 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Rockets / March 2004Type 3/Type 4 Magazine
Everyone, I've got my paperwork in for a non-storage LEUP. After reading the regs, asking questions of friends and fellow LEUP/LEDP holders, and speaking with my friendly (and I don't mean that facetiously) neighborhood ATF inspector, I've decided that I need a small type 3 day box and a type 4 magazine, especially for multi-day rokit/road trips. Okay, now that the preface is out of the way, I'd like to find a single small magazine that meets both the specs for a type 3 day box and a type 4 indoor mag. I don't feel like trying to make one myself (as I possess zero welding skills nor any welding equipment) nor do I wish to impose on a friend to make one for me. So, does anyone know of a company that makes such a magazine? Thanks, Chuck  SignatureChuck Pierce NAR 78629, TRA 9308, Level 2 President, Huntsville Area Rocketry Assoc (NAR 403, TRA 80) cpierce_AT_knology.net Dixie Gun Works sells a small magazine that might serve as both for you. Ed > Everyone, > I've got my paperwork in for a non-storage LEUP. After reading the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > wish to impose on a friend to make one for me. So, does anyone know > of a company that makes such a magazine? Can't help on the "dual use" box, but a friend just got an inexpensive (Under $100) gun safe that he'd lined with masonite approved. -Kevin >> Everyone, >> I've got my paperwork in for a non-storage LEUP. After reading the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Can't help on the "dual use" box, but a friend just got an inexpensive > (Under $100) gun safe that he'd lined with masonite approved. I've been looking at those as well. If I didn't already have the 2 ammo boxes, I'd definitely consider one. The pistol box is around $50 IIRC, and should meet all the requirements. The larger rifle cabinet is $70-80, and should easilly hold anything short of a Magnum stockpile. Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html > > Can't help on the "dual use" box, but a friend just got an inexpensive > > (Under $100) gun safe that he'd lined with masonite approved. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > should meet all the requirements. The larger rifle cabinet is $70-80, and > should easilly hold anything short of a Magnum stockpile. That's what I've got and it's approved with no major modifications. http://www.homakmfg.com/homesecuritycatalog/list.htm I got the upright model for $80 to use a Type 4, painted the outside red, and friction fit some plywood shelves. The mortise locks are included. The epoxy paint on the inside was considered "non-sparking" enough for my agent. It can easily hold 50 lbs. I got the pistol model for transport. I put a couple of large handles on it to make it easier to move. It cost me $40 and can easily hold 25 lbs. Also, a three point mortise lock is included. Kevin Rezac Whoops! I should be more specific. I got model 03660-2 for my Type 4 in the garage, and model 0365-1 as my transportable. Kevin Chuck, You should read NPRM 968 again paying particular attention to the changes proposed to 27 CFR 555.63. You will see that after you notify the BATFE of the new location of the magazine you can then remove the explosives and move the magazine. Type 3 magazines are exempt from this requirement but you will not be able to have a magazine treated as both a Type 4 and a Type 3. You will need two separate magazines. The current regulations are unclear on if a change in location is a change requiring notification. The justification in NPRM 968 indicates that the BATFE is treating this as a clarification and is worded to indicate that you must currently provide notice before moving a Type 4 magazine. - "4. Paragraph (b), which exempts mobile or portable type 5 magazines from the requirements of section 55.63, is being amended by redesignating the paragraph as paragraph (f) and by providing that type 3 magazines are also exempt from the requirements of this section. We are not proposing to exempt type 4 magazines from the notification provisions of this section, as such magazines are often used and relocated at the premises of fireworks companies. Due, in part, to the seasonal nature of their business, such companies often relocate type 4 magazines during periods of high volume. In the interest of public safety, we will still require that such businesses notify ATF of relocations of type 4 magazines." The proposed new version is: (d) Relocation of magazines. A licensee or permittee who intends to change the location of an existing magazine will notify the regional director (compliance) in accordance with paragraph (e) of this section describing the proposed changes in location prior to making any changes. Unless otherwise advised by the regional director (compliance), magazines may be relocated after explosives are removed from the magazine. (See also subpart K of this part for storage requirements.) (e) Notification of regional director (compliance). For the purposes of this section, notification of the regional director (compliance) may be by telephone or in writing. However, if notification of the regional director (compliance) is in writing it must be received at least three business days in advance of making changes in construction to an existing magazine or constructing a new magazine, and at least five business days in advance of using any reconstructed magazine or added magazine for the storage of explosives. The BATFE also wants to start applying