Had it for YEARS and didn't know it.
IRONICALLY if TRA simply renews USR motors per its own rules, they will
be 100% legal (really).
Let me SHOW you.
Or not :-(
Can you even imagine ???????????
Jerry, you're delusional. Even if TRA ever became deranged enough to
cert your motors, it would not make them legal. You still don't have
ATF permits to manufacture them, so in the eyes of the ATF they would
be illegal to sell. Nor do you have the DOT permits to ship them, so
they'd still be illegal to ship. Club certification would not change
Furthermore, certification of motors wouldn't erase your felony
conviction for possession of a destructive device, which makes you a
"prohibited person" according to ATF.
So far you haven't even shown us this alleged "holy grail" referred to
in the title of your post, whatever that may be.
Yes it would.
The MANUFACTURER does (for other purposes entirely), but the ATF has
CLEARLY said to them the sport motors are not subject to that permit at
any point in time.
I have posted the cites over and over. A judge even concurred and you
STILL defame it. You are untrainable.
The good news is the folks that matter, the manufacturer, and the ATF
all agree sport motors are all exempt.
ONLY the TRA is out of synch.
Therefore it is a FACT that if TRA simply followed its own rules (I have
cited them over and over as well) on motor renewals and required ONLY
motors and money in the case of USR just as it does with all its other
"manufacturers", then the motors would be available again immediately.
You do not have the authority or expertise to say the exact and precise
opposite of the ATF's own statements to the manufacturer. To the extent
TRA goes along with this, they are in "restraint of trade".
points to ponder:
A: the BATFE changes its rules and regs to suit itself at its own whim.
B: BATFE did not go through proper procedures during recent rule making.
C: BATFE has done this several times in the past.
D: TRA certification is beating a dead horse. Have you tried NAR or the
Canadians? if so did they say the same.
E. Per all the fecal material that has been posted here by yourself Mr.
Irvine and all the other fecal matter that has flown in responses. I
politely ask for you to simply give it up. Unless Moses should return with
the next five commandments saying that Irvine is good, Irvine is right. It
is not going to happen in my lifetime or yours. All the continued bantering
of this matter is doing is embarressing yourself and allowing us to see what
a huge waste of basic component chemicals you are.
You've posted no cites from the ATF. Where is the ATF's statement
saying that your manufacturer doesn't need a LEMP?
Prove it. I've posted a statement from the ATF which says manufacturers
DO need a LEMP. If they have since changed that policy, please post
their statement saying so.
First off, they do not require "motors and money only" from other
manufacturers. All manufacturers must show proof that they are in
compliance with ATF, DOT, and state laws. Secondly, even if your
problems with ATF went away, you still don't have DOT approvals, nor do
you have CSFM permits.
No, I just have the ATF's own statements which I have posted before and
will now post again. You have nothing but a record of lying.
In particular, check out question #3...
"3. I would like to manufacture and distribute single use rocket motors
and/or propellant reload kits. What ATF license is required?
Only a manufacturer's license is required. Licensed manufacturers may
engage in the business of manufacturing explosive materials for
purposes of sale or distribution or for their own use. It is not
necessary for a licensed manufacturer to also obtain a dealer's
license to engage in business on his or her licensed premises as a
dealer in explosive materials. See 27 CFR =A7 555.41(b)(3)."
That's the ATF's official, published statement saying that they require
LEMPs for rocket motor manufacturers. If you have another official
statement from them that contradicts that, post it. Also, if it
predates their current published position, then it's not their current
policy -- it would only be useful for overturning their current policy,
through the court.
Oh, I forgot one other thing. Even IF your manufacturer was 100% legal,
YOU still couldn't get their motors certified. Only the manufacturer
can submit motors for certification. Your mystery manufacturer will
have to come out from under that cloak of secrecy and submit the motors
if they ever want to have them certified.
a écrit dans le message de
He can maybe submit one motor manufactured by him, then sell those
manufactured by his "manufacturer". Like someone certifying a J350 and then
make them manufactured by another one.
To do that, Jerry would have to be a manufacturer. He says he isn't.
Both he and the other manufacturer would have to have LEMPs and state
permits, and of course the motors would have to be legal to ship.=20
While other issues are real, this is a silly TRA-only rule. Under the TRA
rule, Quest motors would not be certifiable. Nor would the motors sold under
the PML or former Rocketvision labels. And for that matter, neither would
the Aerotech by Ellis motors, including the infamous spongy J350.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"
>>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
As far as I can tell it is not a rule. Of course if you were not
certified, it would be necessary to reveal the manufacturer and the
manufacturer would have to be certified. Of course, there probably is
no manufacturer other than Jerry which is why he doesn't want to
reveal the name. Life is tough when you are the manager, consultant
and employee of a company the employees less than two employees.
Nope, just have AeroTech submit the PML motors and you're fine. That's
exactly what was stated was the proper way to go about it.
For example, SkyRipper uses AT slugs as preheaters, and as such provides
documentation to that effect, to show the proper DOT paperwork is in place.
If you're referring to the case that was posted about last week, it
looks to me like he's not a felon anymore:
According to what I'm seeing, it looks like his plea was changed to
Not Guilty, and the charges were dismissed, upon completion of his
Here's the relevant quote:
TERMINATION OF PROBATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1203.3 PC GRANTED.
CONVICTION(S) HERETOFORE ENTERED IS SET ASIDE; A PLEA OF NOT GUILTY IS
ORDERED ENTERED AND THE CASE IS DISMISSED PURSUANT TO SECTION 1203.4
So, he may not be a "convicted felon" after all. At least, not for
this case, any more.
- Rick "Interesting reading" Dickinson
There are two counts; go to the summary page and look at the plea
information -- count 1 has no plea, and is the one I would guess was
expunged. Count 2 still has a guilty plea.
I'd bet that if both counts were expunged, jerry would've stated as much.
I think the problem there is I think the S&T guy is that same one
who's kid opend one of Jerry shipments that came via US Mail in an
unmarked box. The kid opened it and it contained model aircraft parts
- er I mean rocket motors. He was not amused.
One thing I'll say for Jerry - he makes a lasting impression on
I'm gonna let You guys in on a little secret I've been keeping to
myself. It makes Me chuckle every time I think about it.
Antonio J. Bestard, jerry's criminal defense attorney, happens to be a
member of the Western Pyrotechnic Association, as am I. But that's not
how I know Him. Antonio Bestard has a brother who happens to be married
to My sister. Which makes Antonio Bestard a member of My extended