Posted on 09/27/2021 8:13:34 AM PDT by bitt
The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed its version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the annual defense bill that directs funding for our nation’s military. Unfortunately, this year’s bill contains two anti-gun provisions opposed by NRA-ILA.
The first provision, included in the bill by Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA), would ignore due process protections afforded by the U.S. Constitution and allow for the confiscation of firearms owned by those in the armed forces.
The Speier language would allow the military judicial system to issue ex parte protective orders that prohibit firearm possession. In other words, military personnel could be forcibly disarmed of their lawfully-possessed firearms before having so much as an opportunity to contest the accusations against them and present evidence in their defense. This would represent a clear denial of constitutional due process protections for those who have sworn an oath to protect and defend our country and the U.S. Constitution.
The second provision, offered as an amendment by Rep. Norma Torres (D-CA), would undo components of two export-reform regulations crafted by the Trump Administration. The regulations were designed to enhance the competitiveness of American companies in the firearms and ammunition sectors, remove burdens for gunsmiths and other small businesses, modernize export controls, and enhance national security.
Instead, the Torres amendment would empower anti-gun legislators to inject politics into what is normally an administrative exercise handled by subject matter experts, leading to unnecessary delays and costs to otherwise legal transactions. The amendment passed by a vote 215-213.
Anti-gun provisions like those included in the House-passed NDAA are glaring examples of the challenges law-abiding gun owners face with a Nancy Pelosi-led Congress. However, the fight is not over. The U.S. Senate has yet to consider their version of the NDAA, and both chambers will need to iron out any differences between their respective bills before it becomes law. NRA-ILA will continue to fight against the inclusion of these anti-gun provisions in the final bill.
p
No possession of firearms = not deployable
“Not deployable” leads to discharge from the service.
Every bit as bad as the Lautenberg Act.
Spier never has recovered from being at Jonestown when the mass suicide happened.
I suspect that this is aimed at personnel in the process of being removed from the military. Generally, those living on base are required to keep.their personally owned firearms in a base armory. This seems designed to deny access to the firearms when separating from the service.
It would seem that the US military is one of the best regulated militias in the entire world.
What are the words of the Second Amendment again?
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
THIS IS A SURE-ENOUGH INFRINGEMENT IF THERE EVER WAS ONE.
But then again, perhaps this is no longer a free state.
I can see the military-version of a red-flag provision, but it needs ample protection of Constitutional rights and afford due process. The second provision seems to have no place whatsoever in the NDAA. Hopefully the Senate will straighten this out, else kill the bill entirely.
It’s my understanding that Dan Crenshaw and a couple other (R) pols voted in favor of this.
There will be push back. Everyone sees what is going on elsewhere where governments confiscate guns. Ignorant Communist ongresscritters
It looks like 135 House Republicans have signed on to this including Matt Gaetz.
That said, a CO can already issue protective orders, place a member in the barracks on restriction and order them to deposit their weapons in the armory. What concerns me, will this allow a JAG to send local police to secure weapons off base. I have been involved in a couple of cases where the locals accompanied military cops to pickup weapons out in town. The members voluntarily turned the weapons over. In one case however, the wife claimed the gun was hers and refused. There was nothing anyone could do.
Once a member is discharged or separated, the weapons have to be returned because the military protective order is no longer enforceable under the UCMJ. So will this new rule, allow civilians to take the weapons by the order of a military judge? If so, this is the camels nose under the tent.
According to the roll call vote there were 135 rinos that voted for it. Here are the names.
Allen Georgia
Amodei Nevada
Bacon Nebraska
Baird Indiana
Balderson Ohio
Banks Indiana
Barr Kentucky
Bentz Oregon
Bergman Michigan
Bice (OK) Oklahoma
Bilirakis Florida
Bost Illinois
Brady Texas
Buchanan Florida
Bucshon Indiana
Calvert California
Cammack Florida
Carl Alabama
Carter (GA) Georgia
Carter (TX) Texas
Cawthorn N Carolina
Cheney Wyoming
Cole Oklahoma
Crawford Arkansas
Crenshaw Texas
Davis, Rodney Illinois
DesJarlais Tennessee
Diaz-Balart Florida
Dunn Florida
Ellzey Texas
Fallon Texas
Feenstra Iowa
Ferguson Georgia
Fitzgerald Wisconsin
Fitzpatrick Pennsylvania
Fleischmann Tennessee
Foxx N Carolina
Franklin, C. Scott Florida
Gaetz Florida
Gallagher Wisconsin
Garbarino New York
Garcia (CA) California
Gibbs Ohio
Gimenez Florida
Gonzales, Tony Texas
Gonzalez (OH) Ohio
Granger Texas
Graves (LA) Louisiana
Graves (MO) Missouri
Green (TN) Tennessee
Guthrie Kentucky
Harshbarger Tennessee
Hartzler Missouri
Herrera Beutler Washington
Hill Arkansas
Hinson Iowa
Hollingsworth Indiana
Hudson N Carolina
Issa California
Jackson Texas
Jacobs (NY) New York
Johnson (LA) Louisiana
Johnson (OH) Ohio
Johnson (SD) South Dakota
Joyce (OH) Ohio
Joyce (PA) Pennsylvania
Katko New York
Keller Pennsylvania
Kelly (MS) Mississippi
Kelly (PA) Pennsylvania
Kim (CA) California
Kinzinger Illinois
Kustoff Tennessee
LaHood Illinois
Lamborn Colorado
Latta Ohio
LaTurner Kansas
Letlow Louisiana
Long Missouri
Lucas Oklahoma
Luetkemeyer Missouri
Mace S Carolina
Malliotakis New York
Mann Kansas
McCarthy California
McCaul Texas
McClain Michigan
McHenry N Carolina
McKinley West Virginia
Meijer Michigan
Meuser Pennsylvania
Miller (WV) West Virginia
Miller-Meeks Iowa
Moolenaar Michigan
Moore (UT) Utah
Murphy (NC) N Carolina
Newhouse Washington
Nunes California
Obernolte California
Pence Indiana
Pfluger Texas
Reed New York
Reschenthaler Pennsylvania
Rodgers (WA) Washington
Rogers (AL) Alabama
Rogers (KY) Kentucky
Rouzer N Carolina
Salazar Florida
Scalise Louisiana
Scott, Austin Georgia
Simpson Idaho
Smith (NE) Nebraska
Smith (NJ) New Jersey
Spartz Indiana
Stauber Minnesota
Steel California
Stefanik New York
Steil Wisconsin
Tenney New York
Thompson (PA) Pennsylvania
Turner Ohio
Upton Michigan
Valadao California
Van Drew New Jersey
Van Duyne Texas
Wagner Missouri
Walberg Michigan
Walorski Indiana
Waltz Florida
Wenstrup Ohio
Westerman Arkansas
Wilson (SC) S Carolina
Wittman Virginia
Womack Arkansas
Young Alaska
I suspect this is aimed at anyone on the various “lists” that the Feds keep.
“Crenshaw Texas”
So the PINO (Pirate-In-Name-Only) DID vote to restrict our 2A rights.
That’s what the various States’ red flag laws are for.
Voted for it - - -
McCarthy California
...SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!!!
What the hell folks. Can’t you read?
Stop the encroachment!
Damn it!
The 1791 bill of rights makes this illegal. I don’t care how many laws they make, they’re illegal and I will not comply!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.