For military members, who are accused of ‘domestic violence’ they may see their firearms confiscated by police, if Democrats get their way.
The blue team in the House of Representatives wants to introduce a new law and pass legislation to strip active duty troops of their firearms (and their second amendment rights) by police under the proposed law.
This came from a report on military.com and notes that it would permit civilian police to confiscate weapons if they are accused of ‘domestic violence’.
The report states that, “Military commanders can issue protective orders requiring a service member to stay away from an alleged victim of domestic violence or related crimes such as stalking, and temporarily confiscate their firearms if they are on a military installation”.
The report explains that the law as it currently stands clearly states, that military court orders are not enforced by civilian law enforcement, commanders also carry no authority to seize firearms from troops if they are kept off base.
“That means if a victim wants protection from their abuser outside of a military base, they have to go through the separate process of obtaining a civilian protective order, which advocates say puts victims through unnecessary trauma and potentially leaves them open to further abuse.” The report says.
Democratic Rep. Jackie Speier, fromCalifornia, who is the chair of the House Armed Services Committee’s subcommittee dedicated to personnel said.
“Domestic violence is a forgotten crisis in the military, and that’s why I offered an NDAA [National Defense Authorization Act] amendment to ensure that service members have access to military court protective orders that are as strong and enforceable as protective orders issued by civilian courts.”
Under the new proposed law, the Democrat legislation would “create a system for military courts to issue protective orders,” the report says, adding that “Military court protective orders would be fully recognized by state and local law enforcement under the proposed law.”
Those who oppose the legislation, point out that it shares similarities with ‘red flag’ gun confiscation laws. These laws allow family members or the police to petition a court – if anyone is deemed a threat to themselves and or others – to have their firearms taken.
Republicans are opposing the proposed law, stating that such a move “would violate the Second Amendment rights of our nation’s brave service members by allowing military judges and magistrates to issue military court gun confiscation orders”.
Republican Rep. Chip Roy, of Texas further said that “Congress should not allow servicemen who are faced with allegations to have their firearms taken away first, and face due process later.”
The House Democrats proposed a similar provision last year, which was removed by the Republican controlled Senate.
Retired Gen. Peter Chiarelli, who was Army vice chief of staff from 2008 to 2012, supports the move, however and stated in his interview, that it “makes all kinds of sense” to him.
Chiarelli himself lobbied for a change enacted in 2013 that allows commanders to ask troops at risk of harming themselves or others about personally owned firearms.
“It’s not stripping service members of their Second Amendment rights,” he said. “If you’ve got a domestic issue that’s gone as far as the courts, it’s probably a pretty serious issue. If somebody is applying a restraining order, they’re telling that individual to cease and desist. I personally have no issue with that.”
4 thoughts on “Democrats Want to Introduce Law That Would Allow Police to CONFISCATE GUNS From U.S. Troops”
“LETS GO BRANDON” # FJB
A law from any source, treaty, or presidential mandate does not supersede the Constitution and the Bill of Rights contained therein.
U.S. Constitution Article [II.]
(with dictionary definitions of terms)
A well ‘regulated’ (maintained) ‘Militia’ (The entire able-bodied
population of a community, town, county, or state, available
to be called to arms), being necessary to the security of a free
State, the ‘right’ (moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain
something or to act) of ‘the people’ (the citizens of a country)
to ‘keep’ (have or retain possession) and ‘bear’ (carry) ‘Arms’
(weapons and ammunition; armaments) ‘shall not’ (expressing
an instruction or command: you shall not) be ‘infringed’
(act to limit or undermine).
[The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before
1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the
property of something being in proper working order. Something
that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as
expected. Establishing government oversight of the people’s arms
was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment,
it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that
the founders wrote it.]
Can we make another year with these unlawful leaders. Can our economy survive another year. Military Law and the proper leader needs to step up NOW. I served for our country and still believe in it.
Another point on this: Military Law is designed to Maintain Discipline and Justice is of secondary importance. Talk about making the troops bitter and ready to leave the military!