The regs don't seem to be controlling the ATF very well. Only the judge can do that.
a
The regs don't seem to be controlling the ATF very well. Only the judge can do that.
a
Yep, $40 gran to the man is definetly "sensational"
"big fine" did it, why can't everyone else do it?? (:-) Oh, oh, oh, I know, everyone else makes business decisions based on reality rather than elusions of what could be.
Don't be practical Ray, "big fine" can't comprehend past the thought, "TRA screwed me".
Fred
And did.
Even you have to admit that the ATF is not mis-enforcing the regs, only "verbally advocating their illegal position", and only weak minded follks (TRA members and leaders in particular) are following bad verbal advise.
Jerry
Yes. By USPS.
Hardly. In fact quite the opposite. I say the regulations as they exist right now RE ATF are OPTIMAL.
You recharacterizing it to the opposite aside.
Jerry
Really? Me too.
:)
Nice misquote Jerry. Once again you prove yourself an asshole.
,
on-site.
VENDOR!!
Nope. Here's a quote from the 10/15/04 ruling:
"ORDERED, that the plantiffs' request for the Court to (1) order the ATF to recognize sport rocket motors as propellant actuated devices and (2) order that the Question and Answer sheet currently posted on the ATF's website either be removed or revised are DENIED. It is further ORDERED, that the parties shall proceed with the litigation of this case as previously scheduled by the court."
That's because those "weak minded" folks aren't so fond of accumulating huge fines as you are. We've all seen the results of your methods for dealing with uncooperative federal agencies.
ircraft
Prove it. Make another shipment of motors/reloads, labeled as "model aircraft parts", and let's see if the DOT will really OK it.
The regulations aren't the problem, it's the ATF's "interpretation" of the regs.
They refused to order a repetition of the law. How unsurprising.
What the judge did say, which is superceeding language was:
"In addition, the Court finds that the ATF's pronouncement that sport rocket motors are not PADs is invalid because it was made without compliance with the notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures of the OCCA and the APA."
"in addition" makes a standalone paragraph. Thank god.
Oh, also the very last sentence in a long ruling.
Jerry
devices and
further
No, he refused to order the ATF to recognize sport rocket motors as PADs. He also refused to confront the ATF on their Q&A sheet in which they state that motors are NOT exempt. That sheet was produced by the ATF after the first ruling in April.
That was in the April ruling, which preceded the October ruling I quoted above. The first ruling can't "superceed" the second ruling. The two rulings are contradictory.
The last sentence in the _first_ ruling, yes. Which was followed by a second ruling, the one I quoted and which you refuse to acknowledge simply because you don't like it. I don't like it either, but I'm not delusional enough to pretend it doesn't exist.
Until a "final resolution".
In the mean time the current reg stands.
I understand you do not get that.
You are simply wrong and my experience is you cannot be edumacated.
jerry, please explain with specific exactitude, exactly how a previous, ruling by the judge, could "supersede" a later contradictory ruling by the judge?
Oh, and by the way, have you ever been "edumacated"?
,
So you finally admit that we haven't reached the final resolution yet?
So does the ATF's current enforcement position as stated in that Q&A sheet, which says that motors are not exempt. Do you deny that?
No it doesn't and you saying so definitely is NOT controlling.
The regs are. The ORDER is. Common sense is.
You do not qualify.
Besides you have NO INTENTION of applying for and being rejected for a LEUP anyway Ray.
Jerry
How the heck did I cancel my message? I did it by accident when I was trying to post a thank you for all the interesting replies. I didn't do it on purpose and am responsible for the body. It will be nice if the lawsuit gets settle in our favor and officially ends all the bullcrap We would all be happy then wouldn't we? (What the heck else could one argue about most vehemently?) ;)
Again, I apologize for erasing the core message and did so by mistake. I didn't know one could erase their own newsgroup message but b'gosh it disappeared.
Best regards, Kurt Savegnago
David Erbas-White wrote:
Let me quote it for you again:
"ORDERED, that the plantiffs' request for the Court to (1) order the ATF to recognize sport rocket motors as propellant actuated devices and (2) order that the Question and Answer sheet currently posted on the ATF's website either be removed or revised are DENIED. It is further ORDERED, that the parties shall proceed with the litigation of this case as previously scheduled by the court."
Are you unable to read, or simply delusional? The judge very clearly refused to order the ATF to recognise sport rocket motors as PADs. He also refused to overturn the ATF's published position that rocket motors are not exempt.
Your refusal to accept this doesn't change the facts.
As you're so fond of saying, you assume facts not in evidence. And your assumption is irrelevant anyway, as it has nothing to do with either the judge's ruling or the ATF's published policies.
t
You could not comprehend my prior reply. Times have not changed.
Thanks,
I have that link. There was another link that had absolutely beautiful pictures and closeups of the components that I LOST! Dang it!
Kurt Savegnago
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.