|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
July 30, 2020, 05:14 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Eastern, TN
Posts: 1,236
|
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 - |
July 30, 2020, 05:49 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
|
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. |
August 1, 2020, 10:01 AM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 22, 2009
Location: Somewhere in Idaho, near WY
Posts: 507
|
Is it really veto-proof? Will the same republicans vote on a veto override attempt? That is if the Senate passes it along....
__________________
I give MY OPINION (not often) based on many years shooting at, other than paper targets. I will not debate my experience vs. your experience based on dreams and "what ifs." I'm 73; I'm too damn old to care. |
August 1, 2020, 10:40 AM | #4 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
|
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 |
August 1, 2020, 02:50 PM | #5 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
|
Quote:
At page 343, it reads: Quote:
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
||
August 1, 2020, 04:13 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
|
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. " |
August 1, 2020, 07:39 PM | #7 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
|
Quote:
Quote:
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.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
||
August 1, 2020, 07:53 PM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
|
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. |
August 1, 2020, 08:22 PM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 975
|
So, in the military, the above generally doesn't happen?
|
August 1, 2020, 08:23 PM | #10 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
|
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:
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|
August 2, 2020, 01:51 PM | #11 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,673
|
Consider this,
Quote:
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. |
|
August 2, 2020, 02:16 PM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
|
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.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|