[Planet News] ATF counsel returns to court, admits blunder in latestfiling

WASHINGTON, District of Columbia USA — The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives (ATF) was back in court this past week to
publicly admit blundering with the filing of a "Defendant's Notice of
Errata," an addendum to the ATF's "Reply in Support of Renewed Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment" filed on April 10th.

In their filing, the attorneys for the ATF admit they made a mistake in
the filing, costing the ATF one of their points in requesting that U.S.
District Court Judge Reggie B. Walton grant a summary judgment in the
ATF's favor.

Read more: http://www.rocketryplanet.com/content/view/1824/28/

--
Pluto downgraded? Get lost, Pluto. There's a new planet in town.

Rocketry Planet — http://www.rocketryplanet.com

It appears the Department of Justice and the Attorney General fired the
wrong group of Federal Prosecutors. Looks like those closer to home
would of been better candidates, if minimal level of competency was a
criteria..(:-)

Fred



Planet News wrote:
>
> WASHINGTON, District of Columbia USA — The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
> Firearms and Explosives (ATF) was back in court this past week to
> publicly admit blundering with the filing of a "Defendant's Notice of
> Errata," an addendum to the ATF's "Reply in Support of Renewed Motion
> for Partial Summary Judgment" filed on April 10th.
>
> In their filing, the attorneys for the ATF admit they made a mistake in
> the filing, costing the ATF one of their points in requesting that U.S.
> District Court Judge Reggie B. Walton grant a summary judgment in the
> ATF's favor.
>
> Read more: http://www.rocketryplanet.com/content/view/1824/28/
>
> --
> Pluto downgraded? Get lost, Pluto. There's a new planet in town.
>
> Rocketry Planet — http://www.rocketryplanet.com

stealthboogie wrote:
> On May 3, 8:47?pm, Planet News <n...@rocketryplanet.com> wrote:
>
>> In their filing, the attorneys for the ATF admit they made a mistake in
>> the filing, costing the ATF one of their points in requesting that U.S.
>> District Court Judge Reggie B. Walton grant a summary judgment in the
>> ATF's favor.
>
>
> Mistake my arse... The ATF has mislead the court from the get go with
> voodoo science.

True, but as I understand it this was a procedural mistake. IANAL but I
don't think this will cause the ATF's case to unravel. Mistakes happen
all the time and that's why there is a method to amend the record to
correct them.

The law suit was filed pre-911, pre Bush, pre "war on terror", pre SEA,
and pre a bunch of other things - We're going on 9 years!

Even if the case is decided for NAR/TRA, there WILL be an appeal by the
BATFE. Any they will probably include a "stay" of any changes until the
appeal is resolved.

I'm a L3, former Prefect, and former NAR section adviser. I understand
the hobby, and 99% of those involved in the hobby.

The reality, however, is that we're now in a world where you have to
take your shoes off at the airport, etc...

What about the guy that goes from L0 to L3 in a few launches, flies a
few more L3's, and walks away with a few L3 loads (we all know this can
happen today, with or without a LEUP - don't kid yourselves because your
club does it "legally").

It's kind of like the 19 guys that wanted to "learn how to fly a plane"
back in 1999-2001. They were just "being hobbyists" as far as anyone knew.

People talk about the "backlash" that could happen if the BATE was
proved wrong in their testing methods, and the world could see they were
not able to do their job.

Have people considered the backlash if the the headline was

"Judge rules that the BATFE must allow anyone to buy rocket propellant,
able to launch a 200 pound rocket over a mile"?

That's a reality, and the gov will not let it happen - post 911. Like I
said, in my opinion, even if this "first round" is in the favor of
TRA/NAR, it will still be tied up in appeals for a long, long time....

I know kids and short sighted folks will attack this post, but I have
reality on my side! (and TRA/NAR leadership won't admit that the large
amount of money spent on the law suit would have been better spent in
assisting clubs to "get legal" with their own legal storage and
procedures...

Tater wrote:
> On May 3, 7:47 pm, Planet News <n...@rocketryplanet.com> wrote:
>> WASHINGTON, District of Columbia USA - The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
>> Firearms and Explosives (ATF) was back in court this past week to
>> publicly admit blundering with the filing of a "Defendant's Notice of
>> Errata," an addendum to the ATF's "Reply in Support of Renewed Motion
>> for Partial Summary Judgment" filed on April 10th.
>>
>> In their filing, the attorneys for the ATF admit they made a mistake in
>> the filing, costing the ATF one of their points in requesting that U.S.
>> District Court Judge Reggie B. Walton grant a summary judgment in the
>> ATF's favor.
>>
>> Read more:http://www.rocketryplanet.com/content/view/1824/28/
>>
>> --
>> Pluto downgraded? Get lost, Pluto. There's a new planet in town.
>>
>> Rocketry Planet -http://www.rocketryplanet.com
>
> everyone needs to point this article out to their local news agencies.
>
> hopefully one of us will get it through to a major news network,
> giving the ATF a well deserved black eye.
>
> in reading the article, I notice that this is just a minor screwup.
> and the ATF still has not admitted that their testing agency screwed up
>

AZ Woody wrote:
> That's a reality, and the gov will not let it happen - post 911.
> Like I said, in my opinion, even if this "first round" is in the
> favor of TRA/NAR, it will still be tied up in appeals for a long,
> long time....
>
> I know kids and short sighted folks will attack this post, but I have
> reality on my side! (and TRA/NAR leadership won't admit that the
> large amount of money spent on the law suit would have been better
> spent in assisting clubs to "get legal" with their own legal storage
> and procedures...

I agree with much of what you said, but not all. The real "solution"
lies in Congress. The lawsuit is to determine if the ATF followed the
laws as written and intended by Congress. To me the lawsuit is not so
much about flying HPR without a LEUP but that the Government isn't
following the law. Regardless of how the Judge rules on the this case,
Congress could change the outcome with a simple amendment to pending
legislation. Will they? The Republicans don't want to appear soft on
terrorism. The Democrats don't want to appear soft on bureaucracy. I
don't have faith that Congress is on our side, their track record says
otherwise. About the only hope we have is for the press to show how
invasive the Government has become. But that's not going to happen
because the liberal press actually wants government to be invasive, just
not the way they are now.

As far as spending money to "get legal", I agree that it is a viable
contingency plan. The problem with that as the main focus of the
national organizations is that it doesn't require the Government to "get
legal". Even if we do "get legal", unless the ATF is held accountable to
the law it is free to regulate who ever, how ever, it chooses.