Ok Jerry, show me where you find the word "reload" in that court ruling.
A motor is "reloadable". A "reload" is not a motor, it's what goes into a reloadable motor.
Like I said, the ruling did not directly address the issue of reloads. I think it can and should be interpreted that reloads for PADs are just as exempt as the PADs themselves, but the ATF denies it and the court has not yet addressed it.
A reload is a component of a "sport rocket motor". It is also a component of a PAD (system) as intended to be used.
Two strikes and you're out.
Jerry
I is the eggspert!
Oh, why?
-dave w
Who cares about ATF, your not yet past DOT administrative fines.. However, I bet ATF is chomping at the bit, PAD or no PAD exemption...
I agree, but that is NOT mentioned in the court ruling, and the ATF disputes it.
Ray, go back and read the Joint statement from 5/12...
(full paragraph for Joel the Troll's sake....)
" The Count Three ruling affirms that "fully assembled rocket motors" are propellant actuated devices (PADs) and subject to statutory protection. The judge sharply criticized BATFE for engaging in unlawful rulemaking by attempting to create rules on PADs without observing proper rulemaking procedure. The Court also overturned BATFE's 2000 "rule" as illegal, and stated, in effect, that the status quo reverted back to conditions outlined in a 1994 letter to Aerotech, Inc. "
So, the court (not the ATF) stated, in effect that "the status quo reverted back to conditions outlined in a 1994 letter to Aerotech, Inc."
Seems that the legal call by "our side" was that it wasn't "general PAD rules", but the 1994 letter to AT.... Funny, but I see the ATF geting slapped here, and told to go back to something that was done legally! (reload are not included!)
Ray, going 60 in a 55 zone does tend to be ignored by the cops, but that doesn't make it legal!
Per the NAR/TRA legal team's opinion, reloads are NOT pads!
So, what does the 1994 letter to AT say about nail guns? My guess is nothing!
It is mentioned.
I cited it.
You ignored it.
You are thus with evidence a true moron.
Jerry
I think that your bet bet is to call your vendor and ask them what they require for you to purchase what you want.
Vendors for HPR are not many. Some are
Magnum
May not be legal, but that doesn't make it Wrong.
-dave w
Following up to my own post:
... especially if the speed limit was set below an ordinary and reasonable value for that particular road, because the county liked the extra revenue from speeding tickets (though, of course, it would naturally cite "concerns about safety" in opposition to any proposal to raise the limit...)
And I consider this to be an rather exact metaphor of the over-regulation we face... I think a regulation that requires propellant, in the forms and formulas found in sport rocketry products, to be classified for shipment as "Class 1 Explosives", is in fact excessive. I believe this classification overstates the actual hazard characteristics of the material, and creates unnecessary logistical and regulatory obstacles to its commerce and movement.
-dave w
Legally wrong but not necessarilly "morally" or "societally" wrong.
Customers for HPR are finite, listed and a small fraction of users 10 years ago.
Jerry
Precisely my point... unless one assumed some specific moral virtue to "Obeying The Government"... I mean, come on - do you expect the folks who brought us the War Against Drugs, the War Against Vietnam, the War Against Iraq, the War Against Terrorism, Kent State, Waco, and Watergate to enjoy some default presumption of being the "white hats" anymore?
-dave w
I watched a city council hear an expert on and who performed a speed survey recommend a speed limit of 50 MPH for a road where the speed survey showed an average speed of 56MPH.
The city council set the speed at 40 MPH. I stood up and queried how they could ignore the expert, lower rather than raise the speed limit based on the EVIDENCE and expert, and also substantially increase the number of criminalizations of citizens as a result of an arbitrary decision.
The silence was golden.
The speed limit was lowered from 45 to 40 on TWO FREEWAY OFFRAMP roads.
Jerry
I have seen the government in action.
One cannot trust the government. Don't believe me?
Check with the constitution and the bill of rights. IT SAYS THE SAME THING.
Jerry
An administrative law judge CERTAINLY DOES. Hence the problem. The feedback loop has its hands tied FULLY AND LEGALLY.
Jerry
Fact.
Ya think the DOT and ATF don't relay any info about shipment of "explosives"?
If some fictional character, say, Osama Bin Skippy was caught by the DOT for shipping "explosives" as "model aircraft parts", wouldn't you kind of expect the BATFE to get involved to see where those explosives came from? Maybe the FBI too.....
It seems in the current environment, this would be a for gone conclusion! Heck, Osama Bin Skippy could be locked up as a terrorist, without access to a lawyer! (or the internet! )
So to what extent is an administrative judgement subject to judicial review? Is this the sort of situation where the grounds for appealing of an administrative "screwing" tend to be limited to such procedural matters as whether or not the correct screwdriver was employed, or is there a possibility of genuine recourse in a court of equity?
-dave w
Legally, it would be wrong, to go 60 in a 55 zone.
So, to you "illegal" does not make something "wrong"? Where do you draw the line? Going 75 in a school zone? Stealing from your neighbor? Killing your neighbor's dog 'cause it barks too much?
If it's "illegal", in the view of society, it's "wrong"... If you break the rules, you got to be willing to pay the price!
Yes, I did get pulled over for doing 41 in a 35 zone.. Got a ticket and paid it. I knew I was above the limit and got caught, and was adult enough to pay the price of doing a "wrong" by society's rule on that stretch of road. (it was Fed 28th at 11:45pm, and I'll bet the cop needed to get his "quota" for the month, but doesn't diminish the fact that I was driving above the limit)
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.