Thu Jan 08, 2009 7:53 am
Muddy, the first time time this came up it was flying under the radar and had already been passed by the House. We killed it in Committee by making them aware. The second time the Senate had passed it and we were able to work with House members to kill it in Committee. The third time it came up we were able to get the House to throw it out of the Defense Authorization bill before it went to the floor for a vote, the Senate bill did not have it inserted. It actually tried to come up a fourth time but the same leadership was in place and DoD was told don't even submit it. This provision is wrong on several Constitutional levels and it goes way beyond commodities.
The section in the Bill dealing with this has historically been titled, Demilitarization of US Munitions. But you have to put the pieces together to understand what they mean. We're not talking outdated rockets and bombs here.
Why haven't you heard more about it ? Well let's see who worked very hard to kill this the last 3 times,...NRA,EAA,CF CAF,several Military Motor Vehicle Associations, Military Vehicle Museums, CJAA, AAHA, the national association of the military surplus parts suppliers, and thousands of individual members of all of the above who wrote,emailed, and called their Congressmen and Senators.
The section in the Bill dealing with this has historically been titled, Demilitarization of US Munitions. But you have to put the pieces together to understand what they mean. We're not talking outdated rockets and bombs here.
Why haven't you heard more about it ? Well let's see who worked very hard to kill this the last 3 times,...NRA,EAA,CF CAF,several Military Motor Vehicle Associations, Military Vehicle Museums, CJAA, AAHA, the national association of the military surplus parts suppliers, and thousands of individual members of all of the above who wrote,emailed, and called their Congressmen and Senators.
Thu Jan 08, 2009 7:57 am
So Rick, if one wants to keep up with this and be part of the solution, what information sources will be keeping up with it? I'd like to be kept aware so I can speak up.
Ryan
Ryan
Thu Jan 08, 2009 8:06 am
Ryan, the new Congress was just sworn in. Bills have been prefiled but until the Defense Authorization Bill has been filed and can be seen on Thomas we won't know how to respond. Rest assured we'll be keeping an eye on it. Once we see the language I'll copy it out of the Congressional record and post it here.
Needless to say we'll need to mobilize the troops again. Most of the folks voting on the big bill will be clueless of the implications of the language of this small section, and unless some sharp staffer brings it to their attention it'll just get a pass through. The staffers are so inundated that is unlikely to happen without our help.
Needless to say we'll need to mobilize the troops again. Most of the folks voting on the big bill will be clueless of the implications of the language of this small section, and unless some sharp staffer brings it to their attention it'll just get a pass through. The staffers are so inundated that is unlikely to happen without our help.
Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:53 am
And please make sure you have a link to thomas what ever that is.
Fri Jan 09, 2009 8:24 am
My apologies regarding Thomas.
Here is the link and explanation.
http://thomas.loc.gov/
Here is the link and explanation.
http://thomas.loc.gov/
THOMAS was launched in January of 1995, at the inception of the 104th Congress. The leadership of the 104th Congress directed the Library of Congress to make federal legislative information freely available to the public. Since that time THOMAS has expanded the scope of its offerings to include the features and content listed below.
Bills, Resolutions Activity in Congress Congressional Record Schedules, Calendars Committee Information Presidential Nominations Treaties Government Resources For Teachers Help and Contact
Fri Jan 09, 2009 9:56 am
The government here in America can only go so far before the people will start foaming at the mouth, and ready to declare revolution. THis is precisely why the government has to be sneaky with taxes like FICA and others.
They know darn well that if they are overt about any huge unreasonable growth in government that the congressmen themselves will be fired. Are you reading this Sen. Carl Levin?
They know darn well that if they are overt about any huge unreasonable growth in government that the congressmen themselves will be fired. Are you reading this Sen. Carl Levin?
Fri Jan 09, 2009 2:07 pm
This post got me so disgusted that I called Carl Levin's D.C. office and one of his offices in Michigan. I let them know that millions of people watch airshows every year, and if they confiscate or demil privately owned aircraft they are in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
I strongly encourage everybody to give Sen. Carl Levin a call! I let them know that ol' Carl can't afford millions of people in the U.S. in opposition to him and his policies. I said the American people will not vote for him.
This scares them folks! This is how Amnesty and the Dubai Ports deal was defeated. (MODS, this is important, please don't edit.)
I strongly encourage everybody to give Sen. Carl Levin a call! I let them know that ol' Carl can't afford millions of people in the U.S. in opposition to him and his policies. I said the American people will not vote for him.
This scares them folks! This is how Amnesty and the Dubai Ports deal was defeated. (MODS, this is important, please don't edit.)
Fri Jan 09, 2009 2:16 pm
Proactive is good. Right now the suspicion is that it will resurface sometime during this Congress, nothing concrete. But if we let them know that we haven't forgotten and still oppose it we just might convince a few key Congresspeople that its not worth pursuing.
Remeber that this isn't just about aircraft, it's really about them not violating the basic tenets of the Constitution. The commodity is irrelevant because once they get the authority to go after one thing it's a small leap to get anything else. It's called incrementalism and the folks now in charge are very good at it.
Remeber that this isn't just about aircraft, it's really about them not violating the basic tenets of the Constitution. The commodity is irrelevant because once they get the authority to go after one thing it's a small leap to get anything else. It's called incrementalism and the folks now in charge are very good at it.
Fri Jan 09, 2009 4:09 pm
So you could own an ex-military aircraft, but nobody will let you fly it......
......just like the United Kingdom then!!!!!
......just like the United Kingdom then!!!!!
Fri Jan 09, 2009 7:50 pm
Do something constructive and call your police stations, and military tell them to take care of these domestic enemys that are subverting the constitution. They all have made an oath to do so.