R RAYFIELD
03/02/99 06:43 PM
To: LEEnCALIF@aol.com
cc:
Subject: UNCLAS//N11240//Re: [MV] Politics and MV's (Document link not
converted)
I work in Wash DC in the export/import arena and am familiar with this to a
small degree. Because of the traffic I saw today and yesterday from all of
you, I decided to do a little research on our behalf to make sure we do not
go off half-cocked which would just defeat our purpose.
What apparently has happened is this:
1. "Things" (tanks, jeeps, trucks, etc.) are all classified as Significant
Military Equipment (SME) and as such are regulated by the U.S. Munitions
List (Categories I - XXI) which are administered by the State Department.
Things going out of the country arelicensed throught the State Dept via the
export licensing process per the International Traffic in Arms Regulations
(ITAR) or the Arms Export Control Act (AECA), as amended. See 22 CFR,
parts 120-130. This is adminstered by the Office of Defense Trade
Controls with opinions rendered from the military departments/services via
the Defense Technology Security Administration, now the Defense Threat
Reduction Agency. All temporary imports are handled in the same manner
under the same rules.
2. Permanent import of SME is delegated to and handled by the BATF via a
Form 6.
3. In the past BATF was issuing Form 6 licenses for the import of surplus
U.S. SME to include all manner of vehicles. Recently, the State Dept asked
the BATF to stop issuing licenses for this purpose - but supposedly, not at
the instigation of Clinton.
4. The AECA provides that any country in receipt of U.S. surplus SME must
sign a third party transfer agreement wherein the country in receipt of
such equipment must not transfer any of the equipment to a third country
w/o express written consent of the USG; the AECA makes no references to
disposing of SME to individuals. These provisions were meant to curb
countries from receiving gear via the Grant Aid Program or a nominal cost
via foreign military sales (FMS) and then selling them for profit; i.e.,
the USG wanted the money.
5. Third party transfers of SME is by statute reportable to Congress.
BATF licensing via Form 6's does not fulfill the State Dept requirement for
their permission and recording for reporting to Congress.
6. I asked the question if obtaining a Form 6 from the BATF can be
construed as USG permission - State Dept said "no."
7. I asked if there was a BATF concern about militias obtaining surplus
U.S. SME, and they said "no," there was no concern there.
8. Asked what recommendation the State Dept would make concerning a
recommendation if BATF put forward a license (Form 6) for approval and I
was told that State Dept would recommend against it unless it was for a
museum, immobile and demil'd. Personnel with museums out in cornfields
would not count.
9. I have not contacted State Dept or BATF further via phone because I
would rather have the answers in writing, so I will attempt to do that. I
do not suspect Clinton getting involved in this like he did with weapons
coming back in - just not on his radar scope. We need to do this right,
research the laws and implementing regulations and submit approriate
correspondence. This will require unemotional correspondence,
professionally written and delivered. Outside of that will only result in
consequences none of us want to see. The MVPA may want to look at a lawyer
and / or lobbyist that is familiar with this law and its regulations that
can decisively engage the State and Treasury Departments on this matter on
a professional, legal front.
10. To view the AECA which is part of the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) which is part of the U.S. Code; go to
http://www.lib.lsu.edu/gov/fedgov.html and click on "legislative," then on
"U.S. Code" then on "Code of Federal Regulations" going on to view the
AECA.
Hope this has been of some help.
R. S. Rayfield, Jr.
Major USMC (Ret)
Rayfields@worldnet.att.net
===
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>.