Talk:Stolen Valor Act of 2005

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Did You Know An entry from Stolen Valor Act of 2005 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 15 December 2006.
Wikipedia

Contents

[edit] Year

Stupid question... but 2005? Surely if it's getting passed this year it would be the --- Act of 2006? Shimgray | talk | 21:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Acts are referred to by the year they are introduced, which was 2005 for this one, at least until they are signed into law. If the title changes, I'll change the article title, but so far the Pres hasn't signed it. We'll see. Rlevse 21:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It was signed by the President 20 Dec., 2006 as public law 109-437207.140.171.5 (talk) 19:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Purpose

The President has signed it into law. This law was never intended to, nor does it, inhibit anyone from selling, buying, trading, or displaying military medals (except the Medal of Honor). The minute that someone holds up one of those medals that he or she purchased and said, "I earned that medal by....." he/she has broken the law. It is too bad that a law like this was needed, but you would not believe the number of people who have spoken at school assemblies, public engagements, been honored at military affairs, had their local newspapers do stories about what great heroes they are, when in actuality they never served a day in the military. As the original autoress of the Bill, I am glad it is now a law. Pamla Sterner —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.180.97 (talk • contribs)

We will have to wait until the matching administrative law is changed to see the reall effects. I think the intent was good, but some of the wording is ambiguious. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Pamla, I'm not sure what your initial draft looked like, but law reads:

Subsection (a) of section 704 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking `manufactures, or sells' and inserting `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'.

The referred to Subsection (a) of section 704 of title 18 reads:

Whoever knowingly wears, manufactures, or sells any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the armed forces of the United States, or any of the service medals or badges awarded to the members of such forces, or the ribbon, button, or rosette of any such badge, decoration or medal, or any colorable imitation thereof, except when authorized under regulations made pursuant to law, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

207.140.171.5 (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Intro

Would someone with more familiarity with this law post a brief summary at the start of this article outlining its provisions? I think this information would be pretty useful - though we might need a legal disclaimer, too, stating that Wikipedia's interpretation is not a legal opinion. Rklawton 18:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Misdemeanor, not a felony

Although it has been thrown around Wikipedia and the internet a lot, violation of 18 U.S.C. 704 is either a class A or B misdemeanor, not a felony. See 18 U.S.C. 3559(a) for the classification of offenses based on the term of imprisonment authorized by the statute. Any reference to this as a felony is incorrect and all of the various medal Wiki pages need to be corrected. Slyjackalope (talk) 03:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Felony or misdemeanor? Well, some poser needs to tell Senator Salazar the "good news" that it is only a misdemeanor.

http://www.house.gov/list/press/co03_salazar/PR_092807.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.76.145 (talk) 00:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No, some moron needs to look up the citations to the actual statutes that I provided and argue to the contrary. Just because some aide in a senator's office issues a press release doesn't mean that that person knows anything about the law. Slyjackalope (talk) 19:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Condescending comments like "moron" will get you nowhere fast on wiki. You may want to refactor that statement and also look at the history as to what caused that to reappear. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sales pitch?

I am not at all clear on how this was a sales pitch:

"The Orders and Medals Society of America (OMSA), an organization of collectors, had opposed the bill in its current form. OMSA is of the opinion that the changes to 18 U.S.C. § 704 included wording that implied that any movement or exchange of medals would be illegal.[1][2]"

--—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 01:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it was a sales pitch either, I'm reinserting. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I may not agree with it, but it's still valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.7.177 (talk) 01:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)