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

[cutiger83]

They did not include anything that would show collectors and dealers in a positive nature.They left out anything that would highlight our position. Plain and simple...a ambush...with no recourse...said it was a literary decision.

I don't save or collect newspaper articles...call Scott...he can fill in the details as it was much deeper than.I posted.

 

Not showing one side of a story is not "editing" a story to slant it. It is simply showing one side of a story. When we read a story showing the American side of a battle, are they editing out the opponents views in order to make us look better or are they simply showing what was mentioned by the person who was there? Editing is changing the wording so as to completely change the view of the original intention of the article. If they were not told the collectors side then they did not leave anything out. Totally different scenarios.

 

If the word is not getting out there then collectors need to contact the media to get their stories out there.

[Eric Queen]

We need an ACLU attorney to send a form letter to all on this sub-committee letting them know that, if passed, the law will be challenged on a personal property rights basis at the circuit court level. This would be at no cost to us but would cost the tax payers plenty. I wonder how many of these politicians would want their name attached to it then?

[tarbridge]

 

Not showing one side of a story is not "editing" a story to slant it. It is simply showing one side of a story. When we read a story showing the American side of a battle, are they editing out the opponents views in order to make us look better or are they simply showing what was mentioned by the person who was there? Editing is changing the wording so as to completely change the view of the original intention of the article. If they were not told the collectors side then they did not leave anything out. Totally different scenarios.

 

If the word is not getting out there then collectors need to contact the media to get their stories out there.

They interviewed Scott...then printed only what they wanted ...they edited out many parts of his responses.Call it what you want...WILL YOU BUY ME A DICTIONARY?

[tarbridge]

We need an ACLU attorney to send a form letter to all on this sub-committee letting them know that, if passed, the law will be challenged on a personal property rights basis at the circuit court level. This would be at no cost to us but would cost the tax payers plenty. I wonder how many of these politicians would want their name attached to it then?

Anyone out there have any experience with these matters and or dealing with ACLU?

[aerialbridge]

I've not contacted them before, but here is a webpage with links to all their local affiliates and DC. Just click on your state. Since it's a proposed national law, while I think people contacting their local state offices is a good idea, I would suggest that forum members in the DC metro area definitely contact the DC office by phone and inform them of this proposed bill. While our grievance is not the typical sort of issue the ACLU is known to champion, it absolutely is an infringement on individual property rights without any due process- and that comes under their mission.

 

https://www.aclu.org/about/affiliates?redirect=affiliates

 

[Eric Queen]

Anyone out there have any experience with these matters and or dealing with ACLU?

 

I don't know for a fact that this would be something they would take on but its worth a try (a place to start).

[aerialbridge]

 

I don't know for a fact that this would be something they would take on but its worth a try (a place to start).

 

We have all heard they have taken on a few high profile causes in the area of free speech that really contradict what they would normally associate with. And only Fike or his allies (possibly) would even think to compare our rights to those rights. We have a just cause here, if people would look at the good that collectors do. Sure, as folks have pointed out, there are a few scoundrels that lick their chops at a low-ball "score" that would be unconscionable for an honest dealer or collector. But there are also scoundrel contractors that have taken advantage of people- senior citizens, the poor and disabled-- in rip-off home improvement contracts for tens of thousands of dollars. But who would suggest the remedy is take a broad brush and outlaw home improvement contracting? What do folks that have a substantial property interest-- along with the historical and memorial reasons for preserving these which is a freedom of expression-- have to lose by vigorously contacting the ACLU and making their case of why the ACLU should take this on? What's to lose? It is a slippery slope and I believe their lawyers would get that. I'd suggest a phone call to establish a contact person and then tell them you'll follow up with a letter or email to that contact person. Send those letters people have written that the pols are giving short shrift as they gather in lockstep to pass this abomination. And the emphasis would be on your personal property rights-- and liberty and the pursuit of what we believe in. It really is a freedom of expression, as far as the right to own, preserve, research, and yes, exchange these in commerce.

 

Seriously-- I wake up to this headline today. Why don't Fike, Cook and their cadre focus on what matters like ACTUALLY protecting veterans' rights instead of taking away civil liberties?