the table of distances to temporary magazines as well. > Everyone, > I've got my paperwork in for a non-storage LEUP. After reading the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Thanks, > Chuck SignatureDavid W. Schultz http://home.earthlink.net/~david.schultz <grumble, grumble> Well, that really stinks. Just when I think I have a solution figured out, then another gotcha pops up. BTW, believe it or not, it was my local ATF inspector who recommened that I get a magazine that meets the specs for both type 3 and a type 4. Maybe, I should ask her to send me a letter saying as much before I sink money in a not-too-cheap 12-ga magazine. But, I guess her advice is good for today, but when/if the NPRM was approved, her advice/letter would be superceded by the change in law. However, I wonder how this will affect my case, where I have a non-storage LEUP. I won't have a type 4 magazine registered at my house. To the best of my knowledge, my local inspector isn't going to require any magazine before she approves my LEUP application. I'm just trying to legal for transporting LE's. Thanks for words of wisdom, David. The NPRM hasn't come up in my discussions/deliberations about LEUPs and magazines. I'll definitely have to think about this some more before I plunk down a chunk of change on magazine. Chuck >Chuck, > You should read NPRM 968 again paying particular attention to the changes [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] >The BATFE also wants to start applying the table of distances to temporary >magazines as well. SignatureChuck Pierce NAR 78629, TRA 9308, Level 2 President, Huntsville Area Rocketry Assoc (NAR 403, TRA 80) cpierce_AT_knology.net Before anything, you should check local codes.. While the ATF my say something is ok, it must first pass thru the locals... From my experience, the locals may be much tougher than the ATF. > <grumble, grumble> > Well, that really stinks. Just when I think I have a solution figured [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >Chuck, > > You should read NPRM 968 again paying particular attention to the changes > >proposed to 27 CFR 555.63. > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > > > The current regulations are unclear on if a change in location is a change > >requiring notification. The justification in NPRM 968 indicates that the BATFE > >is treating this as a clarification and is worded to indicate that you must [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > >The BATFE also wants to start applying the table of distances to temporary > >magazines as well. Chuck, You say that you have an application for a non-storage permit in. Don't you mean that you have provided for contingent storage? The BATFE removed the weasel words that allowed non-storage permits (like I have) when they published the changes required to implement the Safe Explosives Act. Even though there was nothing in the Act that required this change. The change was to 27 CFR 555.49(a)(2)(vi) http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/05dec20031700/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr _2003/aprqtr/27cfr555.49.htm Oh, a magazine is not required to transport. See 27 CFR 555.205: http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/05dec20031700/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr _2003/aprqtr/27cfr555.205.htm The tricky bit is figuring out when you cross the line from transporting/using to storing once you reach the launch site. Good luck on the permit. Don't forget your certification required by 33 USC 1341 and 27 CFR 555.49(b)(2)(vii). The renewal package I received this week has forms for this. > <grumble, grumble> > Well, that really stinks. Just when I think I have a solution figured [quoted text clipped - 89 lines] >>The BATFE also wants to start applying the table of distances to temporary >>magazines as well. SignatureDavid W. Schultz http://home.earthlink.net/~david.schultz >Chuck, > You say that you have an application for a non-storage permit in. Don't you >mean that you have provided for contingent storage? The BATFE removed the weasel >words that allowed non-storage permits (like I have) when they published the >changes required to implement the Safe Explosives Act. Even though there was >nothing in the Act that required this change. Yes, I will have contingency storage. The nominal plan would be for me to swing by the contingency site and pick up the motors that I plan to burn that day (or he'll bring them, if he's going to the launch also), then bring any unburned motors back to the contingency storage magazine that night. >Oh, a magazine is not required to transport. See 27 CFR 555.205: > >http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/05dec20031700/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr _2003/aprqtr/27cfr555.205.htm > >The tricky bit is figuring out when you cross the line from transporting/using >to storing once you reach the launch site. Amen! This is what's driving me to a need for Type 4. If I go to a multi-day launch, my local ATF inspector sez that the motors would need to be put in a Type 4 overnight. I know, intepretation... jurisdiction, and all that jazz. But, from my knothole, it seems reasonable that LE's would have to be stored in a magazine overnight. I don't like it, but I can definitely see how the ATF would intepret it that way. Well, then, why don't truckers have to put class 1.4 LE's in a magazine at night while in transit? Heck, I don't know... :-/ There are inconsistencies all through the ATF/DOT