Court Ruling - Why are we happy

Ray.. I'd suggest you ready the latest joint statement from NAR and TRA (May 12). It's on the front page of ROL.

" Thus, we believe the legal status of reload kits remains as it was prior to the court opinion."

"...but at least until BATFE's rulemaking is finished and we can challenge it fundamentally, RELOADS ARE NOT PADs. Our most reasonable interpretation on reload kits, is that their legal status has not been altered as a result of the Court opinion."

(caps are mine)

>
Reply to
AZ Woody
Loading thread data ...

I hate to repeat myself, but these guys are truly morons.

Here's proof (again).

Here we go again.

Let me teach you something:

27 CFR 555.141-a-8 was affirmed.

It states:

27 CFR 555.141 exemptions (a) (8) Gasoline, fertilizers, propellant actuated devices, or propellant actuated industrial tools manufactured, imported, or distributed for their intended purposes.

PADS are a defined item/range:

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."

The ORDER is as follows:

formatting link
The most notable excerpt is at the end:

"In addition, the Court finds that the ATF's pronouncement that sport rocket motors are not PADs is invalid because it was made without compliance with the notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures of the OCCA and the APA."

The words, "in addition" means whatever went before, this ADDS to it.

The words, "the Court finds that the ATF's pronouncement that sport rocket motors are not PADs is invalid", is the prime point.

ALL SPORT ROCKET MOTORS ARE EXEMPT.

ALL.

If you have a reading and/or learning disability, that is NOT the judge's fault. Nor the ATF's fault. You now have the LAW and an ORDER telling you the OBVIOUS.

Gonna litigate it till you get a narrow exemption accomplished instead of a broad one?

I would bet the farm on it based on past TRA and NAR practices and policies.

Jerry

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be lead to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

"Don't forget - you've been able to build and fly those large rockets because *someone else* has been able to discuss, and take action on, the very politics you want to shun. If we can't openly talk about the leadership or policies of our national/regional/local organizations, or the regulatory stuff that comes down the pipe from governments, then we can't do anything to effect change to them.

It's a dirty little fact of life, and you ignore it at your own risk..."

- Len Lekx

"Very astute observation. Even after being led by the nose to facts supporting JI's claim, he still says that none exist. He's a troll...pure and simple."

- Mark Simpson NAR 71503 Level II

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Yes, I'm aware of that. The evidence in favor of including reloads in the PAD exemption is still valid, but for the time being it looks like we're stuck.

Reply to
RayDunakin

Two problems with this:

  1. The word "all" is your own addition, and is not found in the ruling.
  2. The phrase "sport rocket motors" doesn't address the issue of reloads.
Reply to
RayDunakin

Your god wrote: The words, "the Court finds that the ATF's pronouncement that sport rocket motors are not PADs is invalid", is the prime point.

RD:

Um, NAR has a list of sport rocket motors.

On that list are SU, RL, hybrids.

Sport rocket motors.

NAR is the arbitrer of the term sport rockets. It even has a magazine called Sport Rocketry that covers SU, RL, Hybrids.

It is obvious to the casual observer and there is no overriding "formal legal definition" of sport rocket to overrule what I just said.

ALSO the court affirmed 27 CFR 555.141-a-8 and sport rocket motors are a tiny fraction of what that covers. It covers ejection charges, igniters, and a wide swath of items.

Jerry

Become an enemy to rocketry. Disagree with me.

Become a friend to rocketry. Advocate freedom and diversity!

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Self stuck ONLY

ONLY

ONLY

Here we go again.

Let me teach you something:

27 CFR 555.141-a-8 was affirmed.

It states:

27 CFR 555.141 exemptions (a) (8) Gasoline, fertilizers, propellant actuated devices, or propellant actuated industrial tools manufactured, imported, or distributed for their intended purposes.

PADS are a defined item/range:

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."

The ORDER is as follows:

formatting link
The most notable excerpt is at the end:

"In addition, the Court finds that the ATF's pronouncement that sport rocket motors are not PADs is invalid because it was made without compliance with the notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures of the OCCA and the APA."

The words, "in addition" means whatever went before, this ADDS to it.

The words, "the Court finds that the ATF's pronouncement that sport rocket motors are not PADs is invalid", is the prime point.

ALL SPORT ROCKET MOTORS ARE EXEMPT.

ALL.

If you have a reading and/or learning disability, that is NOT the judge's fault. Nor the ATF's fault. You now have the LAW and an ORDER telling you the OBVIOUS.

Gonna litigate it till you get a narrow exemption accomplished instead of a broad one?

I would bet the farm on it based on past TRA and NAR practices and policies.

Jerry

"In all truthfulness I would rather read the worst of Jerry's diatribes than the obsequious sycophantic apologies of Mr. Dunakin"

- Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed

"Never ask for permission, you might be told no!"

