National Red Flag law

[2in1evtime]

But it's not passed in the house yet.

true my mistake on that, it was backed by mostly republicans but the way it reads could lead to issues that would cut 2a rights as i see it!!! We all know how the court systems and politicians will try to twist meanings etc.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

That is a red flag bill, and no it's not for the military.

Yes, but that's a SENATE bill. The House couldn't have voted on that. The House bill everyone is linking to is for the military and it's an appropriations bill. It funds things. Clinton's Brady Bill keeps anyone with a domestic violence conviction from owning a firearm and certain protective orders do the same temporarily. I was in the military when it passed and it screwed a lot of careers, but that's beside the point. The military must comply with the law. The appropritions bill linked doesn't add anything new to that.

 

[999cs]

If you look at Greg Pence voting record he votes against the constitution about 75% of the time. Only a few Democrats out do him.

Pence is just a dirtbag RHINO. Then again pretty much all of the republicans out there are worthless redcoats in sheeps clothing. They just sit back and do nothing or just help the demorats work on ruining this country.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Yes, but that's a SENATE bill. The House couldn't have voted on that. The House bill everyone is linking to is for the military and it's an appropriations bill. It funds things. Clinton's Brady Bill keeps anyone with a domestic violence conviction from owning a firearm and certain protective orders do the same temporarily. I was in the military when it passed and it screwed a lot of careers, but that's beside the point. The military must comply with the law. The appropritions bill linked doesn't add anything new to that.

I agree on the Senate bill. The House bill for the military appropriation does have something about protective orders, it appears that it makes it mandatory for all protective orders.

Here is the wording
‘‘(A) a military court protective order
issued on an ex parte basis shall restrain a person from possessing, receiving, or otherwise accessing a firearm; and
‘‘(B) 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.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I agree on the Senate bill. The House bill for the military appropriation does have something about protective orders, it appears that it makes it mandatory for all protective orders.

Here is the wording
‘‘(A) a military court protective order
issued on an ex parte basis shall restrain a person from possessing, receiving, or otherwise accessing a firearm; and
‘‘(B) 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.

That's Brady Bill compliance. Scroll up and you'll see:

"
-A military court protective
order--
``(1) may be issued for the purpose of protecting a victim
of an alleged covered offense, or a family member or associate
of the victim, from a person subject to chapter 47 of this
title (the Uniform Code of Military Justice) who is alleged to
have committed such an offense; and
``(2) shall include--
``(A) a finding regarding whether such person
represents a credible threat to the physical safety of
such alleged victim;
``(B) a finding regarding whether the alleged
victim is an intimate partner or child of...."


The referred to section 922 title 18. "...is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that—"

This is the UCMJ version of civilian courts' same ability under Brady, which has been a thing since the mid 90's. This directs the military to make their orders conform to Brady requirements so civilian law enforcement can also enforce it. That's the way it works already, in that any state's protective order is valid in any state. I've never seen a military one, so I'm not sure what's different.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

That's Brady Bill compliance. Scroll up and you'll see:

"
-A military court protective
order--
``(1) may be issued for the purpose of protecting a victim
of an alleged covered offense, or a family member or associate
of the victim, from a person subject to chapter 47 of this
title (the Uniform Code of Military Justice) who is alleged to
have committed such an offense; and
``(2) shall include--
``(A) a finding regarding whether such person
represents a credible threat to the physical safety of
such alleged victim;
``(B) a finding regarding whether the alleged
victim is an intimate partner or child of...."


The referred to section 922 title 18. "...is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that—"

This is the UCMJ version of civilian courts' same ability under Brady, which has been a thing since the mid 90's. This directs the military to make their orders conform to Brady requirements so civilian law enforcement can also enforce it. That's the way it works already, in that any state's protective order is valid in any state. I've never seen a military one, so I'm not sure what's different.

I thought under Brady Bill compliance a judge could order no access to firearms, not shall. Am I wrong on that? I could be, never had one on me or against anyone so I'm not sure. But that is what I thought.

And if this is how it has been in the military, why do they need to put it into an appropriations bill?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I thought under Brady Bill compliance a judge could order no access to firearms, not shall. Am I wrong on that?

If the order is issued is up to the judge, but once it's issued there's no leeway in the federal law: "Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner..."

And if this is how it has been in the military, why do they need to put it into an appropriations bill?

Here's the existing code that would be amended: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/subtitle-A/part-II/chapter-80

1567 and 1567a are the relevant parts.

I'm not a UCMJ lawyer, but it looks to me like they are tasking the military judges and courts with things the unit commander has previously been tasked with and are standardizing how they do it.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

If the order is issued is up to the judge, but once it's issued there's no leeway in the federal law: "Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner..."



