[TROLLS] According to my sources

Steve Bloom Mark Bundick Dave Grayvis Gary Rosenfield Ross Dunton Commonwealth Hangar 11 etc,etc,etc.

I'm talking of those of us who insist on referring to PAD's as "explosives"...

-dave w

Am I really number three on your hate list? Cool.

Why don't you explain it to me?

What untested class B materials?

Besides, you're confusing shipping hazard categories with explosives law exemptions.

-dave w

He is confused generally at ALL times.

No wonder he keeps his name secret. He is embarrassed!

Are We in the real world? I thought we were trapped in jerry's fantasy world.

In the real world, it would be up to the defense to prove that the device in question is a "propellant actuated device".

From 27 CFR 55.11, "Propellant Actuated Device. Any tool or special mechanized device or gas generator system which is actuated by a propellant or which releases and directs work through a propellant charge."

This definition is what is referred to in 27 CFR 55.141(a)(8)

55.141 exemptions (a) (8) Gasoline, fertilizers, propellant actuated devices, or propellant actuated industrial tools manufactured, imported, or distributed for their intended purposes.

From this, it is commonly understood that as long as the PAD are manufactured, imported, or distributed for their intended purpose, they are exempt from treatment as explosives per 27 CFR and other laws. There is no size or volume limitation on what is exempted.

See

page 10 (page 62 of the "Orange Book")

1. Who must meet storage requirements? All persons who store explosive materials must store them in conformity with the provisions of Subpart K of the regulations, unless the person or the materials are exempt from regulation. [18 U.S.C. 842(j), 845; 27 CFR 55.29, 55.141, 55.164,

55.201(a)]

Note the reference to 55.141.

Proof of ATF recognition of Propellant Actuated Device exemption

Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Bureau of 27, I

Ok, I thought you had some real information to share. I am looking for specifics or a direction to look for specific convictions/punitive actions. From my limited research into federal circuit court docket web pages, ATF web pages, and DOT sources, there has been no recent regulatory activity, resulting in punitive action, via regulatory agency administrative penalties or the courts, civil or criminal, towards HPR, directly or indirectly. Now, I could be missing something, but for lack of any information indicating support of your take, I'll continue to keep my eyes and band width open.

Fred

the federal court level,

be used to its fullest.

web pages openly boasts of their successful investigations and > >resulting convictions. DOT also has information on their web page, > >indicating infractions and penalties assessed and collected. I visit > >both web pages, although not recently, (within the last several > >months), and I have not read any such reports. Living as close to DC > >as I do, I'm always looking out for this type of information; please > >poi nt me in the right direction... Note: no smiley faces/winks after > >any sentence..

keep such things out of the public discourse". I have made a

personal contact I have with some of these folks. It ruins their > lives. Do not wish it on anyone. Decriminalize rocketry! NFPA regs > criminalize rocketry in the states where the "whole DA/plea > bargain/extortion system" is going full speed ahead.

Right, but in an actual criminal case, the defense would only need to prove it "hard enough" to establish a Reasonable Doubt. It says so right there in the Bill of Rights. (Admittedly, I'm not stepping forward to be a test case - I don't even _have_ any "class B" materials on hand, so I'd suffer from a lack of standing to do so anyway...)

-dave w

Not in public and not until I meet you.

I agree with the above.

Interesting, especially in light of your constant rants claiming that people _won't_ be arrested for breaking rocketry regulations.

But none of these rocketeers are willing to step forward and tell their story. And Jerry can not / will not reveal what he "knows". He knows things, but he can't tell. This reinforces his allusion of power and control. He's an important person, you know.

The original note did NOT say that dozens of rocketeers have been popped for felonies related to explosive law. It just said felonies. With around 5000 people in the hobby, I have no doubt that there are 24+ felons among us. DWI is a felony, isn't it?

----- Original Message ----- From: "David Weinshenker" Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 10:08 AM Subject: Re: [TROLLS] According to my sources

Dave, I didn't mention court room proceedings. I said, "felonious behavior". Felonious behavior is what occurrs before you get arrested. What happens afterward is not common to the topic at hand. Jerry said people have been "popped on felonies". Where in your courtroom drama does this fit in?

I never used "grounds for conviction" in my post, those are your words. I was referring to someone being "popped".

steve

Drop it. For once. Please.

They won't. They will be targeted and busted on other stuff. Martha was not busted for insider trading. She was busted for "lying to investigators" about it.

No I'm not.

Point.

I guess the PAD exemption didn't work for them.