|
ATF, DOT, other EXEMPTIONS
To avoid "interaction" with alphabet regulators we no longer resell contracted
motors. The contractors even provided all the papers for permits they asked for, and they
said "no" rather rudely, WITHOUT processing them. "No soup for you." It sure would be
handy if citizens had rights. Hmmm.
It is interesting the way rockets are legally exempt from ATF. And how regulators are
operating well beyond their charter TODAY. ATF "knowingly and falsely" claimed PADs are not
exempt despite 27 CFR 555.141-a-8. CPSC is going after mail order chemical
sellers because one
of the MANY uses for those chemicals is to make firecrackers which
they have TOTALLY banned.
Hmmmm. The rules do not allow banning any possible repurposeable "precursor chemical". Oh,
wait, what gave them the right to ban firecrackers to begin with? Another regulator, ATF
specifically ALLOWS firecrackers for cultural and recreational purposes! Resend the
memo!
Put our product in every school interested in improving science and math. Fight the
government regulators' fight against its own citizens!
HARD NEWS
"ORDERED that the defendant's [BATFE] decision to
classify APCP as an explosive under
18 U.S.C. § 841(d) is VACATED."
Just WINNER Jerry
FINAL FEDERAL COURT ORDER 16 March 2009
"In addition, the Court finds that the ATF's pronouncement
that sport rocket motors are not PADs is invalid
because it was made without compliance with the
notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures
of the OCCA and the APA."
Just WINNER Jerry
Court order FEDERAL COURT 19 March 2004 Part
1
Court order FEDERAL COURT 19 March 2004 Part
2
"The problem in this case is that ATFE's explanation
for its determination that APCP deflagrates lacks
any coherence. We therefore owe no deference to
ATFE's purported expertise because we cannot discern
it. ATFE has neither laid out a concrete standard
for classifying materials along the burn-deflagrate-
detonate continuum, nor offered data specific to the
burn speed of APCP when used for its common or
primary purpose. On this record, the agency's
decision cannot withstand judicial review."
Just WINNER Jerry
FEDERAL APPEALS COURT order 10
February 2005
In a monologue with itself, and
ignoring all formal filings made
before and during the action:
Order, Chief Counsel, U.S. DOT Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
April 1, 2004
"It was determined that there is sufficient
information to dismiss the case against U.S. Rockets"
|
