“Connecticut’s legislature made a significant move to protect victims of domestic violence from further harm by abusers by passing a bill that will block people under a temporary restraining order from being in possession of a gun,” csmonitor.com reports in their own special way. Speaking of bias, our Question of the Day is their headline. Hence the wording that makes it seem like gun rights are “allowed” by the government. Anyway, the Connecticut law would allow judges to order firearms confiscation from accused abusers without giving them the right to confront their accusers. Until later. Are you OK with that?
Who thinks they have the authority to even make that decision, and where do they think they got that authority?
“What is this Due Process of which you speak?” ~ Most politicians and people in this country
A restraining order is not a conviction. Sorry due process is a difficult concept for these clowns.
An arrest, bail all sorts of stuff are not a conviction. Having your car impounded is not a conviction. Form a better argument.
Due process? If someone is too dangerous to own guns they’re too dangerous to be on the streets.
…and by reasonable inference, it should take no less of a process to disarm them, than it takes to put them in jail.
Bingo. If you are arrested and charged with a crime and can’t make bail, you stay in jail until trial, and that could be a very long time in some cases. Contrary to Robert’s continued belief, there is no due process violation.
Due process is what determines if someone is dangerous or not, not heresy or opinion without proof. Take them in and settle it in court rather than allow ANYONE to point a finger and screw a person.
The right to keep and bear arms is a natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right available to every person without exception. Due process only comes into play when a person misuses that right to commit a crime with their firearm(s) rather than use them for defense at which point each and every other armed person is justified in revoking that right by using their own weapon in self defense.
Except in the rare instances when law enforcement personnel happen to be on scene the government has no legal authority to determine by any process who may or may not avail themselves of the RKBA.
“Nor shall any person . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . .”
5th Amendment, see also 14th amendment
Seems pretty straight forward to me.
^ This.
Couldn’t have said it better.
I take exception to any sentence which combines “allow” and a natural, civil, Constitutionally protected right.
What part of “Due Process” and “Shall Not Be Infringed” do you not understand?
Is it not clear by now that liberals just don’t care about silly things like that?
Unless they are affected:
http://gunfreezone.net/index.php/2016/05/06/the-press-does-not-like-background-checks-when-applied-to-them/
Next up, MDA uses publically available CT firearms owners list and begins mass campaign to demand restraining orders against all these violent maniacs.
Hypothetically, what if TROS were filed against all of the agents providing protective services to former First lady Clinton? Would she feel safer knowing that there were no guns around her?
Leave those being abused free to arm themselves and practice true self defense. It’s amazing how little it takes, actually. Abusers want frightened, helpless victims. Those who believe it is someone else’s responsibility to defend them will continue to be victims.
Instead of spending my tax money on denying a fellow citizen their 2A rights after denying them their 5A rights. I suggest we give those “protected” by restraining orders a temp ccfl and training by the cops in the proper use of firearms. Also, for those states that unjustly have a cool off period. Remove that cooloff time and allow them to buy and possess immediately (without sales tax of course). It would be much much better for the potential victim and it doesnt adversely effect the rights of someone who would possibly be wrongly accused.
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. So YES. The person filling the restraining order should ALSO be able to keep their firearms.
I wonder, if my wife accused me of beating her, she gets a restraining order, they take my guns. If I then accused my wife of beating me, get a restraining order, would they take her car from her? What about if I file a restraining order against my ex-wife? Will they take the kids from her, no questions asked?
What about cars? They take my guns, leave me my cars, and I drive over my wife. How about my (or her) hands and feet? Sticks greater than 1″ thick and 2′ long? Kitchen knives? Sharp rocks?
As to the kids, residence, car, job etc. That already happens in most places.
Restraining order means to most guys: No see kids. No access to communal property (car, house, whatever.) Employer is automatically notified. Children Services notified. Parents notified. Published in local paper. Social Justice groups will disseminate info into community.
The use of Domestic Violence Restraining Orders against males has become a criminal epidemic, denying them of most of their rights under due process. Guns now are the next thing.
America needs to address this whole travesty of Domestic Violence
Stupidest possible idea. Here’s the endgame: 1. declare all firearms owners “potential” violent actors.
2. acquire as deep a list as possible for names of firearms owners. 3. Issue restraining orders for all of them at once. 4. confiscate…
It is possible to use due process and still protect the rights of both the husband and the wife.
