Bob,
The problem with this is that it gives the DoD the ability to 1, collect
what they have sold in the past in good faith.
And 2, change the list at any time, and collect what they want.
As it is written, it covers ALL military firearms.
It covers my M35A2 Deuce, and my M38 jeep.
If in the future we have a situation where the government wishes to collect
"whatever" they can change the list and do it.
As the list is written now, not only are Historic collectors at risk,
loggers that use 6X6 2&1/2 ton and 5 ton trucks are also at risk.
People that have restored M151 class jeeps for collections are also at risk.
This law was defeated once before, it was "snuck" in in the currant bill,
and is deliberately vague.
You tell me, Why would they want a vague law?!
I am CCing this to a major collectors group where I heard of your views, you
may well get lots of replies on this
Rikk Rogers - RK Lion LTD.
(580)762-3157 rkltd@swbell.net
http://home.swbell.net/rkltd/
-M35A2- -M38- MVPA -22345-
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Manhan [mailto:bmanhan@vfwdc.org]
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 3:19 PM
To: 'Rikk Rogers'; Bob Manhan
Subject: RE: [MVlist] Fwd: Section 10620f bill S.1416 rev 2
Sept 26
Hey Rick;
Apparently I am missing something very significant in section 1062 but I
simply can't see it. I do realize it covers everything ever sold by the
military for civilian use and I understand this section simply wants to
ensure it meets civilian rather than military standards. Again I ask the
retorical question where's the harm? If you have an answer for me please
come up on the net. I'm always willing to lear and I admit my mistakes.
Sincerely, Bob Manhan
From: Rikk Rogers [mailto:rkltd@swbell.nd I
-----Original Message-----et]
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 4:00 PM
To: bmanhan@vfwdc.org
Subject: RE: [MVlist] Fwd: Section 10620f bill S.1416 rev 2
Bob, are you just slow or what?
This bill covers everything sold by the military.
see http://pmdtc.org/docs/ITAR/ITAR_121.txt
To boil it down for you, 3 snips from the list, as it can be applied.
TITLE 22--FOREIGN RELATIONS
CHAPTER I--DEPARTMENT OF STATE
PART 121--THE UNITED STATES MUNITIONS LIST--Table of Contents
Sec. 121.2 Interpretations of the U.S. Munitions List and the Missile
Technology Control Regime Annex.
Sec. 121.4 Amphibious vehicles.
An amphibious vehicle in Category VII(f) is an automotive vehicle or
chassis which embodies all-wheel drive, is equipped to meet special
military requirements, and which has sealed electrical systems or
adaptation features for deep water fording.
---Yes, your M38 with a fording kit is covered!---
In fact, it looks like just the sealed electrical system puts it at risk.
You have badly misjudged this, and I would advise you look again!
Rikk Rogers - RK Lion LTD.
(580)762-3157 rkltd@swbell.net
http://home.swbell.net/rkltd/
-M35A2- -M38- MVPA -22345-
-----Original Message-----
From: shamil0725@aol.com [mailto:shamil0725@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 2:46 PM
To: MVlist@yahoogroups.com; mil-veh@mil-veh.org;
mil-veh@uller.skylee.com
Subject: [MVlist] Fwd: Section 10620f bill S.1416 rev 2
After sending e-mails to my legislative critters concerning
S.1416, I sent info copies to the American Legion and the
Veterans of Foreign Wars. I am a member of both.
The following is the reply from the VFW, specifically from
Bob Manhan, bmanhan@vfwdc.org who is the VFW Assistant
Legislative Director.
Those of you are very concerned about S.1416, especially
VFW members, might want to address ole Bob directly.
Sam Hamilton, MVPA, AL, VFW
Stillwater, Oklahoma
In a message dated 9/25/01 2:13:13 PM, bmanhan@vfwdc.org writes:
<<
September 26,2001
Dear Sam;
Thanks for your recent e-mail asking the VFW to oppose the subject section
of the senate's version of the defense authorization bill.
Because I am the VFW staffer responsible for this piece of legislation I
have researched the issue and have advised this organization to support the
entire bill,which does include the section you are particularly interested
in having eliminated. The title of this section is: "Authority to ensure
demilitarization of significant military equipment formerly owned by
Department of Defense." The remainder of this section goes on to refernce
the previous legislation you cited and simply concludes with the proposal to
authorize the Attorney General to take appropriate steps to ensure that the
equipment is in fact demilitarized or returned.
Based on the above information there is certainly no VFW objection to
complying with this reasonable action.And from my review of your e-mail I do
not understand why anyone would or should object to having former military
vehicles meet these standards. If for example a VFW post obtained a wheeled
or track vehicle for the purpose of a static display then where is the harm?
On the other hand if a VFW post was running such a vehicle under false
pretenses our national headquarters would be the first to enforce compliance
with the law. Please understand I use this example simply to make the point
.
Sincerely, Bob Manhan,VFW Assistant Legislative Director
>>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
FREE COLLEGE MONEY
CLICK HERE to search
600,000 scholarships!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/ujOgTC/4m7CAA/ySSFAA/9rHolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
MVlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
**Please trim your replies**
**Do not post in HTML or "Rich Text" mode**
**Plain ASCII Text only please**
**Attachments will be stripped**
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 08 2001 - 10:59:01 PDT