Used military equipment Was: Keg waiting periods? Gag.
Basically all that means is that when you retire from the army, you can get away with keeping your uniform and camping gear and that AK47 you acquired slightly used on the battlefield, but you've got to give back any guns, ammo, bombs, tanks, and aircraft that belong to the US army, though it looks like your flare gun may be keepable. (There may be other rules that say you have to give the other stuff back, but most vets I've known kept stuff.) Also, your War-Against-The-South black-powder musket wasn't owned by the Department of Defense, though it may have been owned by the War Department. (When was it renamed - after WW2 I think?) This language allows the Secy of Defense to order civilians to surrender large classes of stuff formerly owned by the DoD, and have it destroyed *at their own expense*. Naturally it includes small arms. No, there are no dates of DoD ownership. Your Civil War 3-band Enfield musket is included. Your M1873 Trapdoor carbine. And everything since. This is Clintonism Rampant. I've not cut it down -- your congressperson doesn't get a cut down version, either. This is all buried in in a Subtitle of the defense funding for next year. The definition of "Significant Military Equipment" is not in the bill -- it's included by reference from the ITAR, and that's shown below the bill. Significant M. eq. includes nuclear weapons. Also cap and ball pistols. Read 'em and weep. redacted = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = HR4205 Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 -- Subtitle G--Other Matters SEC. 361. AUTHORITY TO ENSURE DEMILITARIZATION OF SIGNIFICANT MILITARY EQUIPMENT FORMERLY OWNED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE. (a) AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE DEMILITARIZATION AFTER DISPOSAL- Chapter 153 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 2572 the following new section: `Sec. 2573. Significant military equipment: continued authority to require demilitarization after disposal `(a) AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE DEMILITARIZATION- The Secretary of Defense may require any person in possession of significant military equipment formerly owned by the Department of Defense-- `(1) to demilitarize the equipment; `(2) to have the equipment demilitarized by a third party; or `(3) to return the equipment to the Government for demilitarization. `(b) COST AND VALIDATION OF DEMILITARIZATION- When the demilitarization of significant military equipment is carried out by the person in possession of the equipment pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a), the person shall be solely responsible for all demilitarization costs, and the United States shall have the right to validate that the equipment has been demilitarized. `(c) RETURN OF EQUIPMENT TO GOVERNMENT- When the Secretary of Defense requires the return of significant military equipment for demilitarization by the Government, the Secretary shall bear all costs to transport and demilitarize the equipment. If the person in possession of the significant military equipment obtained the property in the manner authorized by law or regulation and the Secretary determines that the cost to demilitarize and return the property to the person is prohibitive, the Secretary shall reimburse the person for the purchase cost of the property and for the reasonable transportation costs incurred by the person to purchase the equipment. `(d) ESTABLISHMENT OF DEMILITARIZATION STANDARDS- The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe by regulation what constitutes demilitarization for each type of significant military equipment. `(e) EXCEPTION FOR GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS- This section does not apply when a person is in possession of significant military equipment formerly owned by the Department of Defense for the purpose of demilitarizing the equipment pursuant to a Government contract. `(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.'. (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 2572 the following new item: `2573. Significant military equipment: continued authority to require demilitarization after disposal.'. (below is the extract of the CFR defining "significant military equipment"...they have designated the significant military eqiupment by using asterisk.) - [Extracted from Amendments to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) printed in 22
RE: Keg waiting periods? Gag.
