|
 On October 1, 2008 on instruction from the Presidents of NAR and TRA, our legal counsel filed a motion with the United States District Court of the District of Columbia, requesting a hearing on our civil action against BATFE concerning their regulation of high-power sport rocket motors.
Our case has been before this Court or the Court of Appeals since February, 2000, and the last action on the case was Judge Walton's cancellation on July 26, 2007 of a hearing scheduled for July 27. Because of the amount of time that has passed since this last action, counsel for NAR and TRA has requested that a hearing be scheduled in order to permit the Court to obtain answers to any questions that may be impeding the Court's progress in issuing a decision on this long-standing case. We will keep members of our associations informed as soon as the Court responds to this new filing, and we understand and share our members'
concern with the amount of time that this issue of such importance to all of us has been in litigation. Ken Good
President, Tripoli Rocketry Association Trip Barber
President, National Association of Rocketry Documents: Plaintiffs' Motion for Oral Argument on Plaintiffs' Motion For Summary Judgment (66KB Adobe PDF)
10-02-2008 06:05 AM
#1
|
|
New Member
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 4
|
Re: Article: NAR/TRA Joint Statement on BATFE Litigation, dated 10/01/08
Great news. Hopefully we get some movement.
|
 |
|
|
10-02-2008 06:49 AM
#2
|
|
Certified Level Two
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 51
|
Re: Article: NAR/TRA Joint Statement on BATFE Litigation, dated 10/01/08
Call me a cynic but I am not holding my breath for a verdict.
-DAllen
|
 |
|
|
10-02-2008 09:04 AM
#3
|
|
Freeform rockets advocate
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1298
|
Re: Article: NAR/TRA Joint Statement on BATFE Litigation, dated 10/01/08
What's worse is NAR/TRA from prior rulings have the basis to seek relief NOW pending a ruling on THIS issue to stop the harmful actions ATF is taking. They are failing to do so. It would be trivial.
Just Jerry
|
|
|
|
|
10-02-2008 09:20 AM
#4
|
|
The BCS is total BS!!!!!!
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 158
|
Re: Article: NAR/TRA Joint Statement on BATFE Litigation, dated 10/01/08
Quote: What's worse is NAR/TRA from prior rulings have the basis to seek relief NOW
Seek relief how? |
|
|
|
|
10-02-2008 09:28 AM
#5
|
|
NAR Level 1
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 147
|
Re: Article: NAR/TRA Joint Statement on BATFE Litigation, dated 10/01/08
Quote: Great news. Hopefully we get some movement.
Movement would be nice. I know I always feel better after a nice movement. I'm not holding my breath on this one, however. Everything is too politically charged right now. |
|
|
|
|
10-02-2008 11:06 AM
#6
|
|
If pigs had fins...
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3640
|
Re: Article: NAR/TRA Joint Statement on BATFE Litigation, dated 10/01/08
Quote: Seek relief how?
Jerry has posted on this before. I can't recall the specific threads. Maybe Jerry can dig them up and point you to them. |
|
|
|
|
10-02-2008 11:41 AM
#7
|
|
Administrator
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 4024
|
Re: Article: NAR/TRA Joint Statement on BATFE Litigation, dated 10/01/08
Quote: What's worse is NAR/TRA from prior rulings have the basis to seek relief NOW pending a ruling on THIS issue to stop the harmful actions ATF is taking. They are failing to do so. It would be trivial. This has been covered before. The judge wasn't interested in setting aside the regulatory aspect of the ATF's oversight of APCP pending appeal because the existing oversight has been on the books since the 70's. If the case had gone to court at the time APCP was put on the list of explosives, the judge may have considered it, but considering the length of time the regulation had been in place, it wasn't going to happen. In simple terms, there just wasn't enough as risk to justify the judge setting aside the regulation of APCP until the court had issued a final ruling. |
|
|
|
|
10-13-2008 12:09 PM
#8
|
|
Certified Level Two
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 34
|
Re: Article: NAR/TRA Joint Statement on BATFE Litigation, dated 10/01/08
Any idea when the court might respond to the request for hearing? Or are they just going to sit on this too.
|
|
|
|
|
10-27-2008 02:49 PM
#9
|
|
Hot HCl and rubber @ AM
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 116
|
Re: Article: NAR/TRA Joint Statement on BATFE Litigation, dated 10/01/08
Has the court even acknowledged receipt? No, "thank you very much don't call us we'll call you?"
|
|
|
|
|
10-27-2008 03:43 PM
#10
|
|
If pigs had fins...
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3640
|
Re: Article: NAR/TRA Joint Statement on BATFE Litigation, dated 10/01/08
crickets...
|
|
|
|
|
11-03-2008 05:32 PM
#11
|
|
Certified Level Two
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 31
|
Re: Article: NAR/TRA Joint Statement on BATFE Litigation, dated 10/01/08
Quote: Has the court even acknowledged receipt? No, "thank you very much don't call us we'll call you?"
Any official acknowledgement from the court would come in a court order to actually schedule a hearing for oral argument. It’s been over a month since our request was made, and so far, there has been no such order docketed for this case. If I had to take a guess at this point, I doubt the court will schedule one.
Our attorneys made this request “in the belief that an oral argument would allow the Court to obtain answers to any remaining questions and facilitate the issuance of a decision.” I would find it hard to believe that if Judge Walton still needed information from the litigants, that he hadn’t already pursued some means to do so. Plus, by agreeing with our request to schedule a hearing this late in the game, it would basically be an admission by him that he still needs information. In that event, it would reflect poorly on him that he has let this case languish for roughly a year and a half since the last relevant filings were made on May 1, 2007 without seeking sooner whatever information that could possibly be keeping him from rendering a decision on count one.
I’d bet that the end result of this request is that Judge Walton finally issues a decision instead of scheduling an oral argument. In what time frame that might occur remains to be seen since the judicial clock is painfully slow and deliberate. But who knows, this move may be successful in lighting a fire under him to speedily wrap up the count one decision, which is what our attorneys’ true intent with the request has been all along. The further this case proceeds without him scheduling the oral argument our attorneys requested, IMHO puts us closer to him issuing the decision.
James L. |
|
|
|
|
11-06-2008 09:49 AM
#12
|
|
Hot HCl and rubber @ AM
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 116
|
Re: Article: NAR/TRA Joint Statement on BATFE Litigation, dated 10/01/08
So now that tuesday is past, are any DOJ/BATFE attorneys (graduates of Regents University or otherwise) polishing up their resumes?
|
|
|
|
Registered users can add comments and discuss this article. To participate, please login or register. |
