Posted on 10/13/2001 5:49:38 AM PDT by FSPress
A bill working its way through Congress has firearms owners worried about a covert gun grab in the making.
Section 1062 of the Department of Defense Authorization Bill, S. 1438, gives authority to the secretary of defense to "ensure demilitarization of significant military equipment formerly owned by the Department of Defense."
"Demilitarization" refers to the process of rendering equipment inoperable, such as dismantling or removing the firing mechanism of a particular weapon.
"Basically what they want to do is remove any sort of weapons systems in [surplus] planes and tanks," explained a Senate Armed Services Committee staffer, who asked to go unnamed. "They don't want to destroy collectors' things."
But, according to the National Rifle Association, the scope of the bill "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."
U.S. veterans are especially upset that they may be forced to surrender weapons they purchased after returning home from abroad, according to Mike Hammond of Gun Owners of America – weapons like those they used while serving the interests of the United States.
Because of the uproar of gun owners, "That particular section has gotten a lot of attention," said the Armed Services staffer, who added that the government "would repossess only things that had been improperly demilitarized."
According to the bill, it is illegal for anyone to possess weaponry that has not been "demilitarized in accordance with standards prescribed by the Secretary of Defense" or without the purpose of "demilitarizing the equipment pursuant to a Federal Government contract" or is not "specifically authorized by law or regulation to possess the military equipment."
The bill requires the secretary of defense to notify the attorney general of any "potential violation" of the law. The AG will then have the authority to require the owner to demilitarize the equipment, have it demilitarized or hand it over for demilitarization by the federal government. If the owner refuses, the AG can get court permission to seize the equipment for demilitarization.
Because the secretary of defense sets the demilitarization standards, "The specific problem is that it allows the secretary to require – when in his sole discretion it is necessary – that firearms be returned for demilitarization," said Mike Hammond of Gun Owners of America.
"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," said the NRA.
Senate Armed Services does not see the same threat in the bill that the NRA or GOA do.
"I think it's highly unlikely that we're going to hunt down every single gun ever sold to a collector or a hunter," said the staffer. "It's more really the bigger things than the guns."
Gun owners concede that the immediate purpose of the legislation may be to deal with large-scale weaponry but warn of the latitude the bill gives future administrations.
"We don't think that George W. Bush is going to use that statute to seize U.S. surplus firearms," said Hammond. "But a future administration could. That's the concern."
Another concern for Hammond is the Fifth Amendment, which requires "just compensation" for seized property. According to the bill, however, if the government cannot afford to return demilitarized equipment, it can "compensate the holder merely the price he paid for it 50 years ago," Hammond said.
There is no provision in the bill for current market value, only reimbursement for the "cost incurred … to acquire the equipment."
If the firearm was purchased 50 years ago, as in Hammond's example, the amount could be much less than the weapon is worth today, and, by Hammond's way of thinking, paying someone a price 50 years out of touch with current market value hardly equals "just compensation."
"We think it's probably unconstitutional," he said. "But then we think a lot of what Congress passes is unconstitutional."
The bill is currently in the House waiting to be taken up for vote.
It occurred to me that a WWII M1 carbine would be ideal, and one can still obtain them as collector's items in the $1,000 to $1,500 range, but I was thinking that there must be something with similar features but more modern design, to use as a working rifle rather than being a collector's item. My wife has some friends who have an old "K-Mart" type .22, but I think of those as being for plinking cans and squirrels. (Am I wrong?)
Any expert advice out there that someone would care to pass along, and/or a link? Thanks.
Thank goodness I turned all of mine in at an early gun buy-back event.
People, you need to get in touch with your Representatives and Senators about this one.BTW, my Senators are Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton. Which one do you think I should contact? (ha, ha, ha)
Second, I already contacted my congresscritter about this one, since the Senate already passed their version. The house version is similar, but does not have the strict demil that the Senate version does. Whatever happens will be decided in conference committee, so the House is the way to go on this one.
One thing that is very important for all to do is to spread this word via every method to everyone you know who has any interest in mil equipment. This does not only mean firearms, it means radio operators, collectors, pilots/aircraft owners who spend vast sums restoring warbirds (having had the pleasure of knowing several such, and being permitted to fly said warbirds solo, was a wonderful privelege, and a show of trust from those who invested one heck of a lot of $ to restore them), as well as the many businesses who earn their livelyhood from dealing in surplus. Folks, this is going to come back, and back, and back, unless we show a united front. It affects EVERYONE!.
In addition, check the Congressional Record, the websites for the Senate and House and Thomas' Register for objectionable AMENDMENTS to any bill. Remember that we are in a controlled news situation here. We get no local news, no national news, and no coherent World news except for the 9/11 redux ad infinitum. Legislation is being proposed and debated without the usual coverage it normally recieves. Do for legislation what you are being asked to do for activities, that is, be alert and aware of the surroundings, and question anything out of the ordinary that doesn't look right. There are no stupid questions, nor are their stupid brainstorming suggestions. The only stupidity is not to ask the question or to throw the idea, no matter how trivial or stupid it may sound, on the table.
Keep the Faith for Freedom, and question everything!
MAY GOD BLESS AND PROTECT THIS HONORABLE REPUBLIC
Greg
A .22 is never a bad idea. During real crisis, rats, stray dogs, etc. WILL be a problem and a .410 would be far to expensive to use. (small shells, high priced).
If you do not live in an urban area - go for a .223 or .308, they have range and ammo will be more readily available.
Finally, be sure all your shotgun loads are not number 8, get some deer slugs etc. and use the right choke.
Selective memory on their part, I suppose.
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.