Bill Would Allow Vets to Keep Their Battlefield Guns

CNSNEWS.com ^ | 8/28/02 | Jim Burns

[kattracks]

(CNSNews.com) - Current federal law threatens veterans with possible prison terms and hefty fines if they keep the machine guns they used during their war service prior to 1968. But two congressmen are trying to change the law and a leading veterans' group says it's about time.

U.S. Reps. Chris Cannon (R-Utah) and Jim Gibbons (R-Nev.) have introduced legislation that would allow veterans to keep the machine guns they brought home as souvenirs following their service in America's military.

Cannon the legislation would give veterans 90 days in which to register their firearms with the Treasury Department.

But there is a stipulation. In order to qualify, a member of the Armed Forces while stationed outside the continental United States must have acquired the firearms before October 31, 1968. The legislation would also allow family members to register firearms inherited from veterans.

"When they (America's veterans) returned home they focused on reuniting with their family, securing an education, and building a home-not on wading through the burdensome bureaucracy associated with registering a firearm," Gibbons said.

"Now the machine guns they brought back are illegal and cannot be registered, and veterans or their family members are required to surrender them to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms for destruction," Cannon said. "In many cases these war relic firearms are worth thousands of dollars. But in all cases they are meaningful souvenirs for our nation's veterans."

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms had no comment on the legislation, according to a spokesman.

But AMVETS, one of the nation's leading veterans' organizations, applauded the legislation, calling it an effort to clarify the present federal law, according to spokesman Rick Jones.

"Veterans should not be considered criminals for having and holding these souvenirs," said Jones. "These type of firearms represent a moment in their lives where there was extreme danger. The bill deals appropriately with how veterans should be treated should they possess these firearms.

"We know that veterans sometimes decorate their halls with a firearm captured from World War Two. The machine gun should be declared inoperable to conform with the laws of the United States. But to declare these veterans as criminals for having these firearms, we think is wrong," Jones added.

E-mail a news tip to Jim Burns.

Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.

 

[SLB]

At the semi-annual Knob Creek Machinegun Shoot it sure is fun to watch the $$$$ fly down range. Ye gads, $1.25 to $2.00 a round to shoot a M2! I am in the wrong business. The best is getting to use a man portable flame thrower (could be usefel here on FR sometimes) at $100.00 a pop. Some of us figured the guy was running almost 30 an hour through using two flame thrower outfits. I am sure his liability insurance is high, but $100.00 for a gallon of regular gas and a little compressed air!

[Ancesthntr]

Re: your Post # 40:

I don't think that the King quote was the converse to what I was saying - I do, however, believe that it said what I wanted to say in a more eloquent manner. I advised "Marktwain" to think outside of the box and to challenge (at least in his mind) whether a law was OK (i.e. moral or just), simply because not all laws are morally right or just in any sense of these concepts. With regard to gun laws, the converse certainly is true.

[Ancesthntr]

"One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws, but conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." Martin Luther King

We do, indeed, have a responsibility to disobey unjust laws. However, if you advise someone else to do it, you'll end up in the slammer. Chances are, since we're dealing with guns on this thread, that you'll lose your guns since the "crime" of advising others to disobey the law is probably a felony (or could be cooked into one). That is how the State enforces unjust laws, by punishing their opponents.

[Benson_Carter]

Registration is somehow considered OK for guns, but not for other Constitutionally-protected items like Bibles. You should think about that. Would you register your Bible if a law said you had to? Would you permit the government to limit the design of your Bible, the number you own, etc.? Would you apply for a permit to attend church? How would you feel about a law that limited the type or number of printing presses (or ink-jet printers, copiers, fax machines, etc) that you owned, and required that you register all of them?

You should also think about what your response would be if the government repealed (according to all of the legalities set forth in the Constitution) the 1st Amendment (that's right, the 1st) - do you think that such an act would enable it to outlaw the possession of Bibles, attendance at a house of worship, etc.? If not (and I certainly hope not), then you should consider the effect of the laws that outlaw or restrict the possession of certain firearms, much less the repeal of the 2nd Amendment that the gun-grabbers so desparately hope for at some point in the future. These existing laws are as repugnant to our way of life as a law that would ban Bibles. Registration of guns is as repugnant as registration of Bibles.

Try to think outside of the box. Don't be too caught up in thinking that if there's a law that says something, that it is somehow OK. The Nazis were masters at legally implementing the most repugnant and odious laws in the history of mankind, and their judges obediently said that it was all legal. No one, however, bothered to stand up and say that the whole idea of government legislating about certain things was impermissable (maybe, perhaps, because guns had already been confiscated from all opponents of the Nazis - how's that for a tie-in?).

[Joe Brower]

I understand what you are saying. I was simply relating the thoughts of someone who, for better or worse, is highly regarded in our nations history. That's all.

