Hi TJ,
> I was left with the feeling that the last time this bill was shot down it
> was shot down for having language that was too broad in scope. What gives
> me the willies is that these guys have SEEN this item before, they KNOW why
> it was pigeon-holed the first time and yet here it is AGAIN, resubmitted
> in its original form and STILL too broad in scope.
I suspect someone slipped it in hoping it would slime its way through
this time due to a lack of attention and the time crunch. Not a big
surprise. Politicians have been doing that since the country was founded
:-( It is AMAZING what petty crap is tossed into even critical, time
sensitive legislation.
>These being the
> circumstances, I must suspect that they want it broad because they want a
> lot of lattitude.
This is not confined to this legislation. It is, in fact, a generally
desirable goal of legislation unless there is some reason for being
specific. Flexibility is generally a good thing for our government to
have (i.e. less redtape), but when it comes to things like this it
certainly isn't good at all.
> Hypothetical situation: Terrorist picks up an M35, straightens it up and
> loads it up with God-knows-what-kind-of-nasty-thing. Terrorist gets his
> Army Surplus uniform on and drives said truck straight into Manhatten
> tomorrow, unchallenged and BOOM....award round two to the terrorists as
> well.
The problem here is that this sort of situation might damn our vehicles
no matter WHAT the current set of laws are. In other words, if such an
attack happened in NYC and DC two weeks ago (instead of the planes) we
might be facing the confiscation now even though this legislation wasn't
passed.
Sadly, we are at risk to lose our vehicles at any time, all the time.
Under normal circumstances, we can do a lot to prevent this from
happening. However, if hysteria and knee jerking become the norm for
both population and government, we are most likely screwed. In that
case, current legislation is totally, and utterly, irrelevant since new
(worse) legislation can be passed in an afternoon.
> So you see, that word "significant" is a relative term open to great deal of
> interpretation, given the circumstances at the moment. Do not think for a
> moment that this proposed bill is good in any way shape or form.
Oh, there certainly isn't anything good about this legislation. But if
it is defeated NOW and a terrorist attack happens as you described
tomorrow, there might be a new piece of legislation that gets rammed
through that is not vague at all:
"All formerly military vehicles in private hands, regardless of national
origin, are to be turned into local collection points to be crushed and
cut up."
Again, if the government, people, and courts of this country want them
gone... this poorly worded legislation is not their only tool to do that.
> The only thing I have to hang on to is the fact the the DoD never owned my
> White Scout Car cause the DoD didn't exist until 1949. I don't know what
> the rest of you guys are gonna do, though.
I'm sure this won't work. The DoD took over for the former entities set
up to guard our national security. Therefore, I am sure whatever
regs/laws/etc automatically transferred over to the DoD. That is usually
the works in the private sector at least.
> Better visit www.senate.gov if you know what's good for you.
Already done last week :-)
We need to oppose anything this poorly worded and so potentially "final"
about our ability to own MVs. However, we should not kid ourselves that
this is the be-all-end-all battle, nor should we start jumping off of
cliffs because we think MV Armageddon has arrived. This is a bad piece
of legislation and it should be defeted. That is about all we should be
thinking about until either it passes AND the Secretary makes a move, or
(God forbid) another terrorist attack happens using a MV of some sort.
Steve
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 08 2001 - 10:59:01 PDT