NAR PREZ - On ATF Administratve Record

Relative to reviewing the ATF's Administrative Record, you need to keep this phrase in mind:

"Eyes on the prize".

Our "prize", our objective, is to get APCP off the list of regulated explosives.

Those who have pointed out technical and factual inconsistencies and errors are on the right track towards making that happen.

Counsel does NOT recommend that folks go off trying to do anything at a Congressional level. A few letters to Congressional offices, even with the results of the election still ringing in everyone's ears, will NOT help our legal case.

Counsel also does not recommend spending any time looking for apparent (or real) cases of perjury. We're involved in an administrative law proceeding here, and you need to set aside ideas that somehow folks are going to get into legal trouble or lose their jobs over work that a Federal court directed them to do.

If possible please mail your comments to me directly at:

mbundick - at - earthlink - dot - net

It would help if you did two things when you send comments:

(a) Put "ATF ADMIN RECORD COMMENTS" into the subject line, and

(b) please make sure to reference the page number, located in the lower right hand corner, of the page to point counsel to the right location for their review.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Mark B. Bundick mbundick - at - earthlink - dot - net NAR President www - dot - nar - dot - org

"A dark night in a city that knows how to keep its secrets, but high above the quiet streets on the twelfth floor of the Acme Building, one man is still trying to find the answers to life's persistent questions. Guy Noir, Private Eye."

Reply to
mbundick
Loading thread data ...

(Snip for brevity's sake)

I think it needs to be pointed out of course that this is bad science. I don't know where it would be called perjury. I agree it's best not to go off half cocked about this other than to point out the inaccuracies.

Kurt

Reply to
Kurt

IANAL, but I don't think "bad science" can be considered perjury. It would have to be proven that the ATF was deliberately entering falsehoods into the record with malicious intent. This being a civil case, the threshold for proving perjury is much higher than in a criminal case. I believe it requires "clear and compelling" evidence.

Bill Sullivan

Semper Ubi Sub Ubi

Reply to
The Rocket Scientist

Even though I have no standing to make comments (since I'm not a US citizen...) I've sent you my comments anyway. :-)

I also attached the file I'm commenting on, plus the files of my own testing. I tried to strike a balance between tech-speak and lay-speak, so it shouldn't be too hard to follow.

Reply to
Len Lekx

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.