House Passes “Red Flag” Gun Confiscation Bill For Ex-Military Members
 

Don't know whether or not I should have added this to the "Protecting the Second Amendment" thread; however, this is new. Just wanted to post this here as an FYI:

House Passes “Red Flag” Gun Confiscation Bill For Ex-Military Members — And Lots Of Republicans Voted For It
The Gateway Pundit September 25, 2021 at 10:40am


from the article:

The war on the Second Amendment continues.

This time, gun control was slipped into the 2022 National Defense Authorization Act.

One provision in the bill allows for military courts to confiscate guns from ex-members of the military.

The military court would be able to issue a protective order which would make the owning of a firearm by an ex-military member illegal.

American Military News reported:

A provision in the 2022 National Defense Authorization Act would allow military courts to issue protective orders that include “Red Flag” gun confiscation, according to the more than 1,300-page bill.

In the legislation, those beholden to the United States Code of Military Justice could be issued a “military court protective order” by a military judge or magistrate, which would make “possessing, receiving, or otherwise accessing a firearm” illegal. :mad:

“A military court protective order issued on an ex parte basis shall restrain a person from possessing, receiving, or otherwise accessing a firearm; and 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,” SEC. 529 of H.R. 4350 states.

Additionally, military court protective orders issued on an emergency basis are exempted from providing the recipient with the standard “right to due process.” Instead, “notice and opportunity to be heard” must only be provided after an order was already issued.

The 2022 National Defense Authorization Act passed 316-113.

135 Republicans in the House voted for the bill.

The bill now heads to the Senate.

When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns…… times up, let’s do this…. LERROY JENKINZ!

This is why Gateway Pundit must be filtered with a pretty fine mesh.

The amendment in question is in Sec. 529 of the Nat'l Defense Auth Act text.

The 2 kinds of military protection order are the regular kind, is somewhat similar to a civilian one, and the ex parte kind. The regular kind REQUIRES the potential subject to be granted an appearance before the military court; this is in a paragraph describing something called 'due-process'. The ex-parte kind is an emergency order that is granted immediately but requires the subject be given an opportunity to appear to contest it in not more than 30 days.

Nowhere in that text did I find mention that somehow that particular Section of the NDAA also applies to "ex-members". There may be some special double-secret class of ossifer that could be affected but not my lane. Sorry Gateway Pundit (again).

I despise the communist slugs and their quislings that insert stuff like that in a major appropriation but they're like scorpions, it's what they do. However, it is getting more & more important to sift white noise out of the mix so we focus on the right stuff. And alarmism from the GP doesn't help.

Now, those damned illegal immigrant Nicaraguan sharks have been making their way up stream through the Corps of Engineer locks & dams so I gotta go clean my bang stick.
:munchin

Red flag laws of any kind should be anathema to any constitution supporting American.

it's NOT the "United States Code of Military Justice." It is the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Military courts have NO - as in zero - jurisdiction over "ex" Soldiers.

This has stupid written all over it.

No surprises. Go back and look at how many Republicans voted for the assault weapons ban back in the '90s when it was packaged as part of the 'omnibus crime bill bill.

Federal Republicans don't like guns any more than federal democrats.

(Gun confiscation only applies if they pulled you into the ready reserve then you might be screwed under UCMJ.)