codes, and that really stinks!!! Here's the twist that I believe that is driving me to a need for a type 3 daybox. DOT doesn't care about class 1.4 material in quantites of less than 1000 lbs. However, even though the motors are shipped by the motor distributors as 1.4 LE's, once the user receives them, they become 1.3 LE's when transported again since the end users are not a party to the distributor's DOT 10996 shipping exemption (whick allows the 1.3 material to be shipped as 1.4). I believe that Pro38/54 motors are the only 62.5g+ motors that are intrinsicly class 1.4. I will admit that I have not verified this for myself in the regs (but trust the sources as knowledgeable and credible); from discussion with them, I believe that the DOT requires class 1.3 material to be shipped in a Type 3 magazine, even in quantities of less than 56 lbs. So, that is why I'm trying to find single magazine that meets the specs for both type 3 and type 4 magazine. >Good luck on the permit. Don't forget your certification required by 33 USC 1341 >and 27 CFR 555.49(b)(2)(vii). The renewal package I received this week has forms >for this. <blank stare> RE: 33USC 1341 I'll find this to see what's up. RE: 27CFR55.49(b)(2)(vii): I did not receive a form letter such as this and the instructions didn't require that I submit one with my LEUP application. (BTW, I submitted my application about 3 weeks ago). So, I guess that I can draft one up and give it to the ATF inspector when she comes to visit me???? I certainly hope so. Now, with all of this said, I don't really want to get into a discussion of what everybody does, because that would really be irrelevant when you're standing in front of the magistrate in shackles. My goal is to meet the letter of the law (as hard as that may be intepret), but I don't want to have to do more that is required. Ultimately, though, I want to stay out of jail. :-) David, you're certainly very knowledgeable in these topics, and I really appreciate you taking the time to repond with this extremely helpful info. Would you mind giving me your email addy; so, that I follow up on some of these questions/issues and can further seek your wisdom of other LEUP-related questions? I like to get as many informed views/opinions as possible to help me intepret the regs for myself. My email addy is cpierce_AT_knology.net. Thanks again! Chuck SignatureChuck Pierce NAR 78629, TRA 9308, Level 2 President, Huntsville Area Rocketry Assoc (NAR 403, TRA 80) cpierce_AT_knology.net Since BOTH of your trade associations, NAR and TRA agree in a LAWSUIT!!, why don't you? 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 http://www.atf.treas.gov/explarson/fedexplolaw/qanda.pdf page 10 (page 62 of the "Orange Book") 66. 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. Walk the f.cking goddamn walk!! > >Chuck, > > You say that you have an application for a non-storage permit in. Don't you [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] > Thanks again! > Chuck SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com My articles valuable? Donate http://tinyurl.com/2hmgv You're a moron and add nothing of value to this newsgroup. Why don't you and Jizzy go cry in each other's beer? SignatureChuck Pierce NAR 78629, TRA 9308, Level 2 President, Huntsville Area Rocketry Assoc (NAR 403, TRA 80) cpierce_AT_knology.net > I believe that > Pro38/54 motors are the only 62.5g+ motors that are intrinsicly class > 1.4. Not correct. ACS as well. > I believe that the DOT requires class 1.3 > material to be shipped in a Type 3 magazine, even in quantities of > less than 56 lbs. Total BS. > Now, with all of this said, I don't really want to get into a > discussion of what everybody does, because that would really be > irrelevant when you're standing in front of the magistrate in > shackles. My goal is to meet the letter of the law (as hard as that > may be intepret), but I don't want to have to do more that is > required. Ultimately, though, I want to stay out of jail. :-) Very simple: 27CFR555.141-a-8. Follow your own statement of principal for god's sake! > David, you're certainly very knowledgeable in these topics, and I > really appreciate you taking the time to repond with this extremely [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Thanks again! > Chuck Jerry The holder of the ONLY site with ALL the regs set forth. http://www.v-serv.com/usr/ATFexempt.htm "I am aware that many object to the severity of my language; but is there not cause for severity? I WILL be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject I do not wish to think, or speak, or write, with moderation. . . I am in earnest - I will not equivocate - I will not excuse - I will not retreat a single inch - and I WILL BE HEARD." - William Lloyd Garrison "I have a big problem with all this 'in excess of the regulations' crap. We should be making things easier for flyers, not harder. IMO TRA takes a very short view of things and I think its going to bite them in the butt." - Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed "TRA behavior and speech is "orthagonal with" actual reality." - Jerry Irvine SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com My articles valuable? Donate http://tinyurl.com/2hmgv > > My goal is to meet the letter of the law (as hard as that > > may be intepret), but I don't want to have to do more that is > > required. > Very simple: 27CFR555.141-a-8. > > Follow your own statement of principal for god's sake! . SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com My articles