User Panel
Posted: 10/6/2001 9:30:33 AM EDT
CUT and pasted from subguns.com
NRA-ILA FAX Alert Vol. 8, No. 40 Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 17:02:09 -0400 From: "nraila-evc-alert" To: "nraila-evc-alert" NRA-ILA FAX ALERT 11250 Waples Mill Road Fairfax, VA 22030 Vol. 8, No. 40 Phone: (800) 392-8683 Fax: (703) 267-3918 www.NRAILA.org 10/5/01 CONGRESS CONSIDERS "DEMILITARIZATION" REQUIREMENT This week, the U.S. Senate passed S. 1438, the Department of Defense (DoD) annual authorization bill, which contains a provision that is of grave concern to hunters and sport shooters. Section 1062 of this bill provides the Secretary of Defense with the authority to require "demilitarization" of any "significant military equipment" that has ever been owned by the DoD. This would include all firearms (such as the venerable M1, M1 Carbine, and Model 1911, as well as all Civilian Marksmanship Program rifles, even "sporterized" surplus bolt-action Springfields!), firearm barrels, ammunition, and gun powder. "Demilitarization" is the term for rendering such items permanently inoperable, and Sec. 1062 allows for this action to be carried out either by the owner or a third party, with the owner paying the cost, or by the DoD. However, if the DoD determines it should perform the demilitarization, it can also determine that the cost of returning the demilled item is prohibitive, then simply keep the item, and reimburse the owner only for the fair market scrap value of the item. Furthermore, this new authority would require private citizens to determine for themselves if an item they own is subject to demilitarization, and face criminal penalties for non-compliance. The DoD would be under no obligation to notify law-abiding citizens that items they have lawfully owned for years, and perhaps that their families have owned for generations, are suddenly subject to forced demilitarization. This becomes extremely significant when one considers that U.S. military surplus has been regularly-and legally-bought, sold, and traded for centuries. Countless Americans own items that could be subject to Sec. 1062. It is likely millions of law-abiding Americans would be affected, and could unknowingly become criminals overnight without having done anything or having ever been informed. The DoD already has the authority and responsibility to demilitarize any item it sells as surplus, so there is absolutely no reason to seek new authority to confiscate and destroy lawfully sold and lawfully owned items that are now the property of private citizens. Be sure to contact your U.S. Senators at (202) 224-3121, and your U.S. Representative at (202) 225-3121, and urge them to strike Sec. 1062 from S. 1438, the "National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2002." The 24 members of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the 60 members of the House Armed Services Committee especially need to hear from you. To find out if any of your lawmakers are on either committee, you can use the "Write Your Reps" tool found at NRAILA.org, or call the Grassroots Division at (800) 392-8683. |
|
Okay, wasn't sure if this was true or not. Bad news, it is!
† S 1438 ES/PP SEC. 1062. AUTHORITY TO ENSURE DEMILITARIZATION OF 5 SIGNIFICANT MILITARY EQUIPMENT FOR- 6 MERLY OWNED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF DE- 7 FENSE. 8 (a)PROHIBITION.—It is unlawful for any person to 9 possess significant military equipment formerly owned by 10 the Department of Defense unless —11 (1)the military equipment has been demili-12 tarized in accordance with standards prescribed by 13 the Secretary of Defense;14 (2)the person is in possession of the military 15 equipment for the purpose of demilitarizing the 16 equipment pursuant to a Federal Government con-17 tract;or 18 (3)the person is specifically authorized by law 19 or regulation to possess the military equipment.20 (b)EFERRAL TO ATTORNEY GENERAL.—The Sec-21 retary of Defense shall notify the Attorney General of any 22 potential violation of subsection (a)of which the Secretary 23 becomes aware.24 † 413 S 1438 ES/PP (c)AUTHORITY TO EQUIRE DEMILITARIZATION.—1 (1)The Attorney General may require any person who,2 in violation of subsection (a),is in possession of significant 3 military equipment formerly owned by the Department of 4 Defense —5 (A)to demilitarize the equipment;6 (B)to have the equipment demilitarized by a 7 third party;or 8 (C)to return the equipment to the Federal 9 Government for demilitarization.10 (2)When the demilitarization of significant military 11 equipment is carried out pursuant to subparagraph (A)12 or (B)of paragraph (1),an officer or employee of the 13 United States designated by the Attorney General shall 14 have the right to confirm,by inspection or other means 15 authorized by the Attorney General,that the equipment 16 has been demilitarized.17 (3)If significant military equipment is not demili-18 tarized or returned to the Federal Government for demili-19 tarization as required under paragraph (1)within a rea-20 sonable period after the Attorney General notifies the per-21 son in possession of the equipment of the requirement to 22 do so,the Attorney General may request that a court of 23 the United States issue a warrant authorizing the seizure 24 of the military equipment in the same manner as is pro-25 |
