H.R 544 and S.R.765 and NOW S.122

[tarbridge]

Indeed - and while I don't want to re-litigate the case on here it is worth noting that some of the language used in the Senate proceeding to me actually further hurts their case.

 

Especially the claim of wanting to end 'profiteering'. That is not only pretty ambiguous but could be a very slippery slope in regards to capitalism in general.

Absolutely...there is no law against making a profit.

It just all feels one sided to us because it has been.We have not had an opportunity to voice opposition.

[ParanormalTrooper]

Well this blows... looks like I'm going to start saving up for some more Purple Hearts.

 

I wonder how this will affect the market?

[dhcoleterracina]

Regardless of the outcome of this proposed law, I believe that there is another thing that we, as a community of collectors can and should do. Regardless of your individual collecting interests I think that every collection should have at least one memorial to a service member who lost his/her life in service to our country. It doesn't need to be a Purple Heart, it could be a certificate (of which there are many types) that could be hung on your wall as a reminder of the ultimate reason of why we collect. You won't need to spend thousands on a Pearl Harbor Purple Heart, what I'm talking about could easily be found under $100.

 

Doing this and focusing on an individual casualty will give you a much different perspective of the sacrifices of so many. It did for me. Our collections could be thought of as small memorials anyway and this is a natural expansion of that idea. It helps us remember, in a very tangible way those who died and deserve our gratitude. Finally it will help us join together as a much larger community who are desperately, not only trying to preserve history, but preserve the memory of individuals who gave everything. In the end this is why I collect. Just a thought.

[Teamski]

Man, this REALLY sucks. And yet we get our "hero" on Fox. This is simply unacceptable.

 

http://video.foxnews.com/v/5533446285001/?#sp=show-clips

 

[SA1794]

Man, this REALLY sucks. And yet we get our "hero" on Fox. This is simply unacceptable.

 

http://video.foxnews.com/v/5533446285001/?#sp=show-clips

 

I was going to watch it but decided a better choice was to stick my finger down my throat.

[doyler]

Man, this REALLY sucks. And yet we get our "hero" on Fox. This is simply unacceptable.

 

http://video.foxnews.com/v/5533446285001/?#sp=show-clips

 

 

Man, this REALLY sucks. And yet we get our "hero" on Fox. This is simply unacceptable.

 

http://video.foxnews.com/v/5533446285001/?#sp=show-clips

 

 

I wouldn't expect anything less from SUX News Network

[Schofield1943]

I have continued my conversation with Professor Turley who believes we not only would have a compelling constitutional claim but the case would include issues of first impression - this really could wind up before the Supreme Court.

 

He of all people wouldn't say that if he didn't believe it. Which means we really do have a case.

[Dave]

I have continued my conversation with Professor Turley who believes we not only would have a compelling constitutional claim but the case would include issues of first impression - this really could wind up before the Supreme Court.

 

He of all people wouldn't say that if he didn't believe it. Which means we really do have a case.

 

If you can get something in writing from him, I'll forward it to the staffers at McCarthy's office as his constituent. Without the Majority Leader's support, the bill goes nowhere.

[Garandomatic]

Dave, do you think this constitutional argument from the professor should be a wider effort that we all turn to?

[Medalman90]

I'll donate as much time, money, and effort as possible.

[uniformcollector]

I'll donate as much time, money, and effort as possible.

 

+1 After asking about the website, it seems like the project may have been too much. That said, it would still be great for some collective effort to come together whatever it might be.

[Medalman90]

I agree UniformCollector. There is strength in numbers!

 

Just for clarity, now that the bill made it though the Juditical Commity and the House, when does it reach Trump?

[Garandomatic]

It made it through the house???

[ParanormalTrooper]

I don't think it passed through the house - yet.

 

I think @MedalMan90 just confused the house with the senate.

[SA1794]

It made it through the house???

Passed Senate - track bill here:

 

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/765/text

[Garandomatic]

That's what i thought, but i crapped a little bit when I read house!

[scottplen]

Will no politician see the wrong on this thing ???

[Medalman90]

That's exactly what I did PT. Oops, sorry for the scare guys.

[Thor996]

Will no politician see the wrong on this thing ???

 

IMO, not many. its a populist BS vote grab.

[KASTAUFFER]

They used a parliamentary procedure ( Unanimous consent) to get it through the Senate. Senator Purdue pushed it through. A similar "procedure: was used to pass the Stolen Valor Act in the middle of the night .