 

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-veterans-20161222-story.html

 

 

[Schofield1943]

If I read the summation of the most current SVA correctly... it is predicated on the concept of harm. Namely that by claiming a benefit that does not belong to you because of a medal you did not earn - someone is harmed.

 

If the same standard is applied to HR6234 it falls apart. No one is harmed when two consenting parties agree to sell a medal. It is likely the reason for the exception for family members to be able to sell the medals - not allowing them to do so could be claimed as some sort of harm.

 

The ACLU should be interested in this case because Congress would be using the criminal code to enact a law that punishes people for doing absolutely nothing wrong and which causes no harm except by apparently hurting the egos of a few people who believe differently. As others have pointed out there is a much larger issue underlying this whole thing.

 

The Bloomberg Law summation of the SVA decision: https://origin-www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/United_States_v_Alvarez_No_11210_2012_BL_160939_US_June_28_2012_C?1482418029

[aerialbridge]

 

The ACLU should be interested in this case because Congress would be using the criminal code to enact a law that punishes people for doing absolutely nothing wrong and which causes no harm except by apparently hurting the egos of a few people who believe differently. As others have pointed out there is a much larger issue underlying this whole thing.

 

Great analysis-- it comes down to legislating "morality". Fike is bound and determined to impose his subjective "morality" on the rest of the nation. Looking at it that way, this issue is right up the ACLU's alley. Fike is a modern day Carrie Nations. And look how that turned out ultimately.

[willysmb44]

If I read the summation of the most current SVA correctly... it is predicated on the concept of harm. Namely that by claiming a benefit that does not belong to you because of a medal you did not earn - someone is harmed.

 

If the same standard is applied to HR6234 it falls apart. No one is harmed when two consenting parties agree to sell a medal. It is likely the reason for the exception for family members to be able to sell the medals - not allowing them to do so could be claimed as some sort of harm.

 

I agree with you 100%, but somehow, none of that helped with owning Medals of Honor...

[aerialbridge]

 

I agree with you 100%, but somehow, none of that helped with owning Medals of Honor...

 

How much push-back was given on that one? I would bet that not a single lawsuit was filed challenging the Constitutionality of that legislation as far as it affected the legality of selling or owing that medal. The challenges went to the right to wear it as a freedom of speech issue-- the high court was never asked to review the constitutionality of the act from a 5th amendment taking of property without due process test. And they never have to date. Probably because so few people own MOHs or were affected by outlawing their sale. Not the case here. Plus, I think people can see that the MOH was Phase I of the slippery slope, now they are moving to Phase II, and if they succeed there will certainly be a Phase III, etc. If you attack this pending legislation, you'd also be attacking the underpinnings of the MOH prohibition, which is based on the same "morality"-- there is nothing inherently dangerous about ownership of a piece of metal and fabric- which is the usual basis for government controlling property rights.

[Eric Queen]

I don't think that US vs. Alvarez had anything to do with ownership of the MOH. It was all about the first amendment and free speech. Based on the decision of the high court the language of the SVA was "updated" from it not being legal to claim you are an MOH winner to it being legal (as free speech) as long as you don't profit from the claim.

 

Alvarez was argued (and won) by a public defender.

[Schofield1943]

 

I agree with you 100%, but somehow, none of that helped with owning Medals of Honor...

 

Undoubtedly true. The one major difference of course being that the MoH is our nation's highest and least awarded honor (and most documented).

[Dave]

 

I agree with you 100%, but somehow, none of that helped with owning Medals of Honor...

 

 

The argument used by the FBI (at least when they forced me to surrender mine) is twofold:

 

1. There's the law on the books regarding buying and selling the Medal of Honor. It's been there for quite some time. It was the buying/selling aspect of that law that got the guy in trouble selling the two to Canada and the most recent one in the UK. If a Medal of Honor recipient or their family GIVES someone a Medal of Honor, issued, and without any bartering, offering for sale, etc., then that is within the confines of the law and considered acceptable.

 

2. All Medals of Honor are manufactured to the exact number on a government contract. Those Medals, once manufactured, are considered controlled property and are kept in a safe, under lock and key, until awarded to a recipient. Thus, if you have an unnamed/unissued Medal of Honor, it was manufactured outside the scope of the government contract and is thus counterfeit. Ownership of counterfeit government material is punishable by law - that means that owning a "counterfeit" Medal of Honor is thus a violation of law.

