[MV] Re[2]: [MV] legal case in Sacramento re camo-painted vehicle

From: James Burrill (jburrill@dttus.com)
Date: Thu Dec 30 1999 - 14:24:05 PST


*This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(tm) Pro*

     List,
     
     If this was a gun thing, the NRA legal folks would be all over it.
     
     What about the MVPA?
     
     Has anyone told them (in writing) about this case? What was their
     reply?
     
     Not to start MVPA bashing, but it seems the organization should take
     up this gauntlet (and yes, even some costs) and * DO SOMETHING*.
     
     Are there any lawyers in the MVPA that would do this pro bono (I think
     that is the term)? Could the MVPA try to come up with some lawyers to
     do a "Friend of the court" advisory brief?
     
     
     If the cammo argument was sound, then any white car hit in a snowstorm
     would be at fault, the Car makers for making cars with low viz colors
     like "Black" and hit at night, Brown or tan and hit in CA, or just
     about anything and hit at dusk or dawn.
     
     It also sounds like the owner had a pretty lame lawyer if they
     couldn't present some of these counter arguments.
     
     Hell, just bring in woodland cammo jacket and then an urban pattern
     jacket and show that a woodland cammo is unacceptable as cammo in an
     urban environment..."see! the government has gone to the expense to
     use something pretty radically different. They consider the woodland
     scheme so unusuable for urban use that they created the
     grey/white/black urban pattern!"
     
     Geeeeeez!
     
     -Jim Burrill

===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@uller.skylee.com>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to <mil-veh-digest@uller.skylee.com>
Send administrative queries to <mil-veh-request@uller.skylee.com>



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 05 2000 - 22:42:38 PST