give the government more control over citizen actions; the real intent of the post-HSA rules and regulations.

Get me out of here