Re: BATF Stuff...

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)

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?

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.

It is a public document Ray.

Because he is Ray Dunakin.

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.

because club leaders were disregarding it despite some vendors screaming loudly about it.
Vulcan (blackballed) ACS (Banned) Kosdon (decertified) U.S. Rockets (decertified).

Do you have new information to share with the group jerry? If you don't, I'm almost sure someone else will soon..(;-)

Hey I thought he was cool. I never imagined he would get all freaked out and sh$t. Whatever.

Not me. You wanted to know why "bad" news takes longer, I explained it, period.

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.

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.

Assumes facts not in evidence.
The news is neutral.

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

I didn't say anything.

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

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!")