[TROLLS] According to my sources

Jerry you have confused the hell out of me here.

What's the matter? Chicken?

;-)

Jerry,

I know you have written off Ray because of his posts lately. But I for one think this question was valid. What exactly are you saying? Are you saying that rocket people have been arrested and/or accused of a felony by the ATFE? If so, I would assume that the purported crime would be violation of their view of the explosives laws by posessing APCP rocket motors over

Jerry wrote:

State laws.

I will clarify then I will stop posting about it alright?

There are two catagories of "rocketeer felons":

1. As someone pointed out guys who got in bar fights or whatever.
2. People who were "busted" for "something pyrotechnic" and were convicted under plea bargain for whatever they ended up agreeing to to stay out of jail.

Catagory 1 is larger, I agree. But enough are in #2 and the particular individuals and circumstances indicate "to me" there is some sort of targeting happening.

As Fred pointed out there seems to be no Federal convictions but at least three cases I know the Feds deferred to the State.

One of the aspects of the Homeland Security Act was to make the "defer to the state" link FAR more efficient and likely.

Nope.

The solution is to decriminalize rocketry. Whether you do it the ways I have suggested or not, It really needs to be done. Please.

Jerry

It depends:

No you're not. You ARE ARGUING THE ATF POSITION IN THE LAWSUIT which is CONTRARY TO THE LAW.

YOU are a moron.

Read some articles on plea bargains. You admit to a crime you didn't do to substitute for the crime the DA has alleged (brinksmanship) which would put you in jail most of your life.

I thought rocketry was decriminalized with "your" PAD exemptions? Are you telling Us now, that's not the case?

So where do "Pad exemptions" come into play? Aren't we supposed to just say "jerry irvine told me so"? Isn't that what you've been saying all these years?

Sorry to jump in on such an obvious pissing match but by definition PADs _are_ explosives. If they weren't, there would be no reason to exempt them, now would there?

Joel. phx

Sorry to jump in on your jumping in, but that is just about the best example of circular logic I have ever heard.

There is nothing cicular about it. Here, let's run through it real slow (I'm typing slow to help out). The Explosives laws define what is or is not explosive. APCP is on that list of explosives. However, inside the Explosives Laws is a list of exemptions. The 55.141a (8) exemption excludes PADs from regulation ("this part does not apply to:"), not from being an explosive. It's on the List, but Exempt. PADs which use non-explosive-listed propellants (ANCP) are not exempt because of 8a, they're not explosives to begin with. It's not on the list, look no further.

And the real question is why we haven't seen the information of these plea-bargain persons.

Joel. phx

However they are exempt.

The definition of that "explosive" is deflagrating.

A wood log deflagrates too.

I'm not arguing that they're not morons.

Joel. phx

actually propellant-actuated devices are distinct from explosive-actuated devices in the definitions used in some states regs

see my Fri, 05 Dec 2003 06:20:01 GMT post in thread "PAD definitions" at

- iz

OOOO! lets start a WITCH HUNT! we won't gladly accept authorities with open arms because they might actualy end up believing us rather than the FEAR, UNCERTAINTY, and DOUBT fed them by their supperiors.

Thanks Jerry, If they were monitoring us, you just made any chance of resoning with them that much harder.

Gasp! the Horror! you think if we kept them out they would leave us alone?

You'd think the cops would give up after they hear your name enough times. Especially if you ARE innocent.

Names jerry, we need names. court dates, docket numbers. Testimonies.

you only blaming TRA for this?

Only works if you are GUILTY.

DEMAND you are innocent. NEVER decide that admiting to something you didn't do. NEVER Believe what they tell you.

Didn't they follow your instructions to avoid prosecution by quoting CFR