Ted Cruz introduces (12/10/20) bill to make it illegal to buy or import a US medal or ribbon from a foreign country unless-

[aerialbridge]

Prior written approval on application to the Secretary of Defense to get on an approved buyers list (subject to renewal at 12 mos. or less) and:

 

1.  The buyer is a museum or educational institution, or

2.   The buyer donates it without expectation of compensation to a museum "that agrees to display the item for the educational benefit of the American public", or  educational institution or the issuing Armed Forces Branch.

 

 In other words,  private ownership of any US medal or ribbon acquired from a foreign source would be illegal.

 

This piece of work is titled ‘‘Limiting and Enabling Gathering Awards Commemorating Yesteryear Act."

 

Nice to see that the professional politicians in Washington once again have their priorities straight.  Of course there are substantial sanctions and penalties for violators of this proposed law, who try to acquire or divest of a medal or ribbon from outside the US, just like there were legal penalties for the anarchists, rioters, vandals and looters who destroyed or stole hundreds of millions of dollars of public and private property across the US, including lots of public monuments from "Yesteryear" in the glorious Year of 2020, while tens of millions are unemployed or losing their small businesses from the importation of a foreign virus that has killed 300,000 Americans, with hundreds of thousands more currently hospitalized in hospitals that are at capacity.  Just kidding!  99.9% of those rioters, looters and vandals got away scot-free but heaven forbid you try to buy, sell, trade, give away or otherwise "repatriate" a foreign medal if your "papers are not in order".   Is it still okay to say "scot-free", what with Scotland and all?  Ironically, foreign violators would lose their visas or probably not get any in the future,  as we await the coming amnesty for millions.

 

Would flying the American flag at half staff come January be considered a "peaceful protest"?

 

Link to the proposed bill here-

 

 

https://www.militarytrader.com/militaria-collectibles/bill-curtails-moh

 

 

 

[Adam R]

This morning I received an email from a collector who is very concerned after reading John Adams-Graf's article in Military Trader about a bill proposed by Sen. Ted Cruz.

 

Here is a link to the Adams-Graf article; https://www.militarytrader.com/militaria-collectibles/bill-curtails-moh

 

Here is a link to the bill; https://www.cruz.senate.gov/files/documents/2020.12.11_ARM20F95.pdf

 

Here is a link to Sen. Cruz's statement about the bill; https://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=5506

 

Here's is my reply to the collector who contacted me about the Adams-Graf article:

 

I read John Adams-Graf’s article and then the actual bill. John has completely mischaracterized the bill and makes statements that simply aren’t true. Either he didn’t bother to read the bill or else he didn’t understand what he read. Either way he did a disservice to his readers by providing them with inaccurate information. The bill is NOT a ban on collecting US medals. That said, the bill is poorly written (in my opinion as a non lawyer) as it’s very vague on important issues and the effects, if passed as written, will probably be only those that are unintended. Below are my observations.

 

The bill only applies to US medals being sold by parties outside the US. It in no way impacts a collector or dealer engaged in domestic transactions. Based up Sen. Cruz’s statement when he introduced the bill, it is aimed at overseas Medal of Honor sales, but due to vagueness, could be construed as applying to other US medals as well.

 

Adams-Graf says that collectors and dealers will have to get on Sen. Cruz’s “good list” in order to own medals. This is completely false. The bill says nothing about possessing or owning medals. It relates only to sales by persons outside the US.

 

The bill is an attempt to control the sale of the Medal of Honor by individuals and companies outside the US. It does this by imposing sanctions on these persons or companies unless they sell the medal to an “approved” person or organization within the US.

 

The bill requires the Secretary of Defense to establish and administer a process to approve organizations or individuals to buy medals from overseas but provides only very vague guidelines on what criteria to use. In theory, based on the wording of the bill, every collector in the US could apply and be approved to purchase a Medal of Honor from overseas. The bill basically throws the responsibility for all of the “details” into the lap of the SecDef.

 

The second part of the bill, dealing with sanctions, is also very problematic. It requires the Secretary of State to become the world’s policeman for foreign sales of US medals. It requires the SoS to annually send a list to Congress of all foreign companies or persons who have violated the act (by selling to buyers not having the approval of the SecDef described above). It also requires the President to impose potentially severe sanctions on those on the list. But once again it’s very vague on the details of how to do this and what criteria to use.

