 |
 | 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 / April 2004Jerry is ... right.
As a long time troll (BMF, SCE Switch to Aux, etc) let me be one of the first to say that Jerry nailed this PAD exemption. All along he has stated they were PADS and for now it looks like they will be. Don't throw away that LEUP however. It may very well be needed. TF << All along he has stated they were PADS and for now it looks like they will be. >> Oh for crying out loud! You act like Jerry's the only one who ever said they were PADs, and that is NOT the case. Practically everyone in the hobby has said they are PADs, including TRA/NAR! Who said they were not PADs? ATF! Who took them to court over it, and got a ruling stating that the ATF was wrong? Here's a clue: IT WASN'T JERRY!! > << All along he has stated they were PADS and for now it looks like they will > be. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > them to court over it, and got a ruling stating that the ATF was wrong? Here's > a clue: IT WASN'T JERRY!! Can't we even take "yes" for an answer without bickering? :) Sounds like the judge was trying to use the case, as presented, to give _everyone_ a "get out of jail free" card (at least for the immediate future): BATF doesn't have to tear up their explosives-listing bureaucracy and start over already, but they don't get to run around busting people for "explosives permit violations" (at least not until they get _their_ paperwork done). -dave w > > << All along he has stated they were PADS and for now it looks like they > > will [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Can't we even take "yes" for > an answer without bickering? :) No. No ;) > Sounds like the judge was trying to use the case, as presented, to give > _everyone_ a "get out of jail free" card (at least for the immediate future): [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > -dave w  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 Man, oh, man, where's John Cato when you need him? :-)> > > > << All along he has stated they were PADS and for now it looks like they > > > will [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > > > -dave w > Can't we even take "yes" for > an answer without bickering? :) In all recorded history, rocketeers must bicker, and ruin it for everyone. humm.. Ming dynasty, hey what are you doing with that salt peter ? don't you know it's only allowed as a meat tenderizer ? > > Can't we even take "yes" for > > an answer without bickering? :) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Ming dynasty, hey what are you doing with that salt peter ? > don't you know it's only allowed as a meat tenderizer ? ROFL He was probably named/translated "Jerry" 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 All the people who wouldn't sell to someone without a LEUP come to mind first. Oh, that was a trick question. Pax >Who said they were not PADs? > All the people who wouldn't sell to someone without a LEUP come to mind > first. Precisely. > Oh, that was a trick question. > > Pax > > >Who said they were not PADs? 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 > > All the people who wouldn't sell to someone without a LEUP come to mind > > first. > > Precisely. > > Jerry So Jerry, are you selling your PADS? Oh that's right, you still have that DOT hazmat bug, a mile up your A$$.. << All the people who wouldn't sell to someone without a LEUP come to mind first. >> They did this because ATF told them rocket motors were not PADs. The only way to correct the ATF's position was by court order. > << All the people who wouldn't sell to someone without a LEUP come to mind > first. >> > > They did this because ATF told them rocket motors were not PADs. The only way > to correct the ATF's position was by court order. And because they could not read the regulatons to the agent telling them this obvious falsehood. 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 > > << All the people who wouldn't sell to someone without a LEUP come to mind > > first. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > And because they could not read the regulatons to the agent telling them > this obvious falsehood. That's the bottom line, isn't it? It's not about court orders, NAR, or TRA, it's about educating the Hobbyist... vendors included. << It's not about court orders, NAR, or TRA, it's about educating the Hobbyist... vendors included. >> That doesn't make any sense. The hobbyists and vendors don't make ATF policy nor do they enforce it. It doesn't matter what we say or believe, or what the law says. If the ATF says the PAD exemption no longer applies to rocket motors, they will enforce that until a court tells them otherwise. It takes a court to make them obey the law as written. > << It's not about court orders, NAR, or TRA, it's about educating the > Hobbyist... vendors included. >> > > That doesn't make any sense. The hobbyists and vendors don't make ATF policy > nor do they enforce it. No.They illegally demand permits for goods that are exempt. That's what they do. Admit it. Then correct it. It REALLY is that simple. Jerry > It doesn't matter what we say or believe, or what the > law says. If the ATF says the PAD exemption no longer applies to rocket > motors, > they will enforce that until a court tells them otherwise. It takes a court > to > make them obey the law as written. 