Loki Research motors at LDRS

That's ok. It shows that your almost human.

Neither is Jerry's spin on it. The fact is that the PAD exemption is not necessarily forever. My dispute with Jerry on this subject is that he claims the judge says motors are PADs. He didn't say that. He did say that because ATF didn't do the NPRM, their claim that they aren't PADs is invalid. Consequently, they reverted to the previous policy that said they are PADs. The judge also said it's within ATFs jurisdiction to declare them as non Pads IF the do the NPRM properly. This is different from Jerry's claim that the judge said they are PADs.

Well, they are now, they always have been, and will be unless there is a rulemaking to the contrary... BATF's staement that "oh, we want to change that rule" has no legal force, and seems to have had the primary effect of giving the judge notice of their plans: hey may end up reviewing it before it even formally enters the "notice and comment" process.

You seem to be advocating that we consider it a lost cause already.

-dave w

A mindless statement.

"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."

- Court order FEDERAL COURT 19 March 2004 Part 2

"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."

- Court order FEDERAL COURT 19 March 2004 Part 2

Therefore each of your claims is full of shit.

At least you are TOTALLY full of it.

Jerry

Exactly.

Phil Stein is a lost cause.

total bs

you don't claim those "things"?

I'm not advocating anything. I'm just saying that I don't agree with what Jerry said about PADs. The effect of the ruling is undisputed.

Realistically, would you want to take on ATF based just on Jerry's opinion?

You are not the first person to fail at brainwashing me.

Therefore you are advocating the opposite of whatever I say. My sayings are based on a literal reading of the law, letter rulings, and judicial orders all consistent with each other and with my sayings.

And the law. And letter rulings. and Judicial Orders.

My opinion of them is of them, not a standalone thing. My opinion was not formed in a vacuum.

Jerry

"I had my share of moments when I was ostracized from rmr for what I had to say - like that Jerry Irvine was at the core of HPR's infancy - because this is a public forum and it can attract all kinds."

- Gene Costanza TRA #07017

"FUD stands for "Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt". It rears its ugly head when companies have no legitimate way to criticize a competitor's product, so they use vague inferences to do so."

"I am NOT at all satisfied with the organizations performance in the development of NFPA codes, and was appalled at their obstruction of the legislative effort. They presume to be rocketry advocacies, but conduct themselves like rocketry regulatory advocacies and kindly offer to be the surrogates of those who would just as soon see rocketry extinguished."

- Izzy

and the last word:

"I have a big problem with all this 'in excess of the regulations' crap. We should be making things easier for flyers, not harder. IMO TRA takes a very short view of things and I think its going to bite them in the butt."

- Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed

Realistically, I plan to go ahead and propel my rockets with Propellant Actuated Devices, and assume that, if we leave them alone, ATF will find bigger fish to fry. If that assumption proved incorrect, and they made "the first move", I'd be quite prepared to take them on, based on the judge's opinion... (I don't think it will come to that; I've previously expressed my opinion on why ATF would probably not find it wise to force a criminal test case at this time...)

-dave w

Tripoli refuses AeroTech refuses.

There's HARD PROOF for you skeptics. From the mouth of your own paramour fraudulator.

Hmmm... so this is B. Kelly writing in a recent issue of HPR?

I'm curious about his basis for the statement at the end of the quoted passage: "Desegregating high power and experimental rocketry, without a wide enough separation between the two, will most likely result in the same reaction from ATF and CPSC."

(The "reaction" he mentions was ATF's objection to Aerotech's "easy access" product promotion, which, he says, "they viewed ... as an end-run around federal regulation".)

So he's indicating that the "separation between HPR and EX" is supposed to satisfy some sort of "federal regulation", and doing without it would be seen as an attempt at an "end run"?

What regulation would that be?

-dave w

Dave W. wrote:

Sounds like a plan, ofcourse, but could you give a brief summary?

-dave w

And a footnote is "out of context" how?

ROFL!

I think AT erred on product promotion by calling it "easy access". No doubt the ATF took that as an affront to their mission of controlling access to HPR motors. If AT had called the same product the "safety motor" system, the ATF may have been slower to object to it. It would be harder for the ATF to propose rules against "safety motors". That said, the "promotion" of a product, aside from issues of false advertising or miss use, should not factor into its regulation, and controlling access to HPR motors should not even be a mission of the BATFE.

Alan

Insisting vendors and users LOG so-called "restricted access" motors to an ATF log made the last nail in the coffin quite official indeed.

NOBODY can deny that.

Jerry

Yeah, it would have given BATF a nice political motive to _not_ regulate!

(I notice that AT is playing this card with the 24mm Econojets in recent ads: "more impulse than an Estes E9 - and so little propellant that it can safely be sent by mail, too!")

-dave w