"Jerry Irvine"

snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:


'Lawyer in his own mind'?
Thought it would be closer 'Legend in his own mind' :)
Ted Novak TRA#5512 IEAS#75
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Lawyer in adverse rmr poster's minds.
Legend in adverse rmr poster's minds.
God in adverse rmr poster's minds.
Humble servent to common rocketeers in my own mind.
Slight variance in opinion to be sure.
Jerry
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jerry Irvine wrote:

jerry, Are you kissing your own ass?
Remember: jerry=Zippy
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jerry Irvine wrote:

"Humble"? Now that has GOT to be one of the funniest things you have EVER posted!
The really sad thing is that it wasn't an attempt at humor, I'm quite sure.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Haven't been to a launch with me lately, eh?
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jerry Irvine wrote:

If you truly had humility, it'd show online, as well as in person.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nope.
You are a full on dickhead online. I hear you are not like that at all in person.
LEARN. Jerry
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jerry Irvine wrote:

Why not? Do you have multiple personalities? Are you aware that there are treatments available these days that can help?

Coming from you, that's a compliment. Apparently it means, "Someone who doesn't fall for Jerry's BS hook, line, and sinker".
c
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jerry Irvine wrote:

Par for the course; the conversation turns where you don't like it, so it goes to personal attacks, swearing, or changing the subject. In this case, we score two out of three.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 07:43:02 -0500, Kevin Trojanowski

Poor Jerry - who said those Medicare cuts backs don't hurt anyone?
Jerry - if you have any pills left, please take them.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Phil Stein wrote:

But not all at once :)
Ted Novak TRA#5512 IEAS#75
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jerry Irvine wrote:

We all know what the law says. We also know what the judge has said, including the unfavorable stuff you like to ignore. The issue is, will the ATF uphold and enforce YOUR interpretation of the law? Apparently you don't really believe what you're preaching, Jerry. If you did, you would welcome the chance to have them prove you are correct. Instead, you writh like a worm on a hot sidewalk at the mere mention of ATF involvement.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What part of REALITY do you not get??
The judge said that exemptions at 55.141 apply to our rocket motors. Section 55.141 (a) begins: General. This part shall not apply with respect to..." (and then enumerates the various exempted circumstances).
The exemption relieves us from the ENTIRE burden of compliance to all regulations of "part 55", not just from only those parts dealing with user permits. Also in part 55 are to be found requirements for manufacture, storage, etc., and the definition of "explosive materials" (in section 55.11) that invokes the "List of Explosive Materials provided for in section 55.23". That means that BATF can "list" things as "explosive" all they want, but that doesn't act to bring PAD's within the definition of "Explosive Materials" - neither their creation and distribution (whether or not considered "commercial"), nor their acquisition, storage and use, are subject to Part 55.
What part of "this part shall not apply to..." are you having such trouble understanding?
Where does is "commercial manufacturer of what is classified as a LE" excluded from the exemption?
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.
and
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 http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_02/27cfr55_02.html , 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.
and
Actually, the PAD exemption specifically exempts PADs from "this part", referring to 27 CFR Part 55 (now renumbered to part 555), which is the term for the section of the law that contains the PAD exemption, and the storage, permitting, and other regulations concerning explosives. By exempting PADs from "this part" using verbiage within "Part 555" (nee 55), PADs are exempt from *all* of the regulations therein.
Note: this is *including* the regulations requiring permits for manufacturers and dealers.
Do a web search for "27 CFR 55" and read it yourself if you don't beleive me.
- Rick "Use the Source, Luke" Dickinson
Dave W:
10 year old documents like 27 CFR part 555 (recently renumbered in implementing the "homeland security act" updates), which contains the exemption at section 141(a)(8) unchanged from when the whole part was numbered "part 55": this sure suggests to me that the Intent of the Legislature, in acting to close the so-called "loophole" involving in-state transfers of actual "Explosives", nevertheless intended to leave the P.A.D. exemption intact.
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jerry Irvine wrote:

