de-regulating rocketry questions - TAKE TWO

He seems to have a clear and likely successful plan for that concern.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine
Loading thread data ...

Well then try this on for size: Not only did you profess what Ray said, you committed a criminal act by shipping your 1.3c hazmat with a packing label fraudulently labeled as model airplane parts. How is that, want to try again for "malicious libel"? Oh that's right, you can't it's backed up by public record.....

Fred

Reply to
W. E. Fred Wallace

Let's see, the package has been variously described as containing "unclassified explosive materials", "model rocket motors and reloading kits", and "1.3C explosive materials"... which was it?

These appear to be mutually exclusive descriptions.

-dave w

Reply to
David Weinshenker

Well Dave, try, "all of the above".. However, there was no "model airplane parts" found in "big fine's" so labeled shipment, now was there?? I can't wait to see your answer or your lack of response..

Fred

Reply to
W. E. Fred Wallace

Jerry - How many hours a day does it take to keep your 'skills' honed as they are?

To be an asshole of your magnitude, I'd think you work out in front of a mirror all day.

Reply to
Phil Stein

Option 40G - that being 40 Grand to the man

Reply to
Phil Stein

No, that's not an oversimplication, it's just an old fashioned lie. Aerotech doesn't "demand" ATF permits, the ATF demands them. And it doesn't matter who "agrees" that rocket motors are exempt, if the ATF doesn't agree.

Gary's been fighting regulation of rocketry by the ATF all along, which is more than we can say for you.

The ATF's proposed rule change is a direct response to the hobby's lawsuit challenging ATF's illegal actions.

Reply to
raydunakin

I wasn't talking to a moron.

I was talking to Gary.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

No it's not.

Moron.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Your right, by your actions you have done less to help and more with potential harm. BTW, should I post the link again??(:-)

What's da matter "big Fine", can't handle the truth or did you forget to take your meds????

fred

Reply to
W. E. Fred Wallace

I was wondering when you would post someting like that.

You are, after all, a one man shit-storm.

My problem way back in 2001 was associated with a SINGLE transaction NOT involving any consumers, and the penalty was applied to a FIRM or INDIVIDUAL.

The actions of Gary Rosenfield (and Chuck Rogers), was associated with EVERY SINGLE HPR transaction involving MANY consumers AND DEALERS AND MANUFACTURERS, and the penalty was applied to a AN ENTIRE INDUSTRY FOR A TIME PERIOD APPROXIMATELY PERMANANTLY.

Slight difference.

Maybe you can detect the difference, maybe not. I doubt it.

Also note I reply to rmr, Gary and Chuck do not re any ATF/DOT/FAA issues.

Jerry.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Well, now you know..

Oh, did I touch a nerve??

No s$%t, re read what you just wrote; applied to you and youe shell firms..

This hobby has evolved over a relative short time. We play with stuff that was/has been regulated for years before the HPR hobby existed; what did you expect; a regulatory free pass as the hobby became more visible? Hopefully, as a result of all the legal wrangling, we will get some type of increased exemption for the consumer. For the manufacture and dealers, fat chance of any exemption unless we are lucky enough for APCP to be treated as BP is for sporting purposes: limits on amount of sale to and individual possession. Anyone who can't see the handwrighting on the wall, can't tell the difference when it is raining or someone is pi$$ing down there back.

Please explain further.

Fred

Reply to
W. E. Fred Wallace

Poor, pathetic jerry.

Reply to
Dave Grayvis

So how about all the other motors you sold and shipped all over the country?

Did you have DOT approval for them?

And which is it, a "FIRM" or an "INDIVIDUAL"? In the case of DPT, it would be the same person either way, jerry irvine.

jerry, Exactly what crimes are you accusing Gary and Chuck of?

No you don't. you never answer a direct question, and I can prove it.

Reply to
Dave Grayvis

Bullshit.

It has always been ATF exempt and ONLY ATF is a problem now.

Why?

If associations and vendors did NOT stick a SHARP rod in the eye of ATF, yes. As I showed 1972-1992. Or so :)

formatting link
Have I posted this often enough yet? You (and most other trolls here) comment with heavy fixation on everything except the issues **I** raise.

AT getting motors logged with ATF. Now PROVEN/RULED unnecessary. TRA getting motors logged with ATF. Now PROVEN/RULED unnecessary. AMW getting motors logged with ATF. Now PROVEN/RULED unnecessary. Ellis getting motors logged with ATF. Now PROVEN/RULED unnecessary. Magnum getting motors logged with ATF. Now PROVEN/RULED unnecessary. Countdown getting motors logged with ATF. Now PROVEN/RULED unnecessary. Hangar 11 getting motors logged with ATF. Now PROVEN/RULED unnecessary. Loki getting motors logged with ATF. Now PROVEN/RULED unnecessary. CTI getting motors logged with ATF. Now PROVEN/RULED unnecessary. etc, etc, etc.

All while I was telling them so :) :) :) :)

Huh? Increased from UNLIMITED? I think not!!!

YOU really ARE a MORON.

** NUKE **

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Full-on dipstick moron wrote and should always be remembered and quoted:

I do not want to be that hopeful and lucky, then be disappointed when it never happens as Fred Wallace "hopes and wishes".

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Correct. You were just talking _like_ a moron.

Reply to
raydunakin

transaction...

Yeah, the one they _caught_ you on.

You shipped those motors to a dealer, who would have sold them to consumers.

Correct, ATF alone is the problem. Not TRA, NAR, Aerotech, etc.

unnecessary.

unnecessary.

Proven by whom? The court case hasn't been settled yet, the judge has made conflicting rulings, and (most importantly) ATF hasn't changed their policies yet. ATF still treats APCP and rocket motors as regulated material.

If there was ever an unlimited exemption, it was before ATF decided to regulate the hobby. Change happens, you know.

Tell us something we don't know. ;)

=87

Reply to
raydunakin

I am not related to you or your drones..

Please explain further..

Fred

Reply to
W. E. Fred Wallace

Name calling, I hope to see you someday in person and see if you are still so inclined. BTW, who was fined for illegal shipping activity??

Do not put words in my mouth. I wish for none of the sort, it's just the reality, as I see it.

Fred

Reply to
W. E. Fred Wallace

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.