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

One-hundred and thirty-five House Republicans joined Rep. Nancy Pelosi in voting for the legislation. (Photo: Gage Skidmore)

Congress included a gun confiscation provision in the latest National Defense Authorization Act, and pro-gun groups are sounding the alarm.

The provision allows military judges and magistrates to issue a “military court protective order” for the purpose of protecting the victim of stalking, domestic violence, rape, and sexual assault, among other offenses. Like similar “red flags” laws passed by dozens of states, the law would allow a judge to confiscate firearms before the alleged perpetrator has been convicted of any crime.

While the law would not affect the non-military population, gun-rights groups are calling out House Republicans who voted for the legislation.

“BREAKING: Red Flag Gun Confiscation passes the House of Representatives 316-113 with the support of 135 Republicans. How did your Representative vote?” Gun Owners of America asked on Twitter. Click here to view members who voted Yes and No.

SEE ALSO: Feinstein Introduces Federal ‘Red Flag’ Confiscation Legislation

North Carolina Congressman Greg Murphy blasted his colleagues for trying to “conceal” the provision.

“I am outraged that House Democrats are once again trying to conceal unconstitutional red flag laws in the NDAA that could be used to unjustly deprive American servicemembers of their Second Amendment rights,” said Rep. Murphy.

The gun confiscation portion of the law is unlikely to pass the Senate, Murphy reports. “Both Republican and Democrat leadership have publicly assured Congress that this egregious language WILL be removed from the final version of the NDAA,” he said.

GunsAmerica’s Clay Martin, a retired Marine and Green Beret, believes the DOD is experimenting with gun confiscation policies, and the law should be a wakeup call to the general public.

“The military is an easy test bed for policy changes. We inside it have known the DOD is as much a social experiment as a fighting force, for decades,” he said. “While it is true you give up a lot of rights to be a member of the military, this clearly goes too far. Those guilty of wrong think will be the first punished under these new laws. It should be a huge warning sign to the population at large.” 

SEE ALSO: DOJ Publishes Guidance for ‘Red Flag’ Confiscation Legislation

Like other red flag laws, the new “military court protective order” would allow a judge to remove a person’s firearms on an “ex parte” basis, meaning without a hearing or trial. A hearing at which the alleged suspect can be heard and present evidence must be called within 30 days of the order, but it would still allow military members to be “forcibly disarmed of their lawfully-possessed firearms before having so much as an opportunity to contest the accusations against them and present evidence in their defense,” according to the NRA.

Unlike other red flag laws, the military protective order can only be requested by a magistrate, a judge, or the victim of an alleged offense. Civilian “red flag” laws often allow a person’s family members, friends, or teachers to request a gun confiscation order.

In addition, only the victims of a “covered offense” can request a protective order. These include offenses like rape, sexual assault, stalking, and domestic violence. Military personnel can also have a protective order issued against them for the alleged crimes such as conspiracy, mutiny, and sedition.

Most red flag laws, by contrast, allow guns to be confiscated under the much vaguer “danger to self or other” standard.

Click here to read the text of the bill — search “military court protective order” to find the relevant sections.

***Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! All Local Sales are FREE!***

About the author: Jordan Michaels has been reviewing firearm-related products for over six years and enjoying them for much longer. With family in Canada, he’s seen first hand how quickly the right to self-defense can be stripped from law-abiding citizens. He escaped that statist paradise at a young age, married a sixth-generation Texan, and currently lives in Tyler. Got a hot tip? Send him an email at

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • Reticent Rogue October 4, 2021, 9:37 am

    Had to scan some 500,000 words to find it, but here’s the actual text in the HR 4350 proposal. This is just one of many HR’s congress people have to read; and I find it highly speculative they are physically capable of reading every word of every bill. Certainly, it is an impossible task to do so with discretion and comprehension.


    HR 4350
    (J) Assessment of the disposition model for
    domestic violence.–As part of the independent analysis
    required by section 549C of the William M. (Mac)
    Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for
    Fiscal Year 2021 (Public Law 116-283) the Secretary of
    Defense shall include an assessment of–
    (i) the risks and consequences of the
    disposition model for domestic violence in
    effect as of the date of the enactment of this
    Act, including the risks and consequences of
    such model with respect to–
    (I) the eligibility of victims for
    transitional compensation and other
    benefits; and
    (II) the eligibility of
    perpetrators of domestic violence to
    possess firearms and any related
    effects on the military service of such
    individuals; and
    (ii) the feasibility and advisability
    establishing alternative disposition models for
    domestic violence, including an assessment of
    the advantages and disadvantages of each
    proposed model.

    Find the text @

    Perhaps it should be a requirement to read it before voting on it…or, commenting on it.

  • Chris October 4, 2021, 6:36 am

    John Carter (R) Texas voted YEA for this bill, so he is for taking away firearms of military members without due process but continues to be against medical marijuana that can treat the PTSD caused by military service. He says there is not enough research to show the safety or effectiveness marijuana has on a person’s body when there are vast amounts of research showing it is safe and effective at treating PTSD and several other medical conditions.
    I wonder why he didn’t ask for the same kind of extensive research into “Red Flag Laws” before voting on a bill containing a provision including it?

