Medal Collectors and Militaria Collectors...we have a fight on our hands.

[ViewfinderGyrene]

Dave commented.... but also from the aspect of how the FBI is going to determine whether or not someone "purchased" a Purple Heart, and further...what about the 1.5+ million unnamed ones? Exact numbers on the manufacture of Purple Heart are difficult enough to obtain for historians (believe me, I'm trying!) let alone the government control of the medals (many come from NOS government stock that were sold by the thousands as surplus).

 

If thousands of Purple Heart medals were sold by the U.S. Government as surplus, how can the same Government make any claim on Purple Heart medals? I would think this fact creates some kind of legal prescient.

Dick

 

Brilliant!

[Schofield1943]

I spent some time speaking with a lawyer I know who concurred that my argument against this bill in court has the potential to be viable...

 

Namely that because there is no harm involved when two consenting parties agree to sell a legal medal between the two, why criminalize it? The criminal law is supposed to be used to punish harm. Can the government subjectively criminalize the notion that permitting the sale of a particular item diminishes the integrity of that item? Could this standard not be applied arbitrarily to anything (say a painting by a famous deceased painter)?

 

And worse yet - by outlawing the sale of the medal they are leaving people with two choices - throw it in the trash or donate it to a museum. Can the government pass a law that otherwise forces you to donate private property to a museum or throw it out? The idea of a forced donation seems very weird to me.

 

I'm sure an ACLU lawyer would be able to come up with others given some of the language in the Alvarez decision.

 

He believes it would ultimately be an appellate decision (with the possibility of it becoming a SC case) and we as the opposition would be able to pick the venue - 9th Circuit seems the most logical to me.

 

Also... all of these articles on Fike seem to heavily stress the word lost. Just because something is no longer with the original owner does not make it lost.

[TLeo]

I spent some time speaking with a lawyer I know who concurred that my argument against this bill in court has the potential to be viable...

 

Namely that because there is no harm involved when two consenting parties agree to sell a legal medal between the two, why criminalize it? The criminal law is supposed to be used to punish harm. Can the government subjectively criminalize the notion that permitting the sale of a particular item diminishes the integrity of that item? Could this standard not be applied arbitrarily to anything (say a painting by a famous deceased painter)?

 

And worse yet - by outlawing the sale of the medal they are leaving people with two choices - throw it in the trash or donate it to a museum. Can the government pass a law that otherwise forces you to donate private property to a museum or throw it out? The idea of a forced donation seems very weird to me.

 

I'm sure an ACLU lawyer would be able to come up with others given some of the language in the Alvarez decision.

 

He believes it would ultimately be an appellate decision (with the possibility of it becoming a SC case) and we as the opposition would be able to pick the venue - 9th Circuit seems the most logical to me.

 

Also... all of these articles on Fike seem to heavily stress the word lost. Just because something is no longer with the original owner does not make it lost.

He also seems to equate lost as being somehow stolen.

[Blacksmith]

I think we should fight this bogus legislation vehemently, but there are many examples of laws where no harm is technically involved. Also, there are Imminent Domain laws, which allow government to confiscate personal property for "the common good" - the definition of which is pretty arbitrary.

 

I recommended the ACLU some time back, and still think it's one of the best recourses.

 

I spent some time speaking with a lawyer I know who concurred that my argument against this bill in court has the potential to be viable...

 

Namely that because there is no harm involved when two consenting parties agree to sell a legal medal between the two, why criminalize it? The criminal law is supposed to be used to punish harm. Can the government subjectively criminalize the notion that permitting the sale of a particular item diminishes the integrity of that item? Could this standard not be applied arbitrarily to anything (say a painting by a famous deceased painter)?

 

And worse yet - by outlawing the sale of the medal they are leaving people with two choices - throw it in the trash or donate it to a museum. Can the government pass a law that otherwise forces you to donate private property to a museum or throw it out? The idea of a forced donation seems very weird to me.

 

I'm sure an ACLU lawyer would be able to come up with others given some of the language in the Alvarez decision.

 

He believes it would ultimately be an appellate decision (with the possibility of it becoming a SC case) and we as the opposition would be able to pick the venue - 9th Circuit seems the most logical to me.

 

Also... all of these articles on Fike seem to heavily stress the word lost. Just because something is no longer with the original owner does not make it lost.

[Schofield1943]

Also, there are Imminent Domain laws, which allow government to confiscate personal property for "the common good" - the definition of which is pretty arbitrary.

 

 

I believe imminent domain laws apply primarily to physical private property - land or buildings or the like - not personal property like a collectible. That would be one hell of a court case to try and use imminent domain to seize someones private collection.