If any gungrabber wants to make more of it than that, I'll start yelling "racism"! $;-)

[Joe Brower]

When is that Knob Creek party anyway? I could make Kentucky in one solid day's drive. Hmmmmmm!

Whups -- found it: Knob Creek Range -- the 2003 shoot will be April 11, 12, & 13.

[archy]

We do, indeed, have a responsibility to disobey unjust laws. However, if you advise someone else to do it, you'll end up in the slammer.

I'm not yet aware of any of the Supreme Court justices *ending up in the slammer....*

All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.

--Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)

[Ancesthntr]

I'm not yet aware of any of the Supreme Court justices *ending up in the slammer....*

I forgot to add that this principle only applied to ordinary folk, not such important people as our esteemed public servants. (/acid-dripping sarcasm)

[archy]

When is that Knob Creek party anyway? I could make Kentucky in one solid day's drive. Hmmmmmm!

Whups -- found it: Knob Creek Range -- the 2003 shoot will be April 11, 12, & 13.

Yep. But here's the schedule for the Fall shoot, often familiarly known as *the mudfest*, though it can get damp at the Spring shoot too. Do NOT miss that Saturday night tracer shoot....

Thursday, October 10th
9 A.M. - 10 P.M. Exhibitor & Shooters Set Up Only

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Friday, October 11th
7 A.M. Breakfast Buffet $6.00
9 A.M. Military Gun Show Starts & Machine Gun Rental
9 A.M. Assault Rifle Match - $25 Adv. (2 wks. prior) $35 regular
Old Military Bolt Rifle Match
$25 Adv. (2 wks. prior) $35 regular
12 noon Subgun Jungle Walk
8 P.M. Military Gun Show Closes

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Saturday, October 12th
7 A.M. Breakfast Buffet - $6.00
10 A.M. KPDL Practical Pistol Match
$25 Adv. (2 wks. prior) $35 regular
KCR Open Subgun - $25 Adv. (2 wks. prior) $35 regular
9 A.M. Machine Gun Rental
9 A.M. Military Gun Show Opens
5 P.M. Night Shoot Starts
10 P.M. Night Shoot Ends & Military Gun Show Closes

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sunday, October 13th
7 A.M. Breakfast Buffet $6.00
9 A.M. Machine Gun Rentals & Military Gun Show Opens
9 A.M. Machine Gun Shoot Starts
10 A.M. Assault Shotgun Match
$25 Adv. (2wks. prior) $35 regular
4 P.M. Shoot & Show is over

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Admission -- Adults $10.00 day/$22.00 all three days.
Under 15, children $4.00/$10.00 all three days.

Range Office Hours -- Fri. 7 a.m. to 9 p.m.
Sat. 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. (Night Shoot starts at 5:00 p.m.)
Sun. 7 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Matches -- Assault Rifle; Bolt Action Rifle; KPDL Pistol; KCR Open Subgun; Jungle Walk; Classic Subgun; KCR Shotgun

Machine Gun Rentals Fri. & Sat. 9a.m. until dark & Sun. 9 a.m. till 4 p.m.

Breakfast Buffet at 7 a.m. Fri., Sat. & Sun. Refreshments on grounds

[Joe Brower]

Wow, archy, you're seemingly infinite well of knowledge never ceases to impress me! $:-)

I already have plans for October, and with a wife and two small kids I find that it's necessary to plan the currently-in-my-life all too rare "road trip" way in advance.

I'm really thinking of making the 4/2003 shoot, though.

Before that, I'll be attending the 2003 SHOT Show in mid-February of next year, since I have a good friend who's an FFL and it's going to be in Orlando, FL, which I can reach in about four hours drive.

2003 is shaping up to be a very good year!

[300winmag]

Please see my post #37. I hope that you don't think it OK to sell out your Constitutional right to keep and bear arms just because you (or some vet) will make a few bucks selling a full-auto AK-47.

I think our views on gun laws are very similiar, but I also believe in making lemonade when life hands me lemons. I can't wish away every single gun law instantly, but I can work for gradual rollback, just like the gradualism the gun grabbers afflicted on us.

"Shall issue" carry laws are not as good as Vertmont's "no questions asked" law. But they are a great improvement over "might issue (if you're an important liberal)" law. The word is starting to get out that "shall issue" works, and gun laws are based on a pack of lies. More people with legal NFA weapons telling their stories will also help.

[tahiti]

Here is a short synopsis of the 1939 landmark Supreme Court decision on the 2nd amendment, U.S. v Miller:

"These types of firearms, accessories, and ammunition (machine guns) are precisely those most suitable for military and militia use. and have been so issued by the Federal government to U.S. armed forces. The Court held that the keeping and bearing of such firearms was explicitly protected by the Second Amendment."

It is unconstitutional to "...infringe..." on the "...right to keep and bear arms..." by preventing military weapons from being owned by citizens, as stated in U.S. v Miller.