Reality is a foreign concept to you, Jerry. That's why you keep quoting people like Rick and Dave instead of posting any real proof that the ATF agrees with your interpretation of the regs. Rick and Dave are not the ATF, they do not have the ATF's authority, and they do not speak for the ATF. Neither do you.
If you really believed and practiced what you preach, you'd be openly manufacturing and selling motors and would not squirm away from any involvement with the ATF. There would be no reason to avoid them if they truly agreed with your interpretation of the regs, because you would be legal in their sight.
No, you don't believe it at all. What you do believe is that you can hide from the ATF, operate under the table, and avoid detection, and that this should be viewed as "compliance" and treated the same as legitimate manufacturers.
I
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The judge said that exemptions at 55.141 apply to our rocket motors. Section 55.141 (a) begins: General. This part shall not apply with respect to..." (and then enumerates the various exempted circumstances).
The exemption relieves us from the ENTIRE burden of compliance to all regulations of "part 55", not just from only those parts dealing with user permits. Also in part 55 are to be found requirements for manufacture, storage, etc., and the definition of "explosive materials" (in section 55.11) that invokes the "List of Explosive Materials provided for in section 55.23". That means that BATF can "list" things as "explosive" all they want, but that doesn't act to bring PAD's within the definition of "Explosive Materials" - neither their creation and distribution (whether or not considered "commercial"), nor their acquisition, storage and use, are subject to Part 55.
What part of "this part shall not apply to..." are you having such trouble understanding?
Where does is "commercial manufacturer of what is classified as a LE" excluded from the exemption?
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.
and
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 http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_02/27cfr55_02.html , 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.
and
Actually, the PAD exemption specifically exempts PADs from "this part", referring to 27 CFR Part 55 (now renumbered to part 555), which is the term for the section of the law that contains the PAD exemption, and the storage, permitting, and other regulations concerning explosives. By exempting PADs from "this part" using verbiage within "Part 555" (nee 55), PADs are exempt from *all* of the regulations therein.
Note: this is *including* the regulations requiring permits for manufacturers and dealers.
Do a web search for "27 CFR 55" and read it yourself if you don't beleive me.
- Rick "Use the Source, Luke" Dickinson
Dave W:
10 year old documents like 27 CFR part 555 (recently renumbered in implementing the "homeland security act" updates), which contains the exemption at section 141(a)(8) unchanged from when the whole part was numbered "part 55": this sure suggests to me that the Intent of the Legislature, in acting to close the so-called "loophole" involving in-state transfers of actual "Explosives", nevertheless intended to leave the P.A.D. exemption intact.
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Usual bs snipped-
I'll take that as a yes. I'll get to work on it tomorrow.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jerry Irvine wrote:

So back it up with verifiable proof, or sit down and shut up.

You've made that claim many times before and have always refused to provide any proof whatsoever.

Depends on how you define it. Is an "expert in contravention to the law" one who knows how to keep his nose clean and avoid a big fine? Or is one who has contravened the law so much that he now owes the government a big fine, has been forced out of the motor business, and is so afraid of possible prosecution that he has to keep his business arrangements wrapped in secrecy?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Okay. But I warn you in advance, you will ignoire it.
The judge said that exemptions at 55.141 apply to our rocket motors. Section 55.141 (a) begins: General. This part shall not apply with respect to..." (and then enumerates the various exempted circumstances).
The exemption relieves us from the ENTIRE burden of compliance to all regulations of "part 55", not just from only those parts dealing with user permits. Also in part 55 are to be found requirements for manufacture, storage, etc., and the definition of "explosive materials" (in section 55.11) that invokes the "List of Explosive Materials provided for in section 55.23". That means that BATF can "list" things as "explosive" all they want, but that doesn't act to bring PAD's within the definition of "Explosive Materials" - neither their creation and distribution (whether or not considered "commercial"), nor their acquisition, storage and use, are subject to Part 55.
What part of "this part shall not apply to..." are you having such trouble understanding?
Where does is "commercial manufacturer of what is classified as a LE" excluded from the exemption?
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.
and
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 http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_02/27cfr55_02.html , 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.
and
Actually, the PAD exemption specifically exempts PADs from "this part", referring to 27 CFR Part 55 (now renumbered to part 555), which is the term for the section of the law that contains the PAD exemption, and the storage, permitting, and other regulations concerning explosives. By exempting PADs from "this part" using verbiage within "Part 555" (nee 55), PADs are exempt from *all* of the regulations therein.
Note: this is *including* the regulations requiring permits for manufacturers and dealers.
Do a web search for "27 CFR 55" and read it yourself if you don't beleive me.
- Rick "Use the Source, Luke" Dickinson
Dave W:
10 year old documents like 27 CFR part 555 (recently renumbered in implementing the "homeland security act" updates), which contains the exemption at section 141(a)(8) unchanged from when the whole part was numbered "part 55": this sure suggests to me that the Intent of the Legislature, in acting to close the so-called "loophole" involving in-state transfers of actual "Explosives", nevertheless intended to leave the P.A.D. exemption intact.

