As we celebrate the 227th anniversary of our country’s formal declaration of independence this coming Friday, it’s always useful to review how we’ve evolved since then as a nation.

While I’d be the last to urge anyone to forego the barbecue and beer, and other festivities that have become de rigeur in recent years, I also believe that the event is one to be commemorated, as well as simply celebrated. Which is to say, that I urge all to take a few moments, as sadly too few do, and print out and read (or hopefully reread) Thomas Jefferson’s work of genius, and reflect on why so many died then, and since, to preserve the idea that we have certain “inalienable rights.”

In light of current events, it’s also useful to remind ourselves that “…whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness…”

Along those lines (I’ll explain why in a moment), there is another activity in which we partake on this date that is both a celebration and a commemoration. As dusk approaches, we settle in to watch a display of pyrotechnics that are at once not just awesome and beautiful, but a stark reminder of the price that must often be paid for freedom, in blood and treasure. In fact, it is memorialized in the words of our national anthem, by Francis Scott Key.

Of course, the rockets that we enjoy in our celebration are closely related to some of the weapons of war by which we won our liberation then, and in fact, for decades, and even today, still represent the ultimate weapon when tipped with nuclear warheads. Fortunately, yet more rockets are being developed that may finally render such devices relatively impotent.

But rockets have peaceful uses as well, and not just for fireworks displays. For decades, many young people (including yours truly, back when I was a young person) have built and flown model rockets, often as a prelude to a later career in aerospace engineering. Today, the sport has evolved to the point at which amateurs are about to actually launch payloads into space. The most common propellant for solid-propulsion model rockets is ammonium perchlorate composite propellant (APCP).

Sadly, the misnamed “War on Terrorism” (“terrorism” is a tactic, not an enemy–we are actually at war with radical Islam and Arab nationalism) is about to claim this hobby as another victim. The newly-formed Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATFE–formerly the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms) managed to slip something called the “Safe Explosives Act” into the broader Homeland Security Act signed by President Bush last fall. In it, APCP became a controlled substance, and rocket motors containing more than 62.5 grams of it (only a couple ounces) were essentially reclassified as explosive devices.

This is a misclassification over which the rocketry community has been fighting the agency since APCP first mistakenly appeared on the list of explosives back in the ’70s, and they’ve never been able to get them to remove it, despite pressure from sympathetic legislators. For example, in a letter to the ATFE director, Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY) wrote:”Congress defined an explosive as any chemical mixture or device whose primary or common purpose is to function by explosion. I am told that the ATF claims that the primary or common purpose of a rocket propellant (i.e., ammonium perchlorate composite propellant) is to explode. A rocket propellant is not designed or intended to explode.”

The agency continues to refuse to budge, however. An attempt has been ongoing to get a regulatory exemption for the hobbyists through legislation. Such legislation (Senate bill S724) has been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee, but it continues to place undue restrictions on model rocketry in terms of allowable propellant loading, and it only exempts APCP, leaving open the possibility that ATFE could restrict other (perhaps safer and more effective) propellant types in the future by placing them on its explosives list.

The Justice Department, predictably, is fighting such a change, but their stated fears of home-made anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons, and their misunderstanding of the difference between detonable and non-detonable APCP are, frankly, laughable to anyone who actually understands the technology.

When it comes to decisions with potential implications for public safety, it’s natural for a bureaucrat to want to err on the side of caution, but there are often unintended consequences (e.g., my point that it might actually make it more difficult to develop safer propellants). There are no risk-free choices, and in a free society, we must often make compromises of security versus freedom. In a sense, that’s what the “War on Terror” is all about–how to maintain the proper balance. If our freedoms become too restricted as a result, then it can truly be said that the “terrorists win.”

Ignoring the fact that the hobby of building model rockets has created at least a couple generations of rocket engineers, some argue that still, it is “just a hobby,” and can’t justify the possibly increased risk to the public welfare of reducing restrictions. Given the political response, perhaps it’s been a mistake for the hobbyists to paint their endeavors as harmless and educational, because other than the obligatory “pursuit of happiness,” there’s no apparent constitutional right to entertainment and hobbies.

Ironically, if they were to return to their roots, and proudly proclaim their projects as weapons, then perhaps they could find a sympathetic court under the Second Amendment.

In any event, as we watch the rockets fly on Friday, we should reflect and be thankful that we haven’t yet lost the freedom to view the fireworks with which we celebrate all of our freedoms.