See Minn. Stat. sec. 518B.01, subd. 6 (?).
Bogus restraining orders are filed all the time. Until proving guilt is infallible, it makes no sense to make a blanket ruling that deprives a person of fundamental rights.
This.
If the bogus RO was pulled by the true aggressor, then what? They just disarmed the real victim.
Oh, look! Another piece of paper! I wonder if we took all of these pieces of paper and glued them together into a shield or something if that would stop the restrainee from going down and savagely beating the defenseless restrainer to death with bare hands or simply running her over with his car? And hey, it’s not like having the Sheriff show up with a SWAT team to take his crap would antagonize the restrainee. That never happens.
If a person is so out of control that a restraining order must be issued against them, they should not be in possession of a firearm. Sorry, but these are the kind of coconuts that that end up shooting entire families and will eventually cause the repeal of the second amendment.
Only people in control of their emotions should possess firearms.
if they are that out of control, why bother with a restraining order? If they truly present a credible threat, shouldn’t they be in jail?
Because they can’t be jailed unless arrested for a crime. And then, even if they’ve been charged with spousal abuse, what then? Should they get their guns back if they make bail?
How about as a condition of bail they are not allowed to keep firearms. I’m fairly sure that such conditions are constitutional.
But should they be deprived of their property and rights without a conviction? How about other rights? Maybe we don’t need a speedy trial or right to confront accuser along with self incrimination?
If it makes others feel safe, where to stop?
If an accused individual is deemed too dangerous, a flight risk, or the nature of the crime so substantial, a judge can reject bail at the arraignment. That has been deemed not to violate due process under a number of different court cases.
Plus, as some have already pointed out, what makes you think a dangerous individual, who may have somehow made bail but told to give up their firearms, haven’t figured a way to obtain them illegally?
If they are out of control the cops can arrest them for a crime. At minimum they can get charged with disturbing the peace and spend the night in jail.
Because no jilted woman has ever filed a restraining order out of spite. Anytime a woman files for divorce the first thing her lawyer will do is file for a retraining order. Your last verbal argument was “threatening”. Guns gone dude. TS
So what happens when someone files a restraining order against you for no other reason than they’re mad at you? That happens, you know.
“If a person is so out of control that a restraining order must be issued against them, they should not be in possession of a firearm. Sorry, but these are the kind of coconuts that that end up shooting entire families and will eventually cause the repeal of the second amendment.
Only people in control of their emotions should possess firearms.”
Robert, I hope you keep reading TTAG because you have some basic misunderstandings that can be cleared up here.
“…they should not be in possession of a firearm.” The only good part of that phrase is the “should not”. Perhaps they should not, but the Second Amendment specifically states that the government has NO AUTHORITY to deny them them their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. “…the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
“…and will eventually cause the repeal of the second amendment.” By conceding that, in your opinion, the government already has the authority to infringe on a person’s right to keep and bear arms based on some alleged potential danger you have already agreed that the Second Amendment has no validity which means that it has been effectively repealed without having to go through the specific steps outlined in Article V of the Constitution of the United States of America.
If you concede that the government has the authority to create, maintain and enforce a list of persons who may not, in the opinion of the government, exercise their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, how will you keep your name off of that list?
Due process aside (still the only real issue), it does not pass the logic test. (Yes, I am aware that those that propose this stuff do not use logic.)
If the person is violent enough that a restraining order is required (really should be in jail), taking their property will only enrage them further and they will lash out at the cops or the person who put out the order. Such individuals would not be deterred by a lack of a gun (a bludgeon, a blade or bare hands would do just fine).
If a person is not violent (maybe just creepy or unwilling to take a hint), taking their property will do nothing to improve the safety of the person filing the restraining order and might just piss them off that they become dangerous.
All other restraining orders are merely weapons used by petty angry people.
My dad, brothers, cousins and friends are all pro-2A. None of them really know what goes on in my private life. Say the old lady gets that restraining order on me, my guns are confiscated. It would be pretty easy for me to borrow one of their guns for innocent enough reasons…so just cause my guns are taken, doesn’t mean I have no access to guns. The antis next step could be that if you’re subject to a restraining order, confiscate your guns and all guns from your known associates.
“how would you describe your relationship with the restrained?”
Does it matter? No due process. They can’t kill their gal with knives, cars,fists or baseball bats? Yeah I’m with Mama Liberty-arm the women…
Hell if you hate the complainant enough and want to use a gun…buy and build a black powder kit gun, not subject to background checks.
