As part of its September 23 passage of HR 4350, the 1,300 page, so called, “National Defense Authorization Act,” the House of Representatives voted 316 to 113 in favor of the anti-constitutional “Red Flag” gun-seizure concept promoted by Joe Biden.
The provision applies to active military, and even to many who have already completed their stints in the armed forces – many of them carrying and caring for weapons ostensibly to “defend” that very same Constitution on which the majority on the House just spat.
Breitbart’s Awr Hawkins reports:
The provision for prohibiting gun possession is contained in Section 529 of the NDAA. That section is titled, ‘Authority Of Military Judges And Military Magistrates To Issue Military Court Protective Orders.’
The specific provision gives military courts the authority to prohibit gun possession via protective orders in two ways: 1. By giving the subject of the order an “opportunity to be heard on the order.” 2. By issuing the order ex parte.
Writes Liz George, for American Military News:
’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.
Within 72 hours of issuance, the order is to be delivered to the Attorney General of the United States and ‘the Attorney General of the State or Territory in which the order is issued.’
And, adds George:
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 veneer of the “military court” is unwarranted and any attempt to breach the Constitution by turning to a military court system is contrary to the very existence of the US military itself, since the military only exists because of the US Constitution, and the Constitution holds sway.
That means that this provision of the NDAA violates the Second Amendment, forbidding CONGRESS AND ANY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT IN THE US from passing any statute that infringes on the right to keep and bear arms. It violates the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unwarranted searches and seizures. It violates the Fifth Amendment prohibition against seizure of freedom, life, or property without due process of law. It violates the Sixth Amendment assurance of a fair and speedy trial before a public jury. It violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment – how can someone be punished with property seizure if he not had a trial or even BEEN ACCUSED OF A CRIME? And it violates the spirit of the Fourteenth Amendment reiteration of the right to due process.
But, get this… 135 Republican members of Congress voted IN FAVOR of the NDAA, even with this provision (and a provision that allows for military conscription of WOMEN).
Related: First Two Weeks of New Jersey’s Red Flag Gun Statute: State Went After One Person Per Day | MRCTV