Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Bodhi on October 02, 2001, 08:00:00 PM
-
This is a very serious and real threat to the Warbird Community and all US Military Collectors.
At current, the National Defense Authorization Act S1416 is set to go before Congress. As a general rule, the act is fine, encourages more home defense spending and the like, but Section 1062 of this act specifically deals with the destruction of ALL civilian owned decommissioned military equipment. Section 1062 of this act, if passed, will bring about the destruction of all former US Department of Defense property. That means all of it, whether it be a gun, manuals, automobile, truck, computer, boat / ship, or aircraft, it will be required to be destroyed, at the owners expense with no compensation for value. Section 1062 is a ludicrous portion of the National Defense Act S1416 being piggy backed through to get it passed, because Act S1416 will be passed due to the crisis the US faces. That means no more Warbirds at airshows for the likes of us.
What can you do??? You can contact your congresspersons and ask them to state their stance on the National Defense Act S1416, Section 1062. You should also tell them that you oppose Section 1062, as it represents the destruction of this nation's heritage.
Please, I implore you, email, write, call your congress persons, this act is a death nell for the Warbird Community as a whole in the US.
Stand up and let it be heard! NO on NATIONAL DEFENSE ACT S1416 SECTION 1062
This is not joke. Check online with
<Link>Http://www.eaa.org
<Link>Http://www.libertycommittee.org
<Link>Http://www.house.gov
<Link>Http://www.senate.gov
-
Email me if you need any specific info on this
bodhi83@cfl.rr.com
-
aw toejam!
-
I don't see what Bohdi's talking about in the text of this bill. Here's the text of section 1062 of S1416 in its entirety (and it's pretty long):
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 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.
------------------------
As far as I can tell, this section makes a distinction between "demilitarization" and "destruction." Check out, specifically, section (d)(2)(A) & (B), which compensates owners of military equipment who legally obtained their items for the costs of transporation and demilitarization, and then returns the demilitarized item to them.
So my question is... what do we mean by demilitarization? If a P-51 doesn't have operational .50 caliber machine guns on it anymore, I'm guessing it's demilitarized and not subject to this section.
-- Todd/DMF
-
I don't see it happening. Somebody didn't read somethin right. ;)
-
DMF is there an official definition of "demilitarization" in there as it would apply to a WW2 Fighter or Bomber?
For one man it might mean gun mounts removed.
Another man might say that no matter what you did to the gun mounts they could be restored therefore the aircraft must be destroyed.
So, how is it defined?
-
I havn't read the whole bill, but from what avweb is saying there will be no time restrictions on DMZ.
Any aircraft that is still flying that has ever been in service would have to be decommisioned (?), or made nonflyworthy. If the government so wishes.
Thats how I understand it anyhow.
[ 10-02-2001: Message edited by: Starbird ]
-
ummm... What does this mean for all the M1 Garand owners out there? Or any other firearm collector that has historic U.S. firearms? It seems a bit vauge to me.
-
The problem is that it is not defined.
The point here is not to argue as to whether I made the proper point, thats the reason most people stay off these boards. The point is that significant risk to all ex-military equipment is defined within this section.
Take item 2 for instance:
(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;
Dropping bombs is defined as a uniquely military capability. No more buffs flying around. Fighters can do the same as well. Guess what, your gonna find the aircraft demil'd by them staying on the ground with holes drilled through spars, engines cases holed, and props too. That effectively destroys the aircraft. Because you will not be able to fix the aircraft (not saying it could not be literally fixed) but that it will be illegal to repair the structure to make it airworthy again.
This subset has no point in staying in this bill, it only provides for some paper pushing dickwad to destroy our history and infringe on my rights, and yours, to own and operate warbirds.
[ 10-02-2001: Message edited by: Bodhi ]
-
i dont think even if bodhi is right in what this bill would do that it would ever hold up in court. i just cant see the government deliberately going after our heritage like that and i dont think anyone would let em do it either.
-
I agree with Moose here, Bohdi. The law says you can have the equipment, but it has to be deMILITERIZED, not wrecked.