|
†
414 S 1438 ES/PP vided for a search warrant.If the court determines that 1 there is probable cause to believe that the person is in 2 possession of significant military equipment in violation of 3 subsection (a),the court shall issue a warrant authorizing 4 the seizure of such equipment.5 (d)DEMILITARIZATION OF EQUIPMENT.—(1)The 6 Attorney General shall transfer any military equipment re-7 turned to the Federal Government or seized pursuant to 8 subsection (c)to the Department of Defense for demili-9 tarization.10 (2)If the person in possession of significant military 11 equipment obtained the equipment in accordance with any 12 other provision of law,the Secretary of Defense shall bear 13 all costs of transportation and demilitarization of the 14 equipment and shall either —15 (A)return the equipment to the person upon 16 completion of the demilitarization;or 17 (B)reimburse the person for the cost incurred 18 by that person to acquire the equipment if the Sec-19 retary determines that the cost to demilitarize and 20 return the property to the person would be prohibi-21 tive.22 (e)ESTABLISHMENT OF DEMILITARIZATION STAND-23 ARDS.—(1)The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe regu-24 † 415 S 1438 ES/PP lations regarding the demilitarization of military equip-1 ment.2 (2)The regulations shall be designed to ensure 3 that —4 (A)the equipment,after demilitarization,does 5 not constitute a significant risk to public safety and 6 does not have —7 (i)a significant capability for use as a 8 weapon;or 9 (ii)a uniquely military capability;and 10 (B)any person from whom private property is 11 taken for public use under this section receives just 12 compensation for the taking of the property.13 (3)The regulations shall,at a minimum,define —14 (A)the classes of significant military equipment 15 requiring demilitarization before disposal;and 16 (B)what constitutes demilitarization for each 17 class of significant military equipment.18 (f)DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICANT MILITARY EQUIP-19 MENT.—In this section,the term ‘‘significant military 20 equipment ’’means equipment that has a capability de-21 scribed in clause (i)or (ii)of subsection (e)(2)and —22 (1)is a defense article listed on the United 23 States Munitions List maintained under section 38 24 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C.2778)25 416 that is designated on that list as significant military 1 equipment;or 2 (2)is designated by the Secretary of Defense 3 under the regulations prescribed under subsection 4 (e)as being equipment that it is necessary in the in-5 terest of public safety to demilitarize before disposal 6 by the United States.7 |
|
Not sure if this means gas masks also, but you know how them congress critters can interpret things.
(e)ESTABLISHMENT OF DEMILITARIZATION STAND-23 ARDS.—(1)The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe regu-24 † 415 S 1438 ES/PP lations regarding the demilitarization of military equip-1 ment.2 (2)The regulations shall be designed to ensure 3 that —4 (A)the equipment,after demilitarization,does 5 not constitute a significant risk to public safety and 6 does not have —7 (i)a significant capability for use as a 8 weapon;or 9 (ii)a uniquely military capability;and 10 (f)DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICANT MILITARY EQUIP-19 MENT.—In this section,the term ‘‘significant military 20 equipment ’’means equipment that has a capability de-21 scribed in clause (i)or (ii)of subsection (e)(2)and —22 (1)is a defense article listed on the United 23 States Munitions List maintained under section 38 24 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C.2778)25 416 that is designated on that list as significant military 1 equipment;or 2 (2)is designated by the Secretary of Defense 3 under the regulations prescribed under subsection 4 (e)as being equipment that it is necessary in the in-5 terest of public safety to demilitarize before disposal 6 by the United States.7 |
|
I posted about this a couple weeks ago and tried to get it tacked, it stayed tacked for about 15 minutes and was taken down.... somebody doesn't want this to be a priority here.
|
|
Why the heck not? BTT anyhow.... |
|
|
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm
Go here, put in you info, it will send the emails to the right people... Come on, it does not take that long. |
|
Well I'll be dammed... maybe they just don't like me. |
|
|
|
when you write your reps i strongly recommend using the the language in the NRA alert. particularly:
these two sections underscore the futility and redundancy in this section of S. 1438. and while politicians aren't famous for using common sense, a few might be in the mood for handling logic and foresight. |
|
|
Naw, I just pestered them a little more. |
||
|
After reading, email your senators/congressmen, THEN FOLLOW UP WITH EITHER PHONE CALLS ON MONDAY OR SNAIL MAIL. POST THIS ALSO TO OTHER BOARDS THAT YOU KNOW OF. I already mailed mine to two senators and two representatives, before the post office closed this morning.
