someone hasn't gotteh the message, or so it appears

[alan]

Who in the present administration is screwing the pooch here seems a reasonable question, also why, given that this matter has been settled previously. Of course the "antis" never give up, do they?



Questions Arise Over Army Bases’ Disposition of Surplus Cartridge Cases

Thursday, April 01, 2010

Last week, NRA-ILA learned that quantities of once-fired small arms cartridge cases recovered from firing ranges on military bases, which by federal law the Department of Defense is prohibited from demilitarizing or destroying, were being sold for scrap.

A governing law in this matter, developed with input from NRA-ILA, is a rider to the 2010 Department of Defense Appropriations Act. It stipulates that “None of the funds available to the Department of Defense may be used to demilitarize or dispose of M-1 Carbines, M-1 Garand rifles, M-14 rifles, .22 caliber rifles, .30 caliber rifles, or M-1911 pistols, or to demilitarize or destroy small arms ammunition or ammunition components that are not otherwise prohibited from commercial sale under Federal law, unless the small arms ammunition or ammunition components are certified by the Secretary of the Army or designee as unserviceable or unsafe for further use.” However, military bases are authorized to dispose of a variety of items, including surplus cartridge cases, via the Qualified Recycling Program, in place for more than a decade.

NRA members will recall that it was one year ago when a bureaucratic glitch led to the Department of Defense temporarily suspending sales of once-fired cartridge cases. Montana’s U.S. Senators Max Baucus (D) and Jon Tester (D) quickly conveyed to the Defense Logistics Agency their judgment that “The destruction of fired brass is unwarranted and has far reaching implications,” including its “impact on small businesses who sell reloaded ammunition utilizing these fired casings, and upon individual gun owners who purchase spent military brass at considerable cost savings for their personal use.” A summary of last year’s “demil” controversy can be reviewed here.

Last week, NRA-ILA again contacted Senators Baucus and Tester to request that they investigate the current disposition of surplus small arms cartridge cases with a view to determining the best way to assure their continued provision to Americans who buy the cases for resale and reloading use. Jointly, Senators Baucus and Tester have made their concerns known to the Defense Logistics Agency and asked its chief to explain, by April 15, the extent which military installations have contracted with private companies for the scrapping of fired cartridge cases, whether such contracts comply with federal law, and what steps the agency is taking “to ensure that all interested buyers have the opportunity to purchased once-fired small arms cartridge cases.”

NRA will continue working with members of Congress and the Pentagon to guarantee that the long-standing practice of making surplus military small arms cartridge cases available for reuse by reloaders continues in perpetuity. NRA members are encouraged to inform their U.S. Senators and Representatives that they expect Army bases to do everything possible to ensure the continued supply of once-fired cartridge cases through channels making them available to the public.

You can call your U.S. Senators at (202) 224-3121, and your U.S. Representative at (202) 225-3121 or use our "Write Your Representatives" tool.

Click here to read the letter from Senators Baucus and Tester

 

[merlinfire]

I see your concern. However, to be frank, I don't see how the US Military is under any obligation to maintain that practice. Presumably, the price of scrap would make up the cost of having them scrapped, making the practice funds-neutral, fulfilling their legal obligation.

To be honest though, it seems that they could make more money selling them as cases than as scrap. Odd, that.

For the sake of ammunition prices, I hope they reverse this.

 

[erichtmobile]

Ahhh. Makes me long for those days of policing the range for spent brass, NO BRASS - NO AMMO

 

[ants]

I believe they have been discussing this in the Reloading subforum.

 

[docfubar]

Hell at work we have to police up all our brass and turn it in by a pound equation back to the ASP at Camp Williams.

 

[kenno]

A more important concideration

Who bought the ammo to start with? The Tax Payer
If this country is "Of, By, and For the People." What gives the Goobermint the right to deney citizens access to property they have already paid for?
The goverment has long sold "slightly radioactive" scrap from Los Alamos so the argument that empty brass is 'potentialy harmful' does not hold water.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

I see your concern. However, to be frank, I don't see how the US Military is under any obligation to maintain that practice.

The military answers to the civil authority. What Congress says, they do. (Article I, Section 8, Clause 14.)

Woody

 

[alan]

merlinfire wrote:

I see your concern. However, to be frank, I don't see how the US Military is under any obligation to maintain that practice. Presumably, the price of scrap would make up the cost of having them scrapped, making the practice funds-neutral, fulfilling their legal obligation.

To be honest though, it seems that they could make more money selling them as cases than as scrap. Odd, that.

For the sake of ammunition prices, I hope they reverse this.

------------------------------

What you refer to as "the militaries obligation" is established by Act Of Congress. Your assumptions regarding the price of scrap, and what might or might not be a "wash", with respect, are beside the point. The taxpayer, remember him/her, is twice screwed. By the way, the question of who pays the people that operate the "demilling" machinery might come to be screwing number 3, administered to the abused taxpayer.

You also noted in passing, the following. "To be honest though, it seems that they could make more money selling them as cases than as scrap. Odd, that." Reloadable cartridge cases are the first or second most expensive component part of a center fire round, though looking at the rampant escalation in primer prices, that might have changed somewhat.

 

[danprkr]

Yeah, you'd think they'd go for the most money. I don't know the law there, but I'd think that'd be the rule. And, I can't believe that scrap prices would cover the cost of demilling etc by enough to be the most money.

 

[Smokey Joe]

Who gets the money...

