In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

Government Seizure??

SKGUNZSKGUNZ Member Posts: 7 ✭✭
edited November 2001 in Ask the Experts
My intention is not to cause an uproar or be seen as chicken little but I saw something on FOX news that has me very concerned. As reported by Fox a provision was tucked into the bill signed recently to combat terrorism that would allow the government to seize and destroy surplus military equipment. The headline further read that owners of restored B-17 Bombers were concerned they would never be allowed to fly their planes. I'm assuming they fear they would be under this particular piece of legislation. I haven't seen the bill and don't know of it's contents. Does anyone have specific detailed info. I'm concerned that this bill will in effect outlaw ownership of military surplus rifles. I've intended for quite a while to collect WWII rifles. In particular M1 Garand and Carbine rifles. If anyone out there knows more about the topic please follow up with a posting
· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Comments

  • BullzeyeBullzeye Member Posts: 3,560
    edited November -1
    The bill allows for all government surplus items sold in the US to be "re-possessed" by the government in an emergency, and the owner reimbursed for the "current value" of the item.This includes all Army M1911 handguns and just about anything else they want.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • kaboomkaboom Member Posts: 75 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    This has been proposed in every session of congress for several years. I thought it was taken out of the final bill before it passed, but maybe not. The NRA website should have something about it if it passed. If it is law now I am going to "sell" anything GI I have to a private party from out of town whose name I just can't quite remember. I try to be a good little peasant and obey the laws of the land, but this is going way too far.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • hecklerxkochhecklerxkoch Member Posts: 213 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    those bastards
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • robsgunsrobsguns Member Posts: 4,581 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    I heard that they are pulling that part of legislation out of the bill, or it wont pass.
    SSgt Ryan E. Roberts, USMC
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • SKGUNZSKGUNZ Member Posts: 7 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Times like these the uninformed masses believe the way to security is to give up personal freedom. This is only an illusion. The tradeoff is never equal. We stand to loose more than we gain. Americans are envied because of the freedom we enjoy, never loose sight of this
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • BullzeyeBullzeye Member Posts: 3,560
    edited November -1
    Its not like the government is short on weapons or equipment. I guarantee they've got hundreds of warehouses full of M-16s and M-1911s that have never been fired or touched.Plus, its not really going to serve the goal of disarming America's citizens. The vast majority of arms in America arent military surplus, after all.So what's the motivation here? I cant figure it out.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • jeenyesjeenyes Member Posts: 330 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Yea, I remember seeing barge loads of APCs, jeeps and heavy equimpment on TV being shoved into the ocean to make new reefs. And then sinking ships that were old or no longer being used. Go figure.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • kaboomkaboom Member Posts: 75 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Yea, I remember seeing barge loads of APCs, jeeps and heavy equimpment on TV being shoved into the ocean to make new reefsI once worked for a guy a long time ago who had been stationed at an Army Air Corps field in China when WWII ended. They got orders to close down the base and destroy everything of military value and then fly out the planes. He said it made him ill to see dozens of wooden crates of brand new unfired 1911s and M1 carbines being dumped on the runway and crushed by a bulldozer. At that time I was skipping lunches trying to save up enough to buy a $40 Hi-Standard .22 pistol, so it made me a little ill to hear about it.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • IconoclastIconoclast Member Posts: 10,515 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Buddy of mine worked on the Trans-Alaskan Highway. When they were done, their orders were to pile *everything* on cliffs near the ocean, aim the bulldozers at the piles & jump off. They were told that it was cheaper to destroy it than to ship it back to the lower 48. Yeah, right.On this particular bill, I have a letter at hand from one of my Senators saying he investigated this and was assured that this was in response to concerns that high tech & potentially destructive items had been released as surplus and would 'never be applied' to individual firearms. As worded, this affects *anything* ever issued by the military, not just firearms - brass, surplus ammo, uniform patches, etc., etc., etc., regardless of era. That bayonet your distant ancestor had in 1812? Gone. The patches from your service? Gone. But since, despite the verbiage, no piece of Federal legislation has ever been applied in a manner other than its intent, I'm sure we can all sleep soundly knowing that we're protected by the noble aspirations of our lawmakers and dedicated public servants.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • SKGUNZSKGUNZ Member Posts: 7 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Icon, you had me until the last sentence. I'm assuming (we know what that means) that this bill was intended to allow the govt. to repo items like the M 60 tanks they have been making monuments out of over the past several years. I haven't seen anything change on the DCM page so for right now we're ok
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.