Prove a negative? Do you really think if I received ATF fines or prosecutons I would NOT hear about it on rmr?
Even you, as delusional as YOU are, are not that delusional. In my opinion anyway.

Grossly false.

As I presented it, for example.
Jerry
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jerry Irvine wrote:

I can't ignore it, since you've never posted any proof.

No he didn't. In fact, he said that the issue of rockets as PADs was not before the court, so we had to amend our suit to include it. He has not yet ruled on the amended suit.
Furthermore, I asked you for proof that the ATF has ever told TRA that they should not ask manufacturers for LEMPs, or that the ATF has ever said that manufacturers do not need LEMPs. You haven't shown any verifiable proof of either.

The fact that you may not have been fined (yet) doesn't prove that the ATF agrees with your interpretation of the regs. It could simply mean you haven't been caught yet -- a likely possibility considering the great lengths to which you go to keep your business dealings secret.
No, the real proof is to get it from them in writing, or post any official ATF statement that indicates that manufacturers do not need LEMPs. At the very least, you could provide the name of the agent who told you that manufacturers of rocket motors do not need LEMPs.

Prove it. Oh and since you apparently do not understand this, I should point out in advance that quoting Rick's or Dave's musings on the law does not constitute proof.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The judge said that exemptions at 55.141 apply to our rocket motors. Section 55.141 (a) begins: General. This part shall not apply with respect to..." (and then enumerates the various exempted circumstances).
The exemption relieves us from the ENTIRE burden of compliance to all regulations of "part 55", not just from only those parts dealing with user permits. Also in part 55 are to be found requirements for manufacture, storage, etc., and the definition of "explosive materials" (in section 55.11) that invokes the "List of Explosive Materials provided for in section 55.23". That means that BATF can "list" things as "explosive" all they want, but that doesn't act to bring PAD's within the definition of "Explosive Materials" - neither their creation and distribution (whether or not considered "commercial"), nor their acquisition, storage and use, are subject to Part 55.
What part of "this part shall not apply to..." are you having such trouble understanding?
Where does is "commercial manufacturer of what is classified as a LE" excluded from the exemption?
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.
and
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 http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_02/27cfr55_02.html , 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.
and
Actually, the PAD exemption specifically exempts PADs from "this part", referring to 27 CFR Part 55 (now renumbered to part 555), which is the term for the section of the law that contains the PAD exemption, and the storage, permitting, and other regulations concerning explosives. By exempting PADs from "this part" using verbiage within "Part 555" (nee 55), PADs are exempt from *all* of the regulations therein.
Note: this is *including* the regulations requiring permits for manufacturers and dealers.
Do a web search for "27 CFR 55" and read it yourself if you don't beleive me.
- Rick "Use the Source, Luke" Dickinson
Dave W:
10 year old documents like 27 CFR part 555 (recently renumbered in implementing the "homeland security act" updates), which contains the exemption at section 141(a)(8) unchanged from when the whole part was numbered "part 55": this sure suggests to me that the Intent of the Legislature, in acting to close the so-called "loophole" involving in-state transfers of actual "Explosives", nevertheless intended to leave the P.A.D. exemption intact.
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.