Always trying to sneak in an additional infringement:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...-restrain-military-personnel-owning-firearms/
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...-restrain-military-personnel-owning-firearms/
2022 NDAA contains Red Flag provision for military personel
- Thread starter SharpDog
- Start date
- Status
bdickens
Member
Like most of these things, when you actually bother to read the story you find out it's not really what the clickbait headline implies.
bdickens
Member
Yeah, so? Did you actually read the article?
Or any of the texts surrounding your cute little highlight ?
Or any of the texts surrounding your cute little highlight ?
I'm sorry, but I don't see the problem.
The bill says that if a military court orders firearms restraint as part of a protective order....
...AND the person has had an opportunity to be heard in court...
the restraint then goes into effect...
...and federal & local law enforcement is notified.
Did I miss something ?
The bill says that if a military court orders firearms restraint as part of a protective order....
...AND the person has had an opportunity to be heard in court...
the restraint then goes into effect...
...and federal & local law enforcement is notified.
Did I miss something ?
Last edited:
1942bull
Member
I have no issue with the legislation as long as due diligence And due process apply. There are people in both military and civilian life that ought not have guns. That is a fact proven but unfortunate events I. Which innocent people die needlessly. My strong support for 2A rights is accompanied by strong support for keeping guns out of the hands of those who simply should not have the.
Just to be fair, the “ex parte” language means it can be done without letting the respondent have a chance to reply - but that’s no different than civil law.
I think this is a good faith attempt to fix a hole in military law. Remember the Air Force guy who shot up the Texas church in 2017 and killed 26 people? This is a step in addressing one of the shortfalls in the current system - MPO’s and reporting to outside authorities. (The Texas case was more complicated - he got a BCD but the USAF was negligent in reporting it to the FBI, which allowed him to pass background checks to buy guns.)
This isn’t a “red flag” provision that lets them take someone’s guns because of concerns about their mental health or stability…it’s a specific provision to give an MPO the same standing as a civilian court order, and to require the military to report it to civilian law enforcement. It requires the same standards of proof to grant the order as a civilian needs (and in reality, it’s probably harder to obtain), so it ought to have the same legal impact.
wiscoaster
Member
Yes. The real problem is legislating law in an appropriations bill. Unfortunately this isn't a unique instance, nor has it been for some time.
Not an Appropriations Bill --
The NDAA is a Senate/Hose Armed Services Committees bill to set Policy under which money will be spent by the DoD.
. . . and does so all the time
" establishes defense priorities, make organizational changes to military agencies, and provides guidance on how funding should be used."
This kind of legislative direction under which money will be spent is done as a matter or course -- it is in fact normal.
It is not the Appropriation act -- separate bill under House control.
Last edited:
H.R> 4350 is not an appropriations bill, it is an authorizations bill. This is a standard annual process of first passing an authorizations act, saying what actions money can be spent on, followed by an appropriations act that says how much money the department will have to use for the authorized activities. The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is how Congress specifies how DoD can (allowed to) or must (required to) do its job, including sometimes re-defining what the DoD's job is.
(Yeah, once upon a time my job was to pay attention to both.)
wiscoaster
Member
OK, sorry, I stand appropriately corrected.
No need to apologize. Bills going through Congress to become laws go through an arcane process with it own language. Further, the opening of the NDAA says it is the "appropriation authorization act." Only those of us who had to live within the process are likely to know these details.
wiscoaster
Member
Thanks, but those of us that don't understand the arcana of the process details are probably well-advised to not pontificate on their shortcomings, so I appreciate the education.
BryanDavis
Member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2010
- Messages
- 85
Actually from what I can tell there's truth to this. Both GOA and FPC are moving on it.
https://www.gunowners.org/na09212021/
www.redflagtax.com (That's FPC's one.)
bdickens
Member
Unfortunately, neither one of those organizations seems to have a very firm command of the English language.
Read the text of the article, not the clickbait headline. The actual article is much more sober and level headed.
This isn't about " taking guns away from service members." It's not even about "red flag laws."
From the article: "It gives military courts the authority to prohibit gun possession via protective orders...."
Same as civilian courts do. No different.
jarhead127
member
When I was in, the guys livin in the barracks had to keep their firearms at the armory. They had to check them in/out for use. I was married + lived in base housing so most of the guys in my squadron had their guns at my house.
A large number of conservatives voted for the NDAA yet when specifically questioned about this being a back door attempt to seize firearms they were bemused at the accusation.
The proposal was not a final bill and language was included which they said would not be. This proposal was called a "scrivener's" error - and in their circle was understood to have no effect. I believe it was Dan Crenshaw who published that.
Long ago, laws in the hopper, going thru committed, and being revised by both the House and Senate were compared to making sausage. As some of us know, choice cuts of meat which could sell for $1.99 a pound aren't included. It's the parts of the hog you never wanted to know about which are.
In the current political climate the House deliberately includes politically inflammatory items to stir up divisiveness. Its working.
The proposal was not a final bill and language was included which they said would not be. This proposal was called a "scrivener's" error - and in their circle was understood to have no effect. I believe it was Dan Crenshaw who published that.
Long ago, laws in the hopper, going thru committed, and being revised by both the House and Senate were compared to making sausage. As some of us know, choice cuts of meat which could sell for $1.99 a pound aren't included. It's the parts of the hog you never wanted to know about which are.
In the current political climate the House deliberately includes politically inflammatory items to stir up divisiveness. Its working.
- Status
Similar threads