Restraining orders are fine for establishing that someone must stay away from someone else, their place of business, their home, etc., when the one being served is just a douche and the filer just needs police-backed protection to prevent escalation.
However, against an actual abuser, it’s meaningless. It’s also easy to abuse someone else with these orders, since they’re ex parte and the burden of proof is only the much lighter preponderance of the evidence.
So they’re useless when they matter most and can be abusive themselves. No, I wouldn’t vote in favor of barring gun possession on the basis of a such an order. If the guy’s really that bad, then file criminal charges outright and let’s go the full due process route. If the case is legit, I’m sure there’s plenty of evidence.
Making it illegal to from someone to posses a gun if there is a restraining order seems redundant to me, as if they aren’t legally allowed to go near the person, mission accomplished? Oh wait, this must be going after long range weapons that make it possible to kill or injure someone from outside the distance of the restraining order. Glad that loophole has been plugged, as that must have been legal to do before, ortherwise there would be no problem, right?
Lets ask the question another way – Should a person be able to disarm somebody, just by naming them in a restraining order?
Takes a little more than just asking for one.
Not a whole lot. Just appear in front of a judge, with no one else present, and say whatever you want to say with no one there to contradict you, and swear to it under a toothless “perjury” non-penalty. No judge in his or her right mind will deny it, because they have everything to lose if they deny it and the subject does something bad and nothing to lose if they grant it even tho the subject would not do anything bad.
To be honest, the very concept of a restraining order annoys me. It’s soft state worship and just another way of spreading the progressive doctrine of appealing to authority figures to take care of our ills. When in danger, real or imagined, your only true choices are learn self defense and tool up or continue to live as a timid sheep. After all, the supreme court ruled that the police are under absolutely no obligation to act as your personal protection squad, so why do these ridiculous pieces of paper even exist?
Only a convicted violent felon should lose their gun civil rights.
A non violent felony is a communist socialist progressive excuse to take guns away from the people. Bouncing checks can make you a felon.
A woman who leaves a violent man must take responsibility for her personal safety and any children she had with that violent man. She has a civil right to get a gun.
And that man until he is convict in court has a civil right to a gun.
So people should keep them while they are arrested?
Yes. Arrest does not equal conviction. Confiscating someones gun after an arrest and not returning their rightful property once released infringes on their right. If i am arrested for disorderly conduct because a cop harassed me and i gave him the bird (actually this act has been ruled protected speech by scotus, but they still do it anyway). They should not keep my edc. It should be returned to me upon my release. With all my ither belongings.
Binder
You are innocent until proven guilty. You’re property can’t be taken from you until you a found guilty of a crime. That I believe those are your 4 th and 5th amendment civil rights.
The problem is that we keep focusing on guns (firearms). The Second Amendment clearly states: “…the right to keep and bear arms…” without defining arms in any way.
A person legitimately arrested on a felony charge, while incarcerated, may be deprived of his/her access to dangerous weapons as a safety measure, however, “innocent until proven guilty in a court of law” applies. In the interim between out on bail and conviction the system has no viable way to ensure the defendant has no access to arms and no justifiable reason to deny them their right of self defense – they are accused of a crime but not technically guilty of anything. If the court determines that they are too dangerous to be on the street and armed then bail should be denied and the person remain in custody. If they are cleared of the charge(s) either by refusal to prosecute or by being found not guilty then all of their confiscated property, including any and all weapons, MUST be returned immediately.
A quick Google search of improvised weapons confiscated inside jails and prisons will show that the right to keep (and make) and bear arms CANNOT be revoked, it can only be suppressed. To believe otherwise is extremely foolish and can only lead to acceptance of tyranny.
I love how liberals seem to think women are killed by their significant others by way gun. No dipshits, the truth is much more brutal. Anyone who’s had any experience with domestic violence will tell you how often the fist is the chosen weapon.
I wonder if they wrote in a loop hole for law enforcement officers
Let’s put it another way – let’s say someone works at a day care facility, and they’re arrested on child molestation charges. And there’s ample evidence. But they make bail, so they’re out, awaiting trial. Should they be “allowed” to go back to work at their same job?
Pretty sure all of you would recoil in horror at the thought. Because, come on, it’s stupid on a monumental level to even consider it.