 

I don’t see this bill having the intended effect of limiting the overseas sale of the Medal of Honor (or other US medals) to only approved persons or organizations in the US. Instead foreign companies will probably decide to not offer such items for sale. In effect foreign companies like Spink, DNW or others may decide simply to no longer offer any US medals for sale due to vagueness in this act and the Stolen Valor Act.  It may also have the unintended effect of causing online auction sites like eBay (and others) to prohibit the sale of US medals by sellers located outside of the US.

 

So, bottom line, it’s a bad bill due to intent and problems with vagueness and methods of enforcement. It may lead to companies outside the US changing their policies due to confusion or uncertainty about the law. But it makes no mention whatsoever on the possession or ownership of any medal. It in no way prohibits the buying or selling of medals in the US, beyond what’s laid out in the Stolen Valor Act. In a way, due to the vagueness,  it might even establish a means for a collector in the US to legally buy a Medal of Honor, provided all parties comply with this act and the medal is offered by a seller outside the US. But the details of the "compliance" will be determined by the SecDef, based upon the very vague guidance in the act. 

 

[Brig]

These two topics have been merged and cleaned up.

 

One and only warning...if it steers into political diatribe, it's being shut down for good

[Adam R]

Brig, Thank you for reopening and combining the threads. I wanted to try to get a more factual counter narrative out to collectors before some someone commits seppuku out fear of no longer being able to collect medals. Also, I want to reemphasize that I am NOT a lawyer. I simply carefully read (many times to try to get it clear in my mind) what was written in the bill and put forth my interpretation.  Hopefully this will help readers to better understand the proposed bill so that they can better convey their thoughts (whether supporting or opposing) to Sen. Cruz and other in Congress. But lets be careful about voicing on the Forum thoughts and opinions on the selling of the Medal of Honor because that horse has been beat to death far too many times already.

 

If anyone has a different interpretation of what's in the bill or what effect it might have I'd like to hear their thoughts. (But without politics worked into the discussion.)

[Brig]

39 minutes ago, Adam R said:

But lets be careful about voicing on the Forum thoughts and opinions on the selling of the Medal of Honor because that horse has been beat to de

And with that was born the first official USMF Meme

[B24AT6]

2 hours ago, Adam R said:

This morning I received an email from a collector who is very concerned after reading John Adams-Graf's article in Military Trader about a bill proposed by Sen. Ted Cruz.

 

Here is a link to the Adams-Graf article; https://www.militarytrader.com/militaria-collectibles/bill-curtails-moh

 

Here is a link to the bill; https://www.cruz.senate.gov/files/documents/2020.12.11_ARM20F95.pdf

 

Here is a link to Sen. Cruz's statement about the bill; https://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=5506

 

Here's is my reply to the collector who contacted me about the Adams-Graf article:

 

I read John Adams-Graf’s article and then the actual bill. John has completely mischaracterized the bill and makes statements that simply aren’t true. Either he didn’t bother to read the bill or else he didn’t understand what he read. Either way he did a disservice to his readers by providing them with inaccurate information. The bill is NOT a ban on collecting US medals. That said, the bill is poorly written (in my opinion as a non lawyer) as it’s very vague on important issues and the effects, if passed as written, will probably be only those that are unintended. Below are my observations.

 

The bill only applies to US medals being sold by parties outside the US. It in no way impacts a collector or dealer engaged in domestic transactions. Based up Sen. Cruz’s statement when he introduced the bill, it is aimed at overseas Medal of Honor sales, but due to vagueness, could be construed as applying to other US medals as well.

 

Adams-Graf says that collectors and dealers will have to get on Sen. Cruz’s “good list” in order to own medals. This is completely false. The bill says nothing about possessing or owning medals. It relates only to sales by persons outside the US.

 

The bill is an attempt to control the sale of the Medal of Honor by individuals and companies outside the US. It does this by imposing sanctions on these persons or companies unless they sell the medal to an “approved” person or organization within the US.

 

The bill requires the Secretary of Defense to establish and administer a process to approve organizations or individuals to buy medals from overseas but provides only very vague guidelines on what criteria to use. In theory, based on the wording of the bill, every collector in the US could apply and be approved to purchase a Medal of Honor from overseas. The bill basically throws the responsibility for all of the “details” into the lap of the SecDef.

