Gun Confiscation Orders for Military Personnel

[bleak 37]

https://nworeport.me/2020/08/03/both-parties-approve-a-bill-that-includes-red-flag-gun-confiscation-orders-for-military-personnel/

[Cb85 136]

Really bad if true.  

They know ex military are force multipliers. That's y they target military.

[bleak 37]

4 hours ago, Cb85 said:

Really bad if true.  

They know ex military are force multipliers. That's y they target military.

It's as true as anything these days.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/6395

 

I really wish a few of the military would wake up, do the necessary research, plan and ACT. Not another "march on DC" but surgical. I think that is what they fear the most.

 

If it weren't for 2A, this (see pic) would be US as well. We can't depend on one man or any group to save us.

 

This is it, dude.

 

[mmurdock82abn 227]

They might try, but I'm 100% sure they'll just get shot. 

[Texas Trucker 40]

They've politicized the 1st line of defense (police) to the point of failure. They've now confiscated the personal weapons of our 2nd line of defense (military). Now it's on us - the last line of defense.

[Ria 25]

On 8/9/2020 at 5:06 AM, Texas Trucker said:

They've politicized the 1st line of defense (police) to the point of failure. They've now confiscated the personal weapons of our 2nd line of defense (military). Now it's on us - the last line of defense.

 

a) The police in most parts of the country are doing just fine. It's only in the Democrat besieged cities, and there's not that many of them, that the police have been handicapped
b) I'm not sure any confiscations have happened - as of today that's still illegal? The Bill has not been passed by the Senate yet. Bill screenshot below.

The Bill is certainly large, but a quick search of it's text shows the words "red flag" and "confiscation" or "confiscate" do not appear as far as I can see. Scanning the sections, it's not obvious where this is detailed.
Note: the linked article above does not cite section number for verification and does not quote any of the text that is supposed to be problematic.
Maybe someone who has the time and skill to read this can clarify, but I think it's a bit too early to call this "confiscating the personal weapons of the military".

Is the word "appropriation" the problem? - that seems to be about setting aside funds to equip the military.

 

Link to Bill

 

Edited August 10 by Ria

[bleak 37]

2 hours ago, Ria said:

 

a) The police in most parts of the country are doing just fine. It's only in the Democrat besieged cities, and there's not that many of them, that the police have been handicapped
b) I'm not sure any confiscations have happened - as of today that's still illegal? The Bill has not been passed by the Senate yet. Bill screenshot below.

The Bill is certainly large, but a quick search of it's text shows the words "red flag" and "confiscation" or "confiscate" do not appear as far as I can see. Scanning the sections, it's not obvious where this is detailed.
Note: the linked article above does not cite section number for verification and does not quote any of the text that is supposed to be problematic.
Maybe someone who has the time and skill to read this can clarify, but I think it's a bit too early to call this "confiscating the personal weapons of the military".

Is the word "appropriation" the problem? - that seems to be about setting aside funds to equip the military.

 

Link to Bill

 

It's buried under "Subtitle E: Sexual Assault." Yeah, sneaky bastards.

 

Under that is

Quote

Ҥ 1567b. Authority of military judges and military magistrates to issue military court protective orders

 

And under that is [my underline]

 

Quote

 

(i) Restrictions on access to firearms.—

“(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law—

“(A) a military court protective order issued on an ex parte basis shall restrain a person from possessing, receiving, or otherwise accessing a firearm; and

“(B) a military court protective order issued after the person to be subject to the order has received notice and opportunity to be heard on the order, shall restrain such person from possessing, receiving, or otherwise accessing a firearm in accordance with section 922 of title 18.

 

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/6395/text#toc-H3FE997F6E3984163A207A1EB85D1C6AE

 

Gun Control Bill Sneaks By Lackadaisical Republicans by Aidan Johnson, the Houston Courant, July 25, 2020

https://www.houstoncourant.com/houston-voices/2020/gun-control-sneaks-by-lackadaisical-republicans

 

Quote

 

On page 343 of 1427 lay a section stating: “a military court protective order issued on an ex parte basis shall restrain a person from possessing, receiving, or otherwise accessing a firearm.”

Understood in context, Section 542 of the bill codified a new “red flag” gun confiscation order program enforceable against any person subject to the United States Code of Military Justice—meaning both active duty military and retirees, among others. Because these would be issued on an ex parte basis, the gun owner would get no notice, no attorney, and no ability to defend himself against the accusations—in short, no due process.