Here's the existing code that would be amended: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/subtitle-A/part-II/chapter-80

1567 and 1567a are the relevant parts.

I'm not a UCMJ lawyer, but it looks to me like they are tasking the military judges and courts with things the unit commander has previously been tasked with and are standardizing how they do it.

Changing it from the unit commander to military judge and standardizing it sounds fine, even good. And that is also how it reads to me. But it also reads to me that a military judge has no option and it's mandatory no firearms. Unlike other judges who can say yea or nay. That is the only issue I have with it.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Changing it from the unit commander to military judge and standardizing it sounds fine, even good. And that is also how it reads to me. But it also reads to me that a military judge has no option and it's mandatory no firearms. Unlike other judges who can say yea or nay. That is the only issue I have with it.

Maybe Kirk or Houghmade can chime in, but my understanding based on what I posted above is any domestic based PO post-hearing is automatically no guns and the judge's discretion is purely if the order is issued or not. I could also be wrong, but I've never seen an exception.

 

[Denny347]

Sooooo, are we all mad about the same thing here or what....

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Sooooo, are we all mad about the same thing here or what....

There's at least two completely different things in the thread. The House bill that somehow got linked as "the bill" that has zero to do with red flags and there's an existing Senate bill that does deal with red flags but can't be "the bill" since it was supposed to be a house bill. The so called news article that started it can't be bothered to link to whatever they are talking about, so at this point it seems likely it's clickbait.

But I'm mad at something. Horses, IIRC.

 

[Denny347]

There's at least two completely different things in the thread. The House bill that somehow got linked as "the bill" that has zero to do with red flags and there's an existing Senate bill that does deal with red flags but can't be "the bill" since it was supposed to be a house bill. The so called news article that started it can't be bothered to link to whatever they are talking about, so at this point it seems likely it's clickbait.

But I'm mad at something. Horses, IIRC.

Well I want to be mad at something and I have to figure out where to direct my outrage.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Well I want to be mad at something and I have to figure out where to direct my outrage.

Try horses.

See how smug he looks? Making a fool of Wilbur all those years...

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Maybe Kirk or Houghmade can chime in, but my understanding based on what I posted above is any domestic based PO post-hearing is automatically no guns and the judge's discretion is purely if the order is issued or not. I could also be wrong, but I've never seen an exception.

Hopefully one of them might chime in. But from the wording from the USC it sounds like it's up to the judge in (B)(ii). And I will say that it is probably very rare that a judge wouldn't put it in place, if ever. But I like seeing them have an option, especially if being around firearms is part of their job description. I can see the wife/husband of a service member get pissed off and to get favorable divorce conditions filing for a protective order,. same with LEOs. And it screwing with their job/career.

And yes I see (B)(i) which does seem to indicate that it is mandatory, but that is if it includes a finding that they represent a credible threat. Protection orders are issued at times when there is not a credible threat aren't they? In harassment, etc. cases.

(8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that—
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and

(B)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or

 

[BehindBlueI's]

And yes I see (B)(i) which does seem to indicate that it is mandatory, but that is if it includes a finding that they represent a credible threat. Protection orders are issued at times when there is not a credible threat aren't they? In harassment, etc. cases.

Post-hearing is when it's mandatory. Same for the military one as far as I can tell. The wording seems to be a direct cut n paste plus the referral to the existing code.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Post-hearing is when it's mandatory. Same for the military one as far as I can tell. The wording seems to be a direct cut n paste plus the referral to the existing code.

Quite possibly your right. I'm just worried with the "shall" language and them getting screwed over because of a pissed off spouse, ex boy/girlfriend, etc.

And it applies to an ex parte order as well. If that's done the guy/girl may be blowing in the wind for a month waiting for a hearing. Not military so I have no idea how that would work.

 

[bwframe]

 

[edporch]

I can see it now in Indianapolis.
Guns are ordered to be returned and Indianapolis says No, we'll return them when we feel like it, and expect it to be years or never.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I can see it now in Indianapolis.
Guns are ordered to be returned and Indianapolis says No, we'll return them when we feel like it, and expect it to be years or never.

I think I may have posted something about this in another thread, but quite possibly I didn't and just have thought about it. With the current red flag law, and the time restraints for returning them in the IC. I wonder if with current IMPD policy if that would open them up to a lawsuit under IC 35-47-11.1? I'm thinking it just might.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I can see it now in Indianapolis.
Guns are ordered to be returned and Indianapolis says No, we'll return them when we feel like it, and expect it to be years or never.

Indiana already has a red flag law and has for years. But, yes, the property room issues have been well documented.