Court Ruling - Why are we happy

You can feel however you wish. How you feel won't matter to the ATF agent conducting the inspection. You may win the court battle but what will it cost? I will tell the agent that steve feels it so it must be so.

"I feel they are exempt".

motorman, You may act differently than I given the information at hand. I surmise I won't be hassled by an ATF agent. You seem to think you may be if you have some reload kits. If that's the case, then I'd suggest you chose a different set of actions than I. I accept the risk of a court battle for my interpretation of the law. You, on the other hand, don't have such strong convictions and would rather play it safe it seems. Telling your agent that another person in the US feels it's okay based upon their understanding of the law would have little effect on any action that would pertain to you. I think that's about as silly as referring to oneself as motorman.

steve

Because BOTH NAR and TRA --officially-- say the OPPOSITE.

Now do you AGREE they are morons?

Jerry

"Can you hear me now?"

- Verizon cell phone commercial

I think that's about as silly as referring to oneself as motorman.

steve

I see neither you nor woody can read. Go read the official nar/tra statement and point where it says they think reloads are not pads.

Joel. phx

Rename yourself to chickenshit cannot read the law motorman?

It is just a pseudonym anyway.

- Example of anti-RL:

rulemaking procedure. The Court also overturned BATFE's 2000 "rule" as illegal, and stated, in effect, that the status quo reverted back to conditions outlined in a 1994 letter to Aerotech, Inc.

That letter specifically referred to PADs only as "fully assembled rocket motors." The judge repeated that qualification in his latest opinion, quoting the 1994 letter verbatim. He also confirmed in our recent hearing that this was precisely his understanding of the status of the PAD exemption.

- Example of pro-RL:

BATFE now has a court opinion allow them to potentially regulate APCP, but has no legally promulgated regulation for APCP using weight thresholds and intended use.

- Example of both sides:

Thus, we believe the legal status of reload kits remains as it was prior to the court opinion. BATFE believes reload are subject to regulation, while the NAR and TRA assert they are not.

Counsel has advised NAR and TRA that although it was possible to argue that the reload issue, they recommended that we not do so until the completion of our litigation and BATFE's rulemaking. Until BATFE's rulemaking is finished, the Court completes its ruling on the pending litigation and NAR / TRA counsel has reviewed it for legal challenge, any attempt by NAR and TRA to make a legal determination of the status of reloads would be unwise and may in fact jeopardize our position.

- So don't take a "legal" position. Just "live the lifestyle and invite members to do so without fear or doubt.

Based on counsel's advice, we recommend members and dealers treat fully assembled motors, regardless of propellant mass, as PADs,

- So is NAR going to eliminate the illegal LEMP requirement on SU motors in the next HOUR!?!?!?

- Smoking gun!!!

but at least until BATFE's rulemaking is finished and we can challenge it fundamentally, reloads are not PADs.

- That statement is conclusive.

Our most reasonable interpretation on reload kits, is that their legal status has not been altered as a result of the Court opinion.

- OBVIOUSLY. 27 CFR 555.141-a-8 is CLEAR. All propellant actuated devices are exempt. Reloads are propellant actuated devices.

Members should also be aware that counsel received a letter from ATF disagreeing with the 62.5 threshold, claiming that, as part of the Aerotech letter in 1994, it is the law that the status quo ante reverts back to. We continue to disagree with the ATF, but will probably have to ask the court for clarification at some future date.

On additional points and questions raised by members, counsel has also advised NAR and TRA that our case on remaining counts is quite strong and case rulings to this point have been generally receptive to our legal positions. We have asked counsel to also begin thinking of possible further legal challenges, including appeals. Counsel has researched the possibility of legal fee recovery, and we believe a good legal avenue for such recovery is available to us under 5 USC Sec. 504. Neither further legal challenges nor cost recovery can be undertaken until the current litigation is complete.

Finally, we appreciate the frustration experienced in the field by members and dealers. The legal process is equally frustrating for NAR and TRA leadership as well, but in order to complete what we have begun, we must be patient and let the legal process complete in due time.

