The "Stolen Valor" act

[Ed_Haynes]

The OMSA (good for them) have finally taken a stand on this dangerous piece of lunatic legislation.

See:

http://www.omsa.org/forums/showthread.php?t=446

http://www.omsa.org/forums/showthread.php?t=447

http://www.omsa.org/forums/showthread.php?t=449

FYI and action?

Edited September 16, 2005 by Ed_Haynes

[Guest Rick Research]

I am afraid that the lunacy regarding the possession (NOT claimed receipt of) of Medals of Honor by anyone going back 10 years and the "Crime Control Act of 1994" has always struck me as the sort of legislative inversion our empty symbolism feel gooders are notorious for...

but THAT never bothered me personally, not being ever going to BE in possession of a MoH. (At that time, I worked with a woman whose mother was the widow of a WW2 KIA MoH recipient... and she buried it in a mayonaisse jar in her garden rather than have The Feds seize it.)

I see the same exclusive OVERemphasis on the MoH in this write letters campaign as well.

What truly HORRIFIES me is the

ANY AWARD language of this idiocy, setting us far back beyond even the folly of the "I'll trade you a used stamp" days.

"2 U.S. Code, Title 18, Section 704: Illegal to wear, purchase, attempts to purchase, solicits for purchase, mails, ships, imports, exports, produces blank certificates of receipt, manufacture, sell, attempts to sell, advertises for sale, trade, barter or exchange for anything of value for any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the armed forces of the United States..."

THIS will now be illegal to sell... or ship

[attachmentid=10929]

THIS will now be illegal to sell ... or ship

[attachmentid=10930]

Destroying all US award collecting.

And what parsing will be required on "ambiguous" items like THIS-- certainly "representing" U.S. awards, but made in Japan and NOT issued by the U.S. Government?

[attachmentid=10931]

Never MIND the folly over MoHs... EVERYTHING is being swept away. Focussing on the theoretical while ignoring loss of EVERYTHING is not likely to help when any of us who collect our own democracy's awards...

are "legally" barred from doing so.

I see NO point in constituent campaigns over the MoH restrictions which ignore the

TOTAL ban. THAT is the new issue.

[joe campbell]

well said, rick!

and thanks for the attention to this, ed.

i have received the info from OMSA as well,

but have not perused it yet.

my earliest "collecting" involved the receipt

of a number of my grandfather's awards which

he earned in WW 1 as a battalion surgeon.

this prompted an interest in other american pieces

which i pursued actively for awhile.

at a local show, i found essentially an entire

grouping of an NCO who had participated in

WW 2, Korea, and Viet Nam. this had been

obtained in a piecemeal fashion in what sounds like

a "my family history for drug money" circumstance.

the dealer had attempted to sell it back to the family

who could not afford to buy it.

whether or not i was being naive at his "story",

i decided to focus on things that were not so close to home...

i voted with my wallet and my focus.

having said that, it was MY decision, not my government's.

i have always felt that the MoH law was paternalistic and

unnecessary. this further wording clearly promotes that

paternalism.

if my grandfather had won the MoH, it would be in my family

forever....

or until i could sell it to pay for my child's kidney transplant...

or my house in n'oleans got trashed and i needed to rebuild....

or whatever....

you get my drift.

hands off with the legislation, already!

joe

[Bill Dienna]

A review of the official published legislative history of the Crime Control Act reflects that the original intent was narrow and focused: the authors of the act wanted to prevent persons who had not been awarded Medals of Honor from aquiring them and posing as recipients of the award. There were several instances of fake heroes being exposed in the early 1990's, and the initial act was intended to stop this practice.

However, like so many things governmental, everybody wanted to get their two cents in, and the result was the oppressive legislation that was ultimately passed, a measure well beyond the original intended purpose.

[Ed_Haynes]

A review of the official published legislative history of the Crime Control Act reflects that the original intent was narrow and focused: the authors of the act wanted to prevent persons who had not been awarded Medals of Honor from aquiring them and posing as recipients of the award. There were several instances of fake heroes being exposed in the early 1990's, and the initial act was intended to stop this practice.

However, like so many things governmental, everybody wanted to get their two cents in, and the result was the oppressive legislation that was ultimately passed, a measure well beyond the original intended purpose.

←

And the legislation now proposed

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/ge...h3352ih.txt.pdf

makes this look kindergarten by comparison.

Ed

[Bill Dienna]

I suggest that the efect of this legislation will be to significantly increase the value of the non-medalic items in groups, such as the recipient's uniform, official award documents, his canteen, and so on.

Why?

Because with the law prohibiting the sale of an awarded Medal of Honor, anything else connected with the recipient will have to take its place in the collecting world. Of course, if a collector has an awarded Medal of Honor and he sells the recipient's uniform, documents, etc., he will most likely not wish to see the grouping split apart from the medal. And so after selling the recipient's non-medalic items for a significant sum, he will most likely then just give the actual Medal to the new owner of the other items.

[PKeating]

It's ridiculous. Why not just pass a law stating in plain English that anyone caught wearing awards or claiming to have earned awards to which they are not in fact entitled will face penalties? Or is that too simple?

