Jerry Irvine still not selling motors????

He keeps calling everyone a moron for not educating their ATF agents to the rules. Why isn't he educating them and the DOT so he can sell
motors. Because he can't. After all of this he still can't. So sad.
Until the judge told the ATF certain letters were invalid we did not have the PAD exemption.
Jerry go to NSL and sell motors. Please.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com (CajunMan) wrote:

1. NSL is a NAR sanctioned event.
2. NAR requires NAR certified motors at NAR events.
3. I have no motors.
4. If I were to recontract to have motors made, in order to comply with NFPA in suffieient states to make it worthwhile, NAR or TRA cert would be mnandatory.
5. NAR and TRA both illegally demand ATF permits for known exempt materials. That is illegal and since I do not want a date with bubba as fred is so fond of saying (and trying to make happen), I decline that fantastic opportunity.
Jerry
[whether] "Mr. Irvine has complied with the instructions provided him, with no response from your office unless he has taken liberties with the truth, there are problems he has failed to disclose, resulting in a delay in the response from you or your office, and or both." - W.E. "Fred" Wallace, MDRA 6-26-01 letter to DOT
--
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:

Yea jerry, that's why you quit advertising your motors and "openly" selling your motors. TRA made you do it... Where dem hidden motors jerry? How you and the DOT doing these days; awful quiet...
Fred
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Correct.
--
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:

Liar; DOT is why you quit advertising your motors and "openly" selling your motors. Where dem hidden motors jerry? How you and the DOT doing these days; awful quiet...
Fred
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I already posted the final ruling re USR and also the citation from YOU by the DOT.
USR is free and clear!!!
You are a certified asshole.
[whether] "Mr. Irvine has complied with the instructions provided him, with no response from your office unless he has taken liberties with the truth, there are problems he has failed to disclose, resulting in a delay in the response from you or your office, and or both." - W.E. "Fred" Wallace, MDRA 6-26-01 letter to DOT
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:

Liar; DOT is why you quit advertising your motors and "openly" selling your motors. Where dem hidden motors jerry? How you and the DOT doing these days; awful quiet... Your parsed snippets prove nothing..
Fred
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
So is this what you want everyone to use to validate your & Fred's credibility?
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

On #5 what law was broken?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
None. That's another one of Jerry's ways of saying he doesn't think people need LEUPs.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
He loves to cite things but can't seem to come up with the law that TRA has broken by requiring an LEMP for anyone submitting motors for certification. C'mon tell them which law was broken. As Buckwheat would say " He taint gonna do it".
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 07:48:06 -0400, Phil Stein
[re: Jerry's claim that "NAR and TRA both illegally demand ATF permits for known exempt materials. That is illegal..."]

Actually, that's just Jerry's way of saying he's ticked off that neither NAR nor TRA will allow him to certify motors without a LEMP and DOT paperwork in his own name. His claims of illegality are, of course, specious.
While NAR and TRA do require permits that, arguably, are completely unnecessary, there is no law that prevents them from requiring anything they want to require -- regardless of how silly -- before they will test your motors. They are under no legal obligation to offer their services to anyone. If they want to require motor manufacturers to have fishing licences, and submit a hand-tied fishing lure along with every motor submitted for testing, they have a right to do so.
It's not illegal for them to require legally unnecessary permits. It's silly, and it reduces the pool of potential manufacturers, but it certainly isn't illegal.
Personally, I wish Jerry would speak with a bit more precision when he talks about legal issues like this. He has a damn good point, especially in light of the recent court decision: A LEMP is completely unnecessary under federal law for manufacturers of PADs.
NAR and TRA should drop the LEMP requirement for motor manufacturers, as it would be good for rocket motor consumers to have more motor choices available. However, by repeatedly claiming that the current NAR and TRA requirements are *illegal* (rather than simply unnecessary under the law), Jerry's point is obscured by the silly little side discussions (like this one) that continually erupt every time he makes the same (bogus) claim.
In Jerry-speak, "illegal" seems to be shorthand for "not legally required". If you read his statements with that understanding, they are a lot more accurate.
- Rick "Pardon me. I speak jive." Dickinson
--
Delay is preferable to error.
-- Thomas Jefferson
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The only thing mentioned in the joint release by NAR/TRA are "Fully assembled Rocket Motors".
From TRA/NAR: (MY CAPS)
" 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. "
Remember, the Judge also ruled that the BATFE CAN regulate APCP!
First there's the group tying to define that an unassembled reload kit is "just like a fully assembled rocket motor" and is therefore a pad..
Now, we got people starting to claim that the manufacturer of unassembled parts used to later create a "fully assembled rocket motor" are covered...
I doubt you'll see RCS/AT give up their LEMP anytime soon, and I don't expect any vendor of RCS/AT RA motors to give up their LEDP.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