No guns, no bomb racks, stuff like that. Your over reacting. Under this law it appears you can buy an F-16 if you so choose, provided it is demiliterized.
Hans.
-
Guys, I have been in the warbird industry for 10 years. You can claim I am over reacting, but when the presidents of the 4 major warbird owning organizations start freaking over this bill, it tends to make me nervous too. But hell, go ahead, you guys are kings on your computers. Nice to see that we are all experts on law and how the government will interpret it. I did my part, I passed this on as asked, you guys did your usual part, mocked it. Well diddly yas, can not say I did not try.
-
From what i can see the only risk here is what the term 'demilitarised' means in terms of severity.
My guess is that even a P51 with .50cals which have been made non-firing would be classed as 'demilitarised'.
Looks to me as if this is an attempt to gain some control over the US's rather large private armies like those that live in the hills,refuse federal inspections and advocate violence toward other social or racial groups.I'd suggest you welcome the proposal unless you are happy to allow individuals or certain groups to build up what is, in effect, a reasonable fighting force which could threaten innocent civiliants or even government bodies.
As the world is well aware the generals concensus of US citizens is that they have a basic right to arm and defend themselves.Your constitution gives everyone the right to own a firearm? Im not sure but that is what ive gathered.Well you have to protect yourselves from those that take it that much further and arm themselves like a real army.
In the UK all military equiptment is demilitarised(no weapons usable).I dont see our government destroying old warbirds and I doubt yours will either.They like us are proud of our heritage, but they like us dont want to see some private army springing up in our midst.
seems like a sensible proposal if you ask me, unless you dont mind losing your freedom to terrorist/freedom fighters(LOL) who are essentially lunatics. :D
bohdi working in that industry maybe you are right and we should worry about that bill but look at history my friend and you will see that the numbers needed to present a significant threat to a government are a LOT smaller than you might imagine.
I know this is rediculous but lets just for a second imagine that the largest collector of military equiptment in america decided he supported Bin ladin and his group of fundamentalists and decides to use all of that equiptment to attack a an unsuspecting government or civilian target for the propaganda coup it would produce?.rediculous!, total fantasy!, who would be crazy enough to do that sort of thing? ...........well, after witnessing those images on the tv of the WTC attack I dont think I could rule out any possibility.
what if someone with a private collection of 30 decommissioned military vehicles decided to roll into your home town? who garentees your safety? who has garenteed these vehicles wont be able to fire shells (filled with biological agaents?) at your house?
scaremongering i grant you but after WTC disaster its time to rethink what is acceptable and what is the individuals rights and what is the populations rights.
when the individuals can threaten the majorities rights its time for some precautions.
[ 10-03-2001: Message edited by: hazed- ]
-
Bodhi is right on this one.
They de-mil machine guns by melting them down into a little puddle.
Sit on your *ss if you like. I've already taken the 15 minutes to type up a letter and E-Mail it around.
THEIR idea of "Demilitarized" is P-51's turned into Coca-Cola cans.
YOUR idea of "Demilitarized" isn't going to matter to them.
With you all the way Bodhi.
-
In order for these people to even own these aircraft legally, they will have had to followed demil proceedures. Otherwise the US government would not of let the aircraft off government property, and certainly would not of given them the SF-97 (certificate of release) they need in order to register the aircraft with the FAA.
Demil codes and proceedures (http://www.drms.com/rtda/Help_Definitions/DEMIL_Codes/demil_codes.html)
[ 10-03-2001: Message edited by: Tails ]
-
Bodhi is correct unfortunately. As in the past, legislation leaves a large window of translation. What is stated in that bill can be taken in various ways.
The problem is in translation, or whatever one "thinks" it means. So for instance, if a Govt. Official tells Bob Hoover his P-51 and P-38 must be destroyed, or the EAA is told their restored aircraft must be submitted to the US Govt. they've no choice in the matter. As always our legislation is structured to the benefit of Attorneys so litigation can be brought forth and money made from this litigation or differences in "what this law means". I love the US. but we continually build this damned bureaucracy by Lawyers elected to public office whom construct this legislation so that apparently the brotherhood of Attorneys can make a fee from litigation in it's translation in the lower courts. Contact your Congressman by all means.