"Corroborative detail designed to lend verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative"

- Pooh-Bah, The Mikado

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Yup.. until the BATFE does the proper rulemaking, and then even "fully assembled rocket motors" wont be PADs!

Trust me.. This will happen looooooooooong before the BATFE includes a "bag o grains" in the PAD exception.

So much for your "nailgun" stuff, huh Ray!

Thank you for finally admitting that a "bag o grains" is not a "fully assembled rocket motor"!

Reply to
AZ Woody

And one thing Skippy didn't even mention, is that manufacturers/dealers still need BATFE permits, if they are making/receiving reloads, as "fully assembled rocket motors" does not even begin to cover buying grains for resale by a vendor, much less making them for commercial purposes!

Oh Skippy, someone's knocking at your door - and they have badges!

Reply to
AZ Woody

I know you aimed this comment at Dave, but I'll answer for myself. I am not yet a lawyer. I am, however, planning to attend law school, and have already taken and am in the process of taking several more law classes in college, in all of which which I am in the top 2 people in my class.

Also, I took the Law School Admission Test (LSAT) in October, and scored in the 93rd percentile. Talk to me in about 5 years or so, and I'll be a lawyer. In the meantime, I'm a nearly 35-year old full-time working IT professional and part-time student finishing up enough college credits to get into law school.

I have had enough law classes, and have done well enough in them, to be able to read and comprehend legal documents, and to draw substantive, supportable conclusions from what I read. The study of law is about learning to pick out what's important, and paying attention to the details. While fair play (aka "equity") is part of the law, attention to detail is a far bigger part. If the law says something, you won't go far wrong by taking it extremely literally, as written.

The interesting thing, to me, is that Dave and I have not been contradicting what the lawyers said. We have been taking what they have said, what the judge said, and what the law says, reading them all, and drawing the conclusion that the law says what it means.

All I have been saying is that:

1) The judge ruled that fully assembled rocket motors are, for now, correctly classified as Propellant Actuated Devices (PADs), as listed in Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 555 (formerly known as Part 55), Section 841(a)(8). 27 CFR 55.841(a)(8), in full, reads as follows: "(8) Gasoline, fertilizers, propellant actuated devices, or propellant actuated industrial tools manufactured, imported, or distributed for their intended purposes.".

2) 27 CFR 55.841(a)(8) is only one of 9 exemptions mentioned under 27 CFR 555.841(a), which reads, in full: "(a) General. Except for the provisions of Secs. 55.180 and 55.181, this part does not apply to:"

3) The term "this part" in 27 CFR 55.841(a) has a specific legal meaning, in context. It refers, specifically, to the particular Part of the particular Title containing the phrase "this part". In other words, it refers to Part 55 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations (aka 27 CFR 55). This reading is made even more obvious by the fact that the sub-section 841(a) mentions several other sections within the part it's talking about specifically by number.

4) The provisions of sections 55.180 and 55.181 relate to "plastic explosives", which are defined in 27 CFR 55.180(c)(4) as "(4) Plastic explosive means an explosive material in flexible or elastic sheet form formulated with one or more high explosives which in their pure form has a vapor pressure less than 10-\4\ Pa at a temperature of 25 deg.C, is formulated with a binder material, and is as a mixture malleable or flexible at normal room temperature. High explosives, as defined in Sec. 55.202(a), are explosive materials which can be caused to detonate by means of a blasting cap when unconfined."

5) I don't think anyone has ever even alleged that the rocket motors we are talking about are "formulated with one or more high explosives", so the provisions in sections 55.180 and 55.181 of this part (part 55) are clearly not applicable.

6) Since 27 CFR 55.180 and 55.181 are clearly not applicable, what we are left with is an exemption from all of 27 CFR 55. As you can see by perusing

formatting link
, Part

55 regulates all aspects of "Commerce In Explosives", from licensing to storage, to disposal, transportation, or what to do if any is stolen. See 27 CFR 55.41 for general information on Licenses and Permits, for instance.

7) An unequivocal exemption from essentially all of 27 CFR 55 (with the twin exceptions of the sections relating to plastic explosives I mentioned above) means that LEUPs are not needed. It also means that LEMPs are not needed for manufacturing PADs. Assembling a PAD is an unregulated activity, at least as far as the federal explosives regulations in 27 CFR 55 are concerned.

It certainly is not a fully assembled rocket motor, and we weren't claiming that it was. We are reading the law as written, and, taking into account the fact that the judge ruled that fully assembled rocket motors are PADs as listed in 27 CFR 55.841(a)(8), we are seeing what the law says about PADs.

Since the law says that PADs are exempt from *all* of Part 55, except for the bit about plastic explosives (anyone else catch the irony in the plastic explosive subsection being numbered C4?), our fully assembled rocket motors are exempt from all of Part 55 except for the sections about plastic explosives, which are inapplicable. Therefore, storing, assembling, manufacturing, transporting, disposing of, using, transferring, selling, etc. are all *unregulated* activities by the federal explosives regulations.

