A Simple Yes or No would be nice

If the ATF says you need a permit, and you ignore them, they have the authority to arrest or fine you. Then you'd get dragged through the legal system for years before getting the same partial victory we have now. So why would anyone do that, rather than take them to court _without_ getting busted?

And ignoring them after they've told you to get a permit ISN'T going to provoke them?? Where's the logic in that?

Learn to read and comprehend English. I admitted only that it would make sense if TRA/NAR limited their battles to those issues directly effecting them. That is not the same as admitting they have done so. Furthermore, the members of those organizations ARE the organizations, so for you to claim that TRA/NAR was not defending the rights of the members is ridiculous.

As for the "hobby in general", which hobby are you referring to? Model rocketry? That's within the scope of NAR and TRA. High power rocketry? Ditto. TRA-EX? That's within the scope of TRA. Amateur rocketry? That's outside the scope of TRA or NAR.

Great, does this mean we're going to be having a whole new round of posts threatening to reveal a secret mosaic?

Jerry responded:

Ok, so then all those reloads you were selling are NOT exempt? Care to go on record with that statement? Let me guess... you really meant to say, "Reloads are exempt if Jerry makes them, but not when Aerotech makes them".

Now why would ATF do that if they had not changed their policies regarding PADs, hmm? Why would ATF tell TRA that LEUPs were necessary for the purchase of rocket motors, if ATF beleived that rocket motors were exempt?

Geez Jerry, at least TRY to apply some logic to your kneejerk anti-TRA posts!

Jerry, you're such an idiot. Being a "rocket expert" does not make you a legal expert. Legal experts are called "lawyers". Self-proclaimed rocket experts who think they know more than lawyers are the ones who get told by judges to "sit down and shut up".

True, they have no more authority than you do, and the real authorities may have a different view of things than the lawyers do. But the lawyers are experts at interpreting the law.

I don't see Jerry doing anything about it either.

Coming from you that is a compliment.

Maybe not "automatically" but I am also a legal excpert on a separate track and from equally exhaustive homework.

Expert witnesses are experts. I am one.

Only a judge determines whether experts or lawyers are correct on the law. In that sense I am equal in status with a lawyer, sir.

You are confusing a local BK rule that in a particular phase of a trial that only licensed attorneys may come forward, and a general case which does not apply at all.

Nope. Advocating a VERY skewed version of it.

The judge interprets it. Only the judge.

It happened.

ALL PADS ARE EXEMPT

27 CFR 555.11, "Propellant Actuated Device. Any tool or special mechanized device or gas generator system which is actuated by a propellant or which releases and directs work through a propellant charge."

Liar.

Their is no "what if and hand ringing" when it comes to DOT, PAD or no PAD. That's who has the boot so for up jerry's a$$ he can taste shoe leather. DOT and ATF; two different issues, with their own individual problems for Jerry.

OK Jerry, this is getting ridiculous. Please speak in plain English. I said rocket motors are PADs, and are exempt. I also said that reloads for PADs are exempt. You appeared to agree with Woody, who was trying to convince me that reloads are NOT exempt. So I'll ask one more time: Do you or do you not agree that reloads are exempt?

I replied:

PADs, hmm? Why would ATF tell TRA that LEUPs were necessary for the purchase of rocket motors, if ATF beleived that rocket motors were exempt?

And Jerry again:

What the Heck Ramsey does that mean?? I never said it didn't happen. You said the ATF never changed their policies regarding rocket motors, yet you said they told TRA that rocket motors required a LEUP. I said that if the ATF told TRA that LEUPs are required for rocket motors, it was proof that the ATF had changed their policy regarding rocket motors as PADs.

Either you've been reduced to babbling completely random words, or you need to take a course in reading comprehension.

I said:

There's plenty of handwringing going on lately about the ATF.

Yes, I'm aware that the DOT is a totally different issue.

In skippy irvine's case, it's both.

Jerry, I've seen you act as your own lawyer in court. You didn't even know the difference between hearsay and evidence, and you thought that if you penciled in "stolen motor" on someone's flight card, that it was somehow magically transformed into proof that the vendor stole the motor. You have shown to me that you have a VERY poor understanding of the law.

Yet another example of your lack of legal prowess. In court, expert witnesses are called on to testify to their field of expertise. If you're called as an expert witness in the field of rocketry, they won't be asking you about law, they'll be asking you about technical aspects rocketry.

Anyone can _interpret_ it. The judge is the only one who's opinion counts. However, short of obtaining a judge's opinion, I'd say that a lawyer is more likely to give one an accurate interpretation than a layman.

So what's a cartridge then? It's not a PAIT -- the tool you put it in is a PAIT. It's not a PAD either. Yet it's exempt.

Intelligent!

LOL!!! You subscribe to three different news-servers so you can Troll, and you accuse ME of being a troll?

The irony... the irony...