But — but — but — they haven’t been found guilty yet! They’re only accused! They haven’t had due process! Yes, that’s all true. But which of you is going to volunteer to leave your kid alone with him?
And that’s what you’re up against. You’re going to have to come up with a whole lot better argument than “constitutional rights” to win this one; otherwise the media and the antis are going to mop up at the ballot box on issues like this. Because deep down, we all know that “you want domestic abusers to have guns” is a losing issue, it’s “on the wrong side of history”.
(and yes, we all know constitutional rights are not subject to ballots. But then again, NY/NJ/CA and the AWB all happened anyway – so you know that argument’s a non-starter).
Only way I can see this working in a functional society is if any such laws include ungodly penalties for false accusations – put such a level of responsibility on the accuser, and on the judge who is tasked with granting the restraining order, that they’ll think long and hard before taking someone’s civil rights away. Specifically make it easier to sue judges and accusers for civil rights violations. Maybe that’ll help avoid knee-jerk restraining orders, and will keep the policy sane and aimed at actual offenders, and eliminate or minimize the civil rights violations that otherwise are likely to happen.
Not addressing other issues you raised with which I strongly disagree, but…
“Specifically make it easier to sue judges and accusers for civil rights violations.”
I doubt you will ever see a law that allows anyone to sue a judge for their decision so long as it was within the legal standards of jurisprudence. As for the accusers, the majority of persons seeking such restraining orders are probably not prime targets for lawsuits nor are the persons being restrained likely to seek redress by finding and paying a lot of money to a lawyer. Even if they win the suit, what are the chances the damages will ever be paid or that the defendant could even begin to afford to pay them?
Assuming your idea has any merit at all, which I dispute, the only possible way to prevent false or malicious filings for TROs is if their is a sever and certain criminal penalty for the filer if the TRO is found to be without merit.
I completely disagree with the entire premise of your statement. One, being charged with child molestation is several degrees higher than being an exparte recipient of a protective order. A cop who would arrest me for child molestation just because i walked passed a preschool and stopped to watch the children play would get sued for false arrest. However if i ask my neighbor for a date and she refuses and a few weeks later i shownup with flowers and ask again, but she has history of being date raped that i knew nothing about, can go down to the court house and say i have been harrasing her. Bam! Restraining order. Not to mention the small percentages of jilted lovers who get restraining orders as a means of getting back on those that tossed them aside.
If one of my daughters turned you down for a date, and you showed up with flowers a few weeks later, you and I would have a very interesting conversation.
Are you planning to intervene very much in the adult lives of your daughters?
So the person’s firearms are removed. Knives, tools, vehicles, fuel, arrows, bats, dogs, acid, machetes, axes, bottles, fist, feet, rocks. A determined attacker doesn’t give up simply because they’ve been degunned. Person is dangerous? Lock ’em up.
How difficult is it to get a restraining order? You just name somebody and have a good story, right? There is a staggering potential for abuse in this scenario.
I can absolutely see this being the legal cover for any sort of gun confiscation / disarmament in CT.
Restraining orders are issued on the same basis as warrants: based on sworn statements under penalty of perjury establishing probable cause to believe that the “accused” has or is an immediate threat causing serious bodily injury or death to the spouse/domestic partner, etc. TROs are issued by judges who review the sufficiency of the affidavits before signing off. The TRO does not take effect until personally served on the subject of the order. In all states, there is a “return” on the TRO, usually within 14-21 days, at which time there is a full blown hearing during which the subject is entitled to be represented by counsel and to present evidence in opposition to the issuance of a permanent order. This process has been upheld in every state in which it has been challenged as complying with the dictates of due process under both state and the federal constitution. No matter what Robert believes.
Thank you for the explanation. Fortunately I’ve never had to deal with one.
Lots of things have been upheld as being constitutional, which aren’t necessarily so. A ruling may have the force of law to affix the constitutional label to some practice. However, just because a court says something is so, doesn’t mean something intrinsically is so.
How can you provide “evidence” against statements that may have been fabricated to begin with? And… Of course, judgment would likely be ruled against the so called “abuser” in the event of a lack of evidence from the defense – because of safety. No judge wants to be “that” guy. The guy that let an abuser kill his spouse – right?? So… Safety … Police, please confiscate the guns.