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
--
"The vast majority of Iraqis want to live in a peaceful, free world.
And we will find these people and we will bring them to justice."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Thank you arm chair lawyer... Did you go to the JI mail-order "arm chair lawyer" college?
Like I said, I'll go by what the folks that "we" spent big buck on for a legal opinion, and not someone on RMR! Pay me $400/hour and pay for me to get a law degree from a "reliable" source, and I might be able to tell you why you are wrong. But until then, I won't even bother to research your claims... "We" paid a professional team of lawyers to try the case and render their "legal" opinion.
Think that the statement of (from "our" lawyers)
"For all the above reasons, we are instructing our clients to notify their members and member dealers that FULLY ASSEMBLED SPORT ROCKET MOTORS remain qualified as PADs, regardless of propellant mass, unless and until ATF determines otherwise in its putative new rulemaking, which we may challenge upon completion"
Does hold much more weight than some whiner named Dave!
Dave.. Simple test. Grap a bag'o grains and a case. Walk down the street and find a neighbor. Hold the bag'o grains in one hand, and the case in the other. Then ask "is this a fully assembled rocket motor?" (let them see the case is empty).
Face it Dave, the ruling on PAD's is not a big win. Also remember that in another ruling, the Judge did say that the BATFE could continue to regulate APCP!

this
lawyers
implementing
section
sure
so-called
nevertheless intended

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I sure hope so. He is right.

--
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
<< Like I said, I'll go by what the folks that "we" spent big buck on for a legal opinion, and not someone on RMR! >> <snip> <<Face it Dave, the ruling on PAD's is not a big win.>>
Woody, you claim everyone else's opinions are worthless and that you'll wait til you hear from the lawyers. Then you turn around and proclaim your own opinion as fact. Kinda hypocritical, don't you think?
If the lawyers refute my position, fine. Until then, my opinion is at least as valid as yours.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
No Ray, I'm saying that I go by what the BOD/BOT and "our" lawyers say. For now, it's NOT reloads as both bodies have stated "fully assembed rocket motors", and no one in their right mind would consider a bag'o grains to be a "fully assembled rocket motor".
Nothing about nailguns or cartridges. You're just pushing this with only your own view to back it.. Just Like Jerry. I'm basing my view on "real" statements by "our" BOT/BOD and the legal team!
K. Good of TRA is attempting to resolve this and other issues with the ruling, and who knows, reloads might get included, but for now it's "fully assembled rocket motors".
Which word out of "fully assembled rocket motor" confuses you? I guess you think that I'm proclaiming my own opinion as fact when I say "a Bag'o grains is not a fully assembled rocket motor"..
Well, hey, a "bag'o grains is NOT a fully assembled rocket motor"! This I do proclaim as FACT!
A set of tires, an engine, a chassis, a tranny, all in separate crates, is not a car either! This I do proclaim as FACT!

wait
least as

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Woody wrote: << Well, hey, a "bag'o grains is NOT a fully assembled rocket motor"! This I do proclaim as FACT! >>
I never said it was! And a nailgun cartridge is not a PAIT, either. Do you dispute that?
The fact is, an item doesn't have to BE a PAD/PAIT, in order to benefit from the PAD/PAIT exemption. PADs/PAITs are exempt, and so are their "reloads". You've provided no evidence to the contrary.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
What the heck does a "nailgun cartridge" have to do with PAD exceptions for "fully assembled rocket motors"?
Seems your the only one that can't see the difference...
Ray... I've provided direct quotes from the NAR/TRA BOT/BOT and legal team, defining "our" view to be that only a "fully assembled rocket motor" has the pad exception.
I guess you're telling the TRA/NAR BOD/BOT and the legal team that they are wrong. Ray, face it, you jumped on your bandwagon before you understood it, and now, you're pulling nailguns into it, so you don't have to admit that you jumped on the bandwagon too soon!
Like I said before, I think it would be GREAT if "our" lawyers got reloads added to the definition of a "pad", but I'm not holding my breath!

This I

from
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.