[marktwain]

Ancesthntr:

I respectfully submit that you are trapped inside the "all or nothing " box. A law such as I suggested would be a step in the right direction. By far most class three weapons are owned by people who have no idea that they are facing a federal felony for owning them. A general amnesty would also "legalize" a lot of firearms that have been made illegally over the last 35 years. We don't have to give up principles to get such a law enacted, as it is just a "common sense" approach, to use the liberals language.

If you wish to check my posts, you will find that I make the point that illegal is not immoral several times.

The anti freedom forces have used the tactic of incrementalism against us to good effect. With those constitutionaly protected weapons made illegal, they are buried, not used, no one can be trained with them without fear of going to jail as a federal felon, and juries aren't evern allowed to hear the constitutional arguments. If they come into the legal fold, they expand the number of shooters and help expose the anti freedom agenda for what it is.

The cap on class three weapons in 1986 put a limit on the number of legal owners. The thought, I am sure, was that as long as the noose of anti freedom law only gets tighter, rather than looser, it is not so important how slowly it goes. The war is more about attitudes than possession of rusty AKs. In a generation or two, the idea is that the number of people in the gun culture will have dropped to a politically unimportant number. If we reverse the gun laws toward even a little bit more freedom, we change the momentum, cause the anti freedom statists a huge amount of grief, and have some momentum for winning. We have to win the culture war. Before the internet, talk radio, and Fox news, the other side was winning because it controled the information (for the most part) that people recieved. Now the momentum is starting to turn our way because the basic culture, the facts, and the Constitution are on our side. We won't win it all at once, though. We will win it bit by bit.

[marktwain]

You understand the strategy and eloborated on it. Thanks. Actually, both approaches (return to obeying the Constitution all at once, and incrementalism) need to be pushed. It is the same game the socialists play on us: the one "principled" side makes the incrementalists seem so obviously reasonable, and points out that while the incrementalism is such a very small step, at least it is in the right direction. Educating the public that ours is the right direction is the most important part. I am convinced that we are winning in that area.

[harpseal]

Given TEOTWAWKI a full auto bullet hose would eat up all of one's stashed reloading supplies very quickly and the Chemicals to make new primers and quality smokless propellant would be rather difficullt to obtain.

IMHO the only change in law that makes sense is full repeal of the NFA. Of course that wouldreally knock down the investment value of your class III pieces.

I for one would not put it past BATF ruling that certain pieces that individuals thought were included in the amnesty were actually prosecutable.

Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown

[Chemist_Geek]

We do, indeed, have a responsibility to disobey unjust laws. However, if you advise someone else to do it, you'll end up in the slammer. Chances are, since we're dealing with guns on this thread, that you'll lose your guns since the "crime" of advising others to disobey the law is probably a felony (or could be cooked into one). That is how the State enforces unjust laws, by punishing their opponents.

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner. We must work carefully to end these unjust laws. I say, carefully, because our enemies will do everything in their power to oppose, harass, and generally make our lives as miserable as possible.

[Chemist_Geek]

The Assault Rifle Match will require a minimum of 30 rounds with at least one magazine change likely. The course will consist of 4 stages with 5 steel targets in each. However, the last bank will have 5 steel targets with one paper target in which 5 shots will be taken. All steel targets will be done as 1 shot per target going from left to right. A target shot out of sequence will be called a missed target and a 10 second penalty will be assessed. In addition, there will be a bonus target on each stage. If hit you will have ten seconds removed from your total time. If missed there is no penalty. The object of this match is to end up with the lowest possible time. Your score is based on moving time, target score and penalty score. The target distances will be from 50 yards to 125 yards. Ammo pouches, mag pouches and jungle clip magazines will be allowed.

Hmm, I wonder what they consider an "assault rifle." Does an old M-1 Garand count? (wink)

[from occupied ga]

Bill Would Allow Vets to Keep Their Battlefield Guns

but George wouldn't (Actually I'm surprised that Bill would)

[Freedom4US]

We discussed that when I was in the Army. My roommate made an interesting observation. He asked me if I hunted, and I replied in the affirmative. Then he asked me if I'd ever seen a fellow hunter drop his rifle, or set the rifle down on the ground, or lean it up against a wall or fence or something in such a way that it was possible or likely for it to fall or get knocked down.

Hm. "No, I can't say that I have, Steve, now that you mention it".

His point was, that privately owned firearms (or anything else for that matter) are usually, if not always lovingly cared for, stored and maintained.

We came to the conclusion that upon entering service, a soldier should be issued a brand new service rifle, and that very same rifle would follow them throughout their career, however long or short. 4 years honorable service would allow one to take it home with them upon discharge.

The weapon could then be part of all inspections and part of the total evaluation of the soldier -- if, after 10 years, the weapon is poorly maintained, then there is no one else responsible except that soldier.

[JFoxbear]

Your #44: A real piece of work! Keep the Faith my friend...

Semper Fi! And never forget... You're not alone...