PAD definitions

JI: gonna have to diagree with you here....the(4.4oz) limit needs to be re-unified back to the 4 oz 113 g value, as this value has been on the FAA books since at least the 1940's...

The NAR needs to define a new rocket motor size: the Large Model Rocket Motor... > 62.5 but

"Only in the lawsuit"??? What in the hell does that mean? BATFE's official position and the justifications for that position are outlined in their "Points and Authorities" reply. BATFE does NOT believe, in any context, that rocket motors are PAD's or that they are exempt from BATFE regulation by that argument.

Its the primary reason people are hesitant to accept your "PAD exemption is all that matters" argument. YOU think it applies, I think it applies, most rocketry people think it applies. But the government agency with the power to prosecute violators, does not. BATFE's position is a gun pointed at the head of potential violators. The lawsuit (Count 3) will determine if that gun is loaded or not. (I pray; not!)

Disclaimer: I will not comment here on the particulars of current lawsuit methods or arguments, as requested by the litigants. I will only comment on past, completed, publicly verifiable actions.

Have you read their P&A? Lawyers are required to advocate a client's position. There seems to be no rule it has to make sense or be consistent with any law.

Free advise to wimps like you. Vote with your feet.

Live the 27 CFR 555.141-a-8 lifestyle or get the hell out.

NAR doesn't allow adults to use >62.5g motors?

Not model rocketry.

Yes, I've read ATF's "Defendant's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Renewed Motion for Summary Judgement", US District Court, District of Columbia, re: civil action 00-273.

Only the Judge's opinion of it counts now.

Okay, I'll bite, but out of real curiosity, not your childish challenge. If everyone who doubted the veracity of the PAD exemption walked, it would be a lonely fight for you, Jerry.

Did the incident where you prevailed over the ATF agent on this issue occur before or after the NAR/TRA lawsuit was filed? In particular, before or after the P&A was published?

They are two different times, IMHO, and an Agent now has actual ATF views on PAD exemptions to regurgitate, instead of being able to make a "reasoned" decision as your particular Agent seems to have done.

It already is.

Before.

Maybe, but the law has not changed and we established a precident apart from the letter used in the lawsuit. NAR (or perhaps TRA or both) refused to use my example in their suit or frankly use me in any respect at all as I offered several things.

Jerry

Okay, thanks. I'm not creative enough to conceive of an endeavor or action off the top of my head that would establish additional positive precedent that I could discuss here and not be in conflict with the litigant's (NAR/TRA) wishes of non-speculation in a public forum. (It's a personal thing.)

I will propose this scenario to some guys in grad school and see if they might have some insight from an outside-looking-in perspective. Unfortunately, most of the people I know are literal-minded technology types who consider facts and science to be persuasive in an argument. I'm not sure they can think like lawyers or regulators.

Point!

But at least in the narrow example of 27 CFR 555.141-a-8, it is so wide ranging that it applies by literal reading, by interpretation, by reference to definitons. Every way possible EXCEPT for ATF lawyers charged with refuting the obvious. They might get disbarred over it too.

Jerry

How about rocket motors?

IKAROS - LINE, REPLACEMENT ROCKET (CI3462P) Replacement rocket with integral igniter to be changed prior to expiry. Simple replacement procedure. Weight: 710 grams.

per.

Ignore the facts in front of your face!!!

been in use

Sounds like the first step is to get some existing PADs like this certified as rocket motors. And perhaps some air bag inflators for ejection charges.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

they are still called rockets.....the manufacturer isn't advertising or marketing them as PADS... shockie B)

Airbag inflators would be 1.1D if not for the DOT exemptions they have received (helps if you have the single largest industry on the planet).

been in use

I was surprised to read that air bag inflators are not considered to be PAD's but instead are special explosive devices per 27 CFR 555.32 so long as they are in the assembled air bag unit. Before installation and after removal from the air bag assembly, they are regulated explosives.

Shock wrote:

So all the spare parts are stored in licensed magazines, and everyone at the dealer that might touch one has an LEUP (or HE or DP or MP or whatever)?

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

I could be wrong, but I believe a 'replacement' airbag includes the charge. Since that is the smallest replaceable unit, it would not need to be stored in a magazine.

Joel. phx

It is an explosive actuated power device.