This statement still confuses me and I have a quick question on this...Then I have a longer statement afterwards. I would hope that someone who is a lawyer or a judge would look at this and tell me that either I am making sense or that what I say here is the pure incomprehensible rantings of a crazy person.
Question: Can someone please quote me the law that says there is a
62.5gm exemption. Either the exact line in the USC, an NPRM, or a court ruling (include link if possible)? I can't seem to find this anywhere, and everyone keeps talking about it. I want to see something that is concrete and on the books, not someone other than a Judge's interpretation (and this includes ATF interpretation).Now on to the longer statement.
This is mainly concerning the PAD exemption. The way I see it, there are two possibilities (my computer science background kicking in).
1) Rocket motors are PAD exempt. 2) Rocket motors are not PAD exempt.Case 1: IF the ATF picked you up for "possesion" of APCP or rocket motors without an approved licence to store/posess/etc. and tried to charge you, you could use the PAD exemption as your defense in court. The ATF would have to prove that rocket motors/rocket propellents are NOT PAD exempt, a difficult--if not impossible-- thing to do and remember that the burden of proof lies on the accuser, unless there is currently a law on the books, an interim/final rule, or a court ruling to say that rocket motors are NOT PADs (please quote it if there is). In this case it is legal to posess, store, sell, and use rocket motors of any type until someone proves otherwise. Remember the "innocent until proven guilty" edict in our justice system that sets it apart from others.
Case 2: Assumption: there currently exists a law on the books, an interim/final rule, or a court ruling saying that rocket motors are not PAD exempt (please quote if there is). Now, in this case, APCP, Black Power, etc. rocket motors would be illegal to posess, store, etc. because those compounds are on the explosives list. Now enter the 62.5 gram exemption. According to some, there is some etheral "thing" that states that there is a 62.5 gram limit (total motor or grain is irrelevent for the purpuses of this argument). If there is, prove it to me. Quote me the exact line of the interim/final rule where it states this (I have looked several times on the document on the ATF website, and have not found ANY kind of weight limit or exemption there pertaining to APCP or rocket motors). Quote me the court ruling that states there is a 62.5 gram exemption. If there is no PAD exemption, as stated by my assumption for this case, I want to make sure that I cannot possibly break the law by purchasing a composite E.
These two cases are mutually exlcusive. If Case 1 is true, then Case
2 doesn't matter. If Case 1 is false (please cite why) then Case 2 requires that a 62.5 gram exemption is on the books (cite the document and line/page). If both are false, we're all in trouble.Please post your replies with cites to current laws/NPRM/court cases. I really would like to know what the law currently is concering PAD COURT opinions or laws currently enacted. AFAIK, the ATF's opinion does matter one whit unless they have a law on the books (in the form of USC or interim/final nprm rules) or a past court ruling to back up that opinion.
This post was based on my small knowledge of the way our legal system works, and what I have gleaned from a few acquantinces who are lawyers.
Thanks for your time and bandwidth.
Mike Gerszewski NAR # 80579, Lvl 2