Skippy -vs- DOT

It "cannot" explode.

It does not "function by explosion".

Here is yet another law for Fred Wallace to ignore.

Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, Title XI Regulation of Explosives Public Law 91-452, Approved October 15, 1970 (as Amended) [NOTE: Any reference to the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 refers to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (Sec. 2, Public Law 99-514, 100 Stat. 2085, October 22, 1986.)] PURPOSE SEC. 1 1 01. The Congress hereby declares that the purpose of this title is to protect interstate and foreign commerce against interference and interruption by reducing the hazard to persons and property arising from misuse and unsafe or insecure storage of explosive materials. It is not the purpose of this title to place any undue or unnecessary Federal restrictions or burdens on law-abiding citizens with respect to the acquisition, possession, storage, or use of explosive materials for industrial, mining, agricultural, or other lawful purposes, or to provide for the imposition by Federal regulations of any procedures or requirements other than those reasonably necessary to implement and effectuate the provisions of this title. SEC. 1102. Title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding after chapter 39 the following chapter: Chapter 40. -IMPORTATION, MANUFACTURE, DISTRIBUTION AND STORAGE OF EXPLOSIVE MATERIALS Editor's Note [[THEIRS]] The sections of law set out herein were newly added by Public Law

Just so we're clear, they were PADs all along. The ATF letter did not _make_ them PADs, it merely confirmed it.

Maybe so, but until the ATF does that, they were and are still PADs.

I told you so.

Despite MASSIVE opposition.

They're all the same thing once your past CHI.

No Dave, I'm not aware of another CFR part that would be applicable to "manufacturing". Here is what I do know, as practiced by at least two companies that manufacture squibs, used in aircraft emergency systems: The squibs are classified as 1.4c with a PAD exemption by ATF and ship with a DOT exemption as a class 4 hazmat. However both companies that manufacture this particular item are licensed explosive manufactures. BTW from what I can tell from their product listing, the PAD type squibs is the only part of their business in explosives. Like I said earlier, I'm not calling ATF to ask the question and I sure as hell am not going to write a request for clarification..

Fred

I don't know but, I suspect that you might still need a LEMP to make PADs because of the materials used to make them. Does anyone know for sure?

I'm willing to ask ATF if no one has anything against me doing so.

Jerry, You make it so dificult to carry a cival conversation with you. The statement above, made by you, so A-typical of you. (sigh, well at least you didn't call me a moron this time; things are looking up)

Fred

Why don't you answer a question for once. What was the purpose of you labeling a shipment of rocket motors, as "model aircraft parts"?

Why won't you answer? Do you think people will lose all respect for you?

Why did you tell the DOT that us rockets does not exist?

You also told "us" that you were legal to ship, no ifs ands or buts.

That was a complete lie.

Then I guess the Pad exemptions is because the squib is installed in the Bottle, when shipped??

Fred

Anth>

Jerry wrote:

That's not what your BOE testing showed. It said that it could explode in certain drop-tests.

Correct.

. . . below a CERTAIN threshold thickness.

Incorrect.

The ones with NO BALLS asked a judge to assure they were doing the right thing by simply following the law all the time.

Jerry

How many pallets do you want? Pick a number between 1 and 10.

How will you label the shipment, "model aircraft parts", or something like that? Does us rockets exist again, yet? Did you get your propellant tested, to the satisfaction of the DOT, yet? Have you made sure ALL you assets are properly hidden from the Feds?

Skippy you silly rabid roo ... don't you know roos can't count and that is why you have stiffed sooooo many non-roos out of sooooo much money! You should go back to eating grubs and grass, and stop pretending you are a "model rocket manufacture" ... silly rabid roo.

I am pleased to report that RCS has obtained approval to use all the former AeroTech classifications and certifications including DOT EX-numbers, NAR & TRA certifications, California classifications and licenses and USPS and Canadian authorizations.

Gary