Lucky Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A cite would make this post a lot more credible. http://libpub.dispatch.com/cgi-bin/slwebcli.pl?DBLIST=cd00DOCNUM=2445 5TERMV=209:4:235:3:10381:4:20653:4:25746:4:25793:4:61801:4: WAITING PERIOD FOR KEGS IN EFFECT Date: Wednesday, August 9, 2000 Section: NEWS Page: 01B Byline: Erik Clark Source: Dispatch Staff Reporter Planning a five-keg beer bash? Get the paperwork, line up a notary public and start waiting. A new Ohio rule takes effect today mandating a five-day waiting period for purchases of five or more kegs of beer. Proponents say the "five for five'' rule will help curb irresponsible and underage drinking. Critics say it won't change a thing because it's too easy to dodge. "It's ridiculous,'' said Christian Reinke, 25, a student at Ohio State University. "Why can't me and three other dudes just go up the block and get three kegs each?'' The rule -- instituted by the Ohio Liquor Control Commission -- requires those buying five or more kegs to fill out a form noting the time and place where the kegs will be served. That buyer also must sign an affidavit that promises beer won't be served to anyone younger than 21 and granting police and the Ohio Department of Public Safety the right to inspect the party for violations. The notarized affidavit must be turned in to the beer distributor five days before the purchase. The distributor then forwards the form to the Public Safety Department. Susan Watiker, a department spokeswoman, said about 15 forms are on file for parties planned later this week. She said officers will have the right to inspect a party for violations -- including underage drinking -- but owners have the right to refuse officers entry into their homes without a search warrant. However, Ray Vasvari, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, said the policy still amounts to an infringement of the Fourth Amendment, which regulates searches and seizures. "It places the burden of defending the home against intrusion on the homeowner instead of the police,'' Vasvari said. Many people won't know they have a right to refuse entry, he added. Watiker said it's too early to tell whether people will dodge the waiting period by sending several people to buy a few kegs each, but the department will continue to rely on tips from the community to keep large parties under control. The affidavit serves as an opportunity to inform people of their legal responsibility to keep the beer away from those younger than 21, she said. "Is there a loophole? Sure,'' said Chuck SanFilippo, executive director of the Liquor Control Commission. "We just want people to be accountable,'' he said. "That's what it boils down to.'' -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- === NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY 2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100 Washington DC 20037 World Wide Web: http://www.LP.org === For release: August 9, 2000 === For additional information: George Getz, Press Secretary Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] === New Ohio state law requires five-day waiting period for buying beer (really!) WASHINGTON, DC -- A new law in Ohio that requires a five-day waiting period before buying beer -- yes, you read that correctly -- has Libertarians wondering: How Lowenbrau can politicians go? "This is the worst idea since Billy Beer," said Libertarian Party press secretary George Getz. "We don't want to Harp on this, but beer-lovers everywhere will be sadder, Budweiser, when they hear that politicians in Ohio plan to treat every drinker like a criminal." On Wednesday, August 9, a new Ohio law will require anyone buying five or more kegs of beer to fill out a form with the Ohio Department of Public Safety, and then wait five days before picking up the beer. The law, dubbed "Five in Five," also gives law enforcement the right to search the site of a beer party without first obtaining a search warrant. Several other states -- including Iowa, New Hampshire, Kansas, and Pennsylvania -- have similar laws or are considering similar legislation, according to Fox News. And Maryland requires all kegs of beer to be registered with the state government. Politicians said such laws are necessary because some keg parties have become violent -- but Libertarians said this kind of "Nanny State" regulation just Foster's more disrespect for the law. "Even the most Mooseheaded politician admits these laws will have little effect, since people can just buy four kegs at a time at different locations, or buy beer by the case," said Getz. "The kind of irresponsible people who hold out-of-control parties are the same people who will casually circumvent this law, while law-abiding, responsible people will be inconvenienced. It shouldn't take a
Keg waiting periods? Gag.
A new Ohio law kicked in today requiring anyone purchasing 5 or more kegs of beer to file a form with the Ohio Department of Public Safety, and wait 5 days before picking up said beer. Worse, the law gives LEOs the right to search the beer-consumption site without first obtaining a search warrant! What next? Waiting period for kitchen knives? Purchase of a VCR gives implicit consent to pigs to search for kiddie porn without a warrant? This is nuts. What the hell good is all the strong crypto in the world when politicians get these sorts of laws passed?
