Jerry is ... right.

As a long time troll (BMF, SCE Switch to Aux, etc) let me be one of the first to say that Jerry nailed this PAD exemption. All along he has stated they were PADS and for now it looks like they will be.

Don't throw away that LEUP however. It may very well be needed.

TF

Reply to
Tim Fuentes
Loading thread data ...

Oh for crying out loud! You act like Jerry's the only one who ever said they were PADs, and that is NOT the case. Practically everyone in the hobby has said they are PADs, including TRA/NAR! Who said they were not PADs? ATF! Who took them to court over it, and got a ruling stating that the ATF was wrong? Here's a clue: IT WASN'T JERRY!!

Reply to
RayDunakin

Can't we even take "yes" for an answer without bickering? :)

Sounds like the judge was trying to use the case, as presented, to give _everyone_ a "get out of jail free" card (at least for the immediate future): BATF doesn't have to tear up their explosives-listing bureaucracy and start over already, but they don't get to run around busting people for "explosives permit violations" (at least not until they get _their_ paperwork done).

-dave w

Reply to
David Weinshenker

Yeah, I had to get the visegrips and yank out an eyetooth or two to get the words to come out of my mouth, but Jerry was indeed right all along about the PAD exemption.

But I still hold fast to my position that ATF can legally declare any solid propellant, or all, a low explosive if they want to go through the steps to do so.

This ruling just raps their knuckles about being lazy and trying to regulate by fiat. Hopefully the judge's decision will make them choose their regulatory actions more wisely because of the extra effort required to operate in compliance with the law.

+McG+
Reply to
Kenneth C. McGoffin

All the people who wouldn't sell to someone without a LEUP come to mind first. Oh, that was a trick question.

Pax

Reply to
Paxton

Heck, it looks to me like they can declare anything an "explosive" whether it burns or not, as long as they put on their little NPRM show.

Reply to
RayDunakin

took them to court over it, and got a ruling stating that the ATF was wrong? >

Here's a clue: IT WASN'T JERRY!!

Amen to that.

Fred

Reply to
WallaceF

Everyone has wanted Jerry to be right but until the BATFE acknowledges the exemption it is still a pain in the ass. Since stating that the

62.5 rule was wrong also doesn't that make an E reload regulated now. Only single use motors are covered as PADS.

Reply to
CajunMan

Are you guessing or do you have advice of legal council.

Joel. phx

>
Reply to
Joel. Corwith

My guess Joel is that you are an idiot.

Reply to
New Mexico Rocket Dude

Hey, the troll has a new name. How many is that this month, 10?

Joel. phx

Reply to
Joel. Corwith

Point me to anyone who actually knows. I would love to talk to them.

Reply to
CajunMan

Legal council would be a lawyer. Preferably an attorney willing to back you up should someone decide an 'example' is necessary. I'd suggest lawyers involved in recent federal litigation regarding propellant, fireworks or PADs. See also rocket deployed parachute manufacturers and/or TRW down here in Chandler (air bags), but they probably have an 'in house' attorney.

Ted is going to talk to a law firm, but hasn't indicated their experiance with federal explosives regulation. It will be 'one take' however.

Joel. phx

Reply to
Joel. Corwith

Can you count that high? :-)

Reply to
New Mexico Rocket Dude

You are giving rocketeers from New Mexico a bad name. Scram and go fly a rocket.

Pax

Reply to
Paxton

Precisely.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

No.

No ;)

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

So Jerry, are you selling your PADS? Oh that's right, you still have that DOT hazmat bug, a mile up your A$$..

Reply to
W. E.Fred Wallace

Man, oh, man, where's John Cato when you need him? :-)>

Reply to
Gene

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.