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 << They illegally demand permits for goods that are exempt. >> That's the ATF, not hobbyists or vendors. << Then correct it. >> We did, through the courts. Your idea of "correcting" it is to ignore the ATF. That doesn't correct anything. > << They illegally demand permits for goods that are exempt. >> > > That's the ATF, not hobbyists or vendors. You have been given HARD examples you now deny. You sir are truly stupid and blind. I cannot fix that. Fine. Suffice to say that BOTH trade associations REQUIRE MANDATORY proof of ATF permits before EXEMPT materials can be certified. ALL TRA centric vendors require proof of ATF permits before shipment of many/most motors. Even suppliers of RUBBER and AP require ATF permits as an illegal prophylactic measure. Fact. Deny it if you will. Being a moron yourself, I am free to ignore your ramblings for the true ignorance and stupidity they DISPLAY. Jerry However your delusional stupidity is positively reinforced by BOTH the President of NAR and the President of TRA, so at minimuim you are not alone in your wacky world of wonder. > << Then correct it. >> > > We did, through the courts. Your idea of "correcting" it is to ignore the ATF. > That doesn't correct anything. 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 > > << They illegally demand permits for goods that are exempt. >> > > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Jerry Yea jerry, that's why you quit advertising your motors and "openly" selling your motors. TRA made you do it... Where dem hidden motors jerry? How you and the DOT doing these days; awful quiet... Look in the mirror to check on moron status!! Fred Jerry wrote: << Suffice to say that BOTH trade associations REQUIRE MANDATORY proof of ATF permits before EXEMPT materials can be certified.>> TRA/NAR are not trade organizations. They are consumer organizations. The require what the authorities (ATF, DOT, etc) tell them is required. If they tell the authorities to stuff it, the authorities could shut down their certification program. <<ALL TRA centric vendors require proof of ATF permits before shipment of many/most motors.>> Funny you're complaining about that, since you have stated that reloads are not PADs and are not exempt. <<Even suppliers of RUBBER and AP require ATF permits as an illegal prophylactic measure. >> Well now, you certainly can't blame TRA/NAR for that! They have no control whatsoever over suppliers of raw materials. I doubt they even have any contact with raw materials suppliers. If these non-rocketry businesses are requiring permits for raw materials, it seems to me that shoots down your whole "TRA/NAR conspiracy" theory. > Jerry wrote: > << Suffice to say that BOTH trade associations REQUIRE MANDATORY proof of ATF > permits before EXEMPT materials can be certified.>> > > TRA/NAR are not trade organizations. In their capacity as motor certifiers they function as "legal gatekeepers". For them to violate any law or add any known unnecessary requirement is unconcionable. They do that. Jerry > They are consumer organizations. The > require what the authorities (ATF, DOT, etc) tell them is required. If they [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > If these non-rocketry businesses are requiring permits for raw materials, it > seems to me that shoots down your whole "TRA/NAR conspiracy" theory. 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 because you don't agree with it, its not illegal. >In their capacity as motor certifiers they function as "legal >gatekeepers". [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Jerry > Just because you don't agree with it, its not illegal. Contrary to the law is illegal. My opinion is besides the point. > >In their capacity as motor certifiers they function as "legal > >gatekeepers". [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > > >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 skippy Irvine wrote: >>Just because you don't agree with it, its not illegal. > > Contrary to the law is illegal. > > My opinion is besides the point. Yes, it is. You have never convinced anyone that I know of that this is true. >> Just because you don't agree with it, its not illegal. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> > >> >Jerry << Contrary to the law is illegal. My opinion is besides the point. >> Ok Jerry, what law is violated by TRA/NAR requirements for motor certs? Cites only please, not your opinion. >>Jerry wrote: >><< Suffice to say that BOTH trade associations REQUIRE MANDATORY proof of ATF [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Jerry What law have they violated? > > Jerry wrote: > > << Suffice to say that BOTH trade associations REQUIRE MANDATORY proof of ATF [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Jerry Jerry, just what is a "known" "unecessary requirement"? Have you taken communion in a Catholic church lately? Got into an Elk's Club without observing the membership charter? Got into an Eagle's Club without observing the membership charter? Asked to give a speech about the unfairness of Non Profits at your local NAACP meeting? Invited to your neighborhood mosque for an evening prayer and a speech about the illegal affairs of the ATF, FBI, and other assorted