1. Home
  2. Model rockets forum
  3. pyro doj letter questions
  4. Page 2

pyro doj letter questions

A non-permittee can only transfer explosives to a permittee.
formatting link
'unlawful acts'
And the judge finds the help the permittee gave you in prepping your rocket as payment,...?
Reply to
It's a filter, fool
Loading thread data ...
I just read it. Guess what? It says that a permittee can transfer explosives to a non-permittee. Don't believe me? Read it. Specifically, read 842.a.3.B
I'll shorten it, it reads...
842. Unlawful acts
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person --
(3) other than a licensee or permittee knowingly --
(B) to distribute explosives to any person other than a licensee or permittee
So, if you don't have a permit, you can only transfer explosives to someone with a permit. If you have a permit, you can transfer explosives to anyone.
I'm open to hearing other interpretations of this, of course...
David Erbas-White
Reply to
David Erbas-White
I should look before I leap. This answers my question about APCP being binary or not. Shouldn't matter and we should have won the lawsuit in a summary judgement.
Kurt Savegnago
Reply to
Kurt
Which is yet another reason to NOT ask for a LEUP when selling rocket motors even IF you are so foolish to believe they are not exempt from being defined as explosives per 27 CFR 555.141-a-8.
Jerry
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
Correct.
Now consider this. Why didn't we win in summmary judgement?
Was this arguement not even presented?
Jerry
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
While I thank you for the to the point reply, I do no appreciate making it look like I posted the word "Useless" up there.
BTW- I really like the definition they give of a PAD. Seems to me a shape charge could be considered a pad- uses a propellant charge to create gases. Then again, I guess it depends on how they define "propellant". Has anyone ever seen a definition for this before?
Ben
Reply to
ben.romashko
one reason this double speek was put in there is so the forman permitte on the blasting job can hand the explosives to the blasting men who don't have permits so they can blow stuff up on top of the rock hill and the permitte does not have to climb up there ;-0
Reply to
AlMax
Yes, that's where I got it from. True, it doesn't define "business" but that seems pretty self-explanatory.
Again, "business use" obviously refers to a commercial operation. Making it for your own personal use is not a "business".
Seems pretty clear to me. If you're doing something for free, that's not a business. The explosive isn't changing hands, which is what the ATF is mainly concerned with. Whether the stump belongs to Bubba or his neighbor is irrelevant -- the person doing the blasting is the same one who mixed the explosive, and he isn't getting paid for it there's no business transaction.
Reply to
raydunakin
No, it is NOT legal for a permittee to transfer explosives to a non-permittee. I'll leave the section number which clearly states this as an exercise for the 'alleged' reader.
Ever go to book club and it's obvious that the guy has only read a couple of chapters?
Reply to
It's a filter, fool
Actually, I think that the interpretation IS correct. In reading the whole thing, on the first pass, it would appear that the intent is to PREVENT it -- but when you actually follow the commas, hyphens, etc., it appears that they DID word the law this way, but not on purpose. You know as well as I do that lawyers can spend years wrangling over a comma - but for government lawyers, it's a big "don't care", so this kind of stuff happens. I think it's just a mistake that hasn't been caught yet...
David Erbas-White
Reply to
David Erbas-White
I should add that I don't appreciate the inference -- I'm not an idiot, and I'm someone who actually READS contracts before signing them. When buying a house once, I refused to sign a certain contract - the contractor (they were new homes) assured me they had been using that contract for ten years, and that lawyers had thoroughly checked it out, etc. I was finally able to convince him (and their lawyer) that they way it was worded (accidentally, I'm sure, but it WAS there) was that I had to pay them $150/day for every day they were late completing construction of my new home...
David Erbas-White
Reply to
David Erbas-White
reading the
How about this. Go back and read 842-unlawful acts and note back here the section that says who a permittee can distribute to (there really really is one). It's plainly obvious a permittee cannot distribute to a non-permittee and there's no commas.
And for the record, you're the only one to use the 'I' word, I was implying the 'L' word.
Reply to
It's a filter, fool
842 (b).
I still say that the wording is in conflict with itself, and would get thrown out of court as vague. 842 (a) infers that a licensee/permittee may do such a transfer, and 842 (b) says that they may not. The wording is such that a good lawyer would be able to validly argue this (IMHO, and IANAL) in court (if it came to that). The law, essentially, arguably in conflict with itself.
David Erbas-White
Reply to
David Erbas-White
Ok. Here's my take. You quoted 842a3B: (a) It shall be unlawful for any person-(3) other than a licensee or permittee knowingly-(B) to distribute explosive materials to any person other than a licensee or permittee
842b: (b) It shall be unlawful for any licensee or permittee to knowingly distribute any explosive materials to any person other than-(1) a licensee (2, and 3..);
Leads you to: Give material to a non-permittee and get arrested and put in jail to maybe have it later overturned because 842a3B ~implies~ you can.
Or Don't give material to a non-permittee and not get thrown in jail.
If the post on rec.pyro is to be trusted and courts are finding that materials sent from out of state to make exempt devices mean the device is covered by interstate regulation, then it might be easier to claim it's an exempt non-explosive PAD.....
Reply to
It's a filter, fool
No question. My point is that IF someone ends up getting nailed, they at least have a chance of getting out. My (sidebar) point is that any loopholes that can be found in the regulations could (ultimately, hopefully) assist in the court battle. Not that this is any major (or even minor) thing, just that it points out how complex the regulations are.
David Erbas-White
Reply to
David Erbas-White

