[1024Megabytes]

Written by Michael Hammond Published: 28 July 2020

Gun Owners of America Founder H. L. Richardson wrote a book entitled What Makes You Think We Read the Bills

That adage was never more true than last week, when a bucketload of House "pro-gun" Republicans voted to pass a giant defense bill containing, in its bowels, a "red flag" gun confiscation proposal for the military - hidden there by Nancy Pelosi's stooges.

Aidan Johnston, our Director of Federal Affairs, described this congressional farce in an article in the Houston Courant.

The House-passed Gun Confiscation Orders (GCOs) apply to persons subject to the United States Code of Military Justice. But, for them, it would be worse in many ways than the "red flag" Gun Confiscation Orders programs drafted in state legislatures.

The essentials are the same: a gun owner can be stripped of his or her Second Amendment-protected rights in an ex parte proceeding by an unsubstantiated allegation from a hostile relative who dislikes him or her. Experience shows that the confiscation normally occurs in a surprise raid on the gun owner's home in the middle of the night.

In more than one case, gun owners have been shot to death for "non-compliance." Now, thanks to the rabid onslaught of gun-hating politicians, it's sitting on the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

Unlike the boilerplate Gun Confiscation Orders drafted by gun control groups and passed in 19 states, the House-passed NDAA bill allows the president-presumably, in their opinion, President Joe Biden-to write all of the particulars.

But this legislation raises several questions:

• What will the standard of proof be for taking away the gun owner's constitutional rights?
• What will the accuser need to show?
• What constitutional rights will the military court proceedings recognize?
• What will the police do with their gun confiscation order? Ransack the house? Kill the "threatening" (i.e., non-compliant) gun owner?

House Republicans were caught sleeping. Despite Trump's threat to veto the bill, many Republicans helped pass gun confiscation arm-in-arm with anti-gun Democrats in a veto-proof majority.

Read more at: https://gunowners.org/na07292020/?u...e are asking you to contact your two Senators

 

[1024Megabytes]

Contact your Senators about this bill heading to the Senate. I need to call Mike Lee. Sell out Mitt Romney likely won't listen to me. At least we have one good Senator.

 

[lklawson]

What? The Democrat controlled House passes a Gun Control bill? Shocking!

Yeah, you're right that we need to contact our Senators and tell them to spike this cannon.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[SWAGA]

So we don't have anybody in our military that suffers from mental episodes? We don't have any in our military with criminal intend?
We don't have any in our military that rape and murder?
That's right, all stockades and military prisons are empty.

Vanessa Guillen, the Fort Hood soldier who has been missing since late April, was murdered and dismembered by a fellow soldier, a woman alleged in a criminal complaint obtained by CBS News

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/vaness...-specialist-woman-says-in-criminal-complaint/

Somehow you really believe that a relative shouldn't have the possibility to red flag this guy ?

 

[missiledefender]

I fully expected it. Agreed, a anti gun bill from the Socialist (you may call them Dumbocrats)? SHOCKING
They wont stop until we are all in prisons or holes in the ground and the guns are ash trays (forgot you cant smoke either) and paperclips.
That's fine but I'll start carrying a hammer. Plenty of people will be stabbed to death with screw drivers.

 

[lklawson]

So we don't have anybody in our military that suffers from mental episodes? We don't have any in our military with criminal intend?
We don't have any in our military that rape and murder?
That's right, all stockades and military prisons are empty.

Hopefully, what we DO have in our military is DUE PROCESSES! ...something which this <cough> "red flag" horseshift ignores.

You remember "due process of law," right? You know, where you're not punished without first being actually convicted of a crime? You get to face your accusers? They require actual proof, not hearsay and gossip?

 

[CamoDeafie]

@SWAGA , and that is different from civilians... how? There are already procedures in the US military Uniform Code of Justice that deals with the same sort of crimes.

I'm not surprised that many Republicans went all in on this bill. For the last couple decades, its been pretty clear the "party differences" are just on paper and in sound bites, but they're the same stinking, festering, corrupt people. Self interest and getting kickbacks/donations/contributions for themselves, the lot of them need changing. 470 positions are open this coming November. Good chance as any to really change the numbers, ans get new people, maybe new parties in significant numbers... break the two party hegemony... ah but that's just a fantasy because most voters are gonna ignore the content and vote entirely based on the letter by the names

 

[1024Megabytes]

I'm not surprised that many Republicans went all in on this bill. For the last couple decades, its been pretty clear the "party differences" are just on paper and in sound bites, but they're the same stinking, festering, corrupt people.

