You sure as hell are going to defend their knowingly doing so!
Re: The AT auction
Apr 05, 2004
482 Replies
Um, I cited TRA rules otherwise Ray. The thick head is in your department.
Jerry has asked that this be dropped. Your continuing on with this is just going to cause him grief because someone will call DOT & ask them about it. Is that what you are trying to do?
I am on the legal side. The recent ATF case proves it and the soon to be completed DOT case proves it.
You are on the wrong side of history Ray.
But you belong there too.
Jerry
No. The requirements are what they are. Keep in mind that a PAD isn't a PAD until assembled. Also, I didn't see anything that would lead me to believe that a LEMP isn't still required.
I doubt that the requirements will change any time soon.
Have a link to the entire letter? IIRC, that was associated with a # that the DOT later said wasn't yours & couldn't be transfered. I'm not tryin to bust your balls.
Huh?
Later.
Huh?
The ruling says my position WAS ALWAYS VALID.
Jerry
"Very astute observation. Even after being led by the nose to facts supporting JI's claim, he still says that none exist. He's a troll...pure and simple." - Mark Simpson NAR 71503 Level II
The court ruling made no reference to TRA so, there's nothing for them to comply with.They have their rules & that's ok with me.
B
Correct.
Ken Allen Tripoli BOD Fred Wallace
For the record.
No. I have on ocassion too. That's how I know where the problems are & what the rules are. rmr history - it's all there.
Your profanity doesn't bother me in the least. Feeling guilty or something?
It assumes facts OPPOSITE my statements and OPPOSITE published paperwork, as well.
Ray cannot comprehend. Tell him as if he were a child.
-Galaxy Quest
What DOT case? Have you been sniffin' the glue again, jerry?
Join the Discussion
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Didn't find your answer?
Ask the community — no account required