It looks as if a red flag law could be imposed upon members of the US military and their dependents if HR 6395 is part of a compromise between the criminals in Congress and the White House. The latest version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2021 contains a provision to target the rights of our veterans and their families.
John Crump writes:
The NDAA authorizes the military to “red flag” anyone subject to the Uniform Code of Military Conduct. According to the NDAA, a friend or relative could report the service member as “abusive.” An ex parte “court” will hear the claims of the friend or relative and decided whether to take firearms away from the accused. The gun owner doesn’t have a chance to defend themselves or even know that someone is accusing them of abuse.
In the civilian world, law enforcement and the courts refer to red flag laws as Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPO). The NDAA refers to these red flag laws as Military Court Gun Confiscation Orders (GCOs). Even though the names of the rules are different, both laws work primarily the same way. Like ERPOs, GCOs lack due process. The court would assume the military member is guilty of abuse until they could prove their innocence as a later date.
According to gun rights advocates, the same service members that swear an oath to the Constitution will lose their Constitutionally guaranteed rights under the new NDAA. Military police or SWAT teams would carry out a raid of the gun owner’s house in the middle of the night to strip them of their gun rights.
The service member would then have to prove their innocence to get their firearms back from the same government that they are protecting.
The NDAA leaves a lot of gray areas in the GCO provision that would be filled in by the future White House administration. If an anti-gun politician becomes President, like Democrat Presidential Candidate Joe Biden, then the amount of evidence needed to strip the rights of the service member decrease or the amount of evidence to get the guns back would increase significantly. Anti-gun politicians seem to have this flexibility built into the NDAA intentionally.
Guns Owners of America writes:
The section in question, section §542, would authorize an unannounced middle-of-the-night raid of the home of any individual subject to the Uniform Code of Military Conduct (§542(a)) based on a middle of the night ex parte “court” proceeding (§542(i)) initiated by an aggrieved friend or relation, raising unsubstantiated allegations that the serviceman or servicewoman was “abusive.”
The gun owner is not entitled to receive notice or give his or her side of the story.
The proposed emergency Military Court Gun Confiscation Orders (GCOs) are explicitly exempted from the “Protection of Due Process” provided for in 542(g)(1).
In fact, there is no notice before the SWAT Team arrives at 2:00 a.m. — ready to ransack the house, seize all guns, and, if the target resists, kill the servicemember.
Unlike most “red flag” gun confiscation, this provision leaves most of the details up in the air — presumably, with the intention that they be filled in by an anti-gun White House.
What is the standard of proof for raiding your home?
What needs to be proven?
What rights do you have to defend your Second Amendment-protected rights?
“Understood in context, Section 542 of the [House] 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,” wrote Aidan Johnston, Director of Federal Affairs for Gun Owners of America. “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.”
Now, we do have President Donald Trump saying that he will veto the House version of the $740 billion legislation, but he’s told us he would fight for the Constitution on spending before only to turn around and sell the American people out.
“The Administration strongly objects to section 2829, which would require renaming of certain military institutions,” the White House statement read.
The Democrats snuck Red Flag gun confiscation laws into their anti-American NDAA legistlation. Larry Ward describes how it threatens gun owners everywhere…
Posted by Drew Berquist on Monday, July 27, 2020
American Military News adds:
The Senate version of the 2021 defense budget currently includes language establishing a commission to study the issue of renaming bases and determine a plan, cost, and criteria for renaming the bases. Once the commission determines its plan for renaming on the base renaming issue, the Senate bill sets out a three-year timeline for implementing the changes.
A summary of the House bill also lists measures to limit Trump’s ability to order U.S. troop reductions in Afghanistan.
“This section would require the Administration to submit a comprehensive, interagency report and certification prior to a drawdown of U.S. military personnel in Afghanistan below troop levels of 8,000 and 4,000,” the House NDAA language states. “The Secretary of Defense may waive the reporting requirement in this provision if it is vital to the national security interests of the United States or necessary due to an imminent and extraordinary threat to members of the United States Armed Forces.”
Similar reporting imposing restrictions on Trump’s planned troop reductions in Germany.
The White House statement also opposed the budget restrictions saying the measures “contravene the President’s constitutional authority as Commander in Chief.”
“This provision would restrict the President from discharging his Constitutional authority to reduce forces levels in
Afghanistan if he deems it necessary,” the White House statement continued. “It also would subordinate the President’s authority to the discretion of the officials whose concurrence would be required for the certification. Further, by requiring the concurrence of three military officers for the certification, the provision also would subordinate the Secretary of Defense’s discretion to the judgment of those military subordinates, upending the military chain of command and the principle of civilian control of the military.”
The House NDAA also includes language that limits the use of Pentagon funds for border wall construction by setting a cap on national emergency construction spending at $100 million for the domestic use and $500 million for overseas projects.
Other provisions in the House NDAA languages include the creation of special prosecutors to investigate sexual assault cases and other special instances and improve avenues for victims to report sexual assault in the military.
The House NDAA language also calls for chief diversity officer for the Department of Defense and creates a $1 billion Pentagon pandemic response fund.
AMN also reported, “A veto by Trump may not be enough to stop the legislation considering the legislation originally passed with a veto-proof majority of 295-125. Trump’s veto could to survive a veto override vote in the House only if some of the lawmakers who voted in favor of the legislation itself voted not to override Trump’s veto.”
While there are many in Congress that claims to be constitutional and pro-gun, and even the president himself, the fact of the matter is that both the president and many in Congress, such as Dan Crenshaw have called for red flag laws in the past, and the current administration’s Justice Department has been bribing states with taxpayer dollars to implement red flag laws, which violate more than half of the Bill of Rights.