[history] MR-LMR-HPR-?

LOL! Yeah, right. That's what Jerry thought when the DOT told him his motors weren't legal to ship.

"Unfortunately, our system of laws is set up so that an agency's own interpretation of its regulations is valid unless you show it to be otherwise. You do that by convincing a court that the agency's interpretation is arbitrary, capricious or without authority." -- Harold Gilliam, Skylighter Inc.

Ummm, your Jerry bashing opinion doesn't matter, nor Jerry's nor the ATFs. What the JUDGE says is what matters and he's ruled the pad exemption exists.

It is sad that being right over Jerry is all that does matter.

Nice quote. You prove my point, NAR/TRA has shown otherwise in a court of law. I'd go to the NAR web page and get the statement, but that would be a waste of my time. Please return to the mindless Jerry bashing and continue to make rmr a valuable asset to the rocket community. Sorry for the interruption.

Here's the JUDGE's words verifying it.

"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."

Here is the court order that is from:

See SOMETHING useful can be saved from this thread.

It took a lot of editing.

That's not what he said in his most recent ruling:

"ORDERED, that the plantiffs' request for the Court to (1) order the ATF to recognize sport rocket motors as propellant actuated devices and (2) order that the Question and Answer sheet currently posted on the ATF's website either be removed or revised are DENIED. It is further ORDERED, that the parties shall proceed with the litigation of this case as previously scheduled by the court."

No, the truth matters. Ignoring any facts that get in the way of what you want is not the truth.

Try reading everything on the case, not just the parts you like.

Too bad that ruling was superceded by the later ruling I just quoted, and which you have consistently refused to acknowledge. You're only half-factual.

Yeah, that's your style -- edit out any facts that happen to be inconvenient.

A form of RELIEF, he said wait till later, not NO.

A form of RELIEF, he said wait till later, not NO.

A form of RELIEF, he said wait till later, not NO.

READ THIS!!!!!

That applies to you and what YOU said!!!!!!

Try understanding the legal meaning of what you read. Have a LAWYER read and explain it to you Ray.

Jerry

Nope. The ruling I quoted was from the "compliant being ruled on".

The ruling you quote from is "on a motion for expidited relief".

Relief must wait till the end.

BUT the fact that it was already ruled that rocket motors are PADS is in no way superceeded. In fact it is now a given.

"In addition"

"In addition, the Court finds that the ATF's pronouncement that sport rocket motors are not PADs is invalid..."

-

It's interesting the phrase "However, this challenge is not properly before the Court.".

Yes, to be more right than Jerry no matter how deep it takes rmr.

Previous statement from NAR/TRA legal (not a bunch of on-line Don Quixotes) and unchanged/corrected: "This means that unless and until BATFE properly promulgates a rule rescinding the 1994 PADs exemption, fully assembled rocket motors are propellant actuated devices under the law and are exempt from regulation by BATFE."

And in the 11/2/04 and 12/22/04 statements from legal: "Also, we again strongly recommend that members in the field report in detail any actions taking by ATF personnel in the field, particularly if they use the ATF's "Questions and Answers" as the basis for their action"

But,.. you win (and rmr loses). I'm going to hit the filter thread shower to see if I can get rid of the stench. Please continue bickering with and quoting Jerry. It leaves those who filter him and his club but one choice.

P.S. If anyone {else} is still reading, please donate to the legal fund

om...

exemption

It is not a "form of relief". He allowed the ATF to continue enforcing their published interpretation of the law, which is that there is no PAD exemption for sport rocket motors. He did say we could take it up later, but until then we're stuck with the ATF's position. "Wait until later" is not "yes".

quoted,

Correct, and until then we're stuck with the ATF's position and enforcement.

No it's not, because in that most recent ruling the judge said the issue of whether or not rocket motors are PADs was not properly before the court. We had to file a NEW motion to get it placed before the court, and until he rules on it, that issue is NOT settled.

Yeah, it contradicts what he said in his previous ruling, but those are the facts whether you like it or not.

And since there is no enforcement, we are stuck with nothing.

Oh, and your fear and loathing in the mean time.

Finding:

"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."

And since there is no enforcement, we are stuck with nothing.

Oh, and your fear and loathing in the mean time.

Finding:

"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."

Jerry

Prove there is no enforcement. Openly manufacture and sell motors without ATF permits.

"Nothing" is not a win.

Random, meaningless insults don't change the facts.

Wanting to grow a bit in the hobby at least to level one. I explored the prospect of being able to acquire some 4F BP for possible use in the future, for a mini dual deployment system. Mini due to the fact that I would incorporate it in a G or less model so I could fly it locally. I appreciate the privilege to travel and see M sized models go up. Really neat but I'd like to be able to enjoy the hobby locally without the special requirements. It looks like in my state, Illinois, I simply have to get a Firearm Owners ID card. Fair enough. Fill out the form, send in the $15.00 (I think) and then I would be able to legally hold BP. I also could acquire a rifle, handgun or shotgun (Getting fingerprinted for a pistol.) and would be able to directly blast away at any or everything, man or beast until arrested, shot or killed. (sarcasm here) Now if I wish to store a few of the larger APCP motors, I have to pay $100.00 a year, get interviewed by the BATF to make sure I have no evil intents and then renew at $100.00 a year to boot. Really makes sense doesn't it. I Damn sure hope the lawsuit is won.

I talked to a rocketeer who says he lives in a residential area about the LEUP issue and he said he got his and the agent said he didn't consider it a problem to store K engines in his house. That certainly goes against the grain although I believe the modeler and the agent are right that it is no big deal.

Kurt Savegnago

The vision of Vern Estes was to DIFFERENTIATE rocketry from firearms and fireworks. Until the most recent spate of TRA/NAR/Quest/Estes/AT leaders forwarded the NFPA process, it was working too.

Most states had "aeromodel" exemptions.

ATF had a wide exemption.

Federal Firearms regs allowed recreational use of BP.

CPSC only wanted to protect children.

FAA increased their exempt limits "the exact amount asked".

ALL new restrictions have been added by NAR/TRA/Quest/Estes/AT via the NFPA process and by the respective BOD's of NAR and TRA by internal rule additions, none of which are motivated or mandated by safety, field practice, or experienced events.

In fact most have been political, bureaucratic, proactive against a problem that does not exist, revenge, or pure ego.

I TOLD YOU SO.

Which they now say does not apply.

IF you parse the sentence that way, maybe. ATF doesn't.

And now they're just as out of control and power-mad as the ATF.

Bull! TRA/NAR do not make ATF policy. They do not make CPSC policy. Internal organizational rules of TRA/NAR did not create ATF's policy to regulate rocket motors, nor can those orgs reverse ATF policy simply by changing their internal rules.

certainly

Did the agent allow the rocketeer to store motors in his house, without a magazine? Or did he simply agree with the rocketeer that such storage was regulatory overkill? Many local agents freely admit that regulating HPR is unnecessary and a waste of their time -- but they still must enforce it. Local agents don't make policy.

F must be for false.

Yes TRA does. I have posted the proof (which you REPEATEDLY ignore). Hence moron.