valuable? Donate http://tinyurl.com/2hmgv >>>My goal is to meet the letter of the law (as hard as that >>>may be intepret), but I don't want to have to do more that is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > . Talking to yourself again, huh, jerry? > >>>My goal is to meet the letter of the law (as hard as that > >>>may be intepret), but I don't want to have to do more that is [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Talking to yourself again, huh, jerry? Too bad, eh? SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com My articles valuable? Donate http://tinyurl.com/2hmgv >>>>>My goal is to meet the letter of the law (as hard as that >>>>>may be intepret), but I don't want to have to do more that is [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Too bad, eh? No, the word that comes to mind is, Pathetic jhijack > jhijack 27 CFR 555.141 (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. SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com My articles valuable? Donate http://tinyurl.com/2hmgv >>jhijack > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > devices, or propellant actuated industrial tools manufactured, imported, > or distributed for their intended purposes. So according to you machine-guns are legal and exempt? > >>jhijack > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > So according to you machine-guns are legal and exempt? Actually firearms are under a different code entirely. Strike three. SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com My articles valuable? Donate http://tinyurl.com/2hmgv >>>>jhijack >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Strike three. Not according to your interpretation. Aren't rockets under a different code entirely, also? >Actually firearms are under a different code entirely. Jerry just opened himself up for a slam. Anyone want to take it or should I? > Jerry just opened himself up for a slam. Anyone want to take it or > should I? So you wish to make a hit on Rocketries Freedom Index ? I thought your rule was that you get to pick the part of the code you want them to fall under (not which one the ATFE says they fall under)? -- David > > >>jhijack > > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Strike three. > I thought your rule was that you get to pick the part of the code you want > them to fall under (not which one the ATFE says they fall under)? Both the ATF and I are subject to the same code. That's why we have laws. > -- David > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > > > Strike three. SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com My articles valuable? Donate http://tinyurl.com/2hmgv >>I thought your rule was that you get to pick the part of the code you want >>them to fall under (not which one the ATFE says they fall under)? > > Both the ATF and I are subject to the same code. That's why we have laws. Then, why don't you obey them(laws)? > > 27 CFR 555.141 (a) (8) > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > So according to you machine-guns are legal and exempt? they are legal to own, but a tariff requires you to pay a $200 tax to own them. Rocketeers continue to be their enemies > > >>>My goal is to meet the letter of the law (as hard as that > > >>>may be intepret), but I don't want to have to do more that is [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Too bad, eh? 1. Make a wish. 2. Receive wish in full. 3. Forsake wish. 4. Kill messenger. 5. Behave as if wish is unobtainable. Pretty much sums up rocketry people, ATF exemptions, Rocketry "advocates" and life in the current wacky world of HPR. This is not your father's HPR :-) Just Jerry (HPR pioneer) SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com My articles valuable? Donate http://tinyurl.com/2hmgv >>>>>>My goal is to meet the letter of the law (as hard as that >>>>>>may be intepret), but I don't want to have to do more that is [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Just Jerry (HPR pioneer) Ah, jerry, your still replying to your own posts. <SNIP> >Too bad, eh? ^ ^ Oh oh! Jerry is starting to talk Canadian! 8-] Len Bryan CAR S620 L3 > <SNIP> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Len Bryan > CAR S620 L3 You already knew he was a "hoser", right? >> Oh oh! Jerry is starting to talk Canadian! 8-] >> >> Len Bryan >> CAR S620 L3 > >You already knew he was a "hoser", right? I think that somewhere Jerry has posted that he invented Canada...all by himself. SignatureChuck Pierce NAR 78629, TRA 9308, Level 2 President, Huntsville Area Rocketry Assoc (NAR 403, TRA 80) cpierce_AT_knology.net > >> Oh oh! Jerry is starting to talk Canadian! 8-] > >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I think that somewhere Jerry has posted that he invented Canada...all > by himself. Everything you say is crap. Your mother and fellow club members must be proud. While they are getting ATF permits for exempt explosives BTW. Jerry SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com My articles valuable? Donate http://tinyurl.com/2hmgv >While they are getting ATF permits for exempt explosives BTW. Go read the law and stop making crap up. Moron. SignatureChuck Pierce NAR 78629, TRA 9308, Level 2 President, Huntsville Area Rocketry Assoc (NAR 403, TRA 80) cpierce_AT_knology.net > > While they are getting ATF permits for exempt explosives BTW. > > Go read the law and stop making crap up. Moron. Now what exactly is Jerry "making up"? It looks like he _has_ read the law, and is citing chapter and verse. -dave w >>>While they are getting ATF permits for exempt explosives BTW. