Re[2]: [MV] Re: Armored Vehicle Import Ban

James Burrill (jburrill@dttus.com)
25 May 1999 11:25:24 -0500

You're right on, I didn't mean to slight later MVs...a Saracen is on
my want list, as well as a Land Rover and Austin Champ.

I thought a WWII vehicle smacks of "so old it can't be a threat" and "
Yep! it's a historical collectable" to go along with the interest in
WWII movies and the History channel.

I think it would be "the camel's nose" as far as getting the Govt to
provide exemptions for Lend-Lease and Weapons of War catagories that
we are having trouble.

I will fight just as hard for Chieftans, T-72s, OT-18s and the like,
but I would try to make my first crack in the rules by pushing the
"Historical" aspect.

Actually, using the same criteria that the state DMV uses for
"Antique" would probably be a better argument: The states have already
examined and passed the guidlines...less work for a federal study
group to just copy the precedent.

Cheers
Jim

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: [MV] Re: Armored Vehicle Import Ban
Author: rojoha@mediaone.net at Internet-USA
Date: 5/25/99 9:04 AM

Hi List:
Jim, why the date of 1946? Some (most?) states use 25 years prior to
the current year as the trip point of " Antiqueness ". Assigning an
arbitrary date of 1946 smacks of " I've got mine" to those of us with
later period vehicles and equipment. I'm sure this was not intended.
Ron MVPA 18999

===
To unsubscribe from the mil-veh mailing list, send the single word
UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of a message to <mil-veh-request@skylee.com>.