Posted by Brian in Oregon on Wednesday, September 19, 2001 at 1:58AM :
In Reply to: Sounds like an Internet rumor posted by Peter Sprouse on Tuesday, September 18, 2001 at 11:08PM :
From http://www.aero-news.net/
DoD'S Draconian Effort to Destroy Your Military Equipment
MOVING TARGET al3rt! S.1155, Sec 921, has morphed into S.1416, Sec 1062 -- you must start over, with your calls and E-Mails! The bureaucrats that run this country are hiding this unconstitutional legislation, in a sort of "shell game," changing its number day by day. Show your elected officials that you won't stand for it! They can hide, but they can't get away with this outright assault on your rights and property! History will be forever lost, if this bill passes! The new morphing is even worse than before, making mere possession of non-demil'd equipment a federal crime! If you get caught with something that isn't demil'd to a bureaucrat's whim, you can go to federal prison! (Merely cutting the frame of a tank, for instance, won't suffice -- you've got to cut holes in the engine block! Your P-47 would get the same treatment!)
Congressional toll-free number: (877) 762-8762 (If it's busy, don't let that stop you! Spend a quarter to call direct!)
(Prepared by The Collings Foundation)
Last fall, many groups and people worked together to defeat H.R. 4205, Section 361. It appears that positive step was short lived. Senate Bill 1416, Section 1062, the Military Authorization Bill for 2002 is virtually a mirror image of the previously defeated legislation.
Once again, there are forces attempting to pass a law that will require demilitarization of formerly-owned DOD significant military equipment or any other equipment so designated by the DOD after disposal (sale). This applies to all situations, including military equipment acquired in perfectly legal transfers and cases where it was purchased from the government.
The following excerpt from the bill defines the military equipment criteria:
‘(f) DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICANT MILITARY EQUIPMENT- In this section, the term `significant military equipment' means--
’(1) an article for which special export controls are warranted under the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.) because of its capacity for substantial military utility or capability, as identified on the United States Munitions List maintained under section 121.1 of title 22, Code of Federal Regulations; and
’(2) any other article designated by the Department of Defense as requiring demilitarization before its disposal.’
Section (d) allows the Secretary of Defense to determine Demil standards based on the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751). Section 2573 would be inserted into U.S. Code Title 10. This would allow the International rules to be applied domestically without due process.
Firearms, aircraft, boats, military vehicles, radios, ground support equipment, technical documents, and spare parts are all considered significant military equipment. There are some aircraft that are specifically exempted (recip-engine cargo and liaison), but this is a small portion of the flying Warbird fleet. Again, there is complete disregard for personal property rights where this new legislation is concerned. The Secretary, under this new section, can order the destruction of any lawfully obtained surplus military equipment at his, or his appointee's discretion.
Reducing an operable piece of equipment or flight-worthy aircraft to a static example is tantamount to destroying it. Its inherent value as an operable piece of machinery is reduced to fraction of what it was. The lawful owners of this equipment will not be compensated for their loss, and to add insult to injury, will either have to bear the cost of destroying their own equipment or give it back to the government. The forced demil'ing (destroying) of legally obtained military firearms is a violation of the 2nd Amendment. Confiscating personal property flies in the face of Constitutionally-protected property and contract rights. Additionally, this post-sale backpedaling by the DOD constitutes ex-post-facto lawmaking, specifically forbidden by the Constitution. If this legislation were to pass, the historical loss would be incalculable, the number of lawsuits it will generate would be astronomical, and the potential for disaster—“you'll take this over my dead body!”--would be shocking.
There is no time limit. ANY listed significant former DOD equipment falls under this new regulation. It has been reported that historical operating Army vehicles have been ordered to be demilled to the point of cutting holes in them and making them completely inoperable. The museums entrusted with their care were subsequently billed for the compliance team's expenses. If you are aware of specific examples of this type of heavy-handed governmental action please let us know as we are collecting documentable evidence.
The following is the actual language of the legislation taken from the Senate Bill:
S.1416 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Placed on the Calendar in the Senate)
SEC. 1062. AUTHORITY TO ENSURE DEMILITARIZATION OF SIGNIFICANT MILITARY EQUIPMENT FORMERLY OWNED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.
(a) PROHIBITION- It is unlawful for any person to possess significant military equipment formerly owned by the Department of Defense unless--
(1) the military equipment has been demilitarized in accordance with standards prescribed by the Secretary of Defense;
(2) the person is in possession of the military equipment for the purpose of demilitarizing the equipment pursuant to a Federal Government contract; or
(3) the person is specifically authorized by law or regulation to possess the military equipment.
