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.
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
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
Correct.
On #5 what law was broken?
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".
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
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
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.
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
What may apply to users, is not the same as applies to manufacturers. Do not confuse using a PAD with what's involved with manufacturing one. Since I'm not a manufacturer, I don't know the applicable rules for them but, I check before coming to any conclusions.
I have no problem with Jerry needing a LEMP. Look at what happened to the adjoining busniesses when Aerotech had a fire. That was someone that had met the LEMP requirements. Think about it.
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!
nevertheless intended
False.
a. NAR requires LEMP prior to sumbission of any motor for certification. That requirement is clearly illegal. Yes I object to that loudly, consistently, and rightfully.
a. TRA requires LEMP prior to sumbission of any motor for certification. That requirement is clearly illegal. Yes I object to that loudly, consistently, and rightfully.
Why is that fact alone not a serious major issue of contention for ALL consumers, dealers, manufacturers?
Seriously?
??
Why are YOU glossing over it as if it was a minor nit?
ONLY explosives can go into explosives magazines.
ALL motors are exempt.
Watch.
"Unconcionable provision".
Watch.
Hugely!
Majorly!
Untimely!
Stupidly!
Ingorantly!
Illegally!
Extralegally!
Moronically.
B U L L
S H I T
Yesterday at noon.
Because NAR/TRA are moronically restrictive. Read the judgement itself. It uses the SU example from 1994 as an EXAMPLE that PADs are exempt, as defined. Inclusive of SU motors. NOT exclusively SU motors. Exclusively SU motors would therefore rule out PADs which are not rocket motors at all, wouldn't it?
Hmmm?
Jerry is your god.
Bow down before him.
I sure hope so. He is right.
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
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.
Yep, and you know that the authorities would have nailed them to the wall if they had NOT had that LEMP. As it was, they tried to nail AT over the fact that the permit had allegedly expired, when in actuality it had been renewed but the renewal hadn't yet been received.
Maybe you could explain why the first thing the authorities looked after the Aerotech fire was whether or not they had a valid LEMP?
Maybe you'd care to post a cite of the actual law that is being violated by this?
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.