Again, as usual, you are technically correct. but as a practical matter, what judge is going to deny an ex parte TRO based on allegations of violence. And what “perjury” penalty is actually enforced under such circumstances? Not rhetorical questions, BTW, if you have relevant info.
Whether or not the mechanics of a TRO satisfy due process, using that TRO to justify confiscating personal property specifically protected by the Second Amendment, in which the Founding Fathers essentially issued a Permanent Restraining Order against the government: “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” is a blatant and dangerous violation of the natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.
In keeping with the Second Amendment the court in deciding that the plaintiff deserves protection should only determine that he/she has the right to arm themselves for their own defense without government interference. The use of weapons of any sort, including firearms, by either party after that point is the subject of criminal law and criminal penalties.
As I attempted to state earlier, and the comment disappeared for some reason, how long does it take for the FBI NICS system to become aware of a local TRO? What is to prevent a person from having his weapons confiscated in the morning and legally buying more at a nearby FFL before dinner?
This whole TRO=Confiscate his guns is just another attempt by ProgLibytes to put another chink in the Second Amendment.
It would be interesting to compare the number of murdered TRO filers for the past five years with the number in the next five years (obviously five years from now).
Why just guns??? Why not take it further. Kitchen knives, pocket knives, baseball bats, automotive/battery acid, sharp objects, potential poisons, etc. Better yet, why not just put them in prison until the restraining order is resolved right? Right?? We should be able to put people in prison on a mere accusation only. We are already passing laws that law enforcement can take their stuff on a mere accusation. Why stop there?
The essence of due process is notice and an opportunity to be heard. This hearing need not occur first. For example, when someone is arrested, he receives his hearing after the arrest, not before it. The same would apply to the seizing of someone’s guns.
But where is the opportunity to be heard in case of an ex-parte order? And after the guns are seized, will the owner receive a fair hearing? I kinda doubt it.
Once again, politicians are pandering to one segment of their constituency by penalizing a different segment. It’s a scam, and it’s as old as politics.
This. Today Ralph hits it dead center – bulls eye. If we were at the range, I would declare him the winner and he would get lunch and beer on me.
Ralph, you and I do not always agree on issues, but this one you definitely nailed. I’ll go anonymous one better – if you are ever in Las Vegas look me up, lunch and beer are on me. RF has my number.
Why JUST TODAY, two people were shot to death, a third critically injured, and a fourth slightly injured at two malls in suburban D.C. Two of the victims had apparently come the aid of a third when they were shot. The fourth victim was shot and killed at a grocery store. The shooter has been arrested. According to NBC News:
” ordil, of Adelphi, had been on the run after he allegedly shot and killed his estranged wife in a high school parking lot in Beltsville Thursday, about 10 miles east of Silver Spring.
He is a law enforcement officer with the Federal Protective Service, a Homeland Security agency responsible for security at federal buildings and some foreign embassies in the Washington area.
He was put on administrative duties in March after a protective order was issued against him, Homeland Security officials told NBC News. He was later placed on administrative leave and required to surrender his government-issued weapons, badge, and credentials. Any weapons he may have used were therefore obtained on his own, federal officials said.”
Don’t you all think that it might have been a wee bit harder for him to go on this rampage if his guns had been temporarily confiscated?
So yes. Spousal abuse is a real issue. How many times ahve such incidents been reported here as “It should have been a DGU”? There is NO due process violation, according to every court that has ruled on the issue. Robert is simply wrong to keep beating this dead horse.
Probably not. He probably would have just went on a different kind of rampage, but there is no way to accurately speculate the future of a different dimension based on one small action. He may have went on an arson rampage with people inside the building. He may have went on a throat slitting rampage. He may have collected his unregistered guns and went on a shooting rampage anyways – who knows.
I don’t know about you, but I have unregistered guns that nobody knows about. They don’t know their location. They don’t know how many. They don’t know what kind. As you can see, a GVRO would have no effect on this kind of person where the police couldn’t confiscate their arms anyways. Also, never mind the fact that killing is killing and can be done without a gun, but… GUNS.
So the solution here – is more gun control right? Lol. These guns need to be registered and universal background checks – all that jazz. We need to give the gov all this personal info, because of what “might” happen with an extremely minute percentage of the population. I mean – if you are pro GVRO, you should also be pro UBC and registration too right? Do you or do you not want to adequately enforce the GVRO??