Site Timeline

  • LDRS24

  • Coast Rocketry is sponsoring a competition at LDRS24. The object is to...
  • next in

    Model rockets

Related

  • Foundation Fieldbus Microcontrollers

  • Hi Everybody,I am trying to build a positioner with Foundation Fieldbus...

  • Has anybody seen the SBC Yahoo commerical ?

  • There is an TV add running for my local phone co's internet service. Itshows...

  • BoA-Merrill Lynch , their lawyers and the Judge, questions for the DoJ and the Congress

  • Lawyers and Bankers here in the USA are sometimes very much in"cahoots" with...

  • Has Apogee been taken over by spammers?

  • Got yet another bounce to the Apogee email list last night. Worse, email toTim...

  • Look at this!!

  • If you are into making scale models then take a look at this great...

  • Open letter ISP/AT

  • Open Letter Re: ISP/AT auction.1/25/2004This letter is meant to set straight the...

  • PYRO Launch

  • To All, This is a reminder that this is our first launch being held at the...

  • PYRO Press Release

  • RELEASE FOR PRESSPYRONAR Section #667DATE: 5-21-2004RE: POTTER YOUTH ROCKETRY...

  • Please look at www.SaveRocketryNow.org

  • I see from one of the mailing lists that the NAR has just made asubstantial cash...

  • Point taken

  • And Mark Schynert opened up and revealed to theworld news: ...

  • Has anybody heard of "kal"?

  • Has anybody heard of "kal"? According to an electronic dictionary(Powerword...

  • Pyro kits question

  • Hi guys,Does anyone here have any information about Pyro kits?I've never...

  • Pictures taken at Woking and Horsham (England) shows

  • I've uploaded pictures (18) taken at Woking...

  • foundation fieldbus redundancy

  • We want to use redundancy futures of foundation fieldbus. Basics areknow for me,...

  • Mill foundation support

  • I set up my Bridgeport so that, finally, casters are in the air andthe mill is...

  • Has anyone looked at

  • This collector's site? Do his prices look like they're reasonably in the...

  • Something to look at

  • Sorry about that .Forgot I was still in Ng.The links should have gone to my...

  • Ironwork pictures to look at---

  • I have just added a gallery of ironwork on the Island of Cozumel, Mexico.You can...

  • Has anybody run SW this way?

  • VMWare has a player that allows packaging software with the OS neededto run it....

  • Has Anybody bought anything from this guy ?

  • Has Anybody bought anything from this guy, Sintratech ? His Ebay...

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.