Re: BATF Stuff...

In your opinion. I happen to believe any information needs to be gone through equally to ensure it is what it is. Quickly releasing what is originally seen as "good" info while holding back and getting your story straight on "bad" info seems kind of short sighted IMHO. Now I am not saying that is for sure what is happening here. But at the moment without a confirmation one way or the other, we just have the facts of transpired events to look at.
Reply to
Greg Cisko
Loading thread data ...
David: I understand and agree with you that the Judge has never ruled on the legitimacy of the 1994 letters from the BATFE to AT.... SO why does the judge continue to make reference to them in his opinions?
for example you stated:
The judge ruled earlier this year that the BATFE's change in position from the 1994 letter was invalid because it did not go through the proper rule making process. If anyone actually read that letter (attached to court filings) they would have read:
"The Aerotech products which have been classified by the Department of Transportation as a flammable solid 4.1 or as explosives 1.4c, which are within the 62.5 grams limit contained in NFPA 1122 and conform to the requirements of model rocket motors as set forth in 16 CFR section 1500.85(a)(8)(ii), would meet the ATF requirements for exemption under 27 CFR Part 55, section 141(a)(8)."
Here we have the judge ruling that the BATFe change in position from the 1994 letters was invalid.....because it did not go through the rulemaking process.... I am saying that the 1994 letters to AT from the BATFe is alo invalid rulemaking on the BATFE's part..... Does that make sense? No determination yet seems to be made if the 1994 letters have any validity but the judge continues to refernce such documents
I still do not understand how the TPD exemption at 55.141(a) (7) (iii) doe not currently exist but the BATFe vis NPRM 968 is attempting to redefine an exmeption that supposedly hasn't existed since 1998....
shockie B)
Reply to
shockwaveriderz
Isn't that what you're asking for, when you say you want the information released quickly without taking the time to go over it with legal counsel?
Reply to
RayDunakin
HAHAHA!!!!
I never said I wanted info released quickly. Duh I was assuming you can read and reason properly. I mean really - you are really having a freaking problem with this. I said I thought any info should be given the same consideration.
Reply to
Greg Cisko
Nope. DOT made specific provision for that!
Note 49 CFR 173.63 All division 1.4 (including s,c,g) are equivelant to Class C.
So what was their justification at the time? And I mean literally and verbatim.
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
because club leaders were disregarding it despite some vendors screaming loudly about it.
Vulcan (blackballed) ACS (Banned) Kosdon (decertified) U.S. Rockets (decertified).
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
Insufficient. The BATF referenced a specific definition of "toy propellant devices" and that vanished.
But you knew that.
You can look it up in the Federal Register just as easily as I can.
But it will require a trip to a federal repository library as the online version doesn't go back that far. I don't feel sufficiently motivated to go look it up so you are on your own.
Reply to
David Schultz
1995
27 CFR 55.141(a)(7) The importation and distribution of fireworks classified as Class C explosives and generally known as "common fireworks", and other Class C explosives, as described by U.S. Department of Transportation regulations in 49 CFR 173.100 (p), (r), (t), (u) and (x)."
Apparantly you are wrong.
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
I think the real message of the present ruling is that things have been taken as far as far as they can with "motions for summary judgements" and stuff and it's about time to have a proper argument over what's left...
-dave w
Reply to
David Weinshenker
I said that version changed in 1998 so of course it is still there in 1995. Try looking for 49 CFR 173.100 which is where the definition of "toy propellant devices" is at. Good luck
Reply to
David Schultz
Simply reporting what happened isn't the whole story. People are going to want to know what the lawyers have to say about it, what next step is, etc. Without that info, we end up with people jumping to ridiculous conclusions ("Oh no, the Feds are gonna bust down my door 'cause I have a G motor!")
Reply to
RayDunakin

Site Timeline

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.