 

My point is to not argue the merits of the FBI's arguments for the Medal of Honor, but it does go to show that the Medal of Honor and the Purple Heart are two entirely different beasts, and the enforcement of the new law will be excruciatingly difficult if not impossible. Not just from sheer volume (there might be what, maybe 5,000 total Medals of Honor out there for purchase, to include unnamed ones? Contrast with 2+ million Purple Hearts) 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).

 

Yeah...for all the good intentions in the world...this law is an impossible one to enforce.

[tarbridge]

Let's keep our focus...I removed a couple of posts...Thanks gentleman.

[Eric Queen]

Dave, do you think the FBI considers the Lordship Industries medals to be counterfeits or stolen property? I have heard/read that the FBI estimates that anywhere between 300/900 "extra" medals were made and sold out the back door. I have only seen FBI agents quoted a couple times on this and (whether true or not I don't know) but my impression was that their concern was the un-named "counterfeit" medals. I have never seen any mention of named/awarded medals (MOH).

 

I know no one wants to open the MOH box again but I think if a legal remedy is ever sought it would need to include all medals.

[Schofield1943]

Is there any precedent for a law based on the belief that permitting the sale of something somehow cheapens the significance of it? It seems disturbingly arbitrary when considered in that regard.

[Zippo66]

Here we go again!

 

Wasn't the Stolen Valor Act, a similar misguided bill just ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court a little time ago.

[Dave]

Dave, do you think the FBI considers the Lordship Industries medals to be counterfeits or stolen property? I have heard/read that the FBI estimates that anywhere between 300/900 "extra" medals were made and sold out the back door. I have only seen FBI agents quoted a couple times on this and (whether true or not I don't know) but my impression was that their concern was the un-named "counterfeit" medals. I have never seen any mention of named/awarded medals (MOH).

 

I know no one wants to open the MOH box again but I think if a legal remedy is ever sought it would need to include all medals.

I can't speak for the FBI, as mine weren't from HLI, but I would assume they would fall under the counterfeit definition.

 

Back to Purple Hearts though...I would leave the MOH law out of consideration at this point. First, the MOH recipient lobby is completely impenetrable and second, that law has been on the books for years. I'd rather concentrate on preventing the Purple Heart law than attempting to change a long-standing one that effects very, very few collectors.

[Forum Manager]

Let's stay focused on the actual subject of this thread and not on definitions of words.

 

This thread is filling with great information and suggestions, let's keep it that way, or I will shut it down.

[MDR75]

All,

Our little friend showed up tonight on BBC. I would think out British collecting colleagues would see through the the "glitz". I would guess that the Major would say they Lord Ascroft VC collection should be confiscated.......

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38384249

 

Mike

[TheMariner]

All,

Our little friend showed up tonight on BBC. I would think out British collecting colleagues would see through the the "glitz". I would guess that the Major would say they Lord Ascroft VC collection should be confiscated.......

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38384249

 

Mike

On 2 other forums, this article was posted both posters stating what i good guy Fike was! As soon as i mentioned the law too them the foreign collectors came right over to are side, not that they would have any affect but i think that everyone understands that this man is a threat to the entire collecting community! Many foreign collectors do not even know this law is in the works, i think we should inform fellow collectors worldwide, they can send support and ideas.

[BEAST]

I wrote a brief article about this law for the Association of American Uniform Collectors (AAMUC) newsletter the FOOTLOCKER. I would encourage members to ensure that any collecting organizations in which they are members also be made aware.

[jguy1986]

I wrote a brief article about this law for the Association of American Uniform Collectors (AAMUC) newsletter the FOOTLOCKER. I would encourage members to ensure that any collecting organizations in which they are members also be made aware.

Aside from the obvious restrictions placed on the medal itself, as it is currently written, the bill's language could easily be interpreted by law enforcement agencies so as to require anyone buying or selling a uniform to remove the PH ribbon. All us uniform collectors should be just as concerned, since this can easily destroy the historical context of those items.

[kanemono]

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