Re: [MV] oh oh MV collector in the (negative) news

Thomas Durkin (tdurkin@earthlink.net)
Wed, 30 Sep 1998 09:00:15 -0500

The problem with guys like Littlefield is they make things harder for
collectors who are legitimately trying to restore and maintain miltary
vehicles.

One reason we pay such high taxes in America is to maintain the best
military force in the world. They are paid, trained and equipped to handle
live weapons systems. I know that a gun is safe in my hands, but I could
point out many of my neighbors who I wouldn't trust with one. Our system
isn't perfect, but it's the best we've got so far. Some rich guy in
California building his own missile and weapons arsenal on a big secluded
ranch? Sounds like a plot for a Tom Clancy novel.

As collectors we need to stand behind laws that support responsible
ownership of weapons systems, from a popgun to a missile. If we don't, Rick
Lathrop will become right; the government will eventually ban everything.

----------
> From: Douglas Greville <dgrev@apollo.ruralnet.net.au>
> To: Lathrop, Rick <RLathrop@interact3pl.com>; Skylee <mil-veh@skylee.com>
> Subject: Re: [MV] oh oh MV collector in the (negative) news
> Date: Wednesday, September 30, 1998 1:37 AM
>
> Lathrop, Rick wrote:
> >
> > This will now be turned into an excuse by Customs, the State and BATF
to
> > ban the import of all military vehicles from other countries.
> > Rick
>
> As annoying as demilitarization may be to us collectors, I am afraid I
> will have to side with the US government on this one. I really think
> we can do without live Scuds in peoples back-yards or ranches.
> There is always someone who has to step over the line and get the
> authorities and especially, the media, all excited.
>
> In case any of the Americans are interested, in the state where I live
> even something passive like a "Flak Jacket" or "Bullet proof(!) vest"
> comes under the classification of a Prohibited Weapon, let alone a
> rifle of military calibre, a semi auto shot gun or ANYTHING that has
> a magazine capable of holding more than 5 rounds (yep, even a Ruger
> .22 semi auto), a Scud, no hope, even if it were demilitarized.
>
> You have to be able to prove JUST CAUSE to be allowed to own much
> of anything that ever could have gone "Bang" even if it has been
> 'rendered innocuous', Flak Vests somehow fit into this category.
>
> So how anyone could prove just cause out here to own a deactivated
> Scud is beyond me.
>
> Regards from Australia
> (The test country for the de-arming of civilians.)
>
> Doug
>
>
>
> ===
> To unsubscribe from the mil-veh mailing list, send the single word
> UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of a message to <mil-veh-request@skylee.com>.

===
To unsubscribe from the mil-veh mailing list, send the single word
UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of a message to <mil-veh-request@skylee.com>.