This message will report on the status and next steps in our litigation against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE).

Recent and Planned Court Filings

Today, counsel filed our Motion for Summary Judgment. You can download this document here: http://www.tripoli.org/documents/batfe/batfe.shtml BATFE’s Motion for Summary Judgment was also filed today and we will make that available as soon as possible. We invite members to offer input to us on BATFE’s filing. We’ll collect, summarize and forward your input to counsel for consideration.

Oppositions to these summary judgment motions are due to the court by February 28, and replies to oppositions are due March 23, 2007. This process is exactly the same as was done in our initial pass through the court, but now the Court must consider the parties’ arguments in light of the opinion issued by the Court of Appeals and BATFE’s new decision confirming the old one. Assuming there will be no oral argument before Judge Walton, a Count 1 ruling could be issued any time after the March 23, 2007 filings. If, after these three filings, the court needs to be briefed on any material, we believe an oral argument (by counsel) would occur as a follow-up to the scheduled July 27, 2007 status conference, but perhaps before then.

We wish to thank members who provided a complete review of the 2,199 pages of administrative material submitted in October by the BATFE. Your work was helpful to counsel in formulating our motion.

BATFE Field Actions

Members across the country have reported to us the results of recent BATFE inspections of Explosive Permit Holders. Many of those inspections resulted in administrative citations for failure to record purchase and storage of propellant modules of 62.5 grams or less which were not subject to regulation prior to October 10, 2006. Counsel advises that, absent any fines or criminal citations, or formal enforcement orders (a simple promise to avoid specified conduct in the future made in response to a notice of violation or citation is not a formal enforcement order), members should not be overly concerned about such citations. Counsel recommends members note on the notice of action received that these propellant modules were not legally subject to BATFE regulation because APCP is not an explosive and, even if it were, the motors are PADs, and even if the motors aren’t PADs, no actions prior to October 10, 2006 are subject to sanction, but to sign the form and make the promise to comply in the future as requested by your inspector.

Should members experience difficulties beyond the administrative citation as described above, they should contact us so we may confer with counsel on your behalf.

Case Duration and Financial Support

We understand the frustration and anxiety experienced by members given the duration of this litigation. Our legal expenses in preparation for these filings will be considerable, but we are now bringing our strongest technical and legal arguments to the court with the support of a strong win at the Court of Appeals. We continue to urge members to donate to the Legal Defense Fund, so that this litigation may be pursued to a successful end: http://www.tripoli.org/donations.shtml

Every dollar you can donate puts us a bit closer to our goal of freeing the hobby from over burdensome, unnecessary and illegal regulation. We appreciate your strong, steady financial support for this effort, and continue to welcome your inputs, questions and ideas.

When we have further developments, we'll continue to report them here and in our publications.

Ken Good, President
Tripoli Rocketry Association

Mark Bundick, President
National Association of Rocketry