Rocket Hobbyists Dropping Hobby-Wired News

The ATF has no concern for NFPA codes. they may make their own meanings, and so might the judge.

if the judge says sometime "sport rocket motors" in a ruling guess what ?!

Then any rocket motor used in sporting purposes has just been defined in case law.

you seemed tied to those NFPA codes as laws over everyting.

they are not.

and, I heard, not one state has yet to ratify NFPA 1127.

I heard that means it's only a guidline, since it's only mentioned by referance.

yet, I hear the words LAW used all the time incorrectly. It's a CODE.

This should be in the FAQ.

Really? Where is that legal definition? Please cite it for us.

Please cite where ATF or the court defines the term "sport rocket motors".

I notice that you still haven't volunteered to be a test case for ATF policies. Looks like you have some fear yourself, but that's understandable considering your last experience as a federal test case cost you a $40k fine.

Correct -- and those definitions may not always coincide.

This still leaves a couple potential problems. One, ATF may not agree with your definition of the judge's words. Two, the ATF may argue that the ruling only applies to "fully assembled" motors, not reloads. Would they be wrong? Yes. Would it be logical? No. But so far they've shown a propensity for taking wrong and illogical positions contrary to the law.

I don't think it makes sense to volunteer as a test case because I don't think the BATF will push things that far if given the opportunity not to do so... but if the ATF did try to start something I think there's a lot of folks would darn sure take advantage of the opportunity, thereby thrust upon them, to argue a test case... and when they have to prove "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt", they're gonna have trouble (IMHO) making their claim stick... would you like to be a prosecutor who had to prove that Judge Walton's ruling (that sport rocket motors were, as PAD's, exempt from the section governing manufacture, sale, purchase and storage of "Explosives") only applied to the finished motors (and not to the acts of assembling reloads or making propellant)... and make it stick "beyond a reasonable doubt"?

-dave w

Don't forget about the BUBBA factor, if ATF gets in Jerry's nickels.. ATF has no administrative fines; just criminal convictions that equate to fines and Bubba time..

Fred

You sound like you know this "Bubba" gentleman _real_ well... or at least he's sure on your mind a lot, the way you mention him so much.

-dave w

Contempt of court.

They needn't bother. Plaintiffs did that for them :-(

And your bad attitude will help align political trends to ATF's side.

QED

You said the phrase "sport rocket motors" had legal meaning. What is that meaning, and where is it cited?

I think you're probably right -- but I wouldn't demand that anyone else put their neck on the line based on my opinion/guess. I also think proceding with a degree of caution is necessary in order not to push ATF into pushing back. Only a fool rushes into a potential minefield.

Yes, that is most likely correct, though not 100% certain. How long would it take though, and how much would it cost?

I don't know. The judge's ruling contains enough ambiguity to make this less cut and dried than it should be. Who knows what Joe Sixpack will think when a prosecutor's waving around that phrase, "fully assembled rocket motors" and other colorful terms like "explosives"?

(Note to anyone else reading this: I don't for a minute think that ATF is going to be busting individual flyers -- so don't go running around telling people to stay away from launches or some other such nonsense. We're discussing manufacturing and vending issues here. ATF doesn't need to go after consumers when they can pressure or hassle vendors.)

Yep. Of course, it takes time and money to prove that.

How? And what "political trends"? How does you head in the sand, pretend the ATF doesn't exist attitude help?

I asked:

Jerry replied:

WHERE in that 23 pages is the meaning of the phrase "sport rocket motors" defined, and what is that definition? Quote it for me.

I specifically stated it was not "defined" but used in context. That usage is as useful as it is vague and wide meaning. Exemptions good, codification bad. Generalities of permission good, carefully parsed definitions bad.

Your learning disability prevents you from comprehending this. I understand that. The remaining readers at least have a chance in hell of understanding it.

Tripoli will of course try to prevent people from ejnoying the obvious benefits as it reduces their iron fist control.

Jerry

You said, and I'm quoting here, that it has "legal meaning". So what IS that legal meaning? Not your opinion, but the actual meaning according to law?

Vague generalities cut both ways. How do you think the ATF is going to interpret those vague generalities -- in our favor, or theirs?

Bull. You're just whining because they won't approve your motors as "model aircraft parts".