What is the status of the NAR/TRA Lawsuit?

What is the status of the NAR/TRA lawsuit?
Dwight

<< What is the status of the NAR/TRA lawsuit? >>
Still waiting on a ruling from the judge. Unfortunately, he may be sitting on it, waiting to see what happens in Congress.

What IS the NAR/TRA lawsuit?

LOL

  Quoted Text Here  
Hey, great question. We've been talking about it for so long we don't even know! ;)
In short, the 2 rocket clubs NAR and TRA are suing the federal government (BATFE) because they are not following the laws/rules congress mandated them to follow. Most importantly, we're asserting that they have no regulation over the rocket propellant APCP. I've listed the complete text of the 4 counts from the TRA website who's link is at the bottom.
Count 1) Because APCP is not "a chemical compound, mixture or device whose primary or common purpose is to function by explosion," APCP is not an "explosive" within the meaning of the civil provisions of the Explosives Control Act, and therefore, ATF lacks statutory authority to civilly regulate APCP pursuant to the Explosives Control Act.
Count 2) Defendant's inclusion of APCP on its 1999 annual explosives list violates 18 U.S.C. § 847 and 5 U.S.C. §§ 551(4) and 553(b) & (c) because ATF did not provide the public with reasonable notice of, or an opportunity to comment on, ATF's proposed inclusion of APCP on the list, and the rationale for such inclusion, prior to promulgating the list in final form.
Count 3) Defendant's civil regulation of individuals that purchase and store rocket motors violates 18 U.S.C. § 841(d) and 27 C.F.R. §§ 55.11 and 55.141(a)(8) because rocket motors are "special mechanized devices that either are actuated by a propellant or release and direct work through a propellant charge." (PAD or 55.141a8, Jerry's point)
Count 4) Defendant's civil regulation of individuals that purchase and store rockets that use more than 62.5 grams of APCP as a fuel source violates 18 U.S.C. § 847 and 5 U.S.C. §§ 551(4) and 553(b) & (c) because ATF did not provide the public with reasonable notice of, or an opportunity to comment on, ATF's decision (and its underlying rationale) to civilly regulate individuals that purchase and store rockets that use more than 62.5 grams of APCP as a fuel source, notwithstanding its exemption of those individuals that purchase and store rockets using the identical material containing no more than 62.5 grams of APCP as a fuel source.
Count 5) Wasn't there a count 5?
Joel. phx
http://www.tripoli.org/Documents/ATF_lawsuit_0200.html http://www.tripoli.org/document.htm
Please donate to support the cause (skip lunch and send in $5): https://secure.consumersinterest.com/nar/NARfrompres9911.html#donorform

  Quoted Text Here  
Yeah, I think they were a '60s era band...
len.

wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
How do you figure that? The link you posted says ""Psychotic Reaction" was the only album Count Five would ever release. Originally released in 1966..."
Mario Perdue NAR #22012 Sr. L2 for email drop the planet
http://www.indyrockets.org "X-ray-Delta-One, this is Mission Control, two-one-five-six, transmission concluded."

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 22:14:06 -0500, Mario Perdue
  Quoted Text Here  
My mistake. It's the CD that's new. I thought the album cover looked a little dated.
Bill Spadafora http://home.att.net/~billspad or http://www.billsplumbing.com or NARTS http://www.nar.org/NARTS/cat.html snipped-for-privacy@comcast.net snipped-for-privacy@billsplumbing.com

Leonard Fehskens wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Nope, the countess was only married 4 times.
-john

We have a local R&B band calling themselves "Count 'n Change".

I'm sorry the thread got this wacked. When I did a deja search to find the counts, someone a while back said something about count 5. I didn't list it because there isn't one in the document I quoted from on the TRA documents page. Is there only 4 counts in the lawsuit?
Thanks, Joel. phx

The TRA page has the original, not the amended version which has the additional counts.
While the amended complaint is not available, by reading between the lines of other documents, count 5 has to do with "Easy Access" motors.
Joel Corwith wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  

<< Is there only 4 counts in the lawsuit? >>
There was a fifth count that was dismissed by the judge. That related to the original placement of APCP on the "explosives" list back in the 70's. Judge dismissed it due to statute of limitations having expired.

  Quoted Text Here  
Rocketry groups are filing suit against the BATF for illegally classifying APCP as an explosive, (it's not an explosive because it is not intended to and doesn't explode) changes to the rules as they go without due process, and arbitrairally setting limits on how much of a non-explosive a person can buy and store in an explosives magazine.
steve

snipped-for-privacy@local.com wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
A large number of documents are available at http://www.tripoli.org/document.htm
More will be added in the near future.
-Kevin

  Quoted Text Here  
(have to be at least 45 to get this one)
Bada, da, da, da, da.........
Gary Owens: Tea cup... Tyrone F. Horni: That's a big girl. Gary Owens: Z cup.... Tyrone F. Horni: That's a really big girl!
Da, da, da da, da, da.......
And now a word from our sponsor........ Sponsor: That IS a big girl! (think about it)
Randy

  Quoted Text Here  
Veeeerrrrry Eeeenterestink...
I haf to tell zat one to ze guys at ze beeeeer hall.
"clap...... clap...... clap....."
Roy Green, Atlanta http://www.roygreen.com NAR 12605 (http://www.nar.org ) SoAR 007 (http://www.soar571.com )

  Quoted Text Here  
Been a while huh? : )
Randy

NAR is suing TRA. TRA is suing ARSA. ARSA is suing themselves.

  Quoted Text Here  
False.