Re: The AT auction

You may contribute at

"Do or do not, there is no try." - Yoda

At least I can SPELL you are a buttfuck, libelous, and a narc.

Yes, Jerry could not legaly ship motors.

Opinion, based on his lack of motors now in commerce or certified.

I refuse to make it mine, take ownership if you wish.

Only a small construction company. What's your point?

What dream did you retrieve this story from??

So now you love my horse..

Such a display of emotion. Take your meds and have your lawyer call me.

Fred

Well at least we accomplished something.

You must really be pissed off Jerry. Maybe the moron inside you has taken control.(:-)

Be careful Phil, the drones are sucking you in..(:-)

Fred

Phil Ste>

FUD repeated..

What does it say about you that you view that as an "accomplishment"?

-dave w

Correct. However, Jerry apparently thinks he can skip the courts and just "set back" ATF/DOT by his own decree.

"Living the lifestyle"?? Isn't that what street gangs call their illegal activities?

Until the judge corrected the ATF, anyone not in compliance with the ATF was technically at risk of prosecution.

By suing ATF, which is the legal way to challenge them.

Great! Now Jerry just has to convince DOT to do the same for him. Until he does though, he's violating the law if he doesn't ship in compliance with DOT.

That's because Jerry was never the sole champion of the PAD exemption claim. TRA/NAR also believes that rocket motors are PADs, or they wouldn't have included that in the lawsuit.

The difference between TRA/NAR and Jerry is that TRA/NAR chose to stay in compliance with the AHJ until they could get that AHJ's policy overturned in court. Jerry's approach is to ignore the AHJ and just do whatever the heck he wants.

Only the DOT can change that.

Get your facts straight! The orgs DON'T require LEUP's, and never have!

RayDunakin wrote:

Or by committing civil disobedience and testing the law in court.

I also seem to remember (vaguely) in the past some laws were thrown out of court because there were no 'example' cases used to be used for them. For example, in the infamous "Jane Roe" case, it required that an ACTUAL victim have a case to be reviewed before it could be taken to the Supreme Court.

David Erbas-White

Jerry wrote:

Then he should get his butt off the line and get on the side that's legal -- unless he likes being the "focal point of regulation".

Jerry drooled:

So have them arrested. Or take them to court.