[Gun142]

S. 1438

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

(a) PROHIBITION- It is unlawful for any person to possess significant military equipment formerly owned by the Department of Defense unless--

(1) the military equipment has been demilitarized in accordance with standards prescribed by the Secretary of Defense;

(2) the person is in possession of the military equipment for the purpose of demilitarizing the equipment pursuant to a Federal Government contract; or

(3) the person is specifically authorized by law or regulation to possess the military equipment.

(b) REFERRAL TO ATTORNEY GENERAL- The Secretary of Defense shall notify the Attorney General of any potential violation of subsection (a) of which the Secretary becomes aware.

(c) AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE DEMILITARIZATION- (1) The Attorney General may require any person who, in violation of subsection (a), is in possession of significant military equipment formerly owned by the Department of Defense--

(A) to demilitarize the equipment;

(B) to have the equipment demilitarized by a third party; or

(C) to return the equipment to the Federal Government for demilitarization.

(2) When the demilitarization of significant military equipment is carried out pursuant to subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1), an officer or employee of the United States designated by the Attorney General shall have the right to confirm, by inspection or other means authorized by the Attorney General, that the equipment has been demilitarized.

(3) If significant military equipment is not demilitarized or returned to the Federal Government for demilitarization as required under paragraph (1) within a reasonable period after the Attorney General notifies the person in possession of the equipment of the requirement to do so, the Attorney General may request that a court of the United States issue a warrant authorizing the seizure of the military equipment in the same manner as is provided for a search warrant. If the court determines that there is probable cause to believe that the person is in possession of significant military equipment in violation of subsection (a), the court shall issue a warrant authorizing the seizure of such equipment.

(d) DEMILITARIZATION OF EQUIPMENT- (1) The Attorney General shall transfer any military equipment returned to the Federal Government or seized pursuant to subsection (c) to the Department of Defense for demilitarization.

(2) If the person in possession of significant military equipment obtained the equipment in accordance with any other provision of law, the Secretary of Defense shall bear all costs of transportation and demilitarization of the equipment and shall either--

(A) return the equipment to the person upon completion of the demilitarization; or

(B) reimburse the person for the cost incurred by that person to acquire the equipment if the Secretary determines that the cost to demilitarize and return the property to the person would be prohibitive.

(e) ESTABLISHMENT OF DEMILITARIZATION STANDARDS- (1) The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe regulations regarding the demilitarization of military equipment.

(2) The regulations shall be designed to ensure that--

(A) the equipment, after demilitarization, does not constitute a significant risk to public safety and does not have--

(i) a significant capability for use as a weapon; or

(ii) a uniquely military capability; and

(B) any person from whom private property is taken for public use under this section receives just compensation for the taking of the property.

(3) The regulations shall, at a minimum, define--

(A) the classes of significant military equipment requiring demilitarization before disposal; and

(B) what constitutes demilitarization for each class of significant military equipment.

(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.

[Gun142]

Contact your congress-critters

[xm177e2]

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.

[Dan from Michigan]

Oh SCHIESE. That PASSED?!

Calling Mike Rogers AGAIN.

[joeyman]

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.

[snopercod]

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...

[VRWC_Member428]

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.

[dcwusmc]

MOLON LABE

David Wright

[Mat_Helm]

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.