[RocketsNW] Lawsuit

[kmcgoffin at worldaccessnet.com]

My overall impression was that NAR/TRA presented a rather legally weak
case focusing on the technical merits more than the legal details.  As any
fan of "Boston Legal" knows, it's not about what's right or wrong but
rather all about the legal logic.

But...ATF did such a gawdawful miserable abysmal job of presenting their
side any honest judge would absolutely barf at the thought of ruling in
their favor.  I mean, geez, they actually told the judge that the facts
don't matter and submitted an 'expert' report that was exactly the kind of
BS a student would turn in after waiting until the night before the due
date to start researching a term paper.

If he rules in our favor, ATF/DOJ/HSA is going to throw a hissy fit.  If
he rules against us, he's going to have to put a paper bag over his head
to look himself in the mirror.

I'm pretty sure Judge Walton is waiting in hopes of dying from old age
before having to issue a ruling.  :-)
+McG+


>      On learning more and more about this stuff I am not so sure about the
> breadth of the legal strategy.  It seems to me that the legal
> approach is so ambitious for the judge that it may be a bridge too
> far.  True AP motors are not "explosives" but they are not totally
> benign either and the government probably has a reasonable interest
> in having some knowledge of people that possess hundreds of pounds of
> this stuff or more importantly the fabrication capacity.
>     Given all that I would seriously doubt that the judge would rule that
> the BATFE has no jurisdiction because AP is not an "explosive."
> However, even if he did rule no jurisdiction, which is in essence what
> he is being asked to do, he would, in my estimation, automatically
> stay the order pending appeal given the prima facie government
> interest in the material at issue.
>     Then the government could appeal, ask congress to amend the act or,
> and this is what concerns me, transfer jurisdiction to the Homeland
> Security (a.k.a. gestapo) under the anti-terror provisions.  So I am
> not sure what we think we are trying to accomplish here.  One can't
> turn the clock back and it is post 9-11.  If the plaintiffs have the
> opportunity they should, again in my estimation, take a deal for some
> reasonable relaxation of the requirements rather than demand a
> probably untenable situation like AP being taken from the government
> jurisdiction because it is not an "explosive".  I just don't think
> that happens.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rockets mailing list
> Rockets at rocketsnw.com
> http://mx1.blastzone.com/mailman/listinfo/rockets
>
>