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > -dave w Tell Us where it says, "rocket motors are PADs", in any written law. > > > > While they are getting ATF permits for exempt explosives BTW. > > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Tell Us Capitalizing the first person plural pronoun probably means something to the psychologists... > where it says, "rocket motors are PADs", in any written law. From the "definitions" section of the applicable CFR: "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." How can you argue that rocket motors would _not_ fall within this definition? Is a rocket motor a "mechanized device or gas generator system?" Yes. Does it "release and direct work through a propellant charge?" Yes. Well, then...?? -dave w >>>>>While they are getting ATF permits for exempt explosives BTW. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > -dave w By your interpetation, explosives would be exempt, if you used them for their intended purpose. Also, nowhere in your response did you cite the location of the word/s rocket/rocket motor/s. Did I miss something? << Also, nowhere in your response did you cite the location of the word/s rocket/rocket motor/s. Did I miss something? >> There's no need for those words to be included in the definition. The whole point is that the definition is broadly written and should be broadly interpreted. Rockets/motors can and do fit the definition of a PAD, without being specifically cited by name. > >>>While they are getting ATF permits for exempt explosives BTW. > >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Tell Us where it says, "rocket motors are PADs", in any written law. Be glad to: 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." Any or or or and Just Jerry SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com My articles valuable? Donate http://tinyurl.com/2hmgv >>>>>While they are getting ATF permits for exempt explosives BTW. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Just Jerry Just nowhere does it say, "rocket" or "rocket motor". > Just nowhere does it say, "rocket" or "rocket motor". I want to send you to the Sylvan Learning Center. What is your real name and address? Embarrassed? Jerry SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com My articles valuable? Donate http://tinyurl.com/2hmgv >>Just nowhere does it say, "rocket" or "rocket motor". > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Jerry For you, just for you. >>Just nowhere does it say, "rocket" or "rocket motor". > > I want to send you to the Sylvan Learning Center. What is your real name > and address? > > Embarrassed? I would put money on Mr. Grayvis being in the current or past TRA leadership, or a confidante of same - iz I agree & I'd put your money on it too. >>>Just nowhere does it say, "rocket" or "rocket motor". >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >- iz > >>Just nowhere does it say, "rocket" or "rocket motor". > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > - iz He is at minimum a Rogers surrogate. SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com My articles valuable? Donate http://tinyurl.com/2hmgv >>>>Just nowhere does it say, "rocket" or "rocket motor". >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > He is at minimum a Rogers surrogate. This from the guy who claimed I was a BATFE mole. Change your mind? Which is it? > >>>>Just nowhere does it say, "rocket" or "rocket motor". > >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Change your mind? Which is it? You imply that those are mutually exclusive roles... -dave w > >>>>Just nowhere does it say, "rocket" or "rocket motor". > >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Change your mind? Which is it? Same difference! SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com My articles valuable? Donate http://tinyurl.com/2hmgv > Just nowhere does it say, "rocket" or "rocket motor". Do you expect an exhaustive listing of every possible example to appear in a general definition? -dave w >>Just nowhere does it say, "rocket" or "rocket motor". > > Do you expect an exhaustive listing of every possible > example to appear in a general definition? > > -dave w Who decides? You? Me? jerry? Maybe the BATFE? Nowhere does it mention "rocket motor/s" > Nowhere does it mention "rocket motor/s" It doesn't mention any specific examples. It just gives a general criterion. You're being deliberately dense, just to stir up arguments. -dave w > > Nowhere does it mention "rocket motor/s" > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > -dave w No he really is that way naturally! SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com My articles valuable? Donate http://tinyurl.com/2hmgv >>Nowhere does it mention "rocket motor/s" > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > -dave w Sooo..., your answer is, "no, it doesn't mention rocket motors". Is that correct? It has already been posted that documents from the ATF in the lawsuit pointed to individuals arguing for their case in open forums. The exclusion also doesn't mention aircraft recovery systems (rocket propelled parachutes) which are also PADs. Please don't continue to argue the case FOR the ATF. Thanks. > >>Nowhere does it mention "rocket motor/s" > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Is that correct? I think most are discussing within what they think the ATF does or does no require rather than what they feel the ATF should require. >It