(b) Pilot Program to Place Certain Retired Members of the Armed
Forces in the Ready Reserve; Pay.--
(1) Authority.--
(A) In general.--Notwithstanding section 10145 of
title 10, United States Code, the Secretary of a
military department may prescribe regulations to carry
out a pilot program under which a retired member of a
regular component of the Armed Forces entitled to
retired pay may be placed in the Ready Reserve if the
Secretary concerned--
(i) determines that the retired member has
more than 20 years of creditable service in
that regular component; and
(ii) makes a special finding that the
member possesses a skill in which the Ready
Reserve of the Armed Force concerned has a
critical shortage of personnel.
(B) Limitation on delegation.--The authority of the
Secretary concerned under subparagraph (A) may not be
delegated--
(i) to a civilian officer or employee of
the military department concerned below the
level of Assistant Secretary; or
(ii) to a member of the Armed Forces below
the level of the lieutenant general or vice
admiral in an Armed Force with responsibility
for military personnel policy in that Armed
Force.
(2) Pay for duties performed in the ready reserve in
addition to retired pay.--Notwithstanding section 12316 of such
title 10, a member placed in the Ready Reserve under paragraph
(1) may receive--
(A) retired pay; and
(B) the pay and allowances authorized by law for
duty that member performs.
(3) Termination.--A pilot program under this subsection
shall terminate not later than four years after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(4) Report.--Not later than 90 days after a pilot program
terminates under paragraph (3), the Secretary concerned shall
submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
House of Representatives a report regarding such pilot program,
including the recommendation of the Secretary concerned whether
such pilot program should be made permanent.



(of note) here are some more fun ones in this bill see below.

SEC. 366. STUDY ON USE OF MILITARY RESOURCES TO TRANSPORT CERTAIN
INDIVIDUALS AND EFFECT ON MILITARY READINESS.

(a) Study.--The Secretary of Defense shall--
(1) conduct a study examining the effect on military
readiness of using Department of Defense resources to transport
covered individuals; and
(2) submit to Congress a report containing the findings of
such study.
(b) Covered Individual Defined.--In this section, the term
``covered individual'' means an individual who has crossed the southern
border of the United States without authorization.


I like how they hide this with wording. (covered)



SEC. 594. REPORTS ON MISCONDUCT BY MEMBERS OF SPECIAL OPERATIONS
FORCES.

(a) Report Required.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, and every six months thereafter for five years,
the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low
Intensity Conflict shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of
the Senate and House of Representatives a report regarding misconduct
by members of special operations forces during the six months preceding
the date of such report.
(b) Special Operations Forces Defined.--In this section, the term
``special operations forces'' means forces described in section 167(j)
of title 10, United States Code.

(Get on this list would not be good)

So they can swipe weapons from retirees who had long military careers, but not from single term enlistees. Well that makes a whole Lotta sense right there. :rolleyes:

Thanks Badger. I didn't understand all of what the article said; and it appears they didn't go to the source to find out. (Or maybe they did and didn't understand it correctly.) I certainly didn't get the chance to go to the source either. (I have limited time between work and trying to catch up with what is going on in this sick country. Too many sites to visit for information, not enough time.)

I still don't really understand the specific details; but the article did have me perk up my ears. This "ex parte" kind of which you spoke, I thought that was what the scumbags were going to use against ex-military. I must have misunderstood. (But as Sohei has said: "Red flag laws of any kind should be anathema to any constitution supporting American.") I agree.

You're right there, Box, I'm sorry to say. We have a few on our side but not many.

Exactly. I find when a so called news article stirs up emotions it’s done so deliberately and for monetary gain. With the advent of the Internet, anyone can claim to be a journalist and create content. We need to look behind the curtain. It wouldn’t matter except that it’s hurting our society.

Reminds me of Russian Active Measures to cause division and keep a populace fragmented.

there is no such thing as a TEMPORARY confiscation= it's organized theft.

folks in New Orleans that had their guns illegally confiscated,
never to see then again

Laws= Yea, Right! Illegal laws are not constitutional. MARBURY V. MADISON (1803)

Removing DNA from the Army Database
 

Did some searching and found out how to get your DNA deleted from the military DNA Data base, follow the instructions here.

https://health.mil/Military-Health-T...uction-Request


The question is did they ever share it with the FBI, Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) https://www.fbi.gov/services/laborat...l-dna-database

Would have to fill out a freedom of information act (FOIA) form to the medical examiner or the FBI to see if your DNA got shared between the systems.

https://www.foia.gov

Don't expect it to be fast

DNA
 

Or INTERPOL

How did they track down Osama bin Laden?