It would appear that the US House has snuck in a "red flag" provision in a new house bill. Definitely a good read..https://gunowners.org/na07292020/?fbclid=IwAR1HLGAO3z9KVF8SZW4cCmCWDDEcHd0Ou72vIYHLEsYMlqkI_HZTxhMcsos
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
New RED FLAG Bill for the military passes the US House
- Thread starter OuTcAsT
- Start date
It ain't a good read. Yep, the GOA is jerking our chains again,
Scroll down to page 337 of the PDF:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-116hr6395rh/pdf/BILLS-116hr6395rh.pdf
Scroll down to page 337 of the PDF:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-116hr6395rh/pdf/BILLS-116hr6395rh.pdf
Last edited:
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Where is the "red flag" provision that's so onerous? Reading the bill, it looks a lot less red flag-like than the law my state enacted a couple of years ago.
thallub said:It ain't a good read. Yep, the GOA is jerking our chains again,
Scroll down to page 337 of the PDF:
What do you find significant on that page?
At page 343, it reads:
5 ‘‘(i) RESTRICTIONS ON ACCESS TO FIREARMS.—
6 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other
7 provision of law—
8 ‘‘(A) a military court protective order
9 issued on an ex parte basis shall restrain a per
10 son from possessing, receiving, or otherwise ac
11 cessing a firearm; and
12 ‘‘(B) a military court protective order
13 issued after the person to be subject to the order
14 has received notice and opportunity to be heard
15 on the order, shall restrain such person from pos
16 sessing, receiving, or otherwise accessing a fire
17 arm in accordance with section 922 of title 18.
It doesn't read that the order may restrain the possession of arms according to the evidence adduced. It mandates the content of the order if granted.
The GOA lied when they stated there is no right to do process in the bill. The author of the piece is betting you will not read the bill. "Just take our word" and raise hades with your congress critter.
There is due process in the bill:
"PROTECTION OF DUE PROCESS.—Except as
provided in paragraph (2), a protective order authorized under subsection (a) may be issued only after reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard, directly or through counsel, is given to the person against whom the order is sought sufficient to protect
that person’s right to due process.
‘‘(2) EMERGENCY ORDERS.—A protective order
on an emergency basis may be issued on an ex parte basis under such rules and limitations as the Presi2 dent shall prescribe. In the case of ex parte orders, notice and opportunity to be heard must be provided within a reasonable time after the order is issued, sufficient to protect the respondent’s due process rights. "
There is due process in the bill:
"PROTECTION OF DUE PROCESS.—Except as
provided in paragraph (2), a protective order authorized under subsection (a) may be issued only after reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard, directly or through counsel, is given to the person against whom the order is sought sufficient to protect
that person’s right to due process.
‘‘(2) EMERGENCY ORDERS.—A protective order
on an emergency basis may be issued on an ex parte basis under such rules and limitations as the Presi2 dent shall prescribe. In the case of ex parte orders, notice and opportunity to be heard must be provided within a reasonable time after the order is issued, sufficient to protect the respondent’s due process rights. "
Thallub said:The GOA lied when they stated there is no right to do process in the bill.
In the link, Hammond didn't appear to assert that there is no right of due process in the bill.
Thallub said:There is due process in the bill:
"PROTECTION OF DUE PROCESS.—Except as
provided in paragraph (2), a protective order authorized under subsection (a) may be issued only after reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard, directly or through counsel, is given to the person against whom the order is sought sufficient to protect
that person’s right to due process.
‘‘(2) EMERGENCY ORDERS.—A protective order
on an emergency basis may be issued on an ex parte basis under such rules and limitations as the Presi2 dent shall prescribe. In the case of ex parte orders, notice and opportunity to be heard must be provided within a reasonable time after the order is issued, sufficient to protect the respondent’s due process rights. "
That doesn't describe due process for a complete suspension of an individual's 2d Am. rights.
Under section two, the order issues without notice to the respondent or a hearing at which he has appeared. The petitioner posts no bond and suffers no sanction for the filing of a false petition. The time within which the respondent must have a hearing is unspecified.
It looks like just as awful an idea as some of the other RFLs we've discussed over the last couple of years. People should raise hell with their congressmen about this.
i spent 20+ years in the US Army. The military justice system is much more people friendly than civilian courts.
If the bill does not pass military personnel living off post will continue to be tried in civilian courts where law enforcement and prosecutors are less friendly and less concerned about their rights.
In civilian life people charged with rape or attempted rape are often jailed pending trial. Civilian prosecutors often overcharge offenders and then plea bargain for a lesser felony. Then military person gets reported to the FBI and it's goodbye gun rights.
Here's the same trash talk designed to stir up gunowners:
"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."
If the bill does not pass military personnel living off post will continue to be tried in civilian courts where law enforcement and prosecutors are less friendly and less concerned about their rights.
In civilian life people charged with rape or attempted rape are often jailed pending trial. Civilian prosecutors often overcharge offenders and then plea bargain for a lesser felony. Then military person gets reported to the FBI and it's goodbye gun rights.
Here's the same trash talk designed to stir up gunowners:
"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."
Last edited:
In civilian life people charged with rape or attempted rape are often jailed pending trial. Civilian prosecutors often overcharge offenders and then plea bargain for a lesser felony. Then military person gets reported to the FBI and it's goodbye gun rights.
So, in the military, the above generally doesn't happen?
Whether the military justice system is friendlier doesn't bear on whether the bill's language offers the protections of ordinary due process. Like other RFLs, it clearly doesn't.
The bolded is true, and already a problem in jurisdictions with the new breed of hybrid laws that feature ex parte hearings, a reduced evidentiary thresh hold, suspension of rights and confiscation of property.
thallub said:Here's the same trash talk designed to stir up gunowners:
"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."
The bolded is true, and already a problem in jurisdictions with the new breed of hybrid laws that feature ex parte hearings, a reduced evidentiary thresh hold, suspension of rights and confiscation of property.
Consider this,
Note that it refers to a military court. Military courts do NOT operate under exactly the same rules as civil courts.
Their authority is over people under the UCMJ (serving military), and not civilians. Serving military do not have ALL the same rights civilians do.
Confusing a military court with a civilian court is an error. They don't operate under exactly the same rules, and there is a pretty solid argument that they shouldn't operate under exactly the same rules.
8 ‘‘(A) a military court protective order
Note that it refers to a military court. Military courts do NOT operate under exactly the same rules as civil courts.
Their authority is over people under the UCMJ (serving military), and not civilians. Serving military do not have ALL the same rights civilians do.
Confusing a military court with a civilian court is an error. They don't operate under exactly the same rules, and there is a pretty solid argument that they shouldn't operate under exactly the same rules.
That the UCMJ's version of due process can be less broad than due process in a civilian court isn't the distinguishing feature of this bill's language. The pertinent difference here is that RFLs are not clearly criminal matters. They involve standards and structures associated with civil law, but involve abridgements of rights associated with criminal law.
If a service member is charged with a crime, the UCMJ and martial precedent should govern the process. Suspending a respondent's rights without service or an opportunity to rebut has the same shortcomings in either context.
If a service member is charged with a crime, the UCMJ and martial precedent should govern the process. Suspending a respondent's rights without service or an opportunity to rebut has the same shortcomings in either context.