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
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!!
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
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+All the people who wouldn't sell to someone without a LEUP come to mind first. Oh, that was a trick question.
Pax
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.
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
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.
Are you guessing or do you have advice of legal council.
Joel. phx
>
My guess Joel is that you are an idiot.
Hey, the troll has a new name. How many is that this month, 10?
Joel. phx
Point me to anyone who actually knows. I would love to talk to them.
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
Can you count that high? :-)
You are giving rocketeers from New Mexico a bad name. Scram and go fly a rocket.
Pax
Precisely.
No.
No ;)
So Jerry, are you selling your PADS? Oh that's right, you still have that DOT hazmat bug, a mile up your A$$..
Man, oh, man, where's John Cato when you need him? :-)>
And because they could not read the regulatons to the agent telling them this obvious falsehood.
Jerry
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.