t.glance@att.net wrote:
>
> I just got off the phone a little while ago with Lee
> Holland. He called to let me know, and pass on to
> everyone here, that the information I gave out this
> morning about Sec. 361 of HR5205 being dead is basic+
> correct. The MVPA is waiting until the final legislation
> has passed before claiming victory, however, and that is
> why they have made no formal announcement. In Washington
> things sometimes happen at the last minute. He said the
> update is written and is just awaiting his word before
> being posted. He also detailed to me the numerous trips
> to Washington that he has made and the meetings he has
> attended. The MVPA and Mr. Holland have been working
> pretty hard at this, although they have not been letting
> that fact be known perhaps as well as some of us would
> like it ot be.
>
> He also told me that they have decided to retain the
> lobbyist that they have been working with, and I believe
> that is the right choice. He said, and I fully agree,
> that this is not the last chapter of this fight and we
> will see more attempts at this in the future. I also
> asked him if any "offensive" proposals for legislation
> are being considered, and he said that they are indeed
> considering lobbying for some type of protective
> legislation for HMV's. This being the case I feel much
> better about where my money is going and will most
> likely send more.
>
> He also stressed that this has cost the MVPA a whole lot
> of money, and that in order to keep our presence known
> in Washington we will have to maintain membership at the
> 9000-9200 mark to keep the funds coming in.
>
> In regard to the issue of individuals write or calling
> their representatives, he said that the lobbyist seemed
> to think it was not very effective, as most of the
> letters only make it as far as the staff members. I have
> to wonder, however, what lobbyist would tell you that
> you can get results without using them. The impression I
> got from Sen. Helms staffer this morning was that the
> individual calls and letter were effective, and
> obviously I made enough of an impression for them to
> call me back several weeks later with results, so I
> guess we will have to disagree on this one. I believe
> both approaches are needed.
>
> I also asked him where this language originated, and he
> said that all he knew was that it came from within the
> DOD, and he had heard numerous different stories as to
> why it was originated,basically the same ones that have
> circulated on this list. I believe some more detective
> work is needed on that end, because bureaucrats like to
> remain anonymous, and a few(non-hostile) letters and e-
> mails may make the originator of this think before
> he/she tries it again. As Barney Fife said "nip it in
> the bud!"(Note- this is my opinion, not Mr. Hollands, we
> did not discuss this at length)
>
> In all, it looks like we have won this time. I fear,
> however, that we are seeing the beginning of the same
> fight for collectors of HMV's as we have seen since 1968
> for gun owners, and we will have to be forever vigilant
> from now on. I hope I am wrong.
>
> I wish I had had more time to speak with him, but was
> unable to talk longer due to a prior engagement. I was
> very impressed both by the fact that he took the time to
> call me and by the amount of work that he has done on
> our behalf.
>
> Tim in NC
>
> ===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>
I reiterate my previous response and now I see that Pres Holland has
decided to continue to spend our dues on keeping a lobbyist that,
contrary to all other groups like NRA, encourages members NOT to contact
their reps-- how can this stupidity continue?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 01 2000 - 21:37:38 PST