Congress Just Snuck a Gun Confiscation Provision into Latest Military Spending Bill

[Annihilator]

WOW....is all I can say after reading this article, I see it doesn't matter if your on the left or right now.......alarming

congress-just-snuck-a-gun-confiscation-provision-into-latest-military-spending-bill

 

[somorris]

“They” are not going to give up.

 

[HansGruber]

Hmm…reading it, I see your point.

Letting stalkers, rapists, and domestic abusers keep their guns while such events get investigated would be a good thing.

 

[benstt]

More scare tactics from gun bloggers. My quick read of the proposed bill found it to be a narrow provision including an extensive discussion of due process and a provision putting the burden of proof on the person seeking the protective order. The magistrate must make certain findings that the person requesting the protectve order is a child or domestic partner and that the person against whom the protective order is sought is a danger to the person seeking the order. That is hardly a "confiscation provision."

Articles like that should be read with a grain of salt. Their purpose is not to inform anyone, it's to get people scared and angry about the evil democrat boogyman coming to take everyone's guns away when the actual bill does nothing of the kind. They're just clickbait articles.

 

[C. Sumpin]

I read it as applies to military only, but, that can soon extrapolate to civilian courts.

 

[Bassbob]

More scare tactics from gun bloggers. My quick read of the proposed bill found it to be a narrow provision including an extensive discussion of due process and a provision putting the burden of proof on the person seeking the protective order. The magistrate must make certain findings that the person requesting the protectve order is a child or domestic partner and that the person against whom the protective order is sought is a danger to the person seeking the order. That is hardly a "confiscation provision."

Articles like that should be read with a grain of salt. Their purpose is not to inform anyone, it's to get people scared and angry about the evil democrat boogyman coming to take everyone's guns away when the actual bill does nothing of the kind. They're just clickbait articles.

A lot less people would fall for it if the democrats didn't have a very long and very real history of attempting to do just that. We should magically start trusting democrats when they try to pass "Common sense" gun bills ?

 

[jumpinjoe]

Isn't this (.......The magistrate must make certain findings ....... ) very similar to when they argued for creating the FISA warrants a few years ago? And just look how well that has worked.

I seem to recall how that plan didn't necessarily protect some folk's rights. Or was it that it didn't protect some of those one just one side of the aisle?

Just something to ponder y'all !!!

 

[Bassbob]

Isn't this (.......The magistrate must make certain findings ....... ) very similar to when they argued for creating the FISA warrants a few years ago? And just look how well that has worked.

I seem to recall how that plan didn't necessarily protect some folk's rights. Or was it that it didn't protect some of those one just one side of the aisle?

Just something to ponder y'all !!!

These are the guys deciding.

131 federal judges failed to recuse themselves from cases in which they had financial interest: report

One hundred and thirty-one federal judges oversaw court cases involving companies in which they or their family members owned stock, according to a new investigation.

thehill.com

 

[dadoser]

I always find it funny when either side claims the other "snuck" something into a bill (they voted for).
The truth is - congress members (or very few) actually fully read the Bills they vote on.

 

[benstt]

Isn't this (.......The magistrate must make certain findings ....... ) very similar to when they argued for creating the FISA warrants a few years ago? And just look how well that has worked.

I seem to recall how that plan didn't necessarily protect some folk's rights. Or was it that it didn't protect some of those one just one side of the aisle?

Just something to ponder y'all !!!

I'd say no. FISA was done in secret, no due process rights. The feds showed up with whatever they thought made their case and the warrant went out. The target had no idea. This sounds like going to get a protective order from a regular district court, with a hearing in front of a judge or magistrate. It happens every day in civilian courts.

 

[jumpinjoe]

benstt, my point was that in order to install the FISA court, there was promise/assurance of 'due process. Well, I'm pretty sure most agree that didn't happen in some well known cases. That's all.

I'm going to assume my using the poor choice of wording "creating FISA warrants" caused the misunderstanding ...... when I should have indicated 'creating the FISA courts'.

 

[SubChaser]

1) If a female member of my family was being stalked by a member of the armed forces and the MPs had probable cause, I would want the perp's weapons confiscated until he was acquitted.
2) When you enlist, you are governed by the UCMJ, above and beyond civilian law. Serving sailors, soldiers, Marines and now space cadets? are held to a higher standard.