has already been posted that documents from the ATF in the lawsuit >pointed to individuals arguing for their case in open forums. The exclusion [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >> >> Is that correct? > I think most are discussing within what they think the ATF does or > does no require rather than what they feel the ATF should require. I realize that. I think some do not. Mr Grayvis has made points in the ATF favor not brought up here before. It's nice you 'think' you're only arguing what the ATF position is (hint: motors aren't pads) but he is trying to hammer Jerry by PROVING their point and that's plain FOOLISH. ATF says motors aren't pads. Jerry and the rest of us say they're wrong. Who's side you on? > > I think most are discussing within what they think the ATF does or > > does no require rather than what they feel the ATF should require. > > I realize that. I think some do not. > Mr Grayvis has made points in the ATF favor not brought up here before. > It's nice you 'think' you're only arguing what the ATF position is (hint: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> >>I realize that. I think some do not. The BATFE already claims rocket motors are not PADs. > > Mr Grayvis has made points in the ATF favor not brought up here before. > > It's nice you 'think' you're only arguing what the ATF position is (hint: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > The BATFE already claims rocket motors are not PADs. Yeah, but we shouldn't give the impression that anyone else _agrees_ with them! -dave w >>>Mr Grayvis has made points in the ATF favor not brought up here before. >>>It's nice you 'think' you're only arguing what the ATF position is (hint: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > -dave w That's up to the Judge, not you or I. > >>>Mr Grayvis has made points in the ATF favor not brought up here before. > >>>It's nice you 'think' you're only arguing what the ATF position is (hint: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > That's up to the Judge, not you or I. You are not responsible for your own behavior or words. You are a perfect candidate for TRA BOD! SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com My articles valuable? Donate http://tinyurl.com/2hmgv If you'd be a good boy, you could be too. Bet you could effect more change from inside the BOD than from RMR. Jizzy could be your VP. >You are not responsible for your own behavior or words. You are a >perfect candidate for TRA BOD! > If you'd be a good boy, you could be too. Bet you could effect more > change from inside the BOD than from RMR. Jizzy could be your VP. Back when I was asked by the folks who stuffed ballot boxes, I declined. I have this silly ethic that a manufacturer has an inherent conflict of interest as proven by Rosenfield, Rogers, Kelly and others. > >You are not responsible for your own behavior or words. You are a > >perfect candidate for TRA BOD! SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com My articles valuable? Donate http://tinyurl.com/2hmgv > > Mr Grayvis has made points in the ATF favor not brought up here before. > > It's nice you 'think' you're only arguing what the ATF position is (hint: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > The BATFE already claims rocket motors are not PADs. So do you. SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com My articles valuable? Donate http://tinyurl.com/2hmgv > Mr Grayvis has made points in the ATF favor not brought up here before. > It's nice you 'think' you're only arguing what the ATF position is (hint: > motors aren't pads) but he is trying to hammer Jerry by PROVING their point attempting badly thank god. > and that's plain FOOLISH. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > > > I realize that. I think some do not. SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com My articles valuable? Donate http://tinyurl.com/2hmgv >Mr Grayvis has made points in the ATF favor not brought up here before. >It's nice you 'think' you're only arguing what the ATF position is (hint: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Who's side you on? Jerry does not make certified motors, he makes PADS, and he wants consumers to buy his PADS and fly them in sport rockets. I think the BAFTE is wrong, and Jerry is wrong, and what I think does not matter as much as what a judge, prosecuter, or enforcer thinks. > >Mr Grayvis has made points in the ATF favor not brought up here before. > >It's nice you 'think' you're only arguing what the ATF position is (hint: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I think the BAFTE is wrong, and Jerry is wrong, and what I think does > not matter as much as what a judge, prosecuter, or enforcer thinks. And now you are wrong too. SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com My articles valuable? Donate http://tinyurl.com/2hmgv > It has already been posted that documents from the ATF in the lawsuit > pointed to individuals arguing for their case in open forums. The exclusion > also doesn't mention aircraft recovery systems (rocket propelled parachutes) > which are also PADs. > > Please don't continue to argue the case FOR the ATF. Dave Grayvis wants the >$300,000.00 NAR and TRA have invested in a lawsuit from member contributions to be a waste. So does Chuck Pierce. > Chuck Pierce > NAR 78629, TRA 9308, Level 2 > President, Huntsville Area Rocketry Assoc (NAR 403, TRA 80) > cpierce_AT_knology.net > Thanks. