1. Home
  2. Model rockets forum
  3. Jerry Irvine still not selling motors????
  4. Page 2

Jerry Irvine still not selling motors????

If you only ever put exempt items (such as rocket motors) into it, what makes it an "explosives magazine" as opposed to an "over-engineered bright red locking metal motor storage container with a misleading label painted on it in 3-inch high letters"?

If it's illegal to place anything but explosives into an explosives magazine, then what about the boxes or other shipping cartons that actual explosives come in? Are you required to remove your dynamite, for instance, from the wooden crates it comes in, and place the sticks directly in the magazine, stacked into piles? Are you required to cut the wires off of your blasing caps?

- Rick "Reductio ad absurdum" Dickinson

Reply to
Rick Dickinson
Loading thread data ...

The "sensible" group read what "our lawyers" have provided, and don't assume that those lawyers, under contract with experienced rocket people (the TRA BOD and the NAR BOT), would omit "reloads" from the verbiage which stated "fully assembled rocket motors", unless there was a reason!

Ray, you're just looking for a light in the distance, and with all your rambling, you've not provided a single example within the court ruling which would include a reload kit (unassembled)...

You've bee hanging out with JI too long on the message boards, as your "proof" is no different than his!

"Our" lawyers say "Fully assembled rocket motors", yet you seem to hold this view which is different.. Debate it with the lawyers, but be prepared to pay them for their time!

This ain't "handwringing". This is based on the statement made by "our" legal team. Please deal with it!

Here's the DIRECT quote from "our" lawyers (CAPS are mine, and typo's are mine)

"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"

Reply to
AZ Woody

Because Ray, it's against the law! I have an LEUP, and the BATFE can inspect me at any time, and fine me BIG TIME if I don't play by the rules!

Let me guess.. You DONT have an LEUP and see this as a way that you don't need one! That's why you're trying to add your own view to "our" own lawyers view!

Just like JI and the LEMP!

Reply to
AZ Woody

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!

Reply to
AZ Woody

Woody,

There is something missing in your interpretation.

The lawyers say that "fully assembled sport rocket motors" remain qualified as PADs. They do NOT say that other things are not PADs, or that the items that make them up do not qualify as PADs.

There are only three possible interpretations for the reloads, at least as I view it.

1) Reloads qualify as being exempt under the 'PAD' exemption, just as nail-gun cartridges are exempt under the 'PAIT' exemption. 2) Reloads qualify as being exempt under the 'PAD' exemption, but 'hand-wringers' need to have lawyers and judges spell it out for them. 3) Reloads do not qualify as being exempt under the 'PAD' exemption, but the BATFE will have to take it to court to prove it, as there is no current case law to support it.

Only in the third case is there cause for concern, SPECIFICALLY because the status of 'reloads' for PADs/PAITs is not EXPLICITLY spelled out. In other words, your assertion that reloads are not covered because the lawyers didn't mention them is pure, unadulterated balderdash.

David Erbas-White

Reply to
David Erbas-White

Just curious (real question, not being facetious).

Is it possible to 'turn in' your LEUP? In other words, if it is 'agreed' that the items are not covered by the BATFE, then you don't have any explosives that require a LEUP. If you don't have any explosives that require a LEUP, can you 'turn it in' so that you don't have to follow any of the requirements of a LEUP, such as inspection on demand?

David Erbas-White

Reply to
David Erbas-White

Simple answer is "Yes".. There's a form you got to fill out, and as the BATFE kind of a assumes that a business would request a LEUP, I think it's called something like the "Out of Business" form.

Even if all APCP motors, reloads, bits or pieces, become PADs, what about the BP and squibs? If a Permit holder has BP/squibs and it's logged into the mag, they still require a LEUP!

Reply to
AZ Woody

I'm not disagreeing with that at all! Fully assembled rocket motors _are_ PADs. Rockets are not PADs, as you claimed in one post.

But that's only half the story, and you're ignoring the rest. Reloads for PADs and PAITs are just as exempt as the PAD/PAIT is. If a fully assembled motor is a PAD, then a reload for that PAD is exempt.

What is a nailgun? It's a Propellent Actuated Industrial Tool. Yet it contains no propellent. What is the "reload" for that PAIT? Those cartridges are not tools, and although they contain propellent they are not propellent actuated. They are merely "reloads" for the PAIT.

If the rocket _motor_ is a PAD, then you can't rightly say that it's just a cartridge. The "cartridge" is what you load INTO the PAD. And as we can clearly see from the nailgun example, cartridges are exempt too.

Why do you find it so hard to accept even the possibility that is might be so?

Reply to
RayDunakin

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.

Reply to
RayDunakin

Please reference this post - you're pulling a JI here!

If "our" lawyers say so.. If only Ray says so, to me, it holds no weight!

So, is a nailgun a "fully assembled rocket motor" per the letter from "our" lawyers? If so, please contact our legal team and have it included. Until then, it's not even part of the equation!

Ray, what part of "fully assembled rocket motor" can't you understand? (please copy the BOT/BOD and the legal team on your response)

I DO accept that it may be possible. But for now, I'm going by what was posted/published/sent by our BOT/BOD and legal team! "Fully assembed rocket motor" and "reload kit", just ain't the same thing to me! If "our" legal folks say that reloads fit under the PAD exception, I'll be very happy, but that's not what the "official" word is right now!

Why do you find it so hard to accept that you jumped to a conclusion early on after the ruling, and don't even consider that you may be wrong at this point in time!

>
Reply to
AZ Woody

Ray.. You've lost your logic and become a Jerry...

Hey, if I go by your crap, and ignore mag logging because "they are pads", yes that would be a problem.. You don't have an LEUP, right? Do you understand the logic of the log book required by the BATFE?

Do I want to take a chance? Heck, they could throw me into a camp on Cuba!

The "reasons" are only in your head Ray.. Like I said, I'm going by what the NAR/TRA BOT/BOD has said in conjunction with "our" lawyers!

A Jerry Cop-out! Yes Grasshopper, it is time for you to invest in USR!.

>
Reply to
AZ Woody

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 th> do proclaim as FACT! >>

Reply to
AZ Woody

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

Reply to
W. E.Fred Wallace

Oh boy . Another mosaic. I love a good mosaic.

Reply to
Phil Stein

What law says requiring a LEMP is illegal?

I can agree with 2 out of 3 on this one.

Reply to
Phil Stein

So is this what you want everyone to use to validate your & Fred's credibility?

Reply to
Phil Stein

Jerry can't post a cite; his moronic reasoning has no cite, only "JERRY SPEAK".

Reply to
WallaceF

An LEMP was not required for the activity occuring.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

YES.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

BS.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

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.