(b) REFERRAL TO ATTORNEY GENERAL- The Secretary of Defense shall notify the Attorney General of any potential violation of subsection (a) of which the Secretary becomes aware.
(c) AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE DEMILITARIZATION- (1) The Attorney General may require any person who, in violation of subsection (a), is in possession of significant military equipment formerly owned by the Department of Defense--
(A) to demilitarize the equipment;
(B) to have the equipment demilitarized by a third party; or
(C) to return the equipment to the Federal Government for demilitarization.
(2) When the demilitarization of significant military equipment is carried out pursuant to subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1), an officer or employee of the United States designated by the Attorney General shall have the right to confirm, by inspection or other means authorized by the Attorney General, that the equipment has been demilitarized.
(3) If significant military equipment is not demilitarized or returned to the Federal Government for demilitarization as required under paragraph (1) within a reasonable period after the Attorney General notifies the person in possession of the equipment of the requirement to do so, the Attorney General may request that a court of the United States issue a warrant authorizing the seizure of the military equipment in the same manner as is provided for a search warrant. If the court determines that there is probable cause to believe that the person is in possession of significant military equipment in violation of subsection (a), the court shall issue a warrant authorizing the seizure of such equipment.
(d) DEMILITARIZATION OF EQUIPMENT- (1) The Attorney General shall transfer any military equipment returned to the Federal Government or seized pursuant to subsection (c) to the Department of Defense for demilitarization.
(2) If the person in possession of significant military equipment obtained the equipment in accordance with any other provision of law, the Secretary of Defense shall bear all costs of transportation and demilitarization of the equipment and shall either--
(A) return the equipment to the person upon completion of the demilitarization; or
(B) reimburse the person for the cost incurred by that person to acquire the equipment if the Secretary determines that the cost to demilitarize and return the property to the person would be prohibitive.
(e) ESTABLISHMENT OF DEMILITARIZATION STANDARDS- (1) The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe regulations regarding the demilitarization of military equipment.
(2) The regulations shall be designed to ensure that--
(A) the equipment, after demilitarization, does not constitute a significant risk to public safety and does not have--
(i) a significant capability for use as a weapon; or
(ii) a uniquely military capability; and
(B) any person from whom private property is taken for public use [NOTE: There is no "public use" here. Your destroyed P-40 will not be used by the public -- it will just be destroyed.] under this section receives just compensation for the taking of the property.
(3) The regulations shall, at a minimum, define--
(A) the classes of significant military equipment requiring demilitarization before disposal; and
(B) what constitutes demilitarization for each class of significant military equipment.
(f) DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICANT MILITARY EQUIPMENT- In this section, the term `significant military equipment' means equipment that has a capability described in clause (i) or (ii) of subsection (e)(2) and--
(1) is a defense article listed on the United States Munitions List maintained under section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778) that is designated on that list as significant military equipment; or
(2) is designated by the Secretary of Defense under the regulations prescribed under subsection (e) as being equipment that it is necessary in the interest of public safety to demilitarize before disposal by the United States.
Congressional toll-free number: (877) 762-8762 (If it's busy, don't let that stop you! Spend a quarter to call direct!)
"What we should be doing is making sure that we don't change our way of life -- we need to change their way of life; destroying military history will be as effective [in preventing terrorism] as the screening procedures at the airports." --Larry Pratt, President of Gun Owners of America, in a short ANN interview
[We provide a list of the Senate and House committee members at the bottom of the page. See also last year's coverage of HR 4205, ANN Special Report: HR 4205 Is Real, and A Danger to Aviation! Last year's HR 4205 is this year's S.1416 -- these people won't stop trying to push the bill. We need to tell them we won't stand for it. Committee votes could take place soon! Stop this NOW!]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Readers Act!
These are a few of the encouraging E-Mails we received since yesterday's story:
Below is the message that I've sent to everyone that I could. Taking your lead, I sent this to all on your list and many others. This is not an easy thing to do, many of the addresses listed are not a direct address; you must go to their web-site and look for contact info. The easiest way to do it, is to paste the original message in the body of the 'send email to'. Very time consuming, took almost two hours, but well worth it. Hopefully we can stop this insanity...
We oppose Bill S.1155, Section 921[now S.1416, Section 1062] and urgently request that it be stopped. With everyone in Congress looking for new ways to fund anti-terrorism measures, we suggest that you consider the money and time devoted to S.1155 [S.1416] be better used protecting our citizens, rather than harassing them! While it's set up so that we'll need to spend our own money to destroy our own equipment, the administration of this bill could get really expensive. Could you even imagine an airshow without a 'WARBIRD'? These pieces of history are always a big attraction. What about those in museum's? Many have spent countless hours and their own money restoring many of these wonderful aircraft to new condition to show and share with generations to come. Look at the P-38 that was found, recovered and now almost restored, from its icy grave in Greenland, all by volunteers. This will be one of only 5 others that are still flying.
What a shame it would be to put to waste these magnificent pieces of our history. Don't do it... --Larry --------
Another approach, sent to both Georgia senators (those Georgia folk sure are politically aware, aren't they?)
Sir, There is a bill floating around, S.1155, specifically Section 921, that would authorize the Secretary of Defense to compel "demilitarization" of certain military equipment. This provision is a rebirth of Section 361 of the old HR4205, defeated last year. Please see that this section is deleted from S.1155.
I am an avid World War II buff, and as part of that I collect World War II-era rifles. While my M1 Garand would be spared [only if it was issued to you by the DCM --ed.], my M1a Springfield would not. Nor would my dad's M1911A .45 auto. Even more so, my dad was a World War II Navy pilot and my sons and I have always enjoyed attending airshows and watching the old "warbirds" (such as P-51s and my dad's plane, the F4U Corsair) put on flying demonstrations. I believe these kinds of days spent together are part of what inspired both of my sons to attend West Point, but there is no exemption in the bill for such priceless national treasures.
Frankly, there is not now, nor has there ever been, any argument that old military equipment in the hands of private citizens poses any threat to anyone. Rather, the provision is just one of those symbolic gestures that chips away at the essence of American principles for the sake of superficial political appeal.
I fear that, in light of the horrible events of September 11, it would be politically difficult to oppose this provision, but I believe you have the stature and credentials to do so. Please use your influence to have this section deleted in its entirety. Thank you for your consideration. --Skip -------
[Thanks, Larry and Skip, and all of you who are doing what you can to help preserve our history and our Constitution! --ed.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congressman Putnam's Office Responds
ANN's elected Representative, Adam Putnam (R-FL-12) has some good staff! Although we also contacted our senators, the congressman's staffer, Tim Coleman, got right to work. Part of what he sent us is reproduced below:
"...I am happy to inform you that Rep. Gary Miller (R-CA-41) intends to work during the House-Senate conference on this bill to address the issue of non-specific language in section 1062, or to drop the provision entirely. Rep Miller will be working to ensure that the Senate language is not adopted in the final version of the Bill. [Rep. Miller (http://www.house.gov/garymiller/) worked hard and long last year, to delete Section 361 of HR 4205, the precursor to this year's legislation --ed.]
If you would like to follow the progress of the conference committee deliberations it is be best to contact Rep. Miller's office directly and ask for Ruby Gee..."
Mr. Coleman continued, "From my background research I located a copy of the Committee on Armed Services Committee Report (September 12, 2001--Report #107-62, p.351). The report addressed your two major concerns. The report states the following:
"The committee notes that military equipment would be covered by the provision only if it is specifically designated as significant military equipment. Public safety should be the foremost consideration in making any such designation, but the Secretary may also take into consideration the historic or cultural significance of certain equipment. For example, the committee does not believe that civil war cannon would or should be designated as significant military equipment. Similarly, the committee does not expect that World War II aircraft from which all weapons systems have been removed would or should be designated as significant military equipment."
Thank you, Tim Coleman! First, it's uplifting to note that there are some allies of sanity on the Hill; and it's a good idea that we give them the support we can. Second, though, note how easy it would be to become complacent with the above quote, and think there is no threat. The things we have said would be endangered -- fighter aircraft, small arms, field radios, manuals -- are specifically included as "significant military equipment," already.
That "the committee does not expect" many of these things would be so designated, means nothing: what a committee expects, and what gets written into law, should be the same things, not opposites! The only way to ensure that our history will be preserved is to NOT give away the power in the first place. If the DoD has a specific need to destroy something, let's hear about it -- otherwise, let's have the DoD stop trying to get its fingers around everything it once had. As we urged last year, and again this year: call your elected officials, write the editors of your local newspapers, and don't give up! It's a lot easier to keep a bad law off the books, than it is to try to get around it, or fix it, later!
FMI: http://www.house.gov/garymiller/
|
Follow Ups:
This board is powered by the Mr. Fong Device from Cyberarmy.com |