My LEUP Nightmare

Which are all different.

But you already know this so why bother asking? I know, so you can spout your usual cry of "PAD".

Even though I arrived at it independently, my opinion is closely aligned with that of RCS/Aerotech and I haven't heard of any ATF enforcement action against them. So that position does have some validity.

Jerry Irv> >

So your standard of correctness is enforcement actions (of which there are few or none), from an agency regularly accused of overstretching, and not what the regulatoions actually say which are considerably more lax?

So rights are designed to be unilaterally surrendered in your opinion too?

Jerry

Witness account.

Challenge.

Blather.

You want an enforcement action do you? How about Al's Hobbies?

The same Judith Bender that cited me by enforcing the 62.5g limit that does not yet exist. I asked her to show me IN THE REGS where the 62.5g limit came from. The ONLY document she could point to substantiating that claim was NPR

She should be fired and prosecuted for illegal abuse of power. As should any other BATFE agent that illegally tries to enforce nonexistant regulations.

Thanks for so succinctly summing up Jerry's standard response to any request for proof of his outrageous claims.

No, rights are to be fought for, in this case through the courts. Now, the smart way to do it is to file suit to have the court settle the issue. Then there's Jerry's way, which is to pretend you're legal, hide your business dealings behind shell games, and demand that TRA/NAR put their necks on the line in place of his own. As Jerry has proven, this method brings with it the risk that one will eventually rack up some big fines and be shut down. You might even get to do some jail time for "possession of a destructive device".

=EA

Bob, that's all fine and dandy, but you left out the pat, where this Judith Bender BATFE agent went up the chain of her command, to wit:

"I received confirmation from Specialist Gary Patterson, ATF HQ, Explosives Industry programs Branch; ATF Counsel Erika Ritt; and Chicago SOI Curtis Gilbert, that PADs containing over 62.5g are still regulated by the ATF and are subject to storage requirements"

And herein lies the crux of the problem, in the eyes of a large portion of the BATFE, there already is a 62.5 g limit. (Ahh wait a minute, the NAR thru the NFPA also says there is a 62.5 g limit too. Maybe there is a 62.5g limit and WE just don't know it yet! Now I'm really confused. We are all the way back to square one. i.e., where the ATF arbitrarily interprets its rules in whatever fashion they so desire and their interpretations vary from field office to field office. Nobody is on the same page. Again. Yet.

Somebody explain to me how a 10-15 year long lawsuit, spending perhaps millions of dollars is going to change the "culture" of the BATFE internally?

And if you read the violations carefully, Mr. Al was in violation of the checkin-checkout enumeration logs required. .....seems some pretty large motors there had kinda disappeared and were unaccounted for.... ouch.

I betcha good money that if the BATFE swooped down tomorrow on every HPR dealer in the country, they would find so many records violations and descrpencies, it would show just how lax this business really is towards self-regulation. And folks you know that in this current climate , thats not a good thing.

shockie B)

ps BOB, I'm surprised the Illinois explosives authorities haven't come after Mr. AL.... guess the BATFE don't talk to the state people huh? As I know the Illinois explosives laws are some of the tougest in the nation.

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.

ray: I don't even think PADS are mentioned in the NFPA codes once. But they do define a model roket motor as having 62.5.

I don't know why the NAR/TRA in their lawsuit don't bring up the fact that the FFA has 113/125 g propellant limit and the FAA also have had a 4oz/113g limit since the dawn of history. If the NAR had more fully implemented the Large Model Rocket class by defining a LMR motor for sell to adults only,(as G motors and RMS motors are).

Ray just out of couriosity if the BATFE came to the NAR/TRA tomorrow and said: Ok we will exempt Full J's from oversight,storage,LEUP,etc., which means the BATFE would only require LEUP for KLMN motors, do you think the NAR/TRA membership would agree?

shockie B)

Also NFPA says rocket motors must be classed as explosives to be certified as rocket motors (or as a flammable solid)..I guess the NAR/TRA will have a lot of cleaning up to do with the NFPA codes if and when we ever win this lawsuit. By the way, has anybody seen the appeal papers yet? Has the appeals already been filed? I was curious as to the grounds for appeal.

shockie B)

Yeah! The Future Farmers of America are the Authority Having Jurisdiction here, after all!

- Rick "Making hay and sowing wild oats" Dickinson

Correct.

Yes, so? Are you saying there should be no distinction between model and high power rocket motors? That's all this is, in the NFPA. It's not a license for the ATF to regulate high power motors in defiance of the law.

How do you know they haven't brought that up? What makes you think it's relevant to the ATF's policy regarding high power rocketry? What difference would it make if the ATF had chosen one of those other numbers as their imaginary limit?

I'm not sure what your point is here.

I have no idea. I also don't see the point in speculating on it, since the ATF has refused all attempts at compromise.

Correct.

I don't think we've gotten to the appeals stage yet, since we haven't even received a final ruling on the initial suit. However, we have amended the suit to include the issue of whether or not rocket motors are PADs.

In reviewing this portion:

===========

"The exemption at 27 CFR Part 55, section 141(a)(8) includes propellant-actuated "devices." The term "device" is interpreted to mean a contrivance manufactured for a specific purpose. Under this definition, a fully assembled rocket motor would be exempt. However, the propellant, prior to assembly, would not be exempt."

===========

I would like to point out that a 'grain' would properly be termed a device in this definition. It is a "contrivance manufactured for a specific purpose". It has dimensions, tolerances, tests that must be passed, etc. Raw propellant would be considered a 'raw material', but since the grain has to meet both dimensional (i.e., mechanical) and compositional requirements, it should, by any reasonable reading of the definition, be termed a device -- especially since it is (definitively) "manufactured for a specific purpose". To prove that, one only need to point to the motor casings (which may even be patented, I don't know), which is what they are manufactured for.

David Erbas-White

The appeal has been filed (USCA 04-5453) and is in work. That was the point of the motion last year for a final ruling on count one of the lawsuit.

Furthermore DOT also defines it as an article and not a substance.

Federal regulations are so inconvenient, even for the federal government.

Jerry

So you are citing NAMES of INDIVIDUALS who clearly violated federal regulations as approved?

Cool.

Wat is the "penalty" for doing that?

Jerry

Need I place the call?

I AM uniquely qualified.

By reading the legal briefs.

Jerry told you so.

The NAR President already did, during the legislative effort, so the answer is yes.

Jerry

No. I want him to understand his legal defense.

He does not.

He cannot afford an apporpriate attorney.

BATFE has a massive hoard of attorneys. They absolutely count on this discrepency.

So they've filed an appeal on that count, what about the others? Has there been a final ruling on all counts? Also, I thought the case was still before the same judge -- if it's on appeal, wouldn't be in appeals court?