Ryan M Gill wrote:
>
> Ok, I just spoke with a Staffer from Senator Levin's office. A fellow
> by the name of Jonathan (sp?). Jonathan seemed amazed at the number of
> people (NRA, etc) that are concerned with this section. According to
> the staffer, the intent of the bill is to allow the DoD to retrieve
> mistakenly "surplus'ed" equipment that is in current inventory.
> Specifically things like guidance sections and such from missiles and
> other weaponry.
>
> I attempted to stress the reason for the general concern and panic
> over section 1062. Jonathan seemed annoyed by the panic the bill
> caused as he states the reason is not to take collectable vehicles or
> guns from civilians but rather to enable the DoD to recover lost
> equipment. He stated that the Senate had a report filed somewhere
> explaining the intent of the law and why it wasn't directed at
> civilian owned firearms and vehicles, rather directed at current
> military equipment.
>
> Sadly he kept stating that he was annoyed that so many people were in
> such a panic over a law that was designed to increase US security. I'm
> hoping that the whole thing is just a misunderstanding. Re-reading the
> USC covering the 'list' still seems to mean any tank, any amphibious
> vehicle, any military truck.
>
>
>
I personally think this is bull. We "panicked" last year and got it
removed. Why is he amazed that we don't like it any better this year?
I would think some time limit like making it apply to thing in the
current inventory or 5 years out or something.
Mike
Tishomingo, MS
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Dec 07 2001 - 00:36:25 PST