 

The second part of the bill, dealing with sanctions, is also very problematic. It requires the Secretary of State to become the world’s policeman for foreign sales of US medals. It requires the SoS to annually send a list to Congress of all foreign companies or persons who have violated the act (by selling to buyers not having the approval of the SecDef described above). It also requires the President to impose potentially severe sanctions on those on the list. But once again it’s very vague on the details of how to do this and what criteria to use.

 

I don’t see this bill having the intended effect of limiting the overseas sale of the Medal of Honor (or other US medals) to only approved persons or organizations in the US. Instead foreign companies will probably decide to not offer such items for sale. In effect foreign companies like Spink, DNW or others may decide simply to no longer offer any US medals for sale due to vagueness in this act and the Stolen Valor Act.  It may also have the unintended effect of causing online auction sites like eBay (and others) to prohibit the sale of US medals by sellers located outside of the US.

 

So, bottom line, it’s a bad bill due to intent and problems with vagueness and methods of enforcement. It may lead to companies outside the US changing their policies due to confusion or uncertainty about the law. But it makes no mention whatsoever on the possession or ownership of any medal. It in no way prohibits the buying or selling of medals in the US, beyond what’s laid out in the Stolen Valor Act. In a way, due to the vagueness,  it might even establish a means for a collector in the US to legally buy a Medal of Honor, provided all parties comply with this act and the medal is offered by a seller outside the US. But the details of the "compliance" will be determined by the SecDef, based upon the very vague guidance in the act. 

 

 

Adam,

 

I am a lawyer, and I would for the most part agree with your interpretation of the bill. When I first read an article about this effort it was in "Stars and Stripes" and I was excited about the possibility of parties with the wherewithal being able to legally repatriate the Medal of Honor, but after reading the text I think that it will likely have many of the unexpected consequences that you point to because of the vagueness of this particular bill and also the already existing code.

 

Under 18 U.S.C. 704(a (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/704)  the sale and trade of ALL US service medals would be considered a misdemeanor; however if you notice in the text of the law it refers to the Code of Federal Regulations which functions as a further refinement and explanation of most code can be found. This is important because in the case of US medals everything short of the Medal of Honor is exempted from Section 704(a) by regulations. In short 32 CFR § 507.7 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/32/507.7) provides "No certificate of authority to manufacture is required to sell articles listed in § 507.8 of this part..." and then you find in 32 CFR § 507.8 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/32/507.8) "(a) The articles listed in paragraphs (a) (1) through (10) of this section are authorized for manufacture and sale when made in accordance with approved specifications, purchase descriptions or drawings... (7) Decorations, service medals, and ribbons, except for the Medal of Honor...." It is noteworthy that this is found in Regulation rather than Code, meaning that it could be changed with greater ease and is something that everyone should consider, but not necessarily worry about.

 

This is all important in regards to the proposed bill because of this particular passage: "This section is intended to create an exception to the prohibition on the purchase and sale of military 18 awards and decorations in section 704 of title 18, United 19 States Code, as such exceptions are provided for in that section , and the purchase, importation, or both of such an item shall not be treated as an offense under that section" Section 2, Part C. This means that the bill is serving as a further exemption to the law and would seemingly be adopted alongside the existing exemptions rather than supplant them. My interpretation of how this would work would mean that sanctions could ultimately only be placed on those overseas who deal in the Medal of Honor, but it is vague enough that a dealer may not want to worry about having the United States placing sanctions on them for dealing in US medals.

 

For US dealers/collectors the most concerning aspect is certainly Section 2, Part D. This allows the Secretary of Defense to create the regulations that will ultimately determine how the law is enforced and there is a greater than 0 chance that something is created that ultimately affects the sale and trade of all medals in all places. My personal opinion is that I do not want this to become law, not because of any concern about the intent, it at least seems to come from a good place versus the recent efforts by Purple Hearts Reunited. I am very concerned though about how this would be implemented once it is subject to enforcement and regulation, and it is that good intent that potentially makes this particular bill a "wolf in sheep's clothing".

[B24AT6]

One more thing, another possible "consequence" if one wants to call it that, is that overseas manufacturers and sellers of US medal reproductions could become subject to sanctions.  32 CFR §507.8 includes a second part that states: "(b) Variations from the prescribed specifications for the items listed in paragraph (a) of this section are not permitted without prior approval, in writing, by TIOH." I know there has been discussion lately regarding new reproduction Purple Hearts coming out of China and this law COULD be used to bring sanctions against those manufacturing and selling them, but that would again depend on how it is implemented.