The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old July 30, 2020, 05:14 PM   #1
OuTcAsT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 1,229
New RED FLAG Bill for the military passes the US House

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/?fb...qkI_HZTxhMcsos
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood

Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska -
OuTcAsT is offline  
Old July 30, 2020, 05:49 PM   #2
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,965
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/...16hr6395rh.pdf

Last edited by thallub; July 30, 2020 at 05:57 PM.
thallub is offline  
Old August 1, 2020, 10:01 AM   #3
RETG
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 22, 2009
Location: Somewhere in Idaho
Posts: 407
Is it really veto-proof? Will the same republicans vote on a veto override attempt? That is if the Senate passes it along....
__________________
For what is a man, what has he got? If not himself then he has naught. To say the things he truly feels,
And not the words of one who kneels
(Claude François & Paul Anka)
RETG is offline  
Old August 1, 2020, 10:40 AM   #4
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 14,361
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.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old August 1, 2020, 02:50 PM   #5
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 3,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by thallub
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:

Quote:
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.
zukiphile is offline  
Old August 1, 2020, 04:13 PM   #6
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,965
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. "
thallub is offline  
Old August 1, 2020, 07:39 PM   #7
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 3,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thallub
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thallub
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.
zukiphile is offline  
Old August 1, 2020, 07:53 PM   #8
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,965
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."

Last edited by thallub; August 1, 2020 at 08:01 PM.
thallub is offline  
Old August 1, 2020, 08:22 PM   #9
ATN082268
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 862
Quote:
Originally Posted by thallub View Post
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?
ATN082268 is offline  
Old August 1, 2020, 08:23 PM   #10
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 3,873
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thallub
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.
zukiphile is offline  
Old August 2, 2020, 01:51 PM   #11
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 21,704
Consider this,

Quote:
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.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old August 2, 2020, 02:16 PM   #12
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 3,873
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.
zukiphile is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.06280 seconds with 10 queries