 

Keep in mind that all this is under the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which was signed into law under Obama, to further curtail freedoms (aka "unalienable rights") that began with the Patriot Act. As I'm sure you know, the Patriot Act made it possible for agencies to detain anyone in this country indefinitely, without a lawyer, phone call or trial as a "potential terrorist."

The NDAA furthers this by giving the government via the NSA the permission to monitor, put under surveillance, detain indefinitely etc etc anyone whom they find a potential threat because of electronic communications, videos, phone calls etc.

This bill, H.R.6395 which is under the FY 2021 (Defense Budget), which is under the NDAA means it pertains to military personnel.

 

Edited August 10 by bleak

[Ria 25]

Ok, awesome, thank you for that.

I can't pretend I understand all of that and it's implications, but I have the impression that's very open to subjective interpretations, possibly leading to politically-motivated overuse and even misuse (meaning organisational politics not necessarily public politics). That's very concerning. Also seems like another chip away in the larger issue of 2nd A rights.

[mmurdock82abn 227]

1 minute ago, Ria said:

Ok, awesome, thank you for that.

I can't pretend I understand all of that and it's implications, but I have the impression that's very open to subjective interpretations, possibly leading to politically-motivated overuse and even misuse (meaning organisational politics not necessarily public politics). That's very concerning. Also seems like another chip away in the larger issue of 2nd A rights.

 

It's just a way to cause more chaos by getting cops and gun owners killed.

 

If someone shows up at my door, I'm not handing anything over.

 

Cops have an obligation to disobey unconstitutional orders, just like military do. The problem is they refuse to hire people who think that way, or at least are honest about thinking that way.

 

It's times like this I'm happy I don't live in the jurisdiction of the police. I seriously doubt the sheriffs department will try and enforce that garbage. I wish sheriffs would use their authority and arrest police for trying to enforce garbage like this.

[bleak 37]

20 minutes ago, mmurdock82abn said:

 

It's just a way to cause more chaos by getting cops and gun owners killed.

 

If someone shows up at my door, I'm not handing anything over.

 

Cops have an obligation to disobey unconstitutional orders, just like military do. The problem is they refuse to hire people who think that way, or at least are honest about thinking that way.

 

It's times like this I'm happy I don't live in the jurisdiction of the police. I seriously doubt the sheriffs department will try and enforce that garbage. I wish sheriffs would use their authority and arrest police for trying to enforce garbage like this.

 

This is Federal meaning that if passed, it would be enforced by Agencies; FBI, DHS with intel from CIA/NSA... cops and sheriffs will have no jurisdiction.

[mmurdock82abn 227]

16 minutes ago, bleak said:

 

This is Federal meaning that if passed, it would be enforced by Agencies; FBI, DHS with intel from CIA/NSA... cops and sheriffs will have no jurisdiction.

 

Ok, I get ya. Still, the sheriff is the only one who is able to stand between you and any other authorities. All they have to do us deputize everyone in the county and they then have an army.

 

I doubt Trump would allow that to go through if he knew about it, but then again I figured that about bump stocks.

 

Thing about bump stocks, they're absolute garbage. My brother in law had one and neither one of us could get it to work. A BFS3 is the way to go.

[bleak 37]

I just hafta say this and then I'm done.

 

I'm not a lawyer, LE, military... I'm a civilian and this is my informed opinion.

 

Stuff like this Bill are way over my head as much as anyone who's not a professional. I have the internet. I have a Black's Law Dictionary. I take my traffic citations to court and I've won 3 out of 3 so far (because the judges were fair) but that's about it.

 

People need to realize there is Collusion in a big way between both parties on certain issues. When it comes to power and control they don't want to give up, they are One Bird with Two Wings. Both Wings take The Bird in One Direction. A prime example of this is the transition from Bush Jr to Obama to Trump ie Rep, Dem, Rep.

 

This Bill, H.R.6395, passed the House with a vote of 295 - 125 with only a few Republicans opposing. There is this thing called "controlled opposition" but that's not the point. Both parties argue this and that but when it comes to the rubber hitting the road, they are together on it.

 

After 9/11 (and I'm not trying to take us off-topic although it is very on-topic in the Big Picture sense), Bush signed the Patriot Act. Our rights as Americans took major injuries. His successor said nothing about that but only continued that "narrative" with the NDAA. Two presidents, two parties, one agenda.

