The ATF Letter to Mr. Brunda

With all this discussion about the BATFE, rocket motors, exemptions
and storage requirements, how are we supposed to interpret the ATF
letter, addressed to Mr. Guy Bruda, dated June 5, 1992?
It states "the finished rocket motors that you proposed to use [H
motors in this case] are exempt from regulation by the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). You are not required to possess
any license or permits from ATF to acquire or use these devices.
There are also no ATF storage requirements that you must satisfy to
hold these rocket motors."
We have a clear statement by Mr. Brunda that he intended to use H
motors. There was no indication from Mr. Brunda that these were
single-use or reloadable and the BATFE did not specify. There was no
indication from Mr. Brunda as to the quantity of propellant contained
in these motors and the BATFE did not specify any limits on their
clearance. It was as if they did not care.
The only thing in the entire letter that bothers me is the phrase "the
finished rocket motors." However, since the BATFE had no way of
knowing, based on the contents of Mr. Brunda's letter whether these
were reloadable or single use motors, I feel comfortable that it
didn't make any difference.
Also, notice that they described them as "devices." This fits very
nicely in describing them as propellant actuated device.
Reply to
Loading thread data ...
Reloadables once assembled are finished.
Before finished they are PAD's.
Here is the CITE at issue.
formatting link
I rock. I admit it :)
Mere humble Jerry trying to get rocketeers to choose freedom despite NAR and TRA agressively opposing it.
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
baDBob wrote in news:
Well, it's just a letter (official or not) that expresses the opinion of the author. All the ATF has to do is say, "We changed our interpretation," or, "That opinion was incorrect," and that'd be pretty much the end of it.
I suppose it could have some relevance in a legal proceeding, but I'm not a lawyer, so I don't really know how much.
Reply to
David W.
In a criminal proceeding it gives bulletproof reasonable doubt. In a civil suit it gives "traditional treatment" since obviously motors have been treated as PADS several decades longer than ATF have been lying about it.
The lie itself is a violation of many ethical regulations for government employees.
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
This document was submitted by NAR/TRA in the lawsuit. ATF has referred to it as "inartfully drafted", and has said that it was not a correct interpetation by one of their own guys. To me it shows that that ATF is making up the rules as they go along despite decades of non regulation and exemption for our propellants.
This is what upsets me. They allowed a whole cottage industry grow based on their acceptance of our sport, then when it reaches a healthy level where lives and careers are built on it, THEN they decide to crack down.
I don't know if there is any legal recourse for manufacturers, but if this goes down bad, it be nice to sue their asses off.
Mike Fisher Binder Design
Reply to
Mfreptiles (Mfreptiles) wrote in news:
I agree with you about ATF making up rules as the go. And I suspect that it will work against them in the lawsuit. However, I also don't think it'll work to point to the letter as proof that motors are exempt and try to force them to abide by it. It's not and never was "official."
You could certainly check with a lawyer about suing them for arbitrarily creating/enforcing rules that has cost/lost business. I'm not a lawyer, and have no idea how possible/successful that migh be.
Reply to
David W.
Why isn't a letter signed by the Chief of Explosives Branch of ATF "official?" What more "official" document is required? Lrry Lobdell Jr.
Reply to
Larry Lobdell, Jr.

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.