He said that they had the authority to classify it as a low explosive, based on their own scientific judgement that it is a deflagrating substance. He ruled that we cannot administratively challenge their right to make their own scientific judgement about the material properties of APCP. So, all APCP that is not an ingredient or component of an exempt item can be regulated. APCP that *is* a component of an exempt item (such as a fully assembled rocket motor) is exempt from all of Part 55, including the "Explosives List" promulgated by BATF under the authority given them in 27 CFR 55.23.

I hope this helps to clear things up....

- Rick "Armchair future lawyer" Dickinson

Hope that helps.

Jerry

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

sinker) didn't even mention, is that manufacturers/dealers

Reply to
Chad L. Ellis

No offense taken....could not say the same for the rather rude remarks of others. I am simply trying to learn. frankly with government agencies involved and where the rulings leave this sort of thing open to interpretation...i would be willing to bet these issues might not be interpreted our way in implementation...that's all. and btw you're right in that many agents out there are quite reasonable.

Reply to
Koen O. Loeven

isn't this like saying it's not a PAD until it's in a rocket?

>
Reply to
Koen O. Loeven

Hey, at best, it allows the PAD exception for "fully assembled rocket motors", that is until the BATFE goes thru the proper procedures... (we're talking a few months here)

It means nothing for manufacturers.

It means that dealers need not ask a customer for a LEUP if they sell them a "fully assembled rocket motor" and not a "Bag o grains". But then again, that means the vendor or an LEUP holder must assemble the "fully assembled rocket motor". Won't work for a cert, as the flier has to assemble the motor (unless it's SU)!

The legal status of "reloads" didn't change per the joint announcement for NAR/TRA on May 12, so for now, nothing has changed for "reload users".

So, with a few individual exceptions, the ruling means nothing to most of us..... Other than the cash donated to the legal fund, which resulted in next to nothing!

Chad... "If the agency responsible for enforcement doesn't acknowledge the PAD exemption for reload kits you are going to have a problem."

Remember - as of 5/12 our nationals (our side in the battle) also says that the exception doesn't apply to reloads. It's not just the BATFE.

nwrddc03.gnilink.net!cyclone2.gnilink.net!cyclone1.gnilink.net!gnilink.ne

t!bigfeed2.bellsouth.net!news.bellsouth.net!elnk-atl-nf1!newsfeed.earthli

nk.net!newshosting.com!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfe

ed.fjserv.net!nnx.oleane.net!oleane!feed.ac-versailles.fr!fu-berlin.de!un

Reply to
AZ Woody

Reply to
Chad L. Ellis

Chad..

"The ATF, who issues the permit, is the one that matters. What TRA/NAR say means nothing."

Don't agree 100% here... if the BATFE says "A" and NAR/TRA says "not really A", I'd research it, and try to figure out what's real.. But in this case, the BATFE said "A" and NAR/TRA said "A for now, but it might change later", I guess that "A is the way to go.

I've had a LEUP for about a year, and don't plan on giving it up!

nwrddc03.gnilink.net!cyclone2.gnilink.net!cyclone1.gnilink.net!gnilink.ne

t!bigfeed2.bellsouth.net!news.bellsouth.net!elnk-atl-nf1!newsfeed.earthli

nk.net!newshosting.com!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfe

ed.fjserv.net!nnx.oleane.net!oleane!feed.ac-versailles.fr!fu-berlin.de!un

(nwrddc03.gnilink.net)

Reply to
AZ Woody

In fact, IF the arguments for reload = intended use = PAD were actually above reproach.....then why did the federal judge NOT dismiss the 2 other issues concerning the 62.5g limit. QED.

Reply to
Koen O. Loeven

Ok....... right....back to the original post we go..... emphasis of "at best" and "fully assembled"

Reply to
Koen O. Loeven

I didn't read that they said the exception didn't apply. I read the exception specifically mentioned the Aerotech letter, which only mentions fully assembled rocket motors. It does not say "not applicable to reloads".

I'm with Ray on this one. I have a bag of propellant peices that are designed to operate a propellant actuated device. I feel they are exempt. Especially if I store them in close proximity to their intended casing. The intent to use them in said casing is clear. Like the BP exemption, intent is very important. If you have a 50 lb keg of BP in the basement, and several foot long pipes with endcaps and igniters, you won't benefit from the exemption. Just ask Jerry....

steve

Reply to
default

Easy - Because the art of cutting babies in half is always a messy business... Especially when it's squirming. VBG.

Obviously to be continued...

Best, Andy

Motorman wrote

Reply to
Andy

The other causes of action were about rulemaking. Because a rule change was pending no answer was offered. I am not clear on why the judge would not simply rule on the rules as set forth on the moment of filing of the lawsuit.

It must be a result of it being an ADMINISTRATIVE proceeding where the position of the regulator has the benefit of the doubt, no matter how wacky.

Jerry

Those comments below are rude. Take it from an expert.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.