<<
-----Original Message-----
From: rrayfield@usasac-emh2.army.mil <rrayfield@usasac-emh2.army.mil>
To: mil-veh@skylee.com <mil-veh@skylee.com>
Cc: Rayfields@worldnet.att.net <Rayfields@worldnet.att.net>
Date: 04 August 1999 18:06
Subject: UNCLAS//N11240//Re: [MV] Politics and MV's
Hi all,
A very useful insight, however:
>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.
>
I note the "import of surplus U.S. SME to include all manner of vehicles."
>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.
>
This, and previous missives seem to cover the re-import of specifically US
made
and likely Lend-Lease vehicles, but what of those wishing to import de-milled
vehicles of definitely non-US design or manufacture ?
I know of several US citizens wishing to import British vehicles and it would
seem the F6 embargo on these is beyond the intended scope of the current
hold.
Richard
(Southampton UK)
>>
And clearly it is beyond the intended scope of the current hold. A fact
known even to those who drafted the original memo in the State Dept. that
began all this fuss. I spoke to the author recently and he advised me he had
requested clarification from the legal department within State following BATF
resistance to processing any more form 6s.
Legal had reviewed Bob's concerns (motivated by your outrage and demanding)
and determined the sweeping action that followed his memo by BATF was
completely on their own initiative and most likely a misinterpretation or
over reaction to the requests defined in the rather limited State Dept. memo
which absolutely did not say, "Stop processing all SME form 6 requests."
The BATF did this actiuon on their own accord! The BATF acted without legal
precedent. The legal dept within State concluded, there are no provisions
within the AECA treaty to support such action by BATF. Therefore if
challenged, reversal of the policy would be sustained and on that basis
alone.
This revelation by legal and the concerns within the State Dept. prompted yet
another policy memo from State and it too was forwarded to BATF. BATF was
not impressed. They stood firm and failed to rescind their action based on
an all or nothing attitude. Why is that, you may wonder? BATF is simply
using this request by the State Dept. to review form 6's for AECA violations
as a way to completely rescind the extra work that it was forced to do; work
they consider is the job of the State Dept. escape what they perceive as
unnecessary and irresponsible extra work caused them by another agency or to
continue the moratorium. This is their only leverage over the State Dept.
and they won't let it go.
BATF is, to their way of thinking, understaffed and underfunded and such a
demand by State to review all form 6's for AECA violations is unworkable.
Thus a complete shut down of possible AECA imports was inevitable. Meanwhile
many little people are being financially damaged. Both federal agencies have
some cause to point the finger of guilt at each other. Plausible excuses
coming from both sides and gridlock. If there are any winners here it is the
Clinton administration and his large following of Democrats (both liberal and
conservatives) who have long held to the notion there is no need for such
equipment to be allowed into the hands of the public.
For literally decades following WW II the Democratic party has been promoting
antigun/antimilitary legislation and all that this encompasses. Down sizing
of the military, shutting off surplus rifles to the NRA, stopping armor
surplus sales within the USA, consistently underfunding the armed forces,
denying adequate support to military commanders such as in the Somalia
incident, using social experimentation within the military (gays and women),
lax national security due to their dovish nature which has led to the theft
of national secrets and so much more.
How can any intelligent, informed citizen honestly expect any Democrat in
high office to make any effort on our behalf regarding this form 6 situation?
We can't, it is completely foolish to think otherwise. Republicans who have
tried to help are blocked by the Presidency and the opposition Party. They
(Reps) are sympathetic, but trying to avoid controversy by openly supporting
what the Dems would surely label as a fringe element, a radical right wing
militia group bent on owning tanks..meaning us!
Our only hope is that somebody, somewhere with the courage and the
wherewithal will take action in a US Federal Court to force this form 6 issue
to a conclusion. I strongly doubt the MVPA would do that, given the previous
stand over anything political, but they could and they should. Our future as
a club is threatened by this situation.
More than my 2 cents worth, I know...but I just had to say it! Jack Lee
===
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>.