WARNING: Passed Senate bill S1438, section 1062

R

Rome

New member
Boys and Girls:

I just read through this bill and what I found was very disheartening. This bill has passed, btw, but I don't know what the status of it is right now. I just wanted to get it to you as soon as I could. Here is the meat of the text:

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 NRAILA.org's "Write Your Reps" tool.



Before I posted this here, I made the effort to read the bill, especially section 1062 and verify the content. Go to "google.com" and do a search yourself to verify. The NRA is aware of this. All I can say is that I hope it gets defeated. I'd like to hear some of your opinions about this!

Rome

:mad: :mad: :mad:
 
A

alan

New member
Senate 1438, including Section 1062 passed by a vote of 99-0, 2 October, and was sent to The House. Do not know what it's status as of today might be. Get on to your House of Representatives members NOW.

BTW, should yours be an anti gun type, do not mention guns, for this "demiliterization" business applies to ANYTHING that DoD ever owned. A listing of such items would likely be endless, so it becomes a case of THEFT UNDER COLOR OF LAW, where the citizenry purchased, in good faith, materials offered for sale by their government. The problem is, it turns out, that "their government" might not have been acting in a similar manner, that is "in good faith".

How this might sit with the individual is a matter of personal choice. Suffice it to say that it does not sit well with this citizen.
 
V

Vladimir_Berkov

New member
I think the question that we should be asking is HOW IN THE HELL DID THIS PASS 99 TO 0?!?!?!?


Yeah, I can understand if it was close between Democrats and Republican. But it looks like EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN there voted for it! Did everybody fall asleep, or not read the bill, or WHAT?
 
H

HankL

New member
Vladimir, It is near impossible. That bill has plenty of feel good stuff in it and it is huge! Normal people cannot read the U.S. Code and all of these bills refer to this and that section and paragraph of some code by number alone. No mention of what the section and part was about. Our U.S. Code has become a monster to say the least.
 
R

Rome

New member
How big?

That sucker is 650 pages plus! At least it's in the House, now, and I'll be on the phone, email, AND snail mail to have that section removed. Here in CT, we've got two ultra liberals (Dodd and Lieberman). The Congress, however, is more balanced. Let's keep our fingers crossed about this one. Even Tony Snow, sitting in for Rush, doesn't know about this bill!


Spread the word
!
Rome
 
A

alan

New member
Vladimir:

It's quite likely that a great many senators, and members of the house, should the thing become law, will claim that they "didn't know that that was there", or that they will make some ridiculous claim about "underlying values of the proposal itself", or that the government "would never do that", when in plain fact, they certainly might, as they have done worse before. These elected things also lie a great deal.

I'm very much afraid that the ultimate problem and perhaps even the ultimate answers lie in and with the voters, most of whom might be charitibly described as "sheeple". This is a compressed form of two words, sheep and people. It is not complimentary in the least, but unfortunately, it seems to fit. To many people, if ever they were struck by a thought, would act as if they were in strange territory, which they in fact, would be.

It's late, and I'm tired. I get especially bitter when I'm tired, a sign of getting old I guess.
 
W

WilderBill

New member
Here in Texas, during the early days of our war for independance, the Mexican army decided that it wanted to take back a very small cannon it had provided to an outlying community for the pupose of defense against the indians.

The people living there didn't know anything about cannons, larger or small, but they knew they weren't giving it back.

They didn't have any cannon balls, so they just loaded up" a handful "of powder and "some" assorted scrap from the blacksmith shop.

They then raised a flag that said "come and take it" and took aim at the only bridge into town.

The army only sent about 30 solders to get the cannon. After one close range shot they only had 3 or 4 left.

They didn't take.

Enough said?
 
W

Waitone

New member
Bills are impossibly long and complicated. But that is no reason for our congressional vermin to pass predatory provisions. It is typical one chamber will pass something they know the other chamber will squash (Campaign finance Control comes to mind). Having said that now is the time to talk to your house rep and lean on them.

I hope US gun owners are mad as hell and they ain't gonna take it any more. I hope gun owners scare the absolute beegeebers out of congress about messing with gun rights. Right now ain't the time. Right now is the time to clarify the law and get the hell outta the way.
 
B

B9mmHP

New member
Politicians who fear the people seek to disarm them. People who fear thier Government`s intentions refuse to be disarmed.
(A quote by somebody?)

MOLON LABE

:mad: :mad: :mad:
 
A

alan

New member
S1438/Section 1062

I spoke with ILA this afternoon, and got the following information.

S.1438, including Section 1062 has passed The Senate, and is now in The House Armed Services Committee. No hearings were scheduled for this week, next week who knows.

Section 1062 was in last years bill, Senate version, but The House struck it. NRA claims they are in contact with people in House, re killing it again. NOW IS THE TIME TO GET ON TO YOUR CONGRESS PERSON.

Should your representative turn out to be anti gun, some are, when you contact them, soliciting their opposition to Section 1062, DO NOT MENTION FIREARMS AT ALL. Try the following tactic.

