I ask why considering 27 CFR 555.141-a-8?
Seriously.
I ask why considering 27 CFR 555.141-a-8?
Seriously.
Agreed. Until there is a ruling that our motors do not fit under PAD classification, why bother with LEUP's. IMO, both major rocketry organizations should have asserted this early on. The ATF would have to try and prove that our motors don't fit into this category before they can legally enforce anything. Secondly, the PROPOSED 62.5 g limit has not passed the NPRM phase. Thirdly, there is currently no evidence of enforcement from the ATF, most likely because they currently don't have a leg to stand on..
Aerotech is currently telling dealers to sell the 38mm reloads aka "easy access" to certified fliers, no permit needed at least until the NPRM process is completed. CTI "should" be following suit.
Unjustified fear, and paranoia is killing my business. Now get outside and fly some rockets.
Mike Fisher Binder Design
Mike, Tammie's hobbies *is* asking for a LEUP to buy the 38mm motors.
John
EXACTLY.
And there will be no such ruling.
EXACTLY.
But they didn't. And worse when later begged by many they didn't chaneg and join the bandwagon of legality, giving ATF more fuel.
EXACTLY.
Agreed.
Mike you so rule.
This should be in the FAQ!
I'll fly rockets with you anytime.
That's just wack!
Jerry Irvine wrote: > In article , > snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (Mfreptiles) wrote: >
I guess I misinterpreted the ATF letter in Exhibit H of:
I am curious. Is what they state binding on anyone at all except licensees?
Thank you for your ruling.
Jerry
Incorrect. That was NOT their court argument. Exhibit H is a letter from the ATF to the NAR/TRA lawyer predating the lawsuit stating their official position. Including the infamous "inartfully drafted" disclaimer.
It most certainly DOES:
27 CFR 55.11, "Propellant Actuated Device. Any tool or special mechanized device or gas generator system which is actuated by a propellant or which releases and directs work through a propellant charge."
That's a fact. Hence why we need to educate THEM on the law and not volunteer for illegal permits or storage items.
Yes indeedidoo.
Jerry
It was provided to TRA, NAR lawyers in preparation for the lawsuit.
ATF is using this "expanded definition" of what does and does not constitute a PAD as a court argument. Even though, according to James Brown, Chief, Explosive Division, ATF, admits that an assembled rocket motor is exempt under PAD as early as 1994.
ATF's current "expanded definition" does not match the orange book...remember, their "bible". Most anyone in the scientific community would agree that a rocket would fit into the PAD exemption (as taken from the orange book) quite well.
Mike F.
What I should have said, is that the orange book does not support the ATF's "expanded definition" of what they feel constitutes a PAD, depending on what day of the week it is.
The orange book is the law. Follow it.
Mike F.
Now if we could just get the ATF to do the same...
We cannot. Have you heard of citizens arrests?
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.