Many thanks. |
|
i higly reccomend taking the time to HAND WRITE/TYPE a regular snail mail letter it tends to have alot more impact then a bulk/pre written e-mail/letter
becouse it shows that you wnet out of your way t write instread of click click send or just signnig your name and sending it off |
|
The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) was concerned about this affecting thousands of warbird owners. The following was in the AOPA ePilot, Vol.3, Issue 41 dated 10/05/01. It addresses only the aircraft subject, but it appears that Senator Craig had the entire thing removed. It would be nice if someone smarter than me could find out. SENATOR'S ACTION SAVES WARBIRDS
When it was introduced on the Senate floor Tuesday, the National Defense Authorization Act for 2002 carried a section that hung like the shadow of a bomber over warbird pilots and other owners of declassified military equipment. The provision, section 1062 of Senate bill 1438, would have made it unlawful for individuals to possess "significant military equipment" and allowed for seizure of the equipment by the attorney general. Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) proposed the removal of the section, saying "it would create tens of thousands of lawbreakers overnight." Warbird displays in museums and airshows would have become illegal, and a large portion of the United States' aviation history would have been removed from the public. The bill, which included important anti-terrorism programs, passed without the warbird section, according to Craig's office. |
|
They don't even look at email. They figure a handwritten letter represents 1000 voters. |
|
|
Well, they might not where you live but they do here in Indiana, I have a dozen or so replies from them... And besides, you can print the letter out and fax/mail it if yours does not. |
||
|
Someone told me this passed the Senate yesterday! How many of you own USGI mags? How many of you own BDU's? How many of you have a case of MRE's or DCM rifle?
This is bad and we need to start calling people and pitching a fit... GW can still line item this if the pressure is on.... |
|
I am putting a letter to all my reps in the mail on monday. Which I would have seen this soon enough to get them out today!!!
My next step is a letter to Bush begging for a line item of that puppy. Write your congressmen now!! It passed the Senate, lets make sure it does not make it past the House!! |
|
Garand_Shooter posted on this topic a while ago; long enough for some of us to try to influence the Senate vote(to no avail).
Once again, America, and gunowners get a wake-up call. Our battle for our rights is NEVER over. Not for one damn minute. |
|
Nah, raf's better looking, that's all. Seriously though, I was going to tack yours but never got a link from ya. I didn't want to believe it! After I saw this subject again with a link to the NRA, I did some research, hence my post. But you know what, I forgot to tack this one too! Don't know who tacked it. |
|
|
Please leave my devastatingly good looks out of this. G_S led the way.
|
|
I heard about this from the airshow circuit.
Seems that if this goes through, it may mean the end of "warbirds" at the airshows around the country too. That means, no P-51 Mustangs, F8F Bearcats, F4U Corsairs, B-25 Mitchells, A-26 Invaders, B-17 Flying Fortresses or anything that has been restored. The Confederate Air Force restored a B-29 Superfortress in 1970 to flying condition. They've spent thousands of donated dollars maintaining it. Last year, it ("FiFi") blew an engine on take off. It cost $75K to replace it and you can bet not a friggin' dime came from the DoD to fix it. It's a screwed up law and you can bet it originated from some liberal asshole that doesn't have a fQWERTYU clue about anything. |
|
Sent and fwd-ed.
|
|
|
Why the hell is anyone considering this de-mil action? Disarmament is no longer a question, only "when" is the question. I just don't understand why.
|
|
Yes, G_S does deserve the credit and my apologies to G_S! G_S, aint it beotch when the pretty ones get all the credit!? |
|
|
Congrats on having responsive congress critters. I always print these thing out and mail them. |
|||
|
I know Reagan always wanted it, but the President has never been given line item veto power, has he? As far as I know, it's still standard tactics to tack little anti-gun amendments onto "must pass" legislation. "War is the health of the state." |
|
|
Here's what I sent yesterday, with a twist to appeal to my basically anti-gun representatives:
>>October 6, 2001 [recipient address was inserted here] [recipient name was inserted here], I understand that S.1438, which has already passed the Senate, contains language that would allow federal officials to confiscate from private owners and then demilitarize or destroy any article of military equipment that was ever owned by the U.S. government. I don't know if everyone in the Senate is asleep or what, but this sure seems to me like a terrible violation of the basic right of citizens to legally own personal property. I could somewhat understand if Congress wanted to set new guidelines for future sales of surplus military equipment, but to be reaching back and snatching out of museums and private collections historic artifacts that have been legally in private hands for decades is totally wrong. It would be both unjust to the current owners and also a tragic loss of history almost comparable to the Taliban's blowing up ancient Buddhist statues in Afghanistan. I hope you will look into this matter and take action to prevent it from becoming law.<< Notice I didn't bother mentioning guns, which would be a sure ticket to Sen. Levin's trash can. Actually I do contact my elected rats about gun issues often enough that they know they aren't going to get away with anything easily, but sometimes it's better to be sneaky. |
|
What we need to do is research... Who is the one responsible for putting this thing in the first place? It was carefully drafted to allow DOD to declair war on gun owners.