-
Bet you can trace this back to the anti-gun group somehow, some way.. ;)
-
Originally posted by Toad:
Bodhi is right on this one.
They de-mil machine guns by melting them down into a little puddle.
Not always...they may cut out the back end of barrels, and remove internal structures so that they cannot be restored to firing condition and yet maintain appearance.
This has been done many times.
I think it is important to understand the limits of this bills efforts.
I don't see anything in the writings referred to here that indicates a P51 will be crushed, or an M1 Carbine melted down, or a GI Survival knife melted down.
I'm with ya's on making sure that limiting the "DeMil" activity is not to include total destruction.
We obviously need to preserve history in order to understand it!
Viper
-
(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 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--
Bohdi stated that the supposed destruction will be at the owner's cost...WRONG...read it!
Also, as indicated above, the SPECIFIC instruction is to ensure
...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;
------------------------
The "uniquely military capability" means that it serves no other purpose than miltary action. (Does not include historical value)
In other words, if it is normal to our society, then it is ok. Example: a P51 with no guns and no bomb release ability is just like a Piper Cub. It's only risk to public safety is in that it can crash. That is not "uniquely military."
You guys in the collection business need to stop and read.
Viper
[ 10-03-2001: Message edited by: Sky Viper ]
-
Head for the hills!! Lock up the women and children! Stock up on the food and water! Are you really an American?
C'mon guys, chill. Don't you know that we have a redneck in the Oval Office? All he wants to do is spy on us a little more :eek:
-
kinda makes you glad you aint american ;)
we got people driving pink tanks and with harrier jump jets mounted on their house! :)
lets face it if you gonna get real paranoid you could call an airliner a military weapon now.Its been used as one.
I cant see anyone allowing a p51 or other warbird to be crushed because the government says it constitutes a military weapon and presents a danger to the public.They would have to crush every gun/aircraft/vehicle in America.Simply wont happen.
The only real threat this poses as far as i can see is to the future of ex-war planes.A present day aircraft that has just been decommissioned would constitute a threat even without guns.Would this mean they are no longer going to be sold on to private buyers?
Does this spell the end of airshows in 10 to 20 years when we will be wanting to see f16s,f14s etc flying around? will your government destroy them on decomission?
-
I've seen this topic come up in some other places and the poster always states that the equipment will be siezed and destroyed without compensation to the owner. However after having read the bill it is clear that is not the case yet many are still screaming that it is.
Bodhi, Prior to posting did you read the bill in question? Or was your post a response to what someone had told you it contained? Have your friends in the Warbird busness read the bill? I'm not trying to pick a fight, but I just don't know how after reading the bill people still come to the conclusion that all restored Warbirds will be destroyed.
Now several people have said the problem is that the law (as unfortunatly most of our laws are) is up to interpetation. Surely there has to be some lawyers in the community here that could shed some light on this from a legal stand point.
While I agree with Bodhi, that people interested in seeing our history perserved, should contact their Senators and Congressmen. However I would ask that when you do, you voice what your concerns are with the bill (ie I don't want to see all our restored Warbirds destroyed) and get their opinion of what the intent of the bill actually is. Then decide weather to right in support or opposition of the bill.
My personal understanding of the intent of this bill is, that there is currently a large amount of ex-soviet military hardware available to anyone with the cash to purchase it. Some of this hardware could present a significant threat to the civil population and as such must be rendered unable to do so.
I beleive that you can currently purchase some fairly sophisticated aircraft of the ex-soviet union. I know some of their Migs and other jet fighter/attack aircraft are available. And I'm sure that other weapons are also. I believe these are the target of this bill.
Anyway thats my take on the whole thing. I could be wrong and Bodhi could be 100% right. I think we need to know more about it before jumping to any conclusions though.
