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

Skip to comments.

Congress Considers "Demilitarization" Requirement (Say goodbye to your M1)
NRA\ILA ^ | October 5, 2001 | NRA\ILA

Posted on 10/05/2001 6:30:24 PM PDT by Gun142

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 parts such as barrels, bolts, triggers, firing pins, sights, etc.; ammunition and ammunition components; and firearm accessories such as cleaning rods, oilers, and even cleaning brushes. "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 NRAILA.org's "Write Your Reps" tool.

Posted: 10/5/2001 6:29:04 PM




TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
S. 1438

SEC. 1062. AUTHORITY TO ENSURE DEMILITARIZATION OF SIGNIFICANT MILITARY EQUIPMENT FORMERLY OWNED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.


1 posted on 10/05/2001 6:30:24 PM PDT by Gun142
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: bang_list
Contact your congress-critters
2 posted on 10/05/2001 6:31:40 PM PDT by Gun142
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gun142
Consider it done! This is ridiculous.
3 posted on 10/05/2001 6:35:18 PM PDT by Helix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Gun142
Good. Now when everyone wants a gun, they will have to buy from Herr Glock and Mr. Benelli, enriching the gun merchants, infuriating the liberals.
4 posted on 10/05/2001 6:36:11 PM PDT by xm177e2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gun142
Oh SCHIESE. That PASSED?!

Calling Mike Rogers AGAIN.

5 posted on 10/05/2001 7:07:19 PM PDT by Dan from Michigan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gun142
bump
6 posted on 10/05/2001 8:37:26 PM PDT by Captain7seas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Gun142
I notice that there are no criminal penalties associated with this law. All they have is authority to sieze the equipment. So, should this pass, I guess they can legally take them if they can find them. And even if they find them the former "owner" suffers no penalty for holding the equipment.

Let's see, I see a violation of private property rights and expost facto laws. If the Supreme Court did its job, the worst outcome I could see if that henceforth (from the passage date) this act would come into effect, but no backdating allowed. At a minimum there needs to be grandfathering.

Sure am glad I don't own an ArmyNavy Surplus Store and that I'm not in the surplus business. Think of the size of the new bureacracy created by this stupid, needless program.

7 posted on 10/05/2001 11:05:17 PM PDT by joeyman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #8 Removed by Moderator

Comment #9 Removed by Moderator

To: VW-Cat-Man
Didn't the Supreme Court decide that the 2nd Amendment 'guaranteed' the ownership of military type rifles for use in the militia? (Having brain farts today, case was in the 1930's?)

Post #7 brings up some good points. Property rights and there is no mention of punishment in sec 1062. With the aid of a little tin-foil, I wonder just how fishy this smells. I'm just not grasping what the perceived result is to be. Also, what is the mandate for this?
I think my congressmen need to explain some of this to me or tell me they will oppose it.

Executive orders have got to go. There have been some good and bad ones, but all thwart the process.


(To all)
Call, write, email your senators and reps.
Go to Write Your Reps to find contact info.

10 posted on 10/06/2001 9:56:48 AM PDT by Gun142
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Gun142
That last line in the law is to get rid of those pesky .50 cals that Waxman loses sleeep over.
11 posted on 10/07/2001 8:35:07 AM PDT by MonroeDNA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Gun142
This bill will also devastate the warbird flying community in the U.S. - no more airshows.

But with this VFR ban in effect right now, there will be no more airshows anyway...

12 posted on 10/07/2001 8:52:28 AM PDT by snopercod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gun142
Time to build that concealed weapons magazine in the backyard... Makes me want to start stockpiling weapons and ammunition - though some would say I should have got with the program years ago.
13 posted on 10/08/2001 12:18:36 AM PDT by VRWC_Member428
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_Member428
BUMP for further study!
14 posted on 10/10/2001 10:10:47 PM PDT by dcwusmc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Gun142

MOLON LABE

David Wright

15 posted on 10/12/2001 2:47:16 PM PDT by dcwusmc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gun142
A lot of worry for nothing. Isralis Arms still makes brand new M1 .30 carbines. Springfield is selling brand new M1 Garand rifles with GI parts and new receivers. These were never DOD weapons or with DOD serial numbers. They have Italian made forged receivers origianly made for the Dutch and are better than cast receivers. Springfield will be making their own new receivers next month. Nor can anyone out there conceive that the BATF or anyone else is going to start searching house to house for M1 rifles and determine if they are surplus, foreign made imports, or new manufacture. This would be hazardous to their health if they tried and a waste of thier time and tax dollars. Plus, the CMP program is an act of congress that allows by law surplus military rifles to be sold to cicilians and the new law does not negate or state that it reverses or ends the CMP program. Plus it would also fly in the face of the second amendment which allows individuals to own and bare the same type of rifle as used by the army to form an unregulated militia.
16 posted on 10/12/2001 3:03:09 PM PDT by Mat_Helm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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