> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Durkin [SMTP:tdurkin@earthlink.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 1998 10:00 AM
> To: Douglas Greville; Lathrop, Rick; Skylee
> Subject: Re: [MV] oh oh MV collector in the (negative) news
>
> 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>.