National Shut it down...Call your legislator

[bentoncity]

You have got to read through this or at the very least, dig into it.. talk about disgusting..
Even worse, it's introduced by Adam Smith(D) from Wa. State.

Hey folks..this is 'your' elected nimrod supporting this illegal cr*p! Feel free to write him a word or two here...

Dan

Date	Actions Overview
07/21/2020	Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 295 - 125 (Roll no. 152).
07/16/2020	Supplemental report filed by the Committee on Armed Services, H. Rept. 116-442, Part II.
07/09/2020	Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Armed Services. H. Rept. 116-442.
03/26/2020	Introduced in House

Read More

 

[American123]

Politicians were never intended to be in office full time, all year, every year, passing more and more laws and bills. The inevitable result is an ever reduced amount of freedom for the American people.

 

[Joe13]

Anybody have a summery of this??

 

[Red98422]

Maybe I haven't gotten to the part to get mad about yet, but it seems that it's a standard authorization for budget allocations

 

[CRBMoA]

I am probably going to need a few more bread crumbs before I go do a deep dive on WA budgetary matters, as I live in OR.

Got any Cliff Notes so we know what we are mad about? Someone north of the Columbia might benefit?

 

[DivCurlGrad72]

Saw this, don't know if there's anything else the OP finds troubling:

Congress is hiding a red flag law in the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for the Fiscal Year 2021 (H.R. 6395).

Sneaky Congress Hides Red Flag in National Defense Authorization Act

Congress slipped in this Constitutionally questionable provision into the NDAA under cover of darkness. Politicians on both sides on the aisle have been quiet over inclusion of the deadly red flag provision.

www.ammoland.com

 

[flashpan]

Politicians were never intended to be in office full time, all year, every year, passing more and more laws and bills. The inevitable result is an ever reduced amount of freedom for the American people.

Well Said!
I've convinced myself in the last year, that term limits are more important than who's running for office.

 

[American123]

Well Said!
I've convinced myself in the last year, that term limits are more important than who's running for office.

That would help, but the bigger problem is that being a politician has become such a lucrative job to attain that we end up with bartenders with no real world experience as congressmen. Political office should be an unpaid position or at the very minimum, the poverty line of income. That would guarantee that people who have already been successful financially and in theory know how to make smart decisions end up in political office.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Well Said!
I've convinced myself in the last year, that term limits are more important than who's running for office.

The biggest problem with that are the stupidly large number of Congressional Committees where tenure/seniority is basically the rule of the day, and getting into those Chairperson positions require more than term limits would give us. Personally, I would be OK with having independent committees to provide oversight on Congressional activities, as long as term limits are included.

 

[bentoncity]

I should have provided a link.. to the story

Sorry about that..
Dan

WASHINGTON, D.C. –-(Ammoland.com)-Congress is hiding a red flag law in the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for the Fiscal Year 2021 (H.R. 6395).

The NDAA authorizes the military to "red flag" anyone subject to the Uniform Code of Military Conduct. According to the NDAA, a friend or relative could report the service member as "abusive." An ex parte "court" will hear the claims of the friend or relative and decided whether to take firearms away from the accused. The gun owner doesn't have a chance to defend themselves or even know that someone is accusing them of abuse.

In the civilian world, law enforcement and the courts refer to red flag laws as Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPO). The NDAA refers to these red flag laws as Military Court Gun Confiscation Orders (GCOs). Even though the names of the rules are different, both laws work primarily the same way. Like ERPOs, GCOs lack due process. The court would assume the military member is guilty of abuse until they could prove their innocence as a later date.

According to gun rights advocates, the same service members that swear an oath to the Constitution will lose their Constitutionally guaranteed rights under the new NDAA. Military police or SWAT teams would carry out a raid of the gun owner's house in the middle of the night to strip them of their gun rights.
The service member would then have to prove their innocence to get their firearms back from the same government that they are protecting.

The NDAA leaves a lot of gray areas in the GCO provision that would be filled in by the future White House administration. If an anti-gun politician becomes President, like Democrat Presidential Candidate Joe Biden, then the amount of evidence needed to strip the rights of the service member decrease or the amount of evidence to get the guns back would increase significantly. Anti-gun politicians seem to have this flexibility built into the NDAA intentionally.

Politicians have slipped in this Constitutionally questionable provision into the NDAA under cover of darkness. Politicians on both sides on the aisle have been quiet over the inclusion of the GCO provision. It is unknown why there is silence from self-proclaimed pro-gun Republicans on the issue of GCOs in the NDAA. Some gun rights advocates theorize that they do not know that the provision is in the NDAA. Others feel the Republicans are compromising with anti-gun Democrats to get the NDAA passed through the House of Representatives.

Certain "pro-gun" Republicans are open to Red Flag laws. Dan Crenshaw purports to be pro-gun, but he has called for Red Flag laws in the past.
Gun Owners of America is asking all their members to email their representatives and asking them to oppose H.R. 6395. The gun-rights group is also asking their members to call their representatives at 202-225-3121 to ask them to protect the rights of those that protect us.

Gun Owners of America created an easy to use form at gunowners.org/na07212020/

 

[GURU]

I will say this here, which I said in the other thread about it. Commanders at all echelons can do this regardless.

Simply put, some paperwork, some process, your guns are gone.

If you have never been in the Military, and worked up to Senior and Operational or above levels, you really don't have the context to know just how hard they can mess you around.

 

[Xaevian]

I will say this here, which I said in the other thread about it. Commanders at all echelons can do this regardless.

Simply put, some paperwork, some process, your guns are gone.

If you have never been in the Military, and worked up to Senior and Operational or above levels, you really don't have the context to know just how hard they can mess you around.

That was my understanding in my time of service. Your civil rights essentially ended when you signed up. Free speech? Secure from unreasonable search and seizure? Due process, jury trial? Nope.

 

[Cavedweller]

That would help, but the bigger problem is that being a politician has become such a lucrative job to attain that we end up with bartenders with no real world experience as congressmen. Political office should be an unpaid position or at the very minimum, the poverty line of income. That would guarantee that people who have already been successful financially and in theory know how to make smart decisions end up in political office.

Pay is not the attraction to political office. It's the opportunity to acquire wealth through graft, kickbacks, and the sale of political favors. I don't think eliminating or reducing pay would make much difference.

 

[American123]

Pay is not the attraction to political office. It's the opportunity to acquire wealth through graft, kickbacks, and the sale of political favors. I don't think eliminating or reducing pay would make much difference.

Then why does congress vote to give themselves raises?

 

[Cavedweller]

Then why does congress vote to give themselves raises?

Greed.

 

[American123]

Greed.

if political office paid nothing or close to nothing, it wouldn't be comfortable for people to try and get into who already weren't financially successful - people who are already financially successful generally are better at making fiscally responsible decisions.

 

[Cavedweller]

if political office paid nothing or close to nothing, it wouldn't be comfortable for people to try and get into who already weren't financially successful - people who are already financially successful generally are better at making fiscally responsible decisions.

So you said in your previous post. I would submit that very few get into political office without financial backing from others, to whom they owe favors later on. You don't really think that politicians of ordinary means so often manage to accumulate fortunes while in office because of their salaries, do you? What are they, really good savers?

Wealthy men are not necessarily more trustworthy or fiscally responsible than anyone else. I give you Ted Kennedy, for example, although I could list more.

 

[cookie]

Your politicians serve lobby money ask your selves who does you politician actually serve . The government is a top to bottom crime gang. Trying to be poite to not offend the responsible people.