Re: [MV] Senate Bill 1416 and vehicle owners

From: A762x54mm@aol.com
Date: Tue Sep 25 2001 - 20:53:29 PDT


I can't impress upon you all the importance that we call our elected
officials via phone and email (yes, do both). Hey, get you wife to call as
well. if my daughters were old enough, I would have them pounding out an
email as well.
With all the important things to do in the world, all these people have to do
is dream up new ways to make our hobbies harder and harder to enjoy.

Thanks for reading between the lines David!

Gene in Texas

In a message dated 9/25/01 10:41:46 PM Central Daylight Time,
DDoyle9570@aol.com writes:

<< Subj: [MV] Senate Bill 1416 and vehicle owners
 Date: 9/25/01 10:41:46 PM Central Daylight Time
 From: DDoyle9570@aol.com
 Sender: mil-veh@mil-veh.org
 To: mil-veh@mil-veh.org
 
 Fellow MV buffs...
 I just had a chance to reread the Senate Bill 1416 carefully, and see now a
 MAJOR problem I had overlooked before....as I pointed out earlier, most of
 the 6x6 trucks are munitions list items, and are so defined and regulated in
 the IFB.
 
 Bill S1416
 SEC. 1062. AUTHORITY TO ENSURE DEMILITARIZATION OF SIGNIFICANT MILITARY
 EQUIPMENT FORMERLY OWNED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.
 
 (a) PROHIBITION- It is unlawful for any person to possess significant
 military equipment formerly owned by the Department of Defense unless--
 
 AND CONTINUES....
 
 (f) DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICANT MILITARY EQUIPMENT- In this section, the term
 significant military equipment' means equipment that has a capability
 described in clause (i) or (ii) of subsection (e)(2) and--
 (1) is a defense article listed on the United States Munitions List
 
 THE SUBSECTION REFERED TO ABOVE IS:
 
 (2) The regulations shall be designed to ensure that--
 
 (A) the equipment, after demilitarization, does not constitute a significant
 risk to public safety and does not have--
 (i) a significant capability for use as a weapon; or
 (ii) a uniquely military capability; and
 
 IT IS A SAFE BET THE HUMVEES, GAMA GOATS AND 151'S WILL BE BUSTED BY 2A, AND
 ELSEWHERE YOU WILL FIND THAT THE ABILITY TO INSTALL A RING MOUNT ON A 6X6
 PUTS THEM IN 2A(i). I suppose (but can't document) that a Sherman or Duster
 is caught be 2A(ii).
 
 HAVE YOU WRITTEN YOUR CONGRESSMEN LATELY?
 
 DD
>>



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 08 2001 - 10:59:01 PDT