 

Now we have Trump. It seems he has no restraints when it comes to his plans, motivations, goals. But is that entirely true? MAGA. Did that mean the way it was BEFORE the Patriot Act and NDAA? Has he said a single WORD about those Bills? Because America was great before those Bills. Not as far as I know.

 

And we have the Sociali... cough, cough... democrats. Have any of them mentioned anything about giving the rights we had, back? Oh hell no. It is not mentioned. It shouldn't even be asked. Obama is still "my president" to them. Oh the one who signed the NDAA? Yes, that very one.

 

My point is we need to not trust completely in either party, candidate, ideology except one: The Constitution and The Bill of Rights. And we should gauge every politician, not about what they say they're going to do to uphold these, but what they actually do.

 

This is my informed opinion.

Edited August 10 by bleak

[mmurdock82abn 227]

3 minutes ago, bleak said:

I just hafta say this and then I'm done.

 

I'm not a lawyer, LE, military... I'm a civilian and this is my informed opinion.

 

Stuff like this Bill are way over my head as much as anyone who's not a professional. I have the internet. I have a Black's Law Dictionary. I take my traffic citations to court and I've won 3 out of 3 so far (because the judges were fair) but that's about it.

 

People need to realize there is Collusion in a big way between both parties on certain issues. When it comes to power and control they don't want to give up, they are One Bird with Two Wings. Both Wings take The Bird in One Direction. A prime example of this is the transition from Bush Jr to Obama to Trump ie Rep, Dem, Rep.

 

This Bill, H.R.6395, passed the House with a vote of 295 - 125 with only a few Republicans opposing. There is this thing called "controlled opposition" but that's not the point. Both parties argue this and that but when it comes to the rubber hitting the road, they are together on it.

 

After 9/11 (and I'm not trying to take us off-topic although it is very on-topic in the Big Picture sense), Bush signed the Patriot Act. Our rights as Americans took major injuries. His successor said nothing about that but only continued that "narrative" with the NDAA. Two presidents, two parties, one agenda.

 

Now we have Trump. It seems he has no restraints when it comes to his plans, motivations, goals. But is that entirely true? MAGA. Did that mean the way it was BEFORE the Patriot Act and NDAA? Has he said a single WORD about those Bills? Because America was great before those Bills. Not as far as I know.

 

And we have the Sociali... cough, cough... democrats. Have any of them mentioned anything about giving the rights we had, back? Oh hell no. It is not mentioned. It shouldn't even be asked. Obama is still "my president" to them. Oh the one who signed the NDAA? Yes, that very one.

 

My point is we need to not trust completely in either party, candidate, ideology except one: The Constitution and The Bill of Rights.

 

This is my informed opinion.

 

You're right, both parties suck. I see Trump as the attempt at fixing things by ballot before having no choice but to fix things by bullet. That's the procedure we are obligated to follow.

[2 Cents 136]

Hmmmm. I remember someone here calling my me a commie for saying things about our military. So what will it mean if they allow their weapons to be taken? Would it mean that they've been infiltrated by the left? No! Don't listen to me... I'm a fear monger. Just another keyboard commando that doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.

[Skillet 1,724]

Guys, in reality this has existed since I was a shaven head 'cruit and Reagan was a new president. Commanders have always had the authority to enact a protective order with the stroke of a pen.  Most units SOP when dealing with domestic violence reports  is to move Joe into the barracks until professionals can evaluate the situation (and he can't have his guns in the barracks).  If they live on post a commander has always had the authority to order firearms stored in the unit arms room vs on post housing. 

[mmurdock82abn 227]

11 minutes ago, Skillet said:

Guys, in reality this has existed since I was a shaven head 'cruit and Reagan was a new president. Commanders have always had the authority to enact a protective order with the stroke of a pen.  Most units SOP when dealing with domestic violence reports  is to move Joe into the barracks until professionals can evaluate the situation (and he can't have his guns in the barracks).  If they live on post a commander has always had the authority to order firearms stored in the unit arms room vs on post housing. 