PK

[joe campbell]

PK-

you are the soul of brevity.

i think those three sentences just about sum it up.

best,

joe

[Guest Rick Research]

There are ALREADY laws providing criminal penalties for false wearing of U.S. decorations.

The new legislation is simply IDIOCY. No reason, no justification... and as written, it is demented.

But it makes somebody "feel good" while having entirely "unanticipated consquences."

[Chris Boonzaier]

What about the

"I am only a reenactor... leave me alone you Bastid, I done nuttin wrong! I am dressed as Audie Murphy and that guy there is Rommel with a PLM, and that guy is a Stuka pilot with a DKiG and that guy is Colonel Whitherby Poncycock wearing a DSO, we are all off to the historical show...why pick on me !!!"

defence?

[PKeating]

Seriously though, does this new law make any allowances for cinema, television and theatre and other legitimate forms of reenactment? Would a film costumier even be allowed to possess some CMoH and other awards for wear by people who had not earned them? The whole thing is batty. As Rick says, and as I knew, there are already laws in force to deal with poseurs and frauds. It's just a question of enforcing them. My point was that reinforcing these laws could be done simply by writing a new law or amendment in plain English. It would be two to three lines long, clear and unequivocal. But then, if laws were clear and unequivocal, lawyers and politicians - often one and the same animal these days - wouldn't make so much money conceiving, drafting, debating and enforcing them, would they?

PK

[Bill Dienna]

And of course, in this day and age of international and domestic tranquility, the money, time, and resources of law enforcement agencies such as the FBI could have no higher priority than investigating militaria collectors and historians.

It's not as though there are any real criminals about.

Of course, there still have been no arrests made with respect to the person or persons who sent anthrax-contaminated dust through the U.S. mails, leading to the deaths of several persons.

And Osama Bin Laden is still at large and presumably in contact, directly or indirectly, with sleeper agents here in this country.

And the Mafia remains active in all of the rackets, from gambling to drugs.

And recent years have seen the most devastating penetrations of American intelligence agencies, including the FBI, by spies for foreign governments.

But lord knows we need those agents patroling the ailes of the major militaria shows, scanning display cases and riker mounts in a search for the REAL criminal element.

The whole idea, the entire concept of this waste of government time and money and energy in this day and age is enough to make one feel ill.

[Chris Boonzaier]

If an american collector was to buy one on the DNW auction, and store it at.... lets say... my house.... without it crossing the border.... would he still be breaking the law?

[Bill Dienna]

It illeagal to purchase a Medal of Honor.

Whether or not you actually take physical posession of it doesn't seem to matter.

[Guest Rick Research]

If I'm thinking about it...

[Bill Dienna]

Be careful, Rick...

Just publicly announcing that you are thinking about it might lead someone to claim that by you cannot "attempt" to purchase one, or "solicit" the purchase of one, unless you first think about it.

You may have already commited a predicate offense.

But from a grammatical standpoint...what exactly are you doing if you "solicit the purchase" of a medal?

I thought that you "solicit" sales, not purchases.

Edited September 19, 2005 by Bill Dienna

[Ed_Haynes]

Rick . . . what is that knock at the door? . . . and the jack-boots coming up the stairs? . . . Rick? . . . Rick??

[PKeating]

I am quite sure that thinking about buying a CMoH doesn't become an offence or part thereof until one has actually made or attempted to make the puchase, in which case the forethought is deemed to be premeditation, thus aggravating the crime. Of course, our leaders are introducing thought policing by the back door so you might well find yourself hauled away in the future, Rick, for thinking about buying one.

Should one spend several hours at the bar, on the other hand, get gloriously and hopelessly drunk and then buy a CMoH on pure impulse from a bloke in a dirty macintosh who looms from the shadows, would one be able to plead 'diminished responsibility' in mitigation?

An earlier point is interesting, in that one could perhaps buy some stuff and receive the CMoH as a gift. You buy the frame or box for several grand and the medal is thrown in FOC. I expect that a hostile judge might stomp on that defence but assuming one were before a non-partisan or even deeply bored judge, who wants the case off the books so that he can try the rapists, mass-murderers and other real criminals, would the gift ploy work?

Daft...

PK

[Stogieman]

It never ceases to amaze me........ thank God we have the Gub'mint to protect us from ourselves in this country. Instead of crucifying legitimite collectors, why are they not vaporizing the thiefs/fakers? IMO, this is the real crime of "stolen valor"..

[landsknechte]

It never ceases to amaze me........ thank God we have the Gub'mint to protect us from ourselves in this country. Instead of crucifying legitimite collectors, why are they not vaporizing the thiefs/fakers? IMO, this is the real crime of "stolen valor"..

Everybody knows that one of the greatest threats to our society are those morons that recreate themselves as ex-Navy SEALs and the like. By parading around the VFW halls with honors that they didn't earn, they're destroying the historical legacy of the veterans that truly earned such honors. To combat it, the only logical thing to do is to create a broad, sweeping, and poorly thought out law that will impact far more collectors and historians that are working to preserve the historic legacy of our veterans. Who cares if the the historical legacy of our veterans is swept aside in the name of protecting the historical legacy of our veterans?

Stolen logic is more like it.

--Chris