[FS] Hangar 11, Inc. motor availability

All your remarks are fine Jerry. it all fits in nicely it is all shiny and sqeaky clean. I AGREE WITH IT.

but again you have one VERY major problem.

the ATF says 55.141 does not apply. Now what ?

Do you have a big enouhg stick to survive if they decide to enforce it ?

Chris Taylor

formatting link

555.141-a-7-v
Reply to
Chris Taylor Jr
Loading thread data ...

Refer to my cited text. At any actual point of contact with an ATF agent on this issue, point to it. They are duty bound to follow the law. They cannot read and understand it. We know that. We have to show it to them. Train them. They are gun nuts not rocket zealots. They do not understand us. And why should they?

10 times and counting.
Reply to
Jerry Irvine

You and they share one thing in common: a learning disability.

So train them. Show them the law they themselves cannot read and understand. I would love to be a fly on the wall when Chris intersects with an ATF agent. Pay-per-view webcam!

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

I do not have a stick to weild.

sure you might be right. I keep telling you that.

I could test their resolve. quote 55.141 and explain it to them and all might be hunky dory.

OR they might lock me up throw away the key cry terrorists sympathiser (sp) and try me till my life is ruined totally.

if I win. woopee I get to fly a few rockets. if I lose my life is over.

Sorry jerry with those conditions I am not willing to be the test subject or guinia pig.

Like I said set yourself up as a dealer for say aerotech or cesaroni or AMW motors.

got to lots of major launches all over the place and sell motors for a year without require leup. I mean goto to lots of launches sell lots of motors. in in 6 months you are not in jail or being charged with something I will bow to your wisdom and take your advise.

till them I am going to play wait and see since its possibly my LIFE at stake.

I can argue with a cop of a ticket. worst it will cost me is the price of said ticket (assuming a minor offense off course)

THIS offense IF it proves to exist could RUIN MY LIFE. Literally.

simply not worth the risk. this IS after all just my hobby. No hoby is worth ones life for little gain

Reply to
Chris Taylor Jr

I have a suggestion. At least try.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Again jerry you did not read what I said. in fact you clipped it JUST BEFORE the most important thing I was going to say.

Let me explain it another way for you.

a section of road lowers the speed limit for just short while from 45 to 35 for no reason (classic speed trap)

so I can "test" the resolve of the local police and stay at 45.

if I lose this gamble all I get is a speeding ticket.

If I lose the gamble YOU want me to take no matter how likely or not I could lose my LIFE as I currently know it.

I am sorry I am not that brave.

You could be right. you may even BE right. but if you are wrong I lose BIG and I mean REALLY big.

it simply is not worth that.

Chris Taylor

formatting link

Reply to
Chris Taylor Jr

I want to note I am reading the entire post this time and I agree I did not even bother with the last. CAUGHT!

This is an example of defiance of a known law.

I claim my proposal is inherently better (like unix) because it seeks to "more closely follow" existing law, and to verify that current practice it within the intent and meaning of the law.

The lawsuit codifies it, but we are still stuick with a defective safety code and NFPA code. Blue Ribbon Commission!!!

I have listed the specific defects and remedies numerous times. Not implemented. Just look who was saying right on thios rmr link about the comming depression in rockets. I admit I expected a 30% downturn not

85%.

That's the FED for ya.

Win or loose you KNOW for a fact you have broken the law. More fully, you either knew or strongly suspected the area could be a speed trap and you performed the test anyway. So it is an economic part of the cost of the test. You cannot double account and call it somethig else too.

How? Literally. If you can affirmatively prove you were following the law AND two of your trade associations are battling the ATF over this very point, it seems to me like "substantial compliance has been proven to qualify for such a broad range exemption as:

27 CFR 55.11, "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."

This definition is what is referred to in 27 CFR 55.141(a)(8)

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

Stop shooting rockets then. 60% of your friends already have.

I plan to fly rockets till they pry them from my cold dead fingers. And they probably will. But I will have gone down as a person following the law to the letter and suggesting affirmative ways to make that law better (and regs and model code and safety codes and bylaws).

Have you read my NPRM respose? It supports that other guys position that the test was rigged as a trial balloon on the matter and they wrote code that was not legally enforceable.

Gee I wonder if they will fix their biggest error and reinstate the entire 1.4 class (and higher) as exempt in full.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Not really true or should I say relevant.

lets say speed traps are illegal. (and in many places what I described IS illegal)

he pulls me over anyway. gives me a ticket anyway. I goto court and judge sides against me anyway (kind of like the atf sounds familiar ehh ?)

I say but the law says speed traps are illegal. he says we do not recognize this as a speed trap (even though it truly is)

I still loose.

Do I have a big enough stick to fight it further ? probably not. CAN I fight it further ? probably not.

you say I have followed the law ATF says otherwise.

IF I DEFINED THE LAW you would be set. but I DO NOT they do.

you show me ANYWHERE in your 55.141 or whatever where it says consumer commercially manufactured rocket engine used as designed or intended.

until you show me those specific WORDS you are NOT RIGHT if they do not want you to be right.

Do not give me this propellant actuated Device crap.

THEY define what propellant actuated device. therfore again if they say a Rocket Motor is not a PAD they win.

does not matter if you THINK you are right. THEY define what a PAD is therefore until we have a bigger stick they CAN say a Rocket Motor is NOT A PAD and enforce that as the letter of the law.

Explain to me where I am wrong.

Again if the risk was mearly a ticket I would be standing right next to you since I happen to feel your INTENT is proper and right.

but """IF""" we are wrong the consequences COULD very well be LIFE ALTERING.

Chris Taylor

formatting link

Reply to
Chris Taylor Jr

One more thing. YOU do nto decide what a PAD is. ATF does. PERIOD.

their are only TWO entities that can TRUMP the ATF in defining what a PAD is and that is the GOVERNMENT or a JUDGE.

NOTHING ELSE. Not me NOT you NOT aerotech NO nar etc..

Chris Taylor

formatting link

Reply to
Chris Taylor Jr

No the LAW does. A JUDGE does. They can only bring claims, not complete them. If they bring frivelous claims you can sue them for alot.

Think of it as an income opportunity that you fly rockets doing while you wait :)

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

I cannot protect you from police abuse. In fact I claim police abuse is indeed rampant.

So please do the safe thing. Stop flying rockets for goodness sake.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

The law does nothing.

only the enforcer of the law does. yes that can be a judge. but that has not gone well so far. not bad either but also not well.

the ATF arrests you. that is important.

can you AFFORD to sue them. especially in jail. what is a judge says they are NOT frivelous

can you survive long enough to reap the rewards IF at all ?

Chris Taylor

formatting link

Reply to
Chris Taylor Jr

again are you willing to test their resolve.

still have no explicitly shown provably HOW you would do that if you answer yes.

Reply to
Chris Taylor Jr

For the bilionth time I tested it and won. With no fight at all BTW. I am merely suggesting others do the same. How can you possibly find fault with advocating a law by actual citation to a law enforcement official?

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Your fear has you paralysed. Stop flying rockets. They annoy you.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

PROVE IT. you conveniently "snipped" that part.

Reply to
Chris Taylor Jr

Again you have ignored the content and contributed nothing.

Reply to
Chris Taylor Jr

ditto

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Testimony is proof. Believe me, I know.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

DItto

Reply to
Chris Taylor Jr

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.