government agencies? Paid your dues to get into your local YMCA? Paid your dues to be a member of and to get into an NAR Launch? Sniveled at another year's LDRS Board Meeting to be reinstated? Bottom line is if an organization as a body doesn't want you, they don't have to accept you. Same with your rocket motors. Ask any gay man how much he enjoys being a member of the BSA. They have a much bigger complaint about unfairness than you do. You have stepped on many toes. You get what you deserve. Jeff Barnes TRA #2267 > > > Jerry wrote: > > > << Suffice to say that BOTH trade associations REQUIRE MANDATORY proof of [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Jerry, just what is a "known" "unecessary requirement"? LEMP for EXEMPT goods. > Have you taken communion in a Catholic church lately? Yes. > Got into an Elk's Club without observing the membership charter? Yes. > Got into an Eagle's Club without observing the membership charter? Yes. > Asked to give a speech about the unfairness of Non Profits at your > local NAACP meeting? No. > Invited to your neighborhood mosque Yes. >for an evening prayer and a speech > about the illegal affairs of the ATF, FBI, and other assorted > government agencies? > > Paid your dues to get into your local YMCA? Yes. > Paid your dues to be a member of and to get into an NAR Launch? Yes. > Sniveled at another year's LDRS Board Meeting to be reinstated? 2001. > Bottom line is if an organization as a body doesn't want you, they > don't have to accept you. Except "unconcionable provisions" > Same with your rocket motors. > > Ask any gay man how much he enjoys being a member of the BSA. I have. A lot. Just "don't ask, don't tell. > They > have a much bigger complaint about unfairness than you do. > > You have stepped on many toes. You get what you deserve. Fame and fortune and credibility and honor? > Jeff Barnes TRA #2267 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: > > > > << Suffice to say that BOTH trade associations REQUIRE MANDATORY proof of [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > > Jerry Where dem motors Jerry?? Dem feds wants to know.. Bubba wants to certify you.. Fred > > << It's not about court orders, NAR, or TRA, it's about educating the > > Hobbyist... vendors included. >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > It REALLY is that simple. YES!!! It really IS that simple!!! > > > << All the people who wouldn't sell to someone without a LEUP come to > mind [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > It's not about court orders, NAR, or TRA, it's about educating the > Hobbyist... vendors included. Yes. Hard to do when you have the trade associations absolutely insisting explosives permits are needed until a court order in our favor says otherwise. Precludes living the lifestyle, following the law, and continuing to set precedent in our favor. All at once. And not incidentally sets precedent in favor of ATF. And dares and taunts them to change the rules against our interest. This is what NAR and TRA call advocacy. History will be the judge that the leaders of TRA and NAR have been their/our own worst enemy for the past almiost 10 years. History will indeed judge them harshly. I have been on the record. Jerry "Jerry is a very knowledgeable guy, with strong opinions. He has a long history in rocketry, and a grey link to US Rockets (kits & motors). He's a fount of useful tech info. Others may have differing opinions of Jerry, and frequently drag up incidents from the distant past. I've done business with Jerry and had no problems, but have also had disagreement with him, so you get both sides of the coin here. In fairness, people either love or hate him - the polarity of opinion is that pronounced. Jerry isn't the biggest fan of TRA in the world. Recent events have forced people to re-evaluate their scorn of some of his predictions, which hasn't endeared him to them, for some reason. Just my two penn'orth. Your mileage may vary." - Graham Platt "Do What You Can, with what you have, where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt "I have tried to really make motor testing a professional operation and it is very obvious to me now as to why Tripoli was having problems 'gaining credibility' with practically everyone in the outside world, because they *really* DON'T have it with some of the people that really matter. And this reputation is well deserved. To be perfectly frank - Tripoli is a sick organization. These bylaw and Articles of Incorporation issues are merely the tip of the iceberg. Symptoms, not the sickness, if you will. Let's hope I am wrong with my assessment. But, as I said, I really feel we may see some concerted efforts to further discredit me, both inside the Board and to the membership in general." - John Cato "Don't let the bastards wear you down Jerry!" - Tom Cloud 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 << Yes. Hard to do when you have the trade associations absolutely insisting explosives permits are needed until a court order in our favor says otherwise. TRA/NAR are not "trade associations". As for the insistence that explosives permits were needed, that came from ATF. << I have been on the record. >> Yeah, too bad it's a broken record. > > > > << All the people who wouldn't sell to someone without a LEUP come to > > mind [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > insisting explosives permits are needed until a court order in our favor > says otherwise. :( > Precludes living the lifestyle, following the law, and continuing to set > precedent in our favor. