At 4:25 PM -0500 10/9/01, Rikk Rogers wrote:
>Has anyone look at this "study"?
It makes the exemption for things like WWII aircraft or Civial War
cannons, but nothing about a Sherman or a M114. Again, it has vague
language that allows for the SecDef to get nasty. Naturally its open
to the winds of change and fiat of the current administration.
ftp://ftp.loc.gov/pub/thomas/cp107/sr062.txt
SUBTITLE E--OTHER MATTERS
Requirement to conduct certain previously authorized
educational programs for children and youth (sec. 1061)
[snip]
Authority to ensure demilitarization of significant military
equipment formerly owned by the Department of Defense (sec. 1062)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide authority to
ensure demilitarization of significant military equipment formerly owned
by the Department of Defense (DOD).
The possession of improperly demilitarized DOD property by
individuals and business entities was the subject of a recent study of
the Defense Science Board and has raised considerable public concern.
Section 1051 of the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1999 required DOD to develop a plan for improving the
demilitarization of excess and surplus defense property and propose
appropriate legislation to clarify the authority of the government to
recover critical defense property that has not been properly
demilitarized. The Department complied with this requirement and
proposed legislation addressing this issue.
The provision recommended by the committee would make it unlawful for
any person to possess significant military equipment formerly owned by
DOD that has not been demilitarized, without proper authorization. Under
this provision, the Secretary of
Defense would be required to notify the Attorney General of
potential violations of this prohibition, and the Attorney General
would be authorized to take appropriate steps to ensure that the
equipment is demilitarized or returned.
The committee notes that military equipment would be covered by this
provision only if it is specifically designated as significant military
equipment. Public safety should be the foremost consideration in making
any such designation, but the Secretary may also take into consideration
the historic or cultural significance of certain equipment. For example,
the committee does not believe that civil war cannon would or should be
designated as significant military equipment. Similarly, the committee
does not expect that World War II aircraft from which all weapons
systems have been removed would or should be designated as significant
military equipment.
-- -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- - Ryan Montieth Gill ---------- SW1025 H - - Internet Technologies -- Data Center Manager (3N &10S) - - ryan.gill@turner.com rmgill@mindspring.com - - www.mindspring.com/~rmgill - - I speak not for CNN, nor they for me - ---------------------------------------------------------------- - C&R-FFL - \ Protect Freedom AND Security - - NRA \ http://www.indefenseoffreedom.org/ - ----------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Dec 07 2001 - 00:36:24 PST