islander wrote:
>Thanks Ryan for the update. Gee... maybe we wouldn't be in such a
>"panic" if the language was specifically targeted towards the things he
>told you about. I don't think civilians have any business getting their
>hands on missile guidance systems any more than Sen. Levin, so I'm not at
>all happy to hear that the DoD can't keep track of this stuff! So I am
>in favor of them doing something about it. But fer God's sake, tighten
>up the language and the definitions so that it doesn't potentially apply
>to a pair of GI socks as well as a thermonuclear warhead.
>
If the DRMO wasn't flooded with so much new stuff that was bought when
it wasn't needed just so a business in someone home jurisdiction can
make some money or if they had the funds or the will to go through the
stuff it would never get out. But then, where would we get our spare
parts? They are just trying to close the barn door after the horse has
run away.
>
>>It makes the exemption for things like WWII aircraft or Civial War
>>cannons, but nothing about a Sherman or a M114.
>>
>
>I suspect that it is typical "duh, we didn't think of that" stuff going
>on for some, deliberate underhandedness for others. Especially regarding
>firearms. However, I sincerely doubt that any Senator would admit that
>they think the government should be wasting its valuable time and
>resources (OUR resources!!) coming to collect a 50 year old 4x4 truck so
>it can be destroyed. Which gets me back to the "duh" part of my previous
>statement.
>
They made a pretty good effort to get M151A2's a few years ago. If this
was law then they would have had no problem. They already calm to have
proved them unsafe for the public.
>Recently in Maine we had a piece of crap put before us voters that was
>designed to go after the half dozen or so big paper companies' "misuse"
>of the forest. However, the dummies that drafted the thing worded it so
>badly that it would basically make small land owners, of which there is
>over 100,000 of us, equally screwed even though we aren't part of the
>bigger problems the referendum was aimed at. Pardon the pun, but these
>guys couldn't see the forest through the trees. I know they didn't
>intend to burdon the small land owners, but the poorly written language
>would have had that effect.
>
And is usually the case with badly written law, the rich bid company
lawyer's would get them out of complying with the law and the little
people would be the ones that ended up in trouble.
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Dec 07 2001 - 00:36:25 PST