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > > > Is that correct? SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com My articles valuable? Donate http://tinyurl.com/2hmgv >>It has already been posted that documents from the ATF in the lawsuit >>pointed to individuals arguing for their case in open forums. The exclusion [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > So does Chuck Pierce. Did We win yet? > Did We win yet? Rocketeers continue to be their own enemies > > Did We win yet? > > Rocketeers continue to be their own enemies God bless you almax. SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com My articles valuable? Donate http://tinyurl.com/2hmgv > wants the >$300,000.00 NAR and TRA have invested in a > lawsuit from member contributions to be a waste. I want it to stop raining so I can fly rockets! Doesn't look good for this weekend. I'm glad NSL is being moved to an all-weather field. At least I should be able to finish fiberglassing a few body tubes. The field will be wet but by Saturday the sun will be out and temps in the 70s. Might even get some painting done. I have a question about glue, but I'll save that for now.... SignatureAlex Mericas > I want it to stop raining so I can fly rockets! Sorry about that. I had to go down to Austin for a couple of sales calls. Sorry to the Houston guys, too. I had to go down there last week. Doug Proud member of DARS (Dallas Area Rain Service) > > > I want it to stop raining so I can fly rockets! [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Proud member of DARS (Dallas Area Rain Service) My dad was the same way about Florida when we were kids. I think he started developing a complex and pretty soon we stuck to the Kentucky State Parks. > $300,000.00 NAR and TRA have invested in a > lawsuit from member contributions You know, it probably wouldn't take _that_ much lawyering to successfully defend a test case... -dave w >>$300,000.00 NAR and TRA have invested in a >>lawsuit from member contributions [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > -dave w If you don't want a lot of lawyering,... jerry's your man! > >>$300,000.00 NAR and TRA have invested in a > >>lawsuit from member contributions [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > If you don't want a lot of lawyering,... jerry's your man! So is Gary :) SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com My articles valuable? Donate http://tinyurl.com/2hmgv > > $300,000.00 NAR and TRA have invested in a > > lawsuit from member contributions [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > -dave w I keep begging :) SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com My articles valuable? Donate http://tinyurl.com/2hmgv >>>$300,000.00 NAR and TRA have invested in a >>>lawsuit from member contributions [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I keep begging :) Where do you manufacture and store your "exempt" rocket motors? Don't want to say? Some test case. > It has already been posted that documents from the ATF in the lawsuit > pointed to individuals arguing for their case in open forums. you are so correct, Rocketeers continue to be their own worst enemies >The exclusion > also doesn't mention aircraft recovery systems (rocket propelled parachutes) [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > > > Is that correct? << Please don't continue to argue the case FOR the ATF. >> I agree! > >>Nowhere does it mention "rocket motor/s" > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Is that correct? Obviously SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com My articles valuable? Donate http://tinyurl.com/2hmgv > >>Nowhere does it mention "rocket motor/s" > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Is that correct? Rocketeers continue to be their own enemies > >>Just nowhere does it say, "rocket" or "rocket motor". > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Nowhere does it mention "rocket motor/s" Obviously you cannot comprehend it. SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com My articles valuable? Donate http://tinyurl.com/2hmgv >>>>Just nowhere does it say, "rocket" or "rocket motor". >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Obviously you cannot comprehend it. And just how do you "comprehend" it? Be specific, please. > Who decides? You? Me? jerry? Maybe the BATFE? > > Nowhere does it mention "rocket motor/s" In america, judges are to decide, not enforment agencies. Rocketeers will continue to be their own enemies. > Just nowhere does it say, "rocket" or "rocket motor". rocketeers continue to prove they are their own worst enemies. for decades, and decades and decades. others do so as well. > > Just nowhere does it say, "rocket" or "rocket motor". > > rocketeers continue to prove they are their own worst enemies. > for decades, and decades and decades. > > others do so as well. Point. SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com My articles valuable? Donate http://tinyurl.com/2hmgv > > > While they are getting ATF permits for exempt explosives BTW. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > -dave w Apparantly that is why I am a moron according to: Chuck Pierce NAR 78629, TRA 9308, Level 2 President, Huntsville Area Rocketry Assoc (NAR 403, TRA 80) cpierce_AT_knology.net ooooooo Level 2. Impressive :) SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com My articles valuable? Donate http://tinyurl.com/2hmgv > Chuck Pierce > NAR 78629, TRA 9308, Level 2 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Impressive :) with a TRA number that low, he lived through just about all the TRA debacles, including the illegally changed By Laws Hey Chuck, Ray says the BoD followed proper procedure to ammend the By Laws to usurp the members right of ammendment. Since you lived through it, can you tell us exactly when was it proposed to the membership, when was it voted upon by them, and what was the outcome? - iz > > Chuck Pierce > > NAR 78629, TRA 9308, Level 2 [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > - iz Just for entertainment: > Chuck Pierce Jerry Irvine > NAR 78629, TRA 9308, Level 2 NAR 24333 TRA 12 > President, Huntsville Area Rocketry Assoc (NAR 403, TRA 80) FOUNDER LTR#007 TRA FOUNDER IEAS Lucerne FOUNDER IEAS Mojave Member NAR $193 "inspiration" for TRA itself > cpierce_AT_knology.net Now compare numbers :) SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com My articles valuable? Donate http://tinyurl.com/2hmgv >>>Chuck Pierce >>>NAR 78629, TRA 9308, Level 2 [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Now compare numbers :) Is that what you problem is? you have a need to be "more important" than everyone else around? That must be a tough pill to swallow when you're a nobody. The Iz side of Jizzy wrote: << Hey Chuck, Ray says the BoD followed proper procedure to ammend the By Laws to usurp the members right of ammendment.>> Don't misquote me. I said the bylaws change was voted on and approved by the members. <<Since you lived through it, can you tell us exactly when was it proposed to the membership, when was it voted upon by them, and what was the outcome? >> What's it matter to you, since you were NOT there? If you want to undo it, get yourself elected to the BOD and put it to a vote. Or build a time machine so you can go back in time and try to convince those of us who were THERE to vote differently. Oh, I forgot. Both of those options involve the will of the members, something you studiously avoid. The Jerry side wrote: <<"inspiration" for TRA itself >> LOL!!! > The Iz side of Jizzy wrote: > << Hey Chuck, Ray says the BoD followed proper procedure to ammend the By Laws > to usurp the members right of ammendment.>> > > Don't misquote me. I said the bylaws change was voted on and approved by the > members. "voted on" when? and in reponse to what proposal made when and by what means? > <<Since you lived through it, can you tell us exactly when was it proposed to > the membership, when was it voted upon by them, and what was the outcome? >> > > What's it matter to you, since you were NOT there? it has a bearing on every unilateral decision that resulted in changes to the By Laws ever since. Those in turn have a bearing on major policies through to the present day. > If you want to undo it, get yourself elected to the BOD and put it to a vote. that is not necessary, Ray. A illegal change is void. > Or build a time machine so you can go back in time and try to convince those > of us who were THERE to vote differently. really? when was that, exactly? and in response to what proposal made when and by what means? > Oh, I forgot. Both of those options involve the will of the members, something > you studiously avoid. no, something the leadership usurped. The "members" have been the victims of both that act, and the concealment and denial that has become common practicie since that time. tell the members the *whole* truth, including all the coverups of funds mismanagement and improper appropriation and see what the "will of the members" actually is. - iz > "voted on" when? and in reponse to what proposal made when and by what > means? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > > What's it matter to you, since you were NOT there? I'm sorry to say, but the Rocketeer's freedom index gets lower when rocketeers Infight like this. Rocket Freedom just took a hit. > no, something the leadership usurped. The "members" have been the > victims of both that act, and the concealment and denial that has become [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > - iz I believe Ray is privy ONLY to the party line and has no first hand information to know about the irregularities. He has been a consumer, not a leader. Jerry SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com My articles valuable? Donate http://tinyurl.com/2hmgv > Jerry wrote: > > <<"inspiration" for TRA itself >> > > LOL!!! Just ask Tom. SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com My articles valuable? Donate http://tinyurl.com/2hmgv Chuck's personal TRA number is 9308, that doesn't seem very low to me. He is the president of HARA, NAR section #403, TRA Prefecture # 80. I was going to make some kind of a comment, but I decided not to. SignatureChristopher Brian Deem NAR 12308 TRA 2256 Level II > > > Chuck Pierce [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > - iz > Chuck's personal TRA number is 9308, that doesn't seem very low to me. He is > the president of HARA, NAR section #403, TRA Prefecture # 80. I was going > to make some kind of a comment, but I decided not to. I read it too quickly an misinterpreted his membership number as 80 my bad but Ray WAS there. Anyone else recall a vote to ratify a By Laws ammendment where the members relinquished control (right of ammendment) to the BoD, and how and when the proposal for same occurred? - iz > > Chuck's personal TRA number is 9308, that doesn't seem very low to me. He is > > the president of HARA, NAR section #403, TRA Prefecture # 80. I was going [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > - iz |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message