Richard, a number from Idaho contacted Sen Craig on this matter, and I'm
proud that he represents my friends and I. Does anyone know the current
status of this bill? One of our members went to Senator Craig's office and
got a copy of the bill and the sections were buried in a Bill approx 3"
thick. Obviously this was an attempt to slip something through in this
large bill.
> [Original Message]
> From: Richard Lathrop <lathrrs@snip.net>
> To: <mil-veh@mil-veh.org>
> Date: 10/4/01 4:41:30 AM
> Subject: [MV] S1438 has passed Section 1062 included!
>
> This is from the Congressional Record on the S1438 debate. At least
someone understands our concerns. My senators would not even return my
phone calls.
>
>
> Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President (Addressing President of the Senate), in
reviewing S. 1438, I came across a provision that would have disastrous
consequences, no matter what its original intentions might have been.
>
> I am talking about section 1062, making it unlawful for individuals to
possess any ``significant military equipment'' ever owned by the Department
of Defense that is not demilitarized and giving the Attorney General the
authority to seize such items. ``Significant military equipment'' can mean
a wide variety of goods; for example, it can include military vehicles,
aircraft, ammunition, firearms and parts. ``Demilitarization'' can mean a
number of things, too, including cutting or destruction.
>
> The Department of Defense already can, and does, demilitarize some
military equipment before surplusing it. I am not advocating a change in
that current authority.
>
> However, section 1062 of S. 1438 goes well beyond this current authority.
By making possession of such equipment illegal, it would create tens of
thousands of lawbreakers overnight, veterans, collectors, sportspeople,
even museums that have been legally purchasing surplus equipment from the
government for decades. Worse, this section provides for the confiscation
and destruction of items that are now private property.
>
> Consider the chaos and injustice that would result from enactment of this
provision. Veterans service organizations across the country who have
acquired military firearms to use for ceremonial purposes, they would be
criminals. Americans who learned to shoot and acquired a firearm through
the government's own Division of Civilian Marksmanship program would find
themselves being served with a warrant by the same government for the same
firearm. Museum displays or airshows featuring military vehicles or crafts
would be threatened. A firearm containing a military surplus replacement
part would now be subject to confiscation and destruction or begin rendered
inoperable. In my own state, a collector of military Jeeps would risk
losing his investment and his collection through no fault of his own.
>
> This provision is breathtaking in its reach and unfairness, capturing
millions of items and their law-abiding owners. This is why an even
less-onerous provision in the last DOD Authorization bill was dropped
during the House-Senate conference on that bill. That same conclusion must
be reached by the conferees on S. 1438; this provision must be dropped in
order to prevent certain harm.
>
>
> We need to redouble our efforts and concentrate on the Armed services
committee members as this bill now goes to conference with the House
version.
>
> If you did not send a letter or make a call take the time to do it now.
The next one might be to your lawyer when they come to pick up whatever
they think you should not have.
>
> Thanks for your time,
>
> Rick
>
>
>
>
>
> ===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>
--- HOWARD WRIGHT
--- dvsww2@mindspring.com
--- EarthLink: The #1 provider of the Real Internet.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Dec 07 2001 - 00:36:23 PST