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > And not incidentally sets precedent in favor of ATF. And dares and > taunts them to change the rules against our interest. Yes, and that bothers me the most. ATF 'interpretations' mean squat. By taking the ATF to Court over an obvious power grab by the ATF, we give the ATF (and the Court) the impression that any mumbling by the ATF is important. The courts hold the power, the regulations hold the rules... ... interpretations by the ATF (or anyone else for that matter) are meaningless. Like you say... 'Live the Life'. Thanks! > This is what NAR and TRA call advocacy. > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com > My articles valuable? Donate http://tinyurl.com/2hmgv > > > > > << All the people who wouldn't sell to someone without a LEUP come > to [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > Thanks! Jerry is right. That is why it is so critical to vilify him. > > This is what NAR and TRA call advocacy. > > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com > > My articles valuable? Donate http://tinyurl.com/2hmgv 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 << And because they could not read the regulatons to the agent telling them this obvious falsehood. >> Reading the regs to the agent does no good if the agent has been told by his bosses that the regs don't apply. > << And because they could not read the regulatons to the agent telling them > this obvious falsehood. >> > > Reading the regs to the agent does no good if the agent has been told by his > bosses that the regs don't apply. Duty superceeds orders. "It's the law." 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 << Duty superceeds orders. >> Big talk from someone who _didn't_ challenge the ATF's position on PADs... or do anything else at all constructive for the past several years. > << Duty superceeds orders. >> > > Big talk from someone who _didn't_ challenge the ATF's position on PADs... Bullshit. My agent was trained. Egan was shocked by the fact. Despite the fact I have brought it to the attention of everyone on rmr and the NAR President personally and even offered to demonstrate to Egan what I refused to demonstrate publicly on rmr (the room of whiner trolls supreme). > or > do anything else at all constructive for the past several years. 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 > > << Duty superceeds orders. >> > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Jerry Where are dem hidden motors Jerry???? DOT want's to know; time to walk the big talk. Watch out for Bubba(;-) Jerry wrote: << My agent was trained. >> Ok, you have one local agent who sees things your way and is willing to buck ATF HQ. Big deal. Yeah, it's nice for you, but it doesn't help any of the folks elsewhere in the country who don't have such accommodating agents. And it's not the same as getting a court to tell ATF HQ to obey the law. > Jerry wrote: > << My agent was trained. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > not > the same as getting a court to tell ATF HQ to obey the law. It would have if anybody listened to my methods which I did publish. 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 > > << All the people who wouldn't sell to someone without a LEUP come to mind > > first. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Jerry Is that why you quit claiming you manufactured your motors, along with no longer offering them in commerce?? Oh! that's right, TRA made you do it.. Where dem motors Jerry?? Fred > Oh for crying out loud! You act like Jerry's the only one who ever said they > were PADs, and that is NOT the case. Practically everyone in the hobby has > said they are PADs, including TRA/NAR! Who said they were not PADs? ATF! Who > took them to court over it, and got a ruling stating that the ATF was wrong? > Here's a clue: IT WASN'T JERRY!! Amen to that. Fred > As a long time troll (BMF, SCE Switch to Aux, etc) let me be one of > the first to say that Jerry nailed this PAD exemption. All along he [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > TF Yeah, I had to get the visegrips and yank out an eyetooth or two to get the words to come out of my mouth, but Jerry was indeed right all along about the PAD exemption. But I still hold fast to my position that ATF can legally declare any solid propellant, or all, a low explosive if they want to go through the steps to do so. This ruling just raps their knuckles about being lazy and trying to regulate by fiat. Hopefully the judge's decision will make them choose their regulatory actions more wisely because of the extra effort required to operate in compliance with the law. +McG+ << But I still hold fast to my position that ATF can legally declare any solid propellant, or all, a low explosive if they want to go through the steps to do so. >> Heck, it looks to me like they can declare anything an "explosive" whether it burns or not, as long as they put on their little NPRM show. > << But I still hold fast to my position that ATF can legally declare any solid > propellant, or all, a