Posted by Brian in Oregon on Friday, October 12, 2001 at 2:01PM :
http://www.WorldNetDaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24889
HOMELAND INSECURITY Covert gun grab in Congress?
Firearms owners fear bill could be used to seize, destroy weapons By Joel Miller © 2001 WorldNetDaily.com 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.
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.
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
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.
Another concern for Hammond is the Fifth Amendment, which requires "just compensation" for seized property.
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.
"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.
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
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.
Another concern for Hammond is the Fifth Amendment, which requires "just compensation" for seized property.
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.
Firearms owners fear bill could be used to seize, destroy weapons By Joel Miller © 2001 WorldNetDaily.com A bill working its way through Congress has firearms owners worried about a covert gun grab in the making.
"They don't want to destroy collectors' things."
1911, as well as all Civilian Marksmanship Program rifles, even 'sporterized' surplus bolt-action Springfields!), firearm barrels, ammunition, and gun powder."
surplus firearms," said Hammond. "But a future administration could. That's the concern."
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.
"They don't want to destroy collectors' things."
1911, as well as all Civilian Marksmanship Program rifles, even 'sporterized' surplus bolt-action Springfields!), firearm barrels, ammunition, and gun powder."
surplus firearms," said Hammond. "But a future administration could. That's the concern."
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.
This board is powered by the Mr. Fong Device from Cyberarmy.com