[1st Sgt CES]

After looking at his web site--is he giving back the original medal ( Purple Heart ) ? The medals with the flag all look like current issue medals. If they are new where is he getting the Purple Hearts ?

[Blacksmith]

Sorry, I wasn't clear.

 

My point has less to do with specifics of the law, and more that courts have legislated and upheld actions to take personal property, period.

 

Whether it's a tract of land, a T-Rex skeleton ("Lucy"), or a Purple Heart medal, the legal instrument is there.

 

 

 

I believe imminent domain laws apply primarily to physical private property - land or buildings or the like - not personal property like a collectible. That would be one hell of a court case to try and use imminent domain to seize someones private collection.

[jweitkamp]

I'm going to add my two cents, for better or worse. The draconian laws on the ownership of MOH's did not alter my collection at all. Nor did it alter what I would procure if it became available. The new proposed "law" won't either. I am not afraid of confiscation, and I'm not afraid of fighting for what is mine, purchased legally, or given by families and the original recipients. I have the courage of my convictions and principles. That said, this law is a huge overreach on the part of two bit hacks. All of the letters emails,petitions TV interviews, editorials, ad nauseum won't deter them if they think it will get them a vote. Neither should their nonsense deter you. This is a tempest in a teapot if we make it so.

 

 

If this is too political, by all means delete it.

[tarbridge]

It is understood. We still need to put forth any and all efforts to stop the bill.If it passes then we need to put forth the reactions to amend or appeal.

There are many folks out there regardless of the outcome...who would be status quo...

[Medalman90]

I remember one member on here who was interviewed by his local news station. He contacted them and was interviewed.

That was me, and be careful when contacting the media. Always keep in mind that they are looking for a story, not to help you discuss an important issue.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dave]

After looking at his web site--is he giving back the original medal ( Purple Heart ) ? The medals with the flag all look like current issue medals. If they are new where is he getting the Purple Hearts ?

 

 

Yep...we've had a good bit of discussion about that off-forum. It seems that many of his medals being "given back" appear to be replacements. For certain, the Purple Heart he (Fike) personally awarded to the guy who died from the flu in WW1 is most definitely a replacement (and an illegal, absolutely unearned, award, incidentally).

 

His framing of the medals, so as to prevent them from being viewed from all sides, seems to be very much along the lines of the notorious criminal Stephen Pyne. I'm not saying all of his medals he's "giving back" are replacements (as some have been seen to be otherwise) but there are quite a few in photos that appear to not be the original ones. Sadly, the families nor the media know the difference, and swallow his "good deeds", hook, line, and sinker.

 

Either Fike is uneducated when it comes to what original medals are supposed to look like and is returning modern replacement medals, or he's orchestrating quite a scam...and the jury's still out.

 

Dave

[Dave]

Oh, and to add to my above post...I would personally pay out of pocket to unframe (and then reframe) any of the Purple Hearts he's framed and given back to families recently. If they're legitimately the real awards, that's great. If they aren't, then he's doing something far more heinous by scamming families than any collector could do.

[tarbridge]

Oh, and to add to my above post...I would personally pay out of pocket to unframe (and then reframe) any of the Purple Hearts he's framed and given back to families recently. If they're legitimately the real awards, that's great. If they aren't, then he's doing something far more heinous by scamming families than any collector could do.

I have a couple extra dollars to kick in...I would like to see myself...

[sapper23]

I have been looking at the poor photos he provides also. One of the WW2 Marine PH he found and returned is definitely a crimp broach and several others are very speculative. I for one would like to have some of the frames opened up to see if they are the medals he said they are, which I highly doubt. He is doing something we don't quit know yet. (A hidden agenda of something.) It may be worth contacting some of these people to check this out. Also looking at how the medals are mounted, they don't seem to move in the frame, are they taped, velcroed or glued. In the photos he doesn't seem to be giving back to many cases, almost all are framed. Does anyone else see what I am seeing?

It may take to after his military career to find out what his agenda really is (probably political) or when he maybe starts selling the medals he is supposedly now returning. I think he definitely needs to be investigated, because things just aren't adding up to me from what I am seeing and reading.

If I am wrong I will be happy to apologize.

 

Jeff

[willysmb44]

Medal of Honor ribbons were sold in clothing sales stores into the 90s, but they're illegal now, right?

[BEAST]

Any of you folks that are members of Military Collectibles Associations...contact them...let them know about this law...I contacted two last week and the one had no knowledge...got them to email blast the membership and I believe they will include in their next newsletter. The other I believe we will hear from soon.If you know folks in the Congressional District's of the co-sponsors...reach out and have them contact their representatives...

 

I'm working on my letter to the editor of the Company of Military Historians journal. Hopefully this will help to spread the word.