 

That's true

[bleak 37]

3 hours ago, Skillet said:

Guys, in reality this has existed since I was a shaven head 'cruit and Reagan was a new president. Commanders have always had the authority to enact a protective order with the stroke of a pen.  Most units SOP when dealing with domestic violence reports  is to move Joe into the barracks until professionals can evaluate the situation (and he can't have his guns in the barracks).  If they live on post a commander has always had the authority to order firearms stored in the unit arms room vs on post housing. 

With respect, I don't think you get it. This isn't about domestic violence. It's also very unlikely that a team is going to start knocking down doors of ex military to confiscate their guns anytime soon.

 

The clause buried in this bill is a contingency plan for a 'what if' scenario, as in what if a trained marksman or a group decided that they'd had enough? Don't think for a second they don't fear that, especially those in control of this lockdown shit (ie fauci). So what if they issue a "mandatory vaccine" order? They won't worry about me resisting (hint: it would be over my dead body) but they ARE worried about the trained guys.

 

The government is always 20 steps ahead. It's really time for people to learn how they think. What we're living in now is far, far from a few decades ago or even last year.

[mmurdock82abn 227]

7 minutes ago, bleak said:

With respect, I don't think you get it. This isn't about domestic violence. It's also very unlikely that a team is going to start knocking down doors of ex military to confiscate their guns anytime soon.

 

The clause buried in this bill is a contingency plan for a 'what if' scenario, as in what if a trained marksman or a group decided that they'd had enough? Don't think for a second they don't fear that, especially those in control of this lockdown shit (ie fauci). So what if they issue a "mandatory vaccine" order? They won't worry about me resisting (hint: it would be over my dead body) but they ARE worried about the trained guys.

 

The government is always 20 steps ahead. It's really time for people to learn how they think. What we're living in now is far, far from a few decades ago or even last year.

 

Valid point. I suppose we can all just keep a black suit and hood on standby and claim to be antifa if that happens. They'll probably leave you alone then.

 

That's only a half joke, sad that it's probably truer than I'd like it to be. 

 

On a side note, I have some USSR commie memorabilia clothes, I used to wear them to be an asshat because I thought it was funny back in the day. Haven't taken it out since things got really crazy. Might come in handy if I ever decide I need to blend in with the mob I guess.

Edited August 11 by mmurdock82abn

[Skillet 1,724]

42 minutes ago, bleak said:

The clause buried in this bill is a contingency plan for a 'what if' scenario

 

Exactly what part of the bill says that? Not knocking you or calling you a liar, I honestly haven't had time to dig into it.

[bleak 37]

30 minutes ago, Skillet said:

 

Exactly what part of the bill says that? Not knocking you or calling you a liar, I honestly haven't had time to dig into it.

 

[Skillet 1,724]

6 hours ago, bleak said:

 

OK is this the portion you are referring to?

 

“(i) Restrictions on access to firearms.—

“(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law—

“(A) a military court protective order issued on an ex parte basis shall restrain a person from possessing, receiving, or otherwise accessing a firearm; and

“(B) a military court protective order issued after the person to be subject to the order has received notice and opportunity to be heard on the order, shall restrain such person from possessing, receiving, or otherwise accessing a firearm in accordance with section 922 of title 18.

 

If so that is specifically targeted to persons subject the the UCMJ, not everyday civilians. What it does is allow civilian authorities to enforce a Military Protective Order issued by a Federal Magistrate or Judge off of federal property at their request, which is something they cannot technically do now unless under a current state red flag law. 

 

Normally anything that would trigger this type of action is going to result in separation from the service, especially if a conviction in either military or civilian court is obtained. 
   

[bleak 37]

16 hours ago, Skillet said:

OK is this the portion you are referring to?

 

“(i) Restrictions on access to firearms.—

“(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law—

“(A) a military court protective order issued on an ex parte basis shall restrain a person from possessing, receiving, or otherwise accessing a firearm; and

“(B) a military court protective order issued after the person to be subject to the order has received notice and opportunity to be heard on the order, shall restrain such person from possessing, receiving, or otherwise accessing a firearm in accordance with section 922 of title 18.

 

If so that is specifically targeted to persons subject the the UCMJ, not everyday civilians. What it does is allow civilian authorities to enforce a Military Protective Order issued by a Federal Magistrate or Judge off of federal property at their request, which is something they cannot technically do now unless under a current state red flag law. 

 

Normally anything that would trigger this type of action is going to result in separation from the service, especially if a conviction in either military or civilian court is obtained. 
   

OK, I'll take your word for it.