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>
"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.
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.
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.
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>
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
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>
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?
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>
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.
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>
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.