I think most Republicans signed the bill without reading it. Probably the red flag gun confiscation is buried in about 500 pages or more of this bill.

 

[Bullitt68]

Seems like a politically charged thread. My first instinct is to ignore it. Hopefully its ok if I ask one question. Who said this? "We're going to take the firearms first and then go to court."

I fear it will get passed.

 

[SDProf]

Please show me the Red Flag part of the bill.

I see a domestic violence protection order section, which reads pretty much like any state's similar law. Where, when the protection order is granted, firearm restriction may be part of the order.

 

[moona11]

Please show me the Red Flag part of the bill.

I see a domestic violence protection order section, which reads pretty much like any state's similar law. Where, when the protection order is granted, firearm restriction may be part of the order.

That would be nice

 

[Think1st]

The actual text is not yet available, but the committe report's wording on the applicable section is as follows"

"Section 542--Authority of Military Judges and Military Magistrates to
Issue Military Court Protective Orders

This section would authorize military magistrates and military judges to issue Military Court Protective Orders for the purpose of protecting a victim of an alleged sex or domestic violence offense, or a family member or associate of the victim, from a person subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice."

The OMB report states the administration's objection to this section because protective order mechanisms already exist through the local civilian court systems, and commanders already have authority to issue protective orders. The OMB report further states that this section would excessively burden the military court system, a system which is already heavily stretched.

 

[moona11]

The actual text is not yet available, but the committe report's wording on the applicable section is as follows"

"Section 542--Authority of Military Judges and Military Magistrates to
Issue Military Court Protective Orders

This section would authorize military magistrates and military judges to issue Military Court Protective Orders for the purpose of protecting a victim of an alleged sex or domestic violence offense, or a family member or associate of the victim, from a person subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice."

The OMB report states the administration's objection to this section because protective order mechanisms already exist through the local civilian court systems, and commanders already have authority to issue protective orders. The OMB report further states that this section would excessively burden the military court system, a system which is already heavily stretched.

I don't see anything wrong with that

 

[ajole]

Sure....there isn’t anything wrong with letting a pissed off ex report you to three different agencies in an attempt to screw up your life, and you having to prove innocence in direct contravention of the way the Constitution is written regarding innocence until proven guilty.

Nothing wrong with that at all.

The system was already in place for two separate systems to do just that. A third is just stupid.

 

[moona11]

Sure....there isn't anything wrong with letting a pissed off ex report you to three different agencies in an attempt to screw up your life, and you having to prove innocence in direct contravention of the way the Constitution is written regarding innocence until proven guilty.

Nothing wrong with that at all.

The system was already in place for two separate systems to do just that. A third is just stupid.

Command decisions on charges and accusations have a huge history of abuse and neglect. JAG should be used this bill seems to help. Maybe??

You or I don't have enough info on what the bill actually says.

 

[ajole]

You aren’t wrong about either of those things.

 

[Think1st]

I don't see anything wrong with that

Command decisions on charges and accusations have a huge history of abuse and neglect. JAG should be used this bill seems to help. Maybe??

You or I don't have enough info on what the bill actually says.

You're right. We don't know enough about it, and commanders have a history of dropping the ball. I will not get into specifics, but have seen the results on multiple occasions in the past.

With that being said, there need to be safeguards in place to protect Soldiers from their poorly chosen dependents. Many a young troop has had his life turned upside down and inside out because of a spouse or girlfriend who is on the way out for poor conduct in the relationship and who decides to take Joe down on the way out.

Also, I have seen how slowly the military justice system runs. A protective order involving a military judge could easily exceed the two weeks granted wrongfully accused individuals under civilian red flag laws.

But, like we all agree, we don't have the full text yet, so we can't do more than assume that this will be what we assume it to be. Personally, I'm not a fan of anything that deprives Soldiers of their private property without due process. I don't like red flag laws as they exist for that reason, and if this section mirrors existing red flag laws, I certainly won't approve of it.

If it has strong safeguards in place, I'll be more positive about it.

 

[SWAGA]

They’re not allowed to carry on-base now why would they need to be exempt from red flag laws off-base?

 

[Rerun]

They're not allowed to carry on-base now why would they need to be exempt from red flag laws off-base?

Base housing.

eldar

 

[Think1st]

They're not allowed to carry on-base now why would they need to be exempt from red flag laws off-base?

They're not exempt from Red Flag laws on post. Many places have concurrent jurisdiction with the state government on several matters. It's why being on post wouldn't protect someone from a locally-issued protective order.