Hi Richard,
>My intent was to point out the type of interpretation that can occur with
>this bill.
That was my intent too :-) If this goes through *AND* the DoD decides to
implement it, then we had better be thinking about how to interpret
things in our favor.
>So now you have a situation that if you have a piece of equipment that may
>have been owned and is now deemed on the demil list. To prove ownership
>perhaps all the government has to do is produce a photo of a truck such as
>yours at the trial. Can you prove it is not yours?
I don't think this would hold up in any court. They could have a picture
of a red 1967 Ford truck with some guy in green riding in it and make the
same (weak) case. The courts of this nation hold that things must be
proven before action is to be taken. Vague stuff like this is sure to be
easily defeated. This is one thing I am not worried about at all, even
if the legislation goes through AND the DoD starts to mess around with
stuff.
Now... if you had a scope that was ONLY produced for the US Army, then in
theory you are screwed if they want it back. Easy to prove it was once
their if they were only sold to the US Army to begin with.
> This is just a bad law, PERIOD.
No question about that. The only question is "how bad is bad"? I don't
want this to pass any more than the rest of you guys, but I don't need to
figure out more ways to oppose it by looking at obscure things like
scopes. If this bill just said "all armored vhicles are to be demiled" I
would be just as upset, even though it has no personal effect on me.
>I have written and attempted calling my senators. Please do the same.
Did that last week. In fact, earlier today I called Sen. Collins'
(R-Maine) office to once again voice concern about this. Since she is a
senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee this is even better
than calling a random Senator ;-) We want to defeat this thing in
Committee, not on the Senate floor.
Steve
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 08 2001 - 10:59:11 PDT