The government has, in the past, sold all manner of stuff to American Citizens, stuff that was "surplus to needs", "unserviceable" or just plain "unwanted". Law abiding citizens purchased this "stuff" in good faith. Given this newly sought authorization, read Section 1062 for yourself, does it turn out that the government was NOT DEALING IN GOOD FAITH, when it offered all this "stuff" for sale? It would seem, re the wording of Section 1062, that such is the case, leaving the entire thing appearing to be a giant case of THEFT UNDER COLOR OF LAW, OR FRAUD, a proposition that might have a tremendous down side potential for your "elected thing".

Think about it, then take action. The rest is up to you all. You might also contact members of the House Armed Services Committee, as well as writing a Letter To The Editor of your local paper. The following is a copy of one that I sent, offered for reference.

Editor:

Section 1062 of Senate 1438, otherwise known as the National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2002, is extremely curious and problematic, due to the following.

Section 1062 provides the Secretary of Defense with authority to require "demilitarization" that means rendering the thing PERMANENTLY INOPERABLE , of any "significant military equipment" ever owned by DoD. The costs of such "demilitarization" would be billed to the present owner(s), which is really interesting due to the fact that for many years, DoD has been selling as "surplus" or "excess to needs" or as "unserviceable", all manner of stuff, stuff ranging from firearms to communications equipment to ammunition to motor vehicles including spare parts for the above, both in this country as well as overseas. They continue, to this very day, such sales.

Re domestic sales, to AMERICAN CITIZENS, who purchased this "stuff" in good faith, is one to take it that the government did not act similarly, and that the government is now about to "steal" from it's citizens, items that it choose to offer for sale? One wonders. One also wonders as to the source of this Section 1062, that is who wrote and placed it in the larger bill, and exactly what did they have in mind.

Now, it has been said that the government would never so act, that is that the government would never, in effect, steal from law abiding citizens, that which it had previously sold to them, however if that is the case, then why this proposal, since DoD already has the authority to "demilitarize" any items it offers for sale, prior to the sale. For instance, "demilitarization" of a motor vehicle would amount to making it "permanently inoperable", in effect turning the vehicle into scrap metal. It was not however, sold as "scrap metal", it had been sold as a "operable motor vehicle", deemed to by "surplus" or "excess to needs", and priced accordingly. Scrap metal is much cheaper.

So, one might well ask of this section 1062, as well as whomever it might be that wrote, and or placed it in the larger bill, and or wound up the writer, EXACTLY WHAT IS GOING ON HERE, AND WHY IS IT GOING ON?
 
H

Hardtarget

New member
Alan, you are right. We need to know who wrote Sec. 1062 and why....but more importantly, the voters "back home" need to know so they can start with calls and letters. I think ten letters from home is better than a thousand from all across the country! Is there any way to find this information and get it to the public soon enough?I'll start with the Tennessee Reps tonight!
Mark.
 
R

Rome

New member
Who wrote in Sec 1062???

To all:

I've written my congressmen/women but I still want to know who inserted it into the package in the first place! If anyone out there can find out, I, and many others would be very interested in knowing who it was. This isn't some vague partisan legislation. This is a frontal, direct attack on our ability to own vintage firearms and a global attack the RKBA. This is NOT a drill!

Thanks to all of you who have finally rallied here! I'm glad that we're all finally getting behind the removal of this horrible legislation!

Rome
 
A

alan

New member
Hardtarget and Rome:

As to who wrote or inserted Section 1062, I suspect that some staffer might have penned it, or someone with their own "agenda" got to some staffer.

Asking your elected things office, I doubt that you could get anywhere near to the person themselves, is not likely to elicit an answer either, because most likely the person you might speak with doesn't know themselves, and I suspect that this is an example of a situation where most of the senators simply do not know what the bill they voted on says. I suspect that the same would apply to members of the house. Re the above, by the way, I do not offer this opinion as any sort of an excuse for them voting on something they didn't know the content of.

I also suspect that if you were able to get anyone to admit authorship, which personally I doubt the possibility of, their action would, of course, have been directed "to your own good", and how dull you are not to have immediately recognized this fact. Yes, I know it's baloney, but I suspect that that is what you would hear.

No, I do not know exactly what might be done about the whole sorry business, other than to require that each and every senator or representative be made to swear that they had read and fully understood the entire content of every bill they voted on. Even then, given the fact that they are likely all liars, what would you end up with, for in what "court" might one seek redress? Elections are a possible answer, but then given that most incumbents are returned to office, no matter how outrageous their actions in office have been, that route seems to go nowhere.

So no, I do not have the answer, other than to say what I've already said, please excuse my repeating myself, which is that we all need to keep after the bastards, all the time too.
 
S

sumabich

Moderator
Agree, we need to smoke out the sociocrat!

Alan, I disagree, if this bill had originated in the house I could have called my local persons aid and they would be getting back to me on the author and it's particulars. In the senate I don't have much of a chance because Jessie's retiring and the other Jerk is a Sociocrat. I think I see what I can do because I think we need to find out who is responsible and put a little sunshine on them. Check with your Senators anyway, with enough heat we might smoke the joker out. Obiously someone has an agenda and I think America needs answers. Two years in a row having to fight against this is rediculous but this is the way it's gonna be. We have to be vigilant at the national and LOCAL level. :mad:
 
M

Master Blaster

New member
Well I wrote to congressman Mike Castle the moderate republican from Delaware.

He is usually pretty good about responding, and is himself a gun owner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top