any possibility of getting some of that money spent returned to us? I mean the judge did find the ATF at fault for not processing the rule change properly, which caused us to spend this money.
(just wishing)
Recouping legal fees WAS in the original complaint filed years ago...
The way things are going, we'll just have to bank any refund and use it for the next round.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
I am sorry but this is confusing for me. If the NAR "currently does not have, and does not expect to incur legislative expenses in the next year.", then why were you asking us to contribute to the legal fund? It does not make sense to me with the information I currently have.
Legislative (law-making) expenses were/are those incurred for congressional lobbying. Legal expenses are those involved with the fight against the BATFE. Maybe we should call them 'judicial' expenses, to make it clearer...
David Erbas-White
"Legislative expenses" refers to the NAR's efforts in Congress and is a separate issue from the legal expenses involved in litigation vs the ATF.
Legislative efforts == Sen Enzi's legislation that is now dead in the water
Legal efforts == existing court case
Regulatory efforts == NPRM responses
Surprisingly enough the legal fund funds legal efforts, not the other two. NAR general funds were spent on the other two recently, but no further expenditures are expected on the legislative front at the moment.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
OK thanks. There is so much stuff going on you need a score card.
That was money down a rathole. Some experts claim it was counterproductive.
God bless!!
Jerry
Hindsight is always 20:20. I still don't understand how 1 or 2 jacka\\\\\ senators can stop a bill dead in its tracks.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
Well it is in the senate rules isn't it? Or it is just plain politics. It should say allot that many of them did not come to our defense.
As I may have mentioned before, I think it's essentially an outgrowth of the Senate's relatively unlimited rules on discussion: unlike the House, where each member is scheduled for a certain number of minutes of commentary, the Senate allows a member to argue at length, in the absence of a difficult (I think it's one of those things that needs 2/3 or 60% or something bigger than a majority) vote to "limit debate".
In practice, a Senator merely announces his intention to "hold" a bill: he is essentially stating, "I'll keep talking forever before I'll let this one come to a vote." According to the traditional courtesies of the Senate, the others then take his word for it and leave that bill aside rather than forcing him to put his vocal stamina to the test.
-dave w
. . .
Not technically correct.
When a Senator puts a hold on the bill, the Majority Leader cannot then bring the bill to the floor for a vote, even though the bill may have been voted out favorably by a committee (as was the case with S.724) without informing that Senator. The Senate rules regarding a fillibuster, which is what you have described, may or may not then come into play.
In the case of S.724, while the Majority Leader could have moved the bill to the floor, the political cost / benefit ratio of that would not have worked for him, so he simply let the bill sit where it was, voted out of committee, awaiting a move to the floor.
As to how people "can stop a bill dead in its tracks", hopefully the above explanation makes that now clear. They can't necessarily stop the bill; they simply make its political cost too high.
(Homework for the legislatively interested: What percentage of bills introduced in the last session of Congress actually were voted into law?)
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Mark B. Bundick mbundick - at - earthlink - dot - net NAR President www - dot - nar - dot - org
"A dark night in a city that knows how to keep its secrets, but high above the quiet streets on the twelfth floor of the Acme Building, one man is still trying to find the answers to life's persistent questions. Guy Noir, Private Eye."
My hope would be none, but that's way too much to hope for...
David Erbas-White
snip
I wish I had paid more attention in Civics class now. ; )
Randy
NAR did it by shedding light on the bill rather than letting it pass quietly and in virtual darkness many moons ago.
It is analagous with all the rocketry folks who contact authorities to "get rulings". It warns the agency that something is worth noting.
NAR did that via Kyte to 724 and as a result killed it because, let's face it, there is no valid constituency in place in washington for rocketry anymnore.
not the NAR President.
Jerry
Given recent history, ZERO would be too large a number. We need to get rid of 2 old laws for every new one we add. Make that every line item we add, since one law is often packed with sagans of pork barrel riders for special interests.
Sounds like the way to get our rocket regs is for Sen Enzi to attach them to one of those good sounding laws that no one can afford to vote against. It's clearly not going any where on its own.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
You should hear the rhetoric that same jacka\\\\ used to defend his pet bill freeing (deregulating) dietary supplements from FDA controls. If only he would apply that same logic and effort to freeing sport rocket motors (HPR APCP motors, reloads, igniters) from BATFE regulation.
The bottom line is that freeing dietary supplements from FDA control has widespread support from a large voter base, although it was opposed by the FDA and special interest groups. Sport rocketeers have an insignificant voter base, and the jackals can, and will, just screw us, without political consequences.
Alan
Ssshh! You weren't supposed to say that out loud! :)
-dave w
They teach Honda cars in college? Tech school?
:-)
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
So how about someone making dietary suppliments of APCP and HTPB. In all our favorite 'flavors': Vanilla, Licorice, Blueberry, Strawberry and coming soon Kiwi, Lemon, and Orange.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
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.