[Planet News] AeroTech Statement on New ATF Regulations Effective October 10, 2006

One of the things we've claimed in the suit is that the BATF didn't follow their own rule making process. I doubt the court would look favorably on us if we started complaining now that they have followed the process.

-- Roger

Reply to
Roger Smith
Loading thread data ...

I would state that they still didn't follow the rule making process, in that all of the commentary was met with the bureaucratic equivalent of "we don't care -- neener, neener, neener."

David Erbas-White

Roger Smith wrote:

Reply to
David Erbas-White

I suspect nothing earth shaking to come of the Oct 17th status hearing. The ATF will probably go, "Here's our data." Then there will be a several month wait until the next court date and so on.

In the meantime we're left in the lurch.

The only thing I hope from this whole affair is to be able to keep a modicum of supplies I deem necessary to fly. I do not want to fill up my house with rocket stuff. Cripes, you see how much an M reload costs? Wouldn't be able to fly something like that very often anyways.

Sure, you want a big engine stash, then get the LEUP and go through the process. I think to keep a few J - M's around, like a couple of 'em, shouldn't be a big deal.

Phil Ste> Either way, I can't find fault with them waiting a week to see how

Reply to
Kurt

Fly hybrids. You can buy and store all the reloads you want. And a M reload is a lot less expensive.

Reply to
Alex Mericas

Let's take this approach. Let's assume you are a new member just joining and you want to progress up the certification level chain in the hobby, to where you could purchase an M hybrid reload. How would we accomplish that?

If I recall correctly, there is no permit-free certification path in either Tripoli or NAR. At some point, your effort will be ditched due to your need to purchase a restricted product.

Reply to
Darrell D. Mobley

??? You can certify L1, L2, and L3 on Hybrids. And you can start with G hybrids requiring no certification.

Reply to
Alex Mericas

That would mean I did not recall correctly. ;-)

Reply to
Darrell D. Mobley

Not quite right...

Do you need to provide an ejection charge with a hybrid? I think "yes" is the proper answer.

Do you have an antique flintlock? (probably "no")

So how do you by the BP?

Ok, so, now say that is is not BP...

Do you need an ematch? (might be yes)...

It's hard to do a L3 without using stuff that doesn't need a LEUP. Even if you're just "passing gas" (a hybrid)

Reply to
AZ Woody

How about bargaining in bad faith? They KNEW the ruling was coming down soon, which might make the whole thing a wasted effort... yet they went ahead and did it ANYWAY. They behave as though the judge is going to rule in their favour, so why bother changing our procedures?

Reply to
Len Lekx

Woody is correct. Either you are going to have to have a permit, or be friendly with someone who does or fly HyperTek M motors with a Rouse C02 ejection system. ;-)

Reply to
Darrell D. Mobley

Reply to
Alex Mericas

Reply to
jdMARS

The ATF doesn't bargain. Hasn't for the 12 years I've been following this. So good or bad faith doesn't mean anything.

But if you feel strongly, go ahead and find a lawyer to file for an injunction yourself. That's your right. The legal team who knows the case and the Judge and has filed for injunctions before has recommended against it.

I saw the handwriting on the wall three years ago. I hope for the best but I'm prepared for the worst.

Reply to
Alex Mericas

That same statement was posted to the kiddy forum. The orangebook exemption was also posted and exempts smokeless powder. Do you have an ATF or court case link to back your statement?

Reply to
NARflier

The orange book states smokeless powder is exempt for "a component in small arms ammunition"

Reply to
AlMax

I have the Orange Book in my hands right now and looking through Subpart H (exemptions) and do not see anything that would exempt smokeless powder (which is on the ATF explosives list). Would you care to educate me on which part of 55.141 would exempt smokeless powder ejection charges?

Thanks

NARflier wrote:

Reply to
jdMARS

While I can find various smokeless powders on display on open shelves at the local gun store (but no BP), at another store BP is stored in a magazine and that dealer has an ATF explosives dealers permit.

It would appear obvious that smokeless powder is exempt even if you don't intend to use it in small arms.

jdMARS wrote:

Reply to
David Schultz

yes, It does have a better storage exemption.

But I don't see how it setting on a shelf in wally world makes it exempt even if you don't intend to use it in small arms.

It's exempt because it's designed as a "component in small arms".

Well, heck, fine for me !

I'll consider it exempt then, since the "intent" is not listed in the Q&A of the orange book either as noted on the other forum.

Reply to
AlMax

Does your version not exempt small arms ammunition? Is it more recent than on-line? I would find that very strange as I would think the gun guys would be up in arms.

Exemptions is subpart H

formatting link
"(4) Small arms ammunition and components of small arms ammunition." Smokeless powder is a component of small arms ammunition.

Questions & Answers

formatting link
"75. Is smokeless powder designed for use in small arms ammunition subject to the explosives storage requirements? No. Smokeless powder designed for use in small arms ammunition is exempt from regulation under 18 U.S.C. Chapter 40 and the regulations in 27 CFR Part 55. However, smokeless powder intended for this purpose is subject to control under 27 CFR Part 178, "Commerce in Firearms and Ammunition", as a component of ammunition (see also Question 17). [18 U.S.C. 845(a)(4); 27 CFR

55.11: definition of "ammunition", 55.141(a)(4)]"

All smokeless powder on those reloading shelves are "designed for use in small arms ammunition" (or they wouldn't be selling it to reloaders).

27 CFR part 478 definitions "Ammunition. Ammunition or cartridge cases, primers, bullets, or **propellent powder** designed for use in any firearm other than an antique firearm. The term shall not include (a) any shotgun shot or pellet not designed for use as the single, complete projectile load for one shotgun hull or casing, nor (b) any unloaded, non-metallic shotgun hull or casing not having a primer."

Reply to
NARflier

Do you have an on-line link or scanned copy? What is the date of the book you are looking at?

Reply to
NARflier

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.