1. Home
  2. Model rockets forum
  3. Re: Can Canadians Fly rockets in the U.S. **YES**

Re: Can Canadians Fly rockets in the U.S. **YES**

>

>> >> >> >> >> > >> >Interesting letter, but 27 CFR 555.141-A-8 >> >> What about the BP ejection charges? Perhaps it is a small point but BP is not >> exempt, is it? > >Turns out with a parsed reading of the existing law it indeed is. > >>> >Path: >sn-us!sn-xit-05!sn-xit-09!supernews.com!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!nntp-relay.ihug.ne >t!ihug.co.nz!news.compaq.com!news.cpqcorp.net!53ab2750!not-for-mail >Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets >Subject: Re: [TRA-EX] Exposed >From: Leonard Fehskens

Do you think Len Fehskens and I are the same person? We are not. I have not read the thread quoted as I don't always read every rmr thread. Perhaps you two have a history that means that such a reply is justified.

>Let's parse! > >1. >> if the black powder is intended to be used solely for sporting, >> recreational, OR cultural purposes in antique firearms, as defined in 18 >> U.S.C. 921(a)(16) > >1a. >if the black powder is intended to be used solely for >i. sporting, [or] >ii. recreational, OR >iii. cultural purposes in antique firearms, as defined in 18 U.S.C. >921(a)(16) > >Therefore, with all due respect rockets ARE recreational thus black >powder is also exempt from the code for purposes relevent to "sport >rocketry" Sport, ie, recreation. > >You are most welcome! > >There are legal books focused on parsing in particular that reinforce >this (I do not have a link or a scan, to spoon feed you like a baby, >yet). > >Then there are books on English language and grammar which also >demonstrate that if an OR is used, with a series of commas the OR >applies to each term with commas. > > >Jerry > >Spoons are free. > >

Your attack here must not be directed a me. I think you must have been mistaken.

I did question the BP issue and even with your rude reply that indicates that I don't understand English, I think you may be stretching it. Good for you and all of you that follow this logic. I applaud your efforts. The risk is not worth it to me. If I decide to launch in the U.S., I will get the paperwork that is required by those who are enforcing the law. That is the gist of my message.

Americans suffered a loss of freedom since the terrible attacks on 9/11/2001. As such rules that scrutinize aliens more closely (including Canadians) have been put in place. I will follow those rules to the best of MY interpretation. Not yours.

Oh yeah, and shove your spoon back in your mouth. I don't need it.

Len Bryan

Reply to
Len Bryan
Loading thread data ...

Hey Shockie,

Check out

formatting link
and look for "motor import" on the left sidebar. Things are falling into place on that subject. There has been and will be a lot of legwork done to make it as simple as possible, with "as possible" meant literally. There will be a little bit of legwork for you and anyone else to do to drive the stuff across and back, but we can't get away from that entirely. Everyone here hopes people will extend the extra effort to make it both for the sake of the event itself, and to show that it can be done. BTW the annual ROC Lake launches there are a hoot. The Alberta contingent are a great bunch of people and have been working their butts off to make LDRS24 work.

Mike D CTI

Reply to
M Dennett

I got a "404 Does Not Exist" error when I tried to jump to this link. Have you got an update...? :-)

Reply to
Len Lekx

Obviously, you don't care to believe what has recently happened in the courts, which now makes our motors regulated explosives. My whole intent here was/is to help those who want to comply by the laws as put forth by our government. I may not like it myself, but I have too much in my life at stake to do anything against the law. And I don't have the personal resources that you might have to fight this by myself, therefore I comply and get on with my life, and try to help those who want to do this legally too. I am not out there to cause trouble or pick petty fights. So unless you have something constructive to say, why don't you just butt out.

Reply to
mdrocket

Huh?

Motors are exempt.

27 CFR 555.141-a-8

That is the EXACT SAME strawman arguement I heard before the judgement in our FAVOR.

So at least comply?

27CFR555.141-a-8

and

"In addition, the Court finds that the ATF's pronouncement that sport rocket motors are not PADs is invalid because it was made without compliance with the notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures of the OCCA and the APA."

Here comes de judge :)

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Hey Mike... that's great for flying at LDRS 24, but the subject is "Can Canadians Fly rockets in the U.S. **YES**"... how does all this help us NOW with LDRS 23?

Doug BRS - Secretary LDRS - Webguy

formatting link

Reply to
Rocketweb

Len... they went undercover. ;)

Doug

Reply to
Rocketweb

Mike... currently the court has changed nothing. It has basically ruled that the ATFE can in legal terms classify certain motors as "explosive", but then in another point says "prove it".

Doug

Reply to
Rocketweb

Thanks Doug, you clarified it a little better than Jerry did for me.

Dutch

Reply to
mdrocket

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.