THE PATRIOT POST

Garden State 2A GO's Blog

Van Drew Votes For Gun Control in NDAA

Updated: Oct 9, 2021

Update 10-9-2021: We have not yet received further explanation about the Congressman's vote. We will reach out again and update you if we do receive a response. -- Ed. Readers, a day we hoped would never arrive is upon us. Congressman Jeff Van Drew, who signed our Pro-2A Resolution last year, voted for the National Defense Authorization Act today, H.R. 4350 -- which contained provisions for red flag gun confiscation for members of the military.


We contacted the Congressman on his Facebook page, where the person responding said that he voted against it and argued against it on the floor.



So we double-checked our research. Unfortunately it is true: the Congressman voted for the NDAA, which contains this language:


Here is proof of his "Yes" vote, from the US House record:



Van Drew's Vote On NDAA -- H.R.4350


It is extremely unsettling that a Congressman who signed our Pro-2A Resolution would miss something this egregious in a bill that he voted on. Gun Owners of America and other organizations ran a notification campaign emailing representatives in advance of the vote, to vote "Nay" because of gun confiscation language in this bill.


The gun confiscation language is in SEC. 529 of H.R. 4350 entitled "Authority of Military Judges and Military Magistrates to Issue Military Court Protective Orders". This language would create a Military Court Gun Confiscation Order (GCO) program, a disgusting violation of the Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights of our armed service personnel who offer their lives to defend those same constitutional rights every day.


These proposed Military Court Gun Confiscation Orders could be "issued on an ex parte  basis" and therefore would "restrain a person from possessing, receiving, or otherwise accessing a firearm" without constitutional Due Process (SEC. 529's proposed §1567b(j)(1)(A)).


In fact, the emergency Military Court GCOs are explicitly exempted from the "Protection of Due Process" provided for in SEC. 529's proposed §1567b(h)(1).


Seizing firearms first and "getting the Due Process later" will never constitute sufficient Due Process, no matter how much anti-gunners may pretend it is.


Everyone knows that an "omnibus bill" is a perfect place to tuck unconstitutional provisions which then pass when the whole bill passes. Someone with the Congressman's level of experience in these matters should already be aware of these tactics and on the lookout for them. He also may hear again from his constituents who advised him of this unconstitutional provision before the vote.


We are asking for a response from the Congressman. We will advise if we receive any response.