Ref: Demilitarization

[john]

....and they could turn this around ANY time they wanted, if it suited
their purposes.

How in blue blazes do they think they can reclaim items that DO NOT BELONG
TO THEM... they having SOLD such items long ago, legally, and DO NOT
OWN THEM anymore.

This is a BS law and should have never been passed.  Things are going to get
mighty interesting should they go around trying to take back firearms ,
radios,
or anything else they DO NOT OWN from their legal owners.

More crap from Washington...
JB



At 09:03 PM 10/26/01 -0500, Bob Peters wrote:
>This just came out in the ARRL Letter for those that may not subscribe>>>
>Looks like all us BA Guys and Gals are safe!!!!
>
>K1JNN
>
>
>==>SENATE BILL'S PROVISION NOT VIEWED AS THREAT TO SURPLUS RADIO FANS
>
>
>
>Amateurs who also collect military surplus radio "boat anchors" apparently
>have nothing to fear about a provision contained in the Senate version of
>the huge Department of Defense appropriations bill, S.1438. The provision,
>Sec 1062, would create governmental authority to "ensure demilitarization of
>significant military equipment."
>That provision, now a topic for discussion on news groups and Web sites,
>would require anybody possessing "significant military equipment formerly
>owned by the Department of Defense" either to have it "demilitarized" or to
>return it to the government for demilitarization. The provision also has the
>National Rifle Association and a large number of firearms enthusiasts up in
>arms and wondering whether it would affect their hobby if it's included in
>the final legislation.
>ARRL Legislative and Public Affairs Manager Steve Mansfield, N1MZA, looked
>into the issue and determined that those with surplus radio gear have
>nothing to worry about. "While we cannot speak reliably for the issue of
>firearms, we did contact one of the top lawyers for the Senate Committee on
>Armed Forces, where the provision was added to the bill," Mansfield said,
>"and he assured us that it would not be an issue unless a ham somehow had
>custody of some kind of top-secret and highly sophisticated military radio
>gear."
>Mansfield said his Capitol Hill contact explained that the definition of
>"significant" derives specifically from the Arms Export Control Act (22 USC
>2778), and that, in turn, was intended to provide "control of arms exports
>and imports" and not the typical ARC-5 transmitter or BC-348 receiver.
>"In other words, it does not refer to radios, but rather to large shipments
>of large military ordinance like missile guidance systems and rocket
>launchers," Mansfield said.
>The text of federal legislation may be found on the Thomas Legislative
>Information Web site, <http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.html>. Mansfield
>said the ARRL will continue to monitor the issue.
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>This list is a public service of the City of Tempe, Arizona
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>
>Subscription control -
http://www.tempe.gov/lists/control.asp?list=BOATANCHORS
>To post - BOATANCHORS at LISTSERV.TEMPE.GOV
>Archives - http://interactive.tempe.gov/archives/BOATANCHORS.html
>

-----------------------------------------------------------
This list is a public service of the City of Tempe, Arizona
-----------------------------------------------------------

Subscription control - http://www.tempe.gov/lists/control.asp?list=BOATANCHORS
To post - BOATANCHORS at LISTSERV.TEMPE.GOV
Archives - http://interactive.tempe.gov/archives/BOATANCHORS.html