 

In parliamentary procedure, unanimous consent, also known as general consent, or in the case of the parliaments under the Westminster system, leave of the house (or leave of the Senate), is a situation in which no one present objects to a proposal.

 

This means no one actually voted for it. Based on who was there at the time, no one objected.

 

Someone need to keep tabs on what's going on in the House or the same type of thing will happen again,

 

Kurt

[KASTAUFFER]

PRIVATE CORRADO PICCOLI PURPLE HEART PRESERVATION ACT

 

Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee

on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of S. 765 and

the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The clerk will report the bill by title.

The legislative clerk read as follows:

 

A bill (S. 765) to amend title 18, United States Code, to

provide for penalties for the sale of any Purple Heart

awarded to a member of the Armed Forces.

 

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.

 

Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Perdue

substitute amendment be considered and agreed to, the bill, as amended,

be considered read a third time and passed, and the motion to

reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

Without objection, it is so ordered.

 

The amendment (No. 767) in the nature of a substitute was agreed to,

as follows:

 

(Purpose: In the nature of a substitute)

 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the

following:

 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

 

This Act may be cited as the ``Private Corrado Piccoli

Purple Heart Preservation Act''.

 

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

 

Congress finds the following:

(1) The Purple Heart medal solemnly recognizes the great

and sometimes ultimate sacrifice of American servicemembers

like Private Corrado Piccoli.

(2) The Purple Heart medal holds a place of honor as the

national symbol of this sacrifice and deserves special

protections.

 

SEC. 3. PENALTY FOR SALE OF PURPLE HEARTS AWARDED TO MEMBERS

OF THE ARMED FORCES.

 

Section 704 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``Whoever'' and

inserting ``Except as provided in subsection (e), whoever'';

and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

``(e) Purple Heart.--

``(1) Penalty.--Whoever willfully 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 any

Purple Heart awarded to a member of the armed forces or

former member of the armed forces by the Secretary of the

military department concerned, except when authorized under

regulations made pursuant to law, shall be fined under this

title, imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both.

``(2) Limitation on regulations.--Regulations described in

paragraph (1) may not authorize the sale of any Purple Heart

awarded to a member of the armed forces or former member of

the armed forces by the Secretary of the military department

concerned, unless the sale is conducted by the member or

former member to whom the Purple Heart was awarded.

``(3) Definition.--In this subsection, the term `willfully'

means the voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal

duty.''.

 

The bill (S. 765), as amended, was ordered to be engrossed for a

third reading, was read the third time, and passed.

 

Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, this legislation is important because it

will offer the Purple Heart the same types of legal protections

currently in place for the Medal of Honor and help put an end to

profiteering off of the sacrifice of our great American heroes.

I would like to thank those Senators who have cosponsored this bill,

as well, and the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee

for persisting to get this bill on the floor.

There is no higher honor that we have in the Senate than to honor our

veterans and the people who put their lives on the line every day for

their country.

[Teamski]

I am going to get sick.....

[scottplen]

 

I am going to get sick.....[/quote

 

Me too !

[Captainofthe7th]

Okay, so they note offering the same protections in place for the Medal of Honor, and we all know about the stories of confiscation...though the law only criminalizes sale/trade/purchase, what does this mean for ownership? Technically it should still be okay to own one of these in a private collection, right? But will that security persist?

 

Is this too scary to speculate right now?

 

Rob

[tarbridge]

I'm optimistic that when it is over we will win.We are a small segregated group of folks that provide a very small footprint that won't attract many politicians to our cause.Our perception to society when shown or portrayed usually slants our collecting as commerce or profiteering. Rarely are we allowed to be included in postive situations. I won't get into the collectors and our real contribution to the salvaging of American heritage.

 

We are fighting a group that has made the smart choices for themselves and the politicians are quick for the photo op.They have the backing and support of MOPH, VFW and American Legion, that is just a few.I am sure they have a publicist who helps them with the public personna...this could even be provided by some of the backers.

 

I have always felt it would take the bill to pass before we could really fight it.All the work we have attempted usually got stnewalled for that reason.

 

I have fought this bill and the contrary organization who instigated it and I have never given up...not one time and not now.There are more of us who have been pushing also...I will post some points and a new line of attack later tonight.

 

As far as the bill it does not challenge the ownership of Purple Hearts and you can give them away.The bill goes after "For Profit".