Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Defense Bill 2002(HR-3338)---Demilitarization of ex-DOD equipment
Thomas ^ | The House

Posted on 11/30/2001 3:23:00 PM PST by J Jay

Department of Defense Appropriations 2002

HR 3338, Title VIII, Section 8020

Latest Major Action: 11-29-2001, Referred to Senate Committee

None of the funds available to the Department of Defense may be used to demilitarize or dispose of M-1 Carbines, M-1 Garand rifles, M-14 rifles, .22 caliber rifles, .30 caliber rifles, or M-1911 pistols.

Click to Read It!


TOPICS: Breaking News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
I don't know the status of Senate Bill S1438 which contained the Demilitarization Section 1062, but it looks like the House is trying to give some relief to this "dasterdly" thing.
1 posted on 11/30/2001 3:23:00 PM PST by J Jay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: J Jay
We do not have to de mil any of this stuff most all of it should be sold to the people who payed for it the US tax payers.
2 posted on 11/30/2001 3:26:38 PM PST by riverrunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: J Jay
None of the funds available to the Department of Defense may be used to demilitarize or dispose of M-1 Carbines, M-1 Garand rifles, M-14 rifles, .22 caliber rifles, .30 caliber rifles, or M-1911 pistols.

Looks like we got screwed again. The entire "demilitarization" clause should not be in the bill.

So I guess they can use the funds to 'demilitarize' all those 30 round USGI mags, or shotguns, or Berettas (used by military), or Sigs (used by Seals), etc.......

Unless I'm missing something, this is another assault on our rights.

3 posted on 11/30/2001 3:27:59 PM PST by Mulder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: J Jay
I got my eye on this one.
4 posted on 11/30/2001 3:29:24 PM PST by Dan from Michigan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: riverrunner
...payed for it - the US tax payers...

And were sent to war carrying the same NOT-automatic weapons!

5 posted on 11/30/2001 3:30:14 PM PST by norton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: riverrunner
We do not have to de mil any of this stuff most all of it should be sold to the people who payed for it the US tax payers.

That may change. Read Senate Bill S1438,Title X, Subsection E, Section 1062. HR-3338 may be defense against it.

6 posted on 11/30/2001 3:34:03 PM PST by J Jay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: J Jay
1438 went to committee for resolution with the House's version and is still there. I'm watching it too.
7 posted on 11/30/2001 3:36:49 PM PST by Alissa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alissa
I'm watching it too.

If you hear anything, let us know.

8 posted on 11/30/2001 3:42:01 PM PST by J Jay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: J Jay
I don't know the status of Senate Bill S1438 which contained the Demilitarization Section 1062, but it looks like the House is trying to give some relief to this "dasterdly" thing.

Unless I'm misreading it, section 1062 of S. 1438 deals with chemical agents and ammunition.

SEC. 106. CHEMICAL DEMILITARIZATION PROGRAM. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2002 the amount of $1,078,557,000 for-- (1) the destruction of lethal chemical agents and munitions in accordance with section 1412 of the Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1986 (50 U.S.C. 1521); and (2) the destruction of chemical warfare materiel of the United States that is not covered by section 1412 of such Act.

You can view it at http://thomas.loc.gov. Search for S. 1438 and check out the Engrossed House Amendment.

9 posted on 11/30/2001 3:56:27 PM PST by cidrasm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: J Jay
Bump
10 posted on 11/30/2001 4:02:08 PM PST by Fiddlstix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: J Jay
The links are dead but based on what you wrote, this is not good news. Looks more to me like RINO's trying to cover their butts. According to this language the door is left open for government to confiscate everything else...lawfully owned full auto weapons, airplanes, helicopters, etc. etc.

Everyone must tell their representative and senator to get the demilitarization provision out of the bill. It will do nothing to address the supposed concern of this bill...I mean, if the US is stupid enough to sell an ICBM to China, does anyone think that China would give it back based on this bill? I don't think so.

Dangerous precedent, this bill, which is government trying to confiscate lawfully owned property once owned by it but sold. What's next...a bill to take back valuable land sold or deeded to private owners by the federal government? This is an attack on the foundation of America...ownership of private property.

11 posted on 11/30/2001 4:09:10 PM PST by Jesse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #12 Removed by Moderator

Comment #13 Removed by Moderator

To: J Jay
Ya mean that, after all that bull sh*t at Fort Leonard Wood I can't even get my own M14?
14 posted on 11/30/2001 4:19:25 PM PST by Bogie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bogie
Cineider the Ruger Mini-14, Same cartridge as the M-16 but the action is basicly the same as an M-14!
15 posted on 11/30/2001 6:41:01 PM PST by Not now, Not ever!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Jesse
The links are dead

Sorry about that Jesse, I think the link went dead just after I made the post. What I posted was copy/paste so it's authentic.

To cidrasm: You had a misread.

SEC. 106. CHEMICAL DEMILITARIZATION PROGRAM

SEC. 1062 AUTHORITY TO ENSURE DEMILIZARITATION OF SIGNIFICANT MILITARY EQUIPMENT PREVIOUSLY OWNED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

I think HR3338 Section 8020 is a tactic sometimes used in the Congress. It goes like this: If one "Group" sponsors a bill and a second "Group" opposes the bill and cannot get it thrown out, then the second "Group", if they control the purse strings, will not fund the bill. That makes the bill moot.

16 posted on 12/01/2001 9:28:01 AM PST by J Jay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson