Hi all,
I feel like the discussion surrounding the recent anti-milveh legislation
contains too much "the sky is falling" syndrome. This is understandable
as an initial reaction, but we have to pull ourselves together here and
asses the REAL risk to our Hobby vs. the perceived one. Once we fully
understand what this legislation CAN in fact do to us, then we can devise
the best way to counter argue against it. Ignorance leads often leads to
defeat.
Obviously the language is HIGHLY offensive to us, as it should be, and it
needs be removed before or, if that is not possible ("fast track" and
all), after it has been passed. I have already sent emails to my reps
asking them to oppose this legislation and will follow up with some
phonecalls on Monday.
But what does this vague language REALLY mean for us? Some think it
means that every military vehicle/item we have WILL be destroyed at our
expense upon adoption of this legislation. I have read and reread the
language and just don't see that being the case. Unfortunately, so far
we haven't had an "expert" give an opinion about what each and every
clause REALLY means. Lots of speculation and worst case guesswork, but
nothing I would call properly "informed". Hopefully we can get someone
who knows legislative mumbojumbo in to comment on the REAL risk from this
legislation. That way we can fight it more effectively.
In particular, I look at things like this and wonder if this is as bad as
it looks (from HR 2586):
"The Secretary of Defense may require any person in possession of
significant military equipment formerly
owned by the Department of Defense--"
The critical words here, from a legal standpoint, are "may require"
instead of "will require". What this says to me is that before ANYTHING
happens the Secretary of Defense must first decide to go after something,
then he has to decide what in particular to put on such a list. So even
if this legislation goes through, that does not necessarily mean that we
have to get out our torches and start cutting stuff up. The Secretary
would first have to proclaim some sort of action to be taken, then what
it is to be taken against, which is not necessarily something that WILL
happen.
"If the person in possession of the significant military equipment
obtained the property in the manner authorized by law or regulation and
the Secretary determines that the cost to demilitarize and return the
property to the person is prohibitive, the Secretary shall reimburse the
person for the purchase cost of the property and for the
reasonable transportation costs incurred by the person to purchase the
equipment."
Again, it looks like the ball is in the Secretary of Defense's court. It
also looks like it is not open and shut that equipment will be taken from
us without compensation. Of course, that isn't the POINT of our beef
with the bill, but it is something worthy of note.
"ESTABLISHMENT OF DEMILITARIZATION STANDARDS- The Secretary shall issue
regulations to prescribe what constitutes demilitarization for each type
of significant military equipment, with the objective of ensuring that the
equipment does not pose a significant risk to public safety and does not
provide a significant weapon capability or military-unique capability and
ensure that any person from whom private property is taken for public use
under this section receives just compensation."
Again, compensation is mentioned here. But the more important thing to
note is that the Secretary once again is calling the shots. In this
case, it is about what needs to be done to achieve demilitarization "WITH
THE OBJECTIVE OF ENSURING THAT THE EQUIPMENT DOES NOT POSE A SIGNIFICANT
RISK TO PUBLIC SAFETY" and so on. To me, this looks like an easy way to
challenge any frivolous attempts to cut up our stuff. I can just see my
lawyer asking the court to please explain why my MULE or Weasels needs to
be cut up because a) it poses no risk to public safety, b) it does not
provide a significant weapon capability, and c) it does not provide a
"military-unique" capability. In other words, the language might be
vague in general, but here it is quite specific. For the vast majority
of stuff we own, this language APPEARS to be in our favor in the event of
some sort of legal confrontation. Obviously if you are someone who is
lucky to own an armored vehicle, this language may not protect you.
There is also an exception for demilitarization:
"(4) to other issues and undemilitarized significant military equipment
under the provisions of the provisions of the Department of Defense
Demilitarization Manual, DoD 4160.21-M-1."
Does anybody have the language for DoD 4160.21-M-1? It would appear that
unless a piece of equipment is mentioned in this document, it is
automatically exempted from demiling under this bill. That begs the
question... what is in this document?
Likewise, the Sentate's bill S.1416 also contains language that could be
less draconian than it looks:
"(a) PROHIBITION- It is unlawful for any person to possess significant
military equipment formerly owned by the Department of Defense unless--
(1) the military equipment has been demilitarized in accordance with
standards prescribed by the Secretary of Defense;"
To me this means that if there are no demil standards for a particular
vehicle, there is no problem with it under this legislation unless the
Secretary SPECIFICALLY changes the rules. So while a M151 might have a
problem here, something that was never directed to be demiled, like a
Weasel or M37, might be free and clear. I am also unclear here if
something like a M151, which was already cut, is actually in danger of
needing to be recut. Unless it is already unlawful to reweld up a
demiled vehicle, the language appears to imply direction against vehicles
which were not "correctly" demiled in the first place. So perhaps if you
have rewelded a M151 you might be OK since the language does not
specifically state the vehicle needs to be maintained in a demiled state.
But if you have a M151 that missed being demiled, you might have a
problem *if* the Secretary directs you to have it recut. Of course,
something else could state this to be the case, but this legislation
doesn't appear to do that in and of itself.
OK, hopefully we can get into discussing the issues here and see what is
really going on with this legislation. Remember, like terrorism, you
must first understand what you are dealing with before you can
effectively counter it. Posting stuff like "those bastards aren't going
to take away my trucks and trailers without a fight" doesn't help us at
all. Anybody have professional qualifications to wade through this heap
of crap that has been dumped on us?
Steve
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 08 2001 - 10:59:01 PDT