67Rally Posted December 16, 2016 Share #26 Posted December 16, 2016 Derek Kilmer responded to me:"Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R.6234, the Private Corrado Piccoli Purple Heart Preservation Act. I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts with me. I am grateful for the tremendous dedication and sacrifice of servicemembers and their families. Our nation enjoys unparalleled freedom because of their commitment – a commitment we should return as we continue to support those who have dedicated their lives to serve and protect our nation. Our neck of the woods is home to a large Navy installation, numerous Coast Guard stations, and a major joint Army and Air Force base. There are a number of active-duty, reservist, and veteran families in our communities, and I am grateful for their bravery and service in defending our nation. Much has been asked of the many service members in our region and they have always responded with courage, ardent loyalty, and genuine hearts for service. As you know, the Stolen Valor Act of 2013 banned false claims of military service with the intent to obtain money, property, or other tangible benefits. Seeking to strengthen protections against these false claims, and, more specifically, to protect the sanctity of the Purple Heart award, Rep. Paul Cook (CA) introduced the Private Corrado Piccoli Purple Heart Preservation Act. The bill would prohibit the sale of any Purple Heart medal presented by the government to a wounded servicemember or their family. I appreciate the intent behind this bill. I believe that the unauthorized purchase of medals tarnishes the memory of those who were wounded or killed service to the nation. At the same time, I respect military historians and collectors who preserve military memorabilia to honor those that served our nation. I believe there’s a path forward to protect the integrity of the Purple Heart. The bill has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee, where it awaits further action. I will be sure to keep your thoughts in mind should this, or any similar legislation, come before the full House of Representatives. I encourage you to continue to share your views with me on this topic or any other issue. Thank you for reaching out. It is an honor to serve as your representative. Sincerely, Derek Kilmer Member of Congress" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TLeo Posted December 16, 2016 Share #27 Posted December 16, 2016 sounds like another politicain talking out of both faces, as usual. I believe eventually the bill will pass and our only chance is for the new President to veto it. As some have said, this is just too much of an opportunity for the politicians to make themselves look good for them to not pass it. Having said that, we still need to lobby them and if they turn a deaf ear then tell them they will be losing votes. The next step would then be to lobby the White House and urge a veto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KurtA Posted December 16, 2016 Share #28 Posted December 16, 2016 sounds like another politicain talking out of both faces, as usual. Yes. He certainly has quite the flair for stating absolutely nothing (But, it's clear he will be voting for the bill). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tarbridge Posted December 16, 2016 Share #29 Posted December 16, 2016 sounds like another politicain talking out of both faces, as usual.Yes, but he sounds like he would vote..Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete-o MSU Posted December 16, 2016 Author Share #30 Posted December 16, 2016 I am confused as to why people think Trump may veto this? Am I missing something? Veterans groups are supporting this legislation... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldradiostuff Posted December 16, 2016 Share #31 Posted December 16, 2016 I am confused as to why people think Trump may veto this? Am I missing something? Veterans groups are supporting this legislation... Exactly, if it goes to a vote, it will pass both houses and then be signed. That's why I think our best bet is to get it amended. Maybe refine it to only make it illegal to buy or sell a Purple Heart that has been reported as lost or stolen by a veteran or next of kin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tarbridge Posted December 16, 2016 Share #32 Posted December 16, 2016 Exactly, if it goes to a vote, it will pass both houses and then be signed. That's why I think our best bet is to get it amended. Maybe refine it to only make it illegal to buy or sell a Purple Heart that has been reported as lost or stolen by a veteran or next of kin. We would all be for that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smwinter207 Posted December 16, 2016 Share #33 Posted December 16, 2016 Not to be overly dramatic, but that law would end the medal section of this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cutiger83 Posted December 16, 2016 Share #34 Posted December 16, 2016 Maybe refine it to only make it illegal to buy or sell a Purple Heart that has been reported as lost or stolen by a veteran or next of kin. This would only open up a whole other can of worms. All a relative would need to do is claim it was lost/stolen no matter how it was obtained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldradiostuff Posted December 16, 2016 Share #35 Posted December 16, 2016 This would only open up a whole other can of worms. All a relative would need to do is claim it was lost/stolen no matter how it was obtained. An acceptable risk, in my opinion. The alternative is to see it pass as it is, and no one has to report anything - they are just all illegal to buy or sell, without regard as to whether someone is looking to recover the medal or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cutiger83 Posted December 16, 2016 Share #36 Posted December 16, 2016 An acceptable risk, in my opinion. The alternative is to see it pass as it is, and no one has to report anything - they are just all illegal to buy or sell, without regard as to whether someone is looking to recover the medal or not. Then how would you prove that you legally bought the medal? It has been discussed on here numerous times how it is very easy to get an authenticated document so I doubt a printed document stating where someone bought it would hold water. How