shockwaveriderz wrote:
I'd say that the crux of the problem is that the ATF doesn't care what the regs say, they just make up their own crap and enforce it as law. This imaginary 62.5g limit is a perfect example. They can't show you anything in the regs that says the PAD exemption is limited to only PADs which contain no more than 62.5g of propellent, because there is no such limit in the law. But they still enforce it as if it actually exists, because they operate outside the law with impunity.
Nothing in NFPA codes limits PADs to 62.5g. "Model rocket motors" are limited to that, but that has nothing to do with PADs or the PAD exemption.
It won't, but it will force them to acknowledge and enforce the fact that: 1. Rocket motors are Propellent Actuated Devices 2. There is no limit in the law on the size of PADs
IMHO Al's mistake was in logging the motors as sold (an impermissible transfer), when he should have logged them as having been used.
p
I'd say that the crux of the problem is that the ATF doesn't care what the regs say, they just make up their own crap and enforce it as law. This imaginary 62.5g limit is a perfect example. They can't show you anything in the regs that says the PAD exemption is limited to only PADs which contain no more than 62.5g of propellent, because there is no such limit in the law. But they still enforce it as if it actually exists, because they operate outside the law with impunity.
Nothing in NFPA codes limits PADs to 62.5g. "Model rocket motors" are limited to that, but that has nothing to do with PADs or the PAD exemption.
It won't, but it will force them to acknowledge and enforce the fact that: 1. Rocket motors are Propellent Actuated Devices 2. There is no limit in the law on the size of PADs
IMHO Al's mistake was in logging the motors as sold (an impermissible transfer), when he should have logged them as having been used.
p