I don't know why Agents are interpreting anything anyway. Only Judges can interpretate correct ? Or did that change sometime when everything went PC ?(instead of MAC ?)
They should only be able to look in the orange book and do only what is cited. Anything else, and we need to do something.
I know a few gun store owners and I have yet to hear of one that had his regulations interpreted to be something other then what they are supposed to be as writen.
I have read about however, small stores being harrassed, and they have responded by citing the law and standing ground. Yes, they got a lawyer and yes they got resolved. Most of those are reported in journals covering a different hobby.
first note the exemption applies to all but the explicitly excluded subsections:
18USC40.845(a)
"Except in the case of subsections [1] (l), (m), (n), or (o) of section
842 and subsections (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), and (i) of section 844 of this title, this chapter shall not apply to:
(5) commercially manufactured black powder in quantities not to exceed fifty pounds ..."
the storage requirement I believe you are referring to is as follows. Note that as it is not among the subsections explicitly excluded from the exemption, the exemption applies to this subsection
18USC50.842(j)
"It shall be unlawful for any person to store any explosive material in a manner not in conformity with regulations promulgated by the Secretary ..."
TRA says surrender to whatever interpretation you receive. It seems Jerry Irvine ALONE says "read the orange book to them and educate them".
Sad I am alone on such an obvious thing, but I am.
There are alot more gun stores and ATF actually has jurisdiction over them so they receive training. They do NOT receive training on items they have no jurisdiction over - of course! So when a true fool decides to "overcomply" and get ATF permits for exempt materials (AT, TRA, NAR), then the system breaks down and has fits. OF COURSE!!! As one would obviously EXPECT. Well, as a rational person would expect (not AT, NAR, TRA).
Furthermore Gun shops have a lobbiest called NRA who actuaslly, gag, advocates MORE FREEDOM for its constituents.
Rocketry on the other hand has NAR and TRA representing it who welcomes actual substantial increases in regulation, oversight, and even misinterpretations of laws and fully ceeding to those as well. Sorta an anti-NRA called NAR.
Doppleganger indeed.
Jerry
Our journals are propoganda organs designed to prop up the current leaders and their policies and weed out ANY opposing thought, especially actual law cites or proven successful industry prctice.
NAR Cites:
(we already know about TRA to the extreme)
Maintaining status quo at all cost and with no option for alternatives to even be tried, much less fail:
National Association of Rocketry Board of Trusteeís Meeting July 31, 2003 ñ August 4, 2003
"Term Limits for NAR Officers, Trustees, Committee Chairpersons - The Board took no action regarding a request by Terry Dean to establish term limits for officers, trustees or committee chairmen. The Board noted that the NARís volunteer pool did not appear large enough to support such limits."
Making LEGAL RULINGS adverse to vendors, outside the scope of their knowledge, experience, and jurisdiction.
"Motor Acceptance for Certification - Jerry Irvine asked the Board to direct Standards and Testing to accept motor submissions from ACS-Reaction labs if those motors were delivered by any legal means, documents issued by any recognized competent authority by UN were submitted prior to testing, and appropriate fees were paid in advance.
The Board took no action on this request and noted that such motors would not necessarily meet current S&T standards. In particular, S&T requires documents issued solely by DOT in order to insure that motors accepted for certification could be legally shipped via common carrier means. Selected motors which could be classed DOT 1.1 can legally be shipped, under certain conditions, but would not meet either S&T or NFPA criteria for testing."
I requested a change in policy.
The proposal was rejected in part because it would require a change in policy. Circular logic in a broken and irrationalway of course.
The proposal was rejected in part by assuming facts not in evidence, to wit, that ACS propellants are DOT Class 1.1 (high explosives), despite NAR having had at all times in their posession evidence to the contrary:
snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com (AlMax714) wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@posting.google.com:
ATF are law enforcement officers. Their job is to determine whether or not a law has been broken, to the best of their ability, and turn the case over to the judicial system (with evidence, etc). They must, then, work from their interpretation of what the law says, since every situation is different, and no law is perfectly written. The problem we're facing is probably the result of so few cases getting prosecuted - the courts never have a chance to see the evidence and the ATF's case, and rule on whether or not the law was broken. *That's* how the checks and balances are supposed to work.
However, since most people aren't too hot on the idea of being charged with a felnony explosives viotlation, and the ATF seems to be content with merely bullying people with the threat of jail time, not many cases are heard by a judge.
In other cases where law enforcement is arresting people for reasons that the court determines are not consistent with the intent of the law, the court has ordered them to stop prosecuting those cases. At the very least, law enforcement starts to look bad when they consistently loose in court.
It is CAUSED by AT and NAR and TRA asking ATF to have jurisdiction over us. Asking!!!
You are wrong. You interpret felons keeping quiet about their felonies as there not being any. Plenty of "HPR leaders" are felons. I choose not to out them out of common courtesy, but never again use this false premise.
OK, then if the ATF was asked to have jurisdiction over HPR, then they need training on the right way to interpret the law. I assume a law suit is already asking this.
So what we need then is someone who was reqired to have in storage exempt materials, and have that person stand ground and cite orange book.
Then that person's facts need to be brought to bear to the ATF as the standard with wish we should at least a white paper published for them to referance or for use to referance to them when they say exempt materials need to be stored or to be able to use that with any lawyer we need to get resolution. A published practice can not be ignored by one office over others like Bob keeps talking about. Verbal issues can, but not a published practice.
I ask, has anyone in this group cited law to an agent, and stood ground on orange book law, and can have those facts brought to battery so we can all benifit ?
There does seem to be some signs of a judicial backlash building against the worst of it, but unfortunately that tends to involve actual test cases. As noted, most people would rather not volunteer for the hassle... regardless of "reputation" issues (some folks I know would probably consider it a badge of honor to be Unjustly Accused of Terrorism), and regardless of eventual outcome, it does amount to a sentence to spend the proximately forseeable future dealing with lawyers and other individuals of similar character...
On the other hand, knowing this, the BATF may tend to try for more by "enforcement by declaration" than it could likely ever make stick in court... in order to sustain a criminal charge based on rocketry materials as "Illegal Explosives", they would need to get a "Beyond-A-Reasonable-Doubt"-grade ruling, from a jury, in a Speedy and Public Trial (can't stall and waffle like they can in a civil suit), to the effect that the PAD exemption, as written, could not be applied to rockets.
They'd probably rather back down (if given the opportunity to do so quietly) in individual cases, thereby preserving (by apparent absence of adverse precedent) their ability to gain more by bluster than they can genuinely demand by force of law.
David Weinshenker wrote in news:3FF127B8.E2892671 @earthlink.net:
What's worse now is the likelyhood that the ATF will toss the "terrorism" trump card, which could allow them to toss the "test case" into the brig with no formal charges, not legal council, and no access to anyone on the outside.
This country is starting to feel like Germany in the 30s :-(
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.