Military Red Flag Clause in NDAA

In an effort to confiscate firearms owned by Military service members, Democrats have included a Military Red Flag clause in the current NDAA. The Gun Owners of America is standing against the proposal, stating that it must be removed from the ‘must pass’ legislation before the final vote.

Gun Owners of America (GOA), a pro-Second Amendment gun rights advocacy group, warned the military gun confiscation orders could provide lawmakers with a precedent to extend the rule to the general population.

“Like the proverbial camel’s nose in the tent, allowing this provision to remain in a bill pertaining to the military will eventually work its way into legislation applying to the rest of the population,” GOA wrote. “That’s why we need to raise our voices in unison against these gun confiscation orders.”


The National Defense Authorization Act comes around every year. This time, the Democrats have slipped in a clause that creates a Red Flag law within the legislation. They are attempting this because of the high rates of suicide in the military community – at least that’s the excuse.

Military Red Flag Clause

The military version of the red flag law proposed by Democrats looks a lot like the civilian version found in more than a dozen states. Without being charged or even accused of a crime, a service member could have their right to possess a firearm taken away from them by a military court, and the subject of the red flag order wouldn’t even have a chance to provide any evidence on their behalf for up to 30 days after the court’s order was issued. The authors of the measure audaciously state that this is “sufficient to protect the respondent’s due process rights,” but I doubt many service members would agree.

As well as the obvious concerns over the constitutionality of this proposal, there are fundamental flaws with the measure itself. Just like with the red flag laws in place in states from California to Connecticut, if a person is found (through a lowered standard of review than what is used in a criminal proceeding) to be a danger to themselves or others by a judge, there’s no actual mental health component to the order removing guns. A supposedly dangerous person can be left with knives, pills, poison, gasoline and matches, and any other tool they might use to take their own life or the lives of others as long as any legally-owned guns are taken away. Every state (and the military as well) already have civil commitment laws on the books, and they’re the most appropriate tool to deal with individuals who are truly in the midst of a mental health crisis.

Bearing Arms – Cam Edwards

Too many Democrats are attempting to push through their personal agendas in the act designed to fund the US Military. Anti-gun legislation stuffed inside is only one thing. There are others.

H/T Uncle Sam’s Misguided Children


 Turn your back on Big Tech oligarchs and join the New Resistance NOW!  Facebook, Google, and other members of the Silicon Valley Axis of Evil are now doing everything they can to deliberately silence conservative content online, so please be sure to check out our MeWe page here, check us out at ProAmerica Only and follow us at Parler, Social Cross and Gab.  You can also follow us on Twitter at @co_firing_line, and at the new social media site set up by members of Team Trump, GETTR.

While you’re at it, be sure to check out our friends at Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative front-page founded by ex-military!And be sure to check out our friends at Trending Views:Trending Views

Faye Higbee

Faye Higbee is the columnist manager for Uncle Sam's Misguided Children. She has been writing at Conservative Firing Line since 2013 as well. She is also a published author.

Related Articles

Our Privacy Policy has been updated to support the latest regulations.Click to learn more.×