many medals have passed thru numerous hands? Does everyone have proof of the chain of command for all of the medals in their collection? I highly doubt it. The burden of proof will fall on the collector not the family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldradiostuff Posted December 16, 2016 Share #37 Posted December 16, 2016 Then how would you prove that you legally bought the medal? It has been discussed on here numerous times how it is very easy to get an authenticated document so I doubt a printed document stating where someone bought it would hold water. How many medals have passed thru numerous hands? Does everyone have proof of the chain of command for all of the medals in their collection? I highly doubt it. The burden of proof will fall on the collector not the family. The Bill, as it is written right now, would completely prohibit the following with regards to a Purple Heart medal: "purchases, attempts to purchase, solicits for purchase, mails, ships, imports, exports, produces blank certificates of receipt for, manufactures, sells, attempts to sell, advertises for sale, trades, barters, or exchanges for anything of value" We need to find a way to have the bill amended to loosen these restrictions in a way that would allow all of us to continue to collect Purple Hearts. Otherwise, it's game over. Keep what you have but you can't obtain or sell/trade any that you currently have. Any suggestions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete-o MSU Posted December 16, 2016 Author Share #38 Posted December 16, 2016 The Bill, as it is written right now, would completely prohibit the following with regards to a Purple Heart medal: "purchases, attempts to purchase, solicits for purchase, mails, ships, imports, exports, produces blank certificates of receipt for, manufactures, sells, attempts to sell, advertises for sale, trades, barters, or exchanges for anything of value" We need to find a way to have the bill amended to loosen these restrictions in a way that would allow all of us to continue to collect Purple Hearts. Otherwise, it's game over. Keep what you have but you can't obtain or sell/trade any that you currently have. Any suggestions? I agree, and we have to realize a compromise might not be perfect. Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottplen Posted December 16, 2016 Share #39 Posted December 16, 2016 I don't think they will even want to compromise??? They have it in their mind we are greedy no good collectors and profiting on the blood of vets ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tarbridge Posted December 16, 2016 Share #40 Posted December 16, 2016 This would only open up a whole other can of worms. All a relative would need to do is claim it was lost/stolen no matter how it was obtained. You have to prove your claim of theft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12A54 Posted December 16, 2016 Share #41 Posted December 16, 2016 Here's a suggestion. Kill the Bill. It's already illegal to possess / sell / trade / etc. stolen property, so parsing words will only help keep it alive. If amended it will still be illogical, oppressive, and threatening (with fines and jail time) for doing something that is, was, and will be (constitutionally) legal to do. Note the wording of the proposed Bill as it exists: "...purchases or attempts to purchase, mails, imports, exports, produces blank certificates of receipt for, manufactures, sells or attempts to sell, or trades for anything of value any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the Armed Forces, any of the service medals or badges awarded to members of the Armed Forces, or the ribbon, button, or rosette of any such badge, decoration or medal, or any colorable imitation thereof..." As written this can be interpreted to include any and all actions related to ANY AND ALL medals, badges, ribbons, lapel pins, citations, etc. etc. etc. It does not specify ONLY the Purple Heart medal. So write to each and every lawmaker involved: the sponsor, all co-sponsors, as well as the Chairman Judiciary Committee and all members of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations (to which it has been referred). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldradiostuff Posted December 16, 2016 Share #42 Posted December 16, 2016 I don't think they will even want to compromise??? They have it in their mind we are greedy no good collectors and profiting on the blood of vets ! The folks from PHR may truly have this in their minds, but the only thing a politician has in his mind is how to get more votes in the next election. There are 16 co-sponsors of this bill, we only need one that will listen and introduce an amendment to make allowance for private collectors to continue to obtain historical Purple Hearts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottplen Posted December 16, 2016 Share #43 Posted December 16, 2016 It's legal to burn the flag bt not collect??? How messed up is that ? The same right that give people the right to burn the flag should be used in our favor to collect! We need to keep writing congressmen etc and state this fact they are violating US citizens rights ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldradiostuff Posted December 16, 2016 Share #44 Posted December 16, 2016 Here's a suggestion. Kill the Bill. It's already illegal to possess / sell / trade / etc. stolen property, so parsing words will only help keep it alive. If amended it will still be illogical, oppressive, and threatening (with fines and jail time) for doing something that is, was, and will be (constitutionally) legal to do. Note the wording of the proposed Bill as it exists: "...purchases or attempts to purchase, mails, imports, exports, produces blank certificates of receipt for, manufactures, sells or attempts to sell, or trades for anything of value any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the Armed Forces, any of the service medals or badges awarded to members of the Armed Forces, or the ribbon, button, or rosette of any such badge, decoration or medal, or any colorable imitation thereof..." As written this can be interpreted to include any and all actions related to ANY AND ALL medals, badges, ribbons, lapel pins, citations, etc. etc. etc. It does not specify ONLY the Purple Heart medal. So write to each and every lawmaker