 

[tarbridge]

 

I'm working on my letter to the editor of the Company of Military Historians journal. Hopefully this will help to spread the word.

 

Thanks

[willysmb44]

Namely that because there is no harm involved when two consenting parties agree to sell a legal medal between the two, why criminalize it? The criminal law is supposed to be used to punish harm. Can the government subjectively criminalize the notion that permitting the sale of a particular item diminishes the integrity of that item? Could this standard not be applied arbitrarily to anything (say a painting by a famous deceased painter)?

 

Sadly, there are plenty of things that are illegal to buy and sell that don't harm anyone. A few examples off the top of my noggin (though I don't agree that they're good ideas):

• You can't buy a replica/toy/airsoft representation of a firearm in a few cities, I think many of you know that.
• You're not supposed to be able to sell anything with the seal of the President of the US on it (but it clearly happens in secondary markets and otherwise, I don't think it's enforced much)
• And of course, a MoH

Remember the proposed law that would have banned anything previously owned by the DoD, any branch of the military or agencies that existed before the DoD officially existed? The military vehicle and warbird owner communities went collectively nuts over that as it could have criminalized ALL American surplus, going back to the Revolution!

[Captainofthe7th]

I have a couple extra dollars to kick in...I would like to see myself...

 

I'm curious.

 

What I don't understand is why he is presenting replacement medals at all?? If he has 700+ unresearched in his basement, why is he starting new projects for a medal that do not exist or were never applied for? Especially the WWI award for the soldier who died of influenza. I did not read into it, but the point is there's question of the legitimacy of the award for wounds in action and if the family never applied for the medal, there was never one to be lost or returned.

 

The fact that he is finding cases to award replacements for which no medals exists seems like more of a call for publicity than 'rescuing,' researching, and returning original and actual awards. This is not even in keeping with their mission statement. Are these cases where someone has posted asking for the whereabouts of a relatives medal and if PHR can't find it, they order one to present? I don't know.

 

This is a bit arbitrary to our discussion here, but it adds to the question of motives and who is really supposed to be the center of attention. In going through the website, there are a number of questionable cases. One WWI page says the medal and wound certificate were rescued from ebay - the medal shown in the frame in the photo looks like a modern crimp brooch. Another shows a presentation of the wound certificate and a presentation medal as the family already had the original medal. Personally, i would have returned the certificate and if I had thousands of dollars in donations a year I would have framed the original medal with the document instead of the replacement, but that's just me.

 

I'm really just clicking randomly here and thinking out loud - I don't intend any of this to mean PHR should be scolded, but I find it odd that a lot of publicized 'returns' are for replacement medals and not even something that was lost and found.

 

Rob

[Captainofthe7th]

Another thought - in going through the website more I found the medals that were 'rescued' from an online collector. I remember seeing those on this very forum and I remember who had them - I actually went back and read the topic. The granddaughter was the one to sell them and we researched them to learn more about the Sergeant. I even got his DD214 from state archives. I imagine this is the info PHR used on their website including the details of his wounds. It is interesting to see something familiar on there and how there is no mention of how the medals were lost or how they got information on the veteran.

 

Rob

[TLeo]

Does aound like he is runing some kind of scam, doesn't it? Especially if he is presenting replacement medals to family and representing them as original. In the case of no medal being authorized to begin with, he must be breaking some law himself.

In the case mentioned where the granddaughter sold the medal to a forum member, that is very questionable and pretty low for them to now claim it was rescued from a collector and returned. Wonder if she had second thoughts after realizing it was worth x amount of dollars and might we even see it again some time in another collectors hands?

[willysmb44]

Makes you wonder how many people, if this passes, would sell a medal then immediately turn around and demand it be 'returned' to them, and I'd bet without the buyer getting his money back...

[cutiger83]

Makes you wonder how many people, if this passes, would sell a medal then immediately turn around and demand it be 'returned' to them, and I'd bet without the buyer getting his money back...

 

 

This question makes absolutely no sense. If it was illegal to buy/sell, then why would they do that? The seller and buyer would be doing something illegal.

[Thor996]

 

 

This question makes absolutely no sense. If it was illegal to buy/sell, then why would they do that? The seller and buyer would be doing something illegal.

 

probably for the same reasons people buy and sell illegal items now: supply and demand.

 

[cutiger83]

 

probably for the same reasons people buy and sell illegal items now: supply and demand.

 

 

 

But the scenario described makes no sense. The family would be illegally selling the medals. The buyer would be illegally buying the medals. If the family wanted the medals back, the buyer could just show that the family sold them illegally. If the buyer didn't want to throw the family under the bus with them then they would and should be out their money. They bought it illegally.