As I understand it, ATK (parent company of Federal, as in ammunition) paid the commanders of these bases for the demilled brass. ATK also supplied the demilling equipment. If the brass were not demilled, it would be shipped off-base, and the price received for the reloadable brass would go to Washington. Demilled on-base, and sold directly to ATK, the price received goes to the base commander's budget.

What base commander, in these budget-cutting times, wouldn't opt for the direct sale so as to increase their own available monies?? (BTW, we're not talking about personal profit, here. We're talking about more $$ for an Army base's tires, gasoline, overtime pay, paint, roofing tar, oil for tank engines, etc, etc, etc.)

ATK benefits two ways--it gets brass to re-melt and make into Federal ammo to sell to stores, the brass is less expensive than buying it as scrap on the open scrap market, and by making reloadable brass scarcer they drive up the price of Federal as well as all other reloadable brass.

I don't blame ATK for wanting to maximize their profit, nor do I blame the base commanders for wanting the $$ for their bases' use. Except that what they're doing is illegal, and against the interests of the American taxpayer.

ETA--The fix for this would be to allow the base commanders to sell the brass as reloadable brass (they'd get a higher price for reloadable brass than they do for the same brass as scrap!) and KEEP the proceeds from that sale. But that would mean less money for the Pentagon, so the Army would never go along with that idea. Love or money, people--the 2 great causes of crime. It's always one or the other.

 

[merlinfire]

Just out of curiosity, what is this "demilling" you're talking about? If a case is being melted for scrap wouldn't it simply be smashed/compacted?

 

[Smokey Joe]

Demilling...

Merlinfire--I'm not familiar with the demilling process used in this case. ("Demilling" = demilitarization = rendering non-functional) You are right, I expect--crushing the cases would render them useless to a reloader, as well as having the side benefit of making them more compact to transport.

 

[alan]

Smokey Joe
Member



Join Date: January 2, 2003
Posts: 1,915 Who gets the money...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I understand it, ATK (parent company of Federal, as in ammunition) paid the commanders of these bases for the demilled brass. ATK also supplied the demilling equipment. If the brass were not demilled, it would be shipped off-base, and the price received for the reloadable brass would go to Washington. Demilled on-base, and sold directly to ATK, the price received goes to the base commander's budget.

What base commander, in these budget-cutting times, wouldn't opt for the direct sale so as to increase their own available monies?? (BTW, we're not talking about personal profit, here. We're talking about more $$ for an Army base's tires, gasoline, overtime pay, paint, roofing tar, oil for tank engines, etc, etc, etc.)

ATK benefits two ways--it gets brass to re-melt and make into Federal ammo to sell to stores, the brass is less expensive than buying it as scrap on the open scrap market, and by making reloadable brass scarcer they drive up the price of Federal as well as all other reloadable brass.

I don't blame ATK for wanting to maximize their profit, nor do I blame the base commanders for wanting the $$ for their bases' use. Except that what they're doing is illegal, and against the interests of the American taxpayer.

ETA--The fix for this would be to allow the base commanders to sell the brass as reloadable brass (they'd get a higher price for reloadable brass than they do for the same brass as scrap!) and KEEP the proceeds from that sale. But that would mean less money for the Pentagon, so the Army would never go along with that idea. Love or money, people--the 2 great causes of crime. It's always one or the other.
__________________
God Bless America

Smokey Joe

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by Smokey Joe; Yesterday at 10:52 AM. Reason: The usual--had another thought.


Smokey Joe
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Smokey Joe
Find More Posts by Smokey Joe
Add Smokey Joe to Your Contacts

Today, 12:53 AM #11
merlinfire
Member



Join Date: February 2, 2010
Posts: 31 Just out of curiosity, what is this "demilling" you're talking about? If a case is being melted for scrap wouldn't it simply be smashed/compacted?


merlinfire
View Public Profile
Send a private message to merlinfire
Find More Posts by merlinfire
Add merlinfire to Your Contacts

Today, 01:12 PM #12
Smokey Joe
Member



Join Date: January 2, 2003
Posts: 1,915 Demilling...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Merlinfire--I'm not familiar with the demilling process used in this case. ("Demilling" = demilitarization = rendering non-functional) You are right, I expect--crushing the cases would render them useless to a reloader, as well as having the side benefit of making them more compact to transport.
__________________
God Bless America

Smokey Joe

Gentlemen:

Re your posts appearing above, please note the following:

1. "Demilling" is a process that renders fired brass unusable for reloading small arms ammunition. Brass so treated can be sold as “scrap", but such sales return less money to the U.S. Treasury than would be returned from the sale of reloadable brass.

2 It appears that BOTH ATK and the unnamed base commanders are operating outside of the law and regulations. It's not a game of maximizing corporate profits, it's a matter of law.

3. Nobody said that the base commanders or any officers involved were taking the money for "personal use", going on a fancy vacations or anything of the sort, however as officers, they took an oath of office, an oath that seemingly is more often upheld by the military than by The Duly Constituted Civil Authority, that's another story, which also took oaths of office. Military officers are also required to operate within the laws and regulations enacted/promulgated by The Congress. It appears that both ATK and the officers involved are a lot closer to being on the wrong side of the law than is either desirable or acceptable. Matter of fact, they might already have transgressed the boundaries thereof. Not myself being learned in the law, I will leave such judgments to those more qualified than I am, however that is the way it looks.

 

[Smokey Joe]

That's what I said...

Alan--That's what I said. Your point is?

 

[alan]

Smokey Joe:

The main thrust of my comments and "quotes" of your post and that of Merlin would be to draw attention to what are seemingly obvious illegalities, illegalities that will likely go unaddressed, which in my view, exacerbates them.