  • pmmiles October 1, 2021, 8:49 pm

    My representative, 3rd CO, voted NAY.

  • David October 1, 2021, 7:24 pm

    A red flag law here, a red flag law there, and before tou knownit you can confiscate firearms for any reason, which a lot of police do. I know of at least 3 stories. Shooting in the desert, coming gome from a range. Citizen volunteers info and gun taken.

    I love listening to the anti-gun people. Go read the 2nd. It’s not for a musket so you can hunt. It’s actually to protect from a tyrannical government. So when all of your screaming has disarmed America, besides the criminals and a corruot government, don’t start screaming about tyranny. Also, be the time the 2nd was ratified, they new of semi auto weapons. If you didn’t know this, don’t talk about it.

  • Lynn Fifer October 1, 2021, 1:23 pm

    Can we really be surprised when we are governed by a group of incompetent morons. Where do you think I learned to shoot every thing the military had and taught how to blow up things, They have no respect for you or me or the flag we defend to the very end. If we allow them to succeed our freedom will disappear. You need look no further than Australia.

  • Tony October 1, 2021, 1:06 pm

    FREAKIN’ IDIOT…you have no idea about your idiotic babel and mis-statements. You need someone to translate what is really proposed here, it is not a gun confiscation program and loud-mouthed but ignorant people scream all the time.
    You’re clearly over your head, go take your pills, swill some beer and relax – we all have FAR bigger issues to worry about rather than what some people think is a potential confiscation of their little guns under extreme circumstances. Another example of why the Founding Fathers felt too much freedom of choice given to the population at large was dangerous – comments like some of these appearing here are proof-positive of the Founders warnings.

    • Hondo October 1, 2021, 8:50 pm

      Tony , you sound like a real limp dick liberal , don’t know if that was your intention but you nailed it , congratulations

  • Stephen October 1, 2021, 12:19 pm

    You communist bastards in Washington had better be very careful what you are wishing for. You may end up on the outside looking in wondering how in hell fast you got there! The American people are not going to put up with this bullcrap for much longer. Any subversive democrat has a target on his back for removal in the next election cycle! You are not carrying out what the people expect and your political survivability is on the block! You either do as the constitution says and what the people want or YOU ARE GONE! PERIOD! END OF STORY!

  • Dale E Francis October 1, 2021, 10:04 am

    Congress People you need to start reading the fine lines. Maybe even read the documents before you sign our lives away. That would help.

  • krinkov545 October 1, 2021, 9:11 am

    What else to expect from a money grubbing vodka soaked ice cream eating from a $35,000 refrigerator satanic hate filled old hag commie swine?

    • TEC-9 October 1, 2021, 12:40 pm

      Hey Krinkov, don’t hold back, tell us how you really feel, lol.

  • Bill October 1, 2021, 8:51 am

    This is yet another example of congress treating our military service personnel as second-class citizens. Why would anyone volunteer their lives to defend a system that takes away the rights and freedoms those in the military have fought to preserve? There is no worse betrayal than from those who pretend to honor the lives of all military service to our country. There is no acceptable excuse for this type of treasonous behavior.

  • Nick s October 1, 2021, 8:23 am

    In theory, red flag laws are a very good idea. The comment in the article that guns can be “taken before convicted of any crime” is a “so-what?” to me. Meaning, the crime that the person would be convicted of is usually murder after using a gun. Since a significant use of firearms in murders is by someone close to a victim, I agree that it – in theory – it makes sense. The problem of course, is the fear of rampant misuse, etc. So, I ask what is another alternative (besides arming everyone)?

    • TEC-9 October 1, 2021, 12:48 pm

      I’ve known 2 acquaintances that had their guns confiscated for infractions that had nothing to do with rape, murder, domestic violence, stalking etc. In one case the story hit the local news and it was preposterous how the media twisted what really happened. So, theoretically, if the day comes when YOUR car can be confiscated because YOU violated the rules of the road, my response to YOU will be SO WHAT?

  • Wilko October 1, 2021, 7:55 am

    Just one more, of many, reasons I’m glad I’ve been retired for many years. With the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff a traitorous fool, using his position to subvert civilian control and institute social engineering of the services, this move to make military members second class citizens is just the excrement icing on the cake.

  • Dr Motown October 1, 2021, 7:36 am

    Unfortunately, Clay is right: the military is often first to be abused during “social experiments”

    • Scott October 1, 2021, 10:28 am


    • Jay Smith October 1, 2021, 12:47 pm

      This is written by Jordan Michaels . Why are you referencing Clay ?

  • Joe V October 1, 2021, 7:20 am

    What are we the people going to do about it? I see and hear a lot of push back, but no action, no organization.

    • TEC-9 October 1, 2021, 12:52 pm

      There will come a tipping point. January 6th was a real learning exercise.

  • Doug Segelstrom October 1, 2021, 4:13 am

    We can’t let them confiscate our guns!

Send this to a friend