Sharky
-
Sharky,
This bill does nothing to combat foreign produced military equipment. It only targets US equipment. Mark my words, this bill passes, and Warbirds Flying will be a thing of the past. This section of the bill is no longer up in it's entirety, it, was originally the equivalent of 10 pages long where it specifically dealt with a lot of things and DID state no compensation and at the owners expense. If you people think this is not worth your time, fine, but the Gov't's idea of Demilling equpiment is to drop a 30 ton blade through the sfuselage and wings, melt down the engines and weapons, and scrap the rest.
Fight, it now, as it is a worthless additive that does nothing but constrict our rights as citizens.
-
Old news..wouldn't worry bout it..
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by Bodhi:
Sharky,
...but the Gov't's idea of Demilling equpiment is to drop a 30 ton blade through the sfuselage and wings, melt down the engines and weapons, and scrap the rest.
Now I am sure you are rocking your chair harder than you should.
There is no 30 ton blade. When things are demiltarized, the are done by hand in a pains taking process.
During my time in the U.S. Navy, I helped ferry 2 Aircraft to a facility where they were "Demilitarized."
The opperation was to remove anything that was uniquely military; TACAN and IFF systems, weapon holds, special electronics racks, etc.
This was done at the Government's expense and the next step was the delivery of the aircraft to their new Civilian owners.
This is a practice that has been in place for MANY MANY MANY years and is now being added to our Nation's Legislation.
It does nothing to regulate forgien military objects because it is not intended to seek out old war articles and destroy them.
It is intended to ensure that US weapons of war are not delivered into the hands of NON-Military personel which might use them with malitious intent.
You will still be able to buy a decommisioned, demilitarized F16. The U.S.
Think about this: If the U.S. Military/Government were not able to sell used articles such as an F16 or M1 tank, then they would be throwing away money. Lots of money!
Further, according to the bill, they have to compensate any "Private owner" for anything that is recovered for "Public" use. In other words, in order for the Government (representatives of the "Public" ) to seize and destroy your Warbird, they have to pay you a "Just" compensation. This "Just" compensation would take months of litigation to decide, and would add cost to the process.
Now they are throwing more money away.
It is just NOT going to happen.
You (and your friends) need to relax and trust that the majority of the folks in the United States, including Congressmen/Senators, will not alow a Warbird to be destroyed regardless of paper legislation!
Remember also that many of our Congressmen and Senators have Military backgrounds and share our intrest in preserving Military history.
Sincerely,
Viper
-
Hi All,
Well I've done some reading and while I'm not yet ready to run for the hills because the sky is falling I am a little more nervious than I was.
First, I found the Munitions List that is used as a referance to designate "significant military equipment." Unforunately any aircraft originally designed as a military aircraft is listed as "significant military equipment." The few exceptions are some cargo aircraft that are specificly listed.
Yes that restored P-51 Mustang is by the definition of the Munitions List contained in Act 22 Chapter 39 Section 38 USC "significant military aircraft."
Now USC Act 22 Chapter 39 is not the controlling document for this bill. It is only a referance used to determine what is concidered "significant military equipment"
Act 22 as near as I can tell basicly sets forth policy for interaction between the United States and other countries. Chapter 39 specifically deals with import and export of military equipment or services and the Presidents power to control such trade.
Now this new bill has specific verbage about what is to be done to ensure "signicant military equipment" does not pose a threat to the general public. ie 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.
While Act 22 Chapter 39 USC may (would really have to go through it with a fine tooth comb) classify demilitarising as basicly demolishing as Bodhi described, it is not the controlling document but only (near as I can tell) a referance as it already has a handy list of "significant military equipment."
Disclaimer I am not a lawyer, just your standard Mk-1 mod-0 citizen that has a fair handle of the english language. (Except spelling, these BBS really need spell check)
What I'm posting is what I believe the documents to contain. If you would like to read it first hand. Go to yahoo and search for Arms Export Control Act Section 38. That will provide you a link to the Munitions list.
A search for 22 USC 2778 will lead you to chapter 39 which talks about demilitarizing what the import export laws concerning military equipment and services are.
Sharky