low explosive if they want to go through the steps to do > so. >> > > Heck, it looks to me like they can declare anything an "explosive" whether it > burns or not, as long as they put on their little NPRM show. No, ATF would be politically and legally harmed unacceptably badly if they classified something as explosive that couldn't actually explode. But they can still classify an extreme variety of things as explosives. Remember, I'm the guy who started the popcorn thread on ROL... ;-) Usual or intended mode of functioning! +McG+ << No, ATF would be politically and legally harmed unacceptably badly if they classified something as explosive that couldn't actually explode. >> They already have several things listed as "explosives" that do not actually explode. Fuse, for instance. The ATF admits this. They admitted in court that rocket motors don't explode, but claimed that Congress gave them the authority to regulate non-explosives due to the fact that the law authorizing them specifically listed a few such non-explosives. The judge apparently agreed with this and said they just have to go through the NPRM process. So merely listing a non-explosive as "explosive" won't hurt them politically. > << No, ATF would be politically and legally harmed unacceptably badly if they > classified something as explosive that couldn't actually explode. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > So merely listing a non-explosive as "explosive" won't hurt them politically. Those are initimately associated items. And I'm sure I could make a bomb out of enough fuse if I really tried. Even enough e-match heads. But if ATF regulated popcorn as an explosive, even though its normal and intended mode of functioning is to explode when subjected to externally supplied heat, they'd be boiled in popcorn 'butter'. There *are* limits. +McG+ >> << No, ATF would be politically and legally harmed unacceptably badly if they >> classified something as explosive that couldn't actually explode. >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >*are* limits. >+McG+ One of my favorite popcorn movies is Real Genious, where at the end of the movie they blow up the evil professor's house with popcorn. Alan << Those are initimately associated items. >> Oh, I agree. Anyone with even half a brain can see that Congress merely wanted to regulate certain items which, while not explosives themselves, where closely related to the use of explosives. But ATF has taken it to mean they can regulate any damn thing they want. Everyone has wanted Jerry to be right but until the BATFE acknowledges the exemption it is still a pain in the a.s. Since stating that the 62.5 rule was wrong also doesn't that make an E reload regulated now. Only single use motors are covered as PADS. > > As a long time troll (BMF, SCE Switch to Aux, etc) let me be one of > > the first to say that Jerry nailed this PAD exemption. All along he [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > effort required to operate in compliance with the law. > +McG+ > Everyone has wanted Jerry to be right but until the BATFE acknowledges > the exemption it is still a pain in the a.s. Since stating that the > 62.5 rule was wrong also doesn't that make an E reload regulated now. > Only single use motors are covered as PADS. Are you guessing or do you have advice of legal council. Joel. phx >Are you guessing or do you have advice of legal council. My guess Joel is that you are an idiot. > >Are you guessing or do you have advice of legal council. > > My guess Joel is that you are an idiot. Hey, the troll has a new name. How many is that this month, 10? Joel. phx >Hey, the troll has a new name. How many is that this month, 10? Can you count that high? :-) You are giving rocketeers from New Mexico a bad name. Scram and go fly a rocket. Pax > >Are you guessing or do you have advice of legal council. > > My guess Joel is that you are an idiot. Point me to anyone who actually knows. I would love to talk to them. > > Everyone has wanted Jerry to be right but until the BATFE acknowledges > > the exemption it is still a pain in the a.s. Since stating that the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Joel. phx > Point me to anyone who actually knows. I would love to talk to them. Legal council would be a lawyer. Preferably an attorney willing to back you up should someone decide an 'example' is necessary. I'd suggest lawyers involved in recent federal litigation regarding propellant, fireworks or PADs. See also rocket deployed parachute manufacturers and/or TRW down here in Chandler (air bags), but they probably have an 'in house' attorney. Ted is going to talk to a law firm, but hasn't indicated their experiance with federal explosives regulation. It will be 'one take' however. Joel. phx > > > Everyone has wanted Jerry to be right but until the BATFE acknowledges > > > the exemption it is still a pain in the a.s. Since stating that the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > > > Joel. phx > Point me to anyone who actually knows. I would love to talk to them. Try asking Gary, he makes them. He posted they are legal you know. You know, and I'm no Troll Apologist, but you guys saying things like E reloads are regulated is just as much FUD as the other stuff going on. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.