I believe the standard electrical system on an M series is sealed.
Am I wrong on this?
rikk
-----Original Message-----
From: islander [mailto:islander@midmaine.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2001 4:00 PM
To: Rikk Rogers; Military Vehicles Mailing List
Subject: Re: [MV] demill bill trucks
Hi Rikk,
>The question is moot, go back and reread the sections on anphib &
electrical
>systems. Your M series is covered!
You are correct if an M series (or other truck) actually has the deep
water fording kit and sealed electrical systems installed. The
definition of ampibious § 121.4 is as follows:
--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.
--
So if you have a vehicle without the deep water fording gear or sealed electrical systems it would not be "amphibious" according to Section VII(f).. Someone said they thought that rifle holders would constitute "specifically designed or modified to accommodate mountings for arms" defined in Section VII(a). However, I think this is totally not the case, especially since VII(d) specifically outlines which weapons mountings are covered. This is why it is important to note that having rifle holders is highly unlikelly to get the vehicle into problems if it doesn't fit the other clauses.
Steve
>rikk > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Military Vehicles Mailing List [mailto:mil-veh@mil-veh.org]On >Behalf Of islander >Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 2:24 PM >To: Military Vehicles Mailing List >Subject: Re: [MV] demill bill trucks > > >Ron & Claude, > >>For that matter, the addition of the M14 or M16 single or dual rifle >>carrier in your M series vehicle could be enough. All M series vehicles >>could have the kit mounted some where...Was the kit designed for universal >>mounting? Does it make a difference? > >Yes, it does make a difference because section (d) specifically states: > >" (d) Military trucks, trailers, hoists, and skids specifically >designed, modified, or equipped to mount or carry weapons of Categories >I, II and IV or for carrying and handling the articles in paragraph (a) >of Categories III and IV." > >This is where your M series vehicles could get tagged for having rifle >carriers. However, at the moment (d) is not in effect. > >It is interesting to note that subsection (a) states: > >" *(a) Military type armed or armored vehicles, military railway >trains, and vehicles specifically designed or modified to accommodate >mountings for arms or other specialized military equipment or fitted with >such items." > >Now you might think that this is a "gotcha" for rifle mountings. Not so >in my opinion for three reasons: > >1. There is a legal principle about "exclusion". If you specifically >mention something you need to be very careful to not mention something >similar using a different term. "Firearms" are mentioned all over that >document. I can see a lawyer saying that "arms" does not mean "firearms" >or "smallarms". Also, the proposed legislation only covers vehicles >which have a "significant weapons capability", which a removable smallarm >certainly is not (either that or any pickup with a gun rack is also a >"significant weapons" platform!). It is at least a strong point for a >challenge in court. > >2. There is another legal principle about conflicting clauses. Clearly >trucks which are equipped to mount/carry weapons are mentioned in (d). >Trucks are not specifically mentioned in (a). Since (d) is the one that >most correctly fits the description of a M series truck with a rifle >mount, (d) is the one that might be applicable. However, (d) is not in >effect at the moment so even if the DoD intended (a) to cover such >things, they would likely lose the battle in court. > >3. Courts do NOT like vaguely worded laws. Plenty of cases are decided >in favor of the defendant because of this. Standard court philosophy is >that the lawmakers have a responsibility and obligation to be specific >where there is room for doubt. So when there is significant gray area >the courts tend to toss out such stuff ESPECIALLY if it is going to cause >"harm" or financial loss to that party. > >So even if Congress passes this crap *AND* the DoD decides to act upon >it, they would first have to change the SME definition to make (d) active >in order to have a strong case for coming after your M series for ANY >reason. Sure, they could do this at any time, but that would most likely >open up a big can of worms. In any case, at any time a law could be >passed outlawing any military vehicle of any nationality PERIOD. So I >for one am not going to worry about what they COULD do outside of this >legislation since that is a battle we can't win before it happens. > >BTW, I love my new cupholders :-) > >Steve > >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: "Claude W. Vaughn" <vaughn@totalaccess.net> >>To: "Military Vehicles Mailing List" <mil-veh@mil-veh.org> >>Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 11:20 AM >>Subject: Re: [MV] demill bill trucks >> >> >>> Darrell, >>> >>> As I read the List of Significant Military Equipment, Part 121 of DoD >>"rules" >>> the MB and GPW would fall under the requirements to be demilled simply >>> because they could mount a weapon (post mount or perhaps even the rifle >>> carrier on the windshield) or because they could carry ammunition. >>> >>> The SME list is very vague. >>> >>> WE ALL HAVE A LOT TO LOOSE... And all of America will loose a part of her >>> history. >>> >>> Write, Call, FAX your Senator and the members of the Senate Armed Forces >>> Committee. >>> >>> Claude. >>> >>> >>> Darrell Shake wrote: >>> >>> > Someone please correct me if Im wrong on this but isnt the mb gpw >family >>> > regarded as truck utlity 1/4ton 4x4 . And if this is so wouldnt that >>> > alone be grounds for demil under part121 . Pretty sure there is a line >>> > in there about military trucks under the vehicle classification. Might >>> > seem as though Im picking at small straws but if you delegate this on >>> > paper down to some low level staff wont they interpret this as simply >>> > letter of the law and go from that direction. Please remember that law >>> > is black and white only. Darrell. GOT ALOT TO LOOSE. >>> > >>> >>> >>> ===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list=== >>> To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org> >>> To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to <mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org> >>> To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org> >> >> >>===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list=== >>To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org> >>To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to <mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org> >>To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org> > >===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list=== >To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org> >To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to <mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org> >To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org> > > >===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list=== >To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org> >To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to <mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org> >To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 08 2001 - 10:59:12 PDT