We need to find out who put it in and why. |
|
I looked at the information of the bill on thomas.loc.gov and it appears that the bill was sponsored by Senator Carl Levin a demorat.
|
|
Jesus, Why are democrats so ANTI AMERICA. Hell that is an act of terrorism in itself.
CARL LEVIN , WHAT A F*&*IN COMMUNIST! _______________________________ "Democrats?; THEY ARE SNEAKY BASTARDS SIR!" |
|
I was told today, by a trusted friend who runs an air museum and is fighting this very hard, that this language was put in by a Republican no less......
Anyone know how to check and see? |
|
The story of my life................... |
||
|
Well, I wrote Senator Cleland. I got an email from NRA saying he was on a committee that will be reviewing this bill. Now I hear that it has already passed the Senate? Could he be on a joint committee that will resolve the two different versions of the bill? I certainly hope it isn't too late. If this passes into law without being altered, then our government will become the enemy while trying to defeat the enemy.
|
|
Here's my leter:
I am writing in requesting your assistance as a member of the House Armed Services Committee.. Senate bill 1438, the DoD annual appropriations bill includes what I find to be an EXTREMELY objectionable element, namely Sec. 1062, which allows for the “demilitarization” of any “significant military equipment.” In brief, this Section of the annual appropriations bill would allow for the seizure and destruction of countless firearms which tens of thousands of collectors have painstakingly collected and restored throughout the years, including the M1, M1 Carbine, and even the Springfield rifle, to name only the most well known. For their owners, these rifles represent everything from family heritage, to the supreme sacrifice a man can give for his nation. Not to mention a significant financial cost to acquire and restore these firearms, many of which are simply irreplaceable. As I understand the legislation, the DoD need only reimburse the legal, rightful owner the scrap value of the items, which would not even approximate 1/20 of the fair market value. These are NOT even the unfairly maligned so-called “assault weapons.” These are collectors items, many of which their value as collectors items preclude them from being fired. But the vast majority are simple working historical pieces of art, which collectors have paid a fair price, only now to fear losing them to an arbitrary decision of some Washington bureaucrat. And that is not even to mention the violation of the Second Amendment as Attorney General Ashcroft has so eloquently communicated it. I find this to be a matter of utmost urgency. Please give it your sincere attention. Sincerely, garandman |
|
Maybe we mis-understood S1438, the Senate unanimously passed this bill:
Yea.....100 Nay.......0 www.senate.gov/legislative/vote1071/vote_00289.html Wouldn't one Senator vote Nay? |
|
I was reading the text of S.1438, and found this in "SEC. 1062. AUTHORITY TO ENSURE DEMILITARIZATION OF SIGNIFICANT MILITARY EQUIPMENT FORMERLY OWNED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.":
(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. USGI Mags and such aren't on the US Munitions list, are they? Actual firearms, ammunition, etc. are I think. I found this, but I don't know if its right either: www.fas.org/spp/starwars/offdocs/itar/p121.htm#ITAR Looks like things like Garands could be targeted, but I'm really confused. It also looks like cartridge casings would be considered as well. What, they'll make you cut up any LC brass that you have? Anyone else know anything else about this? Help, because this issue is really fvucking troubling. -Gloftoe |
|
Heh. On the munitions list, I found this too:
"§ 121.9 -- Firearms. (a) Category I includes revolvers, pistols, rifles, carbines, fully automatic rifles, submachine guns, machine pistols and machine guns to caliber .50, inclusive. It includes combat shotguns. It excludes other shotguns with barrels 18 seconds or longer, BB, pellet, and muzzle loading (black powder) firearms." Barrels 18 seconds or longer? What in the HELL does that mean? -Gloftoe |
|
I thought Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho) had this demil section 1062 removed before the vote on the rest of the bill. Hopefully someone brighter than me can locate this information. If this is true, we need to thank Sen. Craig. We also need to find out who keeps trying to sneak this thing through and put a stop to it. This is not the first time this exact same thing was introduced to try to make it law.
|
|
Even if it passed the senate, which I believe it has, it has NOT passed the house. Make sure you right your congressmen as well as your senators!!
My guess it was passed 100% 'cuz it got tacked onto what was needed to fight this war. Write Write Write guys. All it takes for evil to win a few good men to do nothing! |
|
Just think about all that history being cut to pieaces! this country is just plain fucked up!
there using this bombing has a tool to get anti -gun shit passed! BULLLSHIT. i do feel for those warbirds guys! if it wasnt for those planes, if it wasnt for those M1 garands or springfields we would be speaking german now. |
|
Should I be writing a letter to all of the reps. from IL.???
|
|
Done. Letters off. Each letter to them represents 1000 voters.
|
|
It couldn't hurt. But please do write YOUR representative. It is very very important that they hear from every last one of us!! |
|
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.