Damon,
In answer to your question, Not much.......these rulings can come down
almost anytime. The Feds can interpret and rule as they see fit. Opinions
and procedures can stand for years until someone with another agenda comes
along.
Yes...12 ga shotguns are just that...until you hang some politically
incorrect, nasty features on them. Then suddenly they become destructive
devices...go figure. I know I sleep better now days....
That has been the SOP for the Clinton Administration. Rulings and opinions.
Hey, it doesn't much matter anyway. All of our Vintage vehicles will be
blocked and covered with tarps after the "environmental" groups sit at the
Cabinet table with our new President, Al Gore!
He has a low opinion of recreational motoring.....non essential, you
know...........Antique Vehicles...polluters.........HA!
Jon
At 05:45 AM 8/4/00 -0700, you wrote:
>Novice question here but what is the difference
>between calling for a demil (or similar) of MVs
>and that incident maybe 3 or 4 years ago when
>BATF reclassified those 3 types of shotguns as
>"destructive devices" thus requiring any owners
>to get legislative approval to keep them and
>also be actively maintaned in a database under
>the National Firearms Act (NFA).
>
>Anyone ?
>
>-Damon (does that passage apply to only
>inter-state migration????)
>
>
>Section 9 - Limits on Congress
>The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the
>States now
>existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by
>the
>Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight,
>but
>a tax
>or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten
>dollars
>for
>each Person.
>The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be
>suspended,
>unless
>when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may
>require
>it.
>No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
>
>I am certainly no expert (more of a devils Advocate) but No Bill
>of
>attainder or EX POST FACTO LAW shall be passed! I am sure that
>the
>bill
>being discussed certainly has retroactive implications (ex post
>Facto). So
>could it not be argued that such a law if passed would be
>unconstitutional?
>Or is that me just trying to stretch things too far ??
>
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
>http://invites.yahoo.com/
>
>===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
>To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@skylee.com>
>To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to <mil-veh-digest@skylee.com>
>To reach a human, contact <help@skylee.com>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 02 2000 - 09:32:23 PDT