involved: the sponsor, all co-sponsors, as well as the Chairman Judiciary Committee and all members of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations (to which it has been referred). This isn't a correct interpretation of the bill. I'm a little tied up at the moment, but, if you all would like, I'll sit down tonight and write up an explanation of what the bill is and isn't doing. I've spent the last 30 years doing this, so I'm happy to do it. Maybe I could just send it to Robert and he could figure out how best to post it to make the explanation available. The condensed version is that the part you quote and underline above is ALREADY THE LAW, VERBATIM, IN THE US. The only reason they included it in the bill is because they are renumbering the subsection to add the part on the Purple Heart, so they included the new subsection numbers in the bill, quoting the existing language of Section 704, Title 18 USC so it can be assigned a new paragraph number. Again, I'll offer to walk through this and explain it tonight, if you like. Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12A54 Posted December 16, 2016 Share #45 Posted December 16, 2016 Sponsor: Representative Paul Cook 1222 Longworth House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Co-Sponsors: Representative Collin C. Peterson 2204 Rayburn HOB Washington, DC 20515 Representative Bruce Poliquin 426 Cannon House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Representative Chris Collins 1117 Longworth House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Representative Judy Chu 2423 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Representative Lynn Jenkins 1526 Longworth House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Representative Louie Gohmert 2243 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Representative Dan Newhouse 1641 Longworth House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Representative David N. Cicilline 2244 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Representative Sanford D. Bishop, Jr. 2407 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Representative Bill Posey 120 Cannon House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Representative Christopher P. Gibson 1708 Longworth House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton 2136 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Representative Ken Calvert 2205 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Representative Mike Thompson 231 Cannon House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Representative Zoe Lofgren 1401 Longworth House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Representative Ruben Gallego 1218 Longworth House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Chairman of the Judiciary Committee: Bob Goodlatte 2309 Rayburn HOB Washington, DC 20515 Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Chairman: Jim Sensenbrenner, Jr. 2449 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Members: Rep. Steve Chabot 2371 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Rep. Randy Forbes 2135 Rayburn House Office Building Rep. Louie Gohmert 2234 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Rep. Ted Poe 2412 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Rep. Jason Chaffetz 2236 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Rep. Trey Gowdy 1404 Longworth House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Rep. Raul Labrador 1523 Longworth House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Rep. Ken Buck 416 Cannon House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Rep. Mike Bishop 428 Cannon House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Sheila Jackson Lee 2252 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Rep. Pedro Pierluisi 2410 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Rep. Judy Chu 2423 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Rep. Luis Gutierrez 2408 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Rep. Karen Bass 408 Cannon House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Rep. Cedric Richmond 240 Cannon House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tarbridge Posted December 16, 2016 Share #46 Posted December 16, 2016 This isn't a correct interpretation of the bill. I'm a little tied up at the moment, but, if you all would like, I'll sit down tonight and write up an explanation of what the bill is and isn't doing. I've spent the last 30 years doing this, so I'm happy to do it. Maybe I could just send it to Robert and he could figure out how best to post it to make the explanation available. The condensed version is that the part you quote and underline above is ALREADY THE LAW, VERBATIM, IN THE US. The only reason they included it in the bill is because they are renumbering the subsection to add the part on the Purple Heart, so they included the new subsection numbers in the bill, quoting the existing language of Section 704, Title 18 USC so it can be assigned a new paragraph number. Again, I'll offer to walk through this and explain it tonight, if you like. Dave Send it when available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldradiostuff Posted December 16, 2016 Share #47 Posted December 16, 2016 While I sympathize with the sentiment that we wish the bill would just die, a bill with the image of protecting the honor of veterans and that already has 16 co-sponsors is unlikely to just fade away. It's very likely that it will pass either as written now or in an amended version. I'll write up a (hopefully brief) explanation and email it to Robert tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smwinter207 Posted December 17, 2016 Share #48 Posted December 17, 2016 Oh great. Looks like I'll be buying PHs from Robert out of a secret basement like Zed's in Pulp Fiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tarbridge Posted December 17, 2016 Share #49 Posted December 17, 2016 Oh great. Looks like I'll be buying PHs from Robert out of a secret basement like Zed's in Pulp Fiction. Tobacco Barn...but we don't play those Zed games around here...I'm good for a BBQ sandwich and some soothing peach brandy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smwinter207 Posted December 17, 2016 Share #50 Posted December 17, 2016 Fire the still up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now