- How about live the 27 CFR 555.141-a-8 lifestyle in FULL while it is being litigated since it is AT ISSUE!!

Until then, we recommend members return to the flying field and enjoy the PAD exemption we've obtained.

- "We'veobtained." That's RICH.

We again remind members who either are threatened or receive BATFE enforcement action that they should immediately contact NAR President Mark Bundick via email or at 630-293-9343 or TRA President Dick Embry via email or at 520-241-1582 and provide full details of those actions or threats. NAR/TRA counsel will then seek the appropriate relief for members from Judge Walton's court.

As always, we appreciate the comments, input and support of NAR and TRA members in this fight.

- Moron.

And, as our case proceeds, we will continue to need your financial support to build on this victory. We urge you to make a donation to the Legal Defense Fund today, in whatever amount you possibly can contribute. Your support and generosity will be recognized and acknowledged, and you'll be able to say "I supported the fight for an unregulated sport rocket hobby."

When we have further developments, we'll report them here and in our publications, as soon as possible.

Mark Bundick, President National Association of Rocketry

Dick Embry, President

Good advice coming from the $40,000 man. You can spout all you want but till you practice what you preach it doesn't mean jack.

Actually it lools like he _does_ practice what he preaches - full speed ahead and damn the DOTorpedoes...

-dave w

Not NAR/TRA position, judge's opinion.

Not NAR/TRA opinion, loss of count 1 obviously allowed the ATF to leave APCP on the explosives list.

Ah, so NAR/TRA -DON'T- believe reloads are subject to regulations.

Thanks.

Joel. phx

"based on counsel's advice".

What did the ATF say when you called about LEMPs? Did you get it in writing?

You snipped the smoking gun!!!

Joint NAR/TRA statement: (they smoke joints?)

"but at least until BATFE's rulemaking is finished and we can challenge it fundamentally, reloads are not PADs. "

To repeat:

"reloads are not PADs."

- Mark Bundick, President, National Association of Rocketry & Dick Embry, President Tripoli Rocketry Association

And to add insult to injury:

Joint NAR/TRA statement: (they smoke joints?)

"Until then, we recommend members return to the flying field and enjoy the PAD exemption we've obtained."

THEY OBTAINED it?

You ever hear of 27 CFR 55.141-a-8 (1971) and 27 CFR 555.141-a-8 (4-03)???

Jerry

And I get accused of taking credit for stuff!!!

Point, and people are ignoring that OBVIOUS fact "full speed ahead and damn the [..] Torpedoes..."

Some folks never learn Ray. They claim to have multi-million dollar businesses, and if left alone, could do great things for the hobby. Unfortunately, past history of their activities, appear to gives little support to their exaggerated claims to fame. I guess we will see what happens. Although I have no great expectations for that particular individual, regardless of the verbal support of a few drones. I wonder how much those individuals have invested, of their capital, in the "great things", past or future???

Fred

I'm sorry, I can see where you are still confused.

I said "Go read the official nar/tra statement and point where it says they think reloads are not pads.

Nothing you presented other than the statement that NAR/TRA considers reloads pads is their opinion. The full quote below (which both you and woody continently snip) is 'on advice of counsel'. That neither means they believe them to be regulated nor are reloads in fact regulated. It means under advice of council, it would be in the members best interest to treat them as pads until a ruling can be determined.

"Based on counsel's advice, we recommend members and dealers treat fully assembled motors, regardless of propellant mass, as PADs, 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."

Joel. phx

And, I don't care who's taking credit for what.

So they can LIVE THE LIFESTYLE RISK FREE!!!

GO!!!

EXCEPT SU.

What's your excuse there?!?!?

Or theirs?!?!?

NO LEMP, NO LEUP, NO LE*P. Ever.

Never. Zero Tolerance.

Situational ethics SUPREME.

Jerry

About a criminal investigation.

Fred admitted it.

He admitted his post was actual FUD (unless you are changing your mind again?)

I never posted that.

Your reply is telling indeed.

It took no medication to say that.

Jerry

As is 10 years of whining.

Joel. phx

I take it none were used regarding 'model airplane parts'?