I’m going to go with Ralph’s explanation above. There just simply is something wrong with Mark N’s stuff being confiscated based on nothing more than “fear” that is aroused in someone else (like a spouse or friend or stranger) who fills out a GVRO.
Everyone’s rights are preserved when the “abused spouse” makes safety her own responsibility – as well she should, because a GVRO and a supposed gun confiscation very well likely won’t be enough.
Also… Since when does the courts provide us with the resolutions of our own philosophical resolve? Call it whatever you want due process or otherwise. As long as the law allows it and the policies and procedure are followed – it supposedly passes due process. It doesn’t make it right or just. Again – Ralph’s explanation above says it all.
To answer you question with a question – Don’t you think this rampage would have been cut short if any one of the people he shot or others in the vicinity had been armed and prepared to return fire?
That is one of the main purposes of the Second Amendment, the other is specifically to prevent the government from coming up with ways to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, such as confiscation in the face of a TRO.
How difficult would it be for Shannon Watts to get an ex parte TRO against Dirk Diggler, considering some of his posts here on TTAG? Celebrities, many of them virulently anti-gun, get threatening letters all the time. How about letting them contact the FBI and if identified the authors of those letters “lose” their Second Amendment protected right to keep and bear arms? No government agency has the authority to prosecute “pre-crime”, especially when such government actions have been specifically proscribed by the Constitution.
Anyone successfully filing a restraining order should be locked up for their own protection. Solved.
Yet we still don’t have a budget. I’m so thankful and glad that my tax dollars allowed the brain trust in the capitol to pass this law that still won’t help anyone in actual need of protection due to domestic abuse instead of finishing that pesky budget and figuring out how to slow our rapid decent into bankruptcy. I’m so happy that my tax dollars funded further state sponsored paternalism; it makes me feel so warm and fuzzy!
If the best you can do is come out with a restraining order, you don’t have much proof of anything. My ex put a restraining order on me a full year after the last time I’d even seen her. So HELL NO! a restraining order doesn’t mean squat in a hurricane.
How about we give the person requesting the restraining order a CCW instead and leave the 2A alone. I’m getting really tired of all this bullsh*t.
No. Not ok at all.
If they have sufficient evidence to take weapons, they should be in jail.
Should people named in restraining orders be allowed to own knives?
Should people named in restraining orders be allowed to own gasoline?
Should people named in restraining orders be allowed to own machetes?
Should people named in restraining orders be allowed to own weed killer?
Should people named in restraining orders be allowed to own cars?
It is a stupid click-bait kinda question and anyone who asks it should be laughed at for asking such a stupid question. I am serious, we have reached a point where openly and outright mocking these people is the only option left. When they ask this kind of question you should look at them with a serious face, then start laughing at them and walk away.
This is a sticky one.
First there’s the issue of due process, which I see has been thoughtfully addressed but IMHO it’s been incompletely addressed. Yes, people are arrested and jailed before trial and have the opportunity to make bail if they are able. However, this is not a punishment, it’s meant to insure that they show up for the actual trial. They’re either within easy reach of the court (in jail) or they’ve given something to the court that secures their release and hopefully they’re not willing to lose it and therefore will show up for trial.
However, nothing is “confiscated” from them. They willingly give it up to get out of jail. That’s a wee bit different than having your guns forcibly taken from you. Now, you could still argue that this is similar to bail, but how can we know that? You are Constitutionally protected from excessive bail and a large collection of firearms (or a small one of valuable guns) could easily be of a value any rational person would consider “excessive” given the circumstances were it an amount of bail set by a judge.
In most cases bail is just some money and you’re out. You’re not disarmed in a way that makes you easy prey for a home invasion or angry friends of your significant other out for some vigilante justice.
Secondly, when it comes to due process people have pointed out that you get a hearing so what’s the big deal? Well, I would ask this: In the time between being served with an order and the hearing where you get to address it what other rights do you lose? Can you no longer speak freely? Can the police search your house without a warrant?
The 5A says “…nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” by which it clearly means that said process must be completed before you can deprive the person of property.
Then of course, as other posters have pointed out there’s the potential for abuse. Yet others have pointed out that lying in such a circumstance is perjury. Both have a valid point. Perjury is a Class D Felony in Connecticut. The fact that both have a valid point here suggests to me that this law needs to be better thought out before it turns into a complete rat’s nest.
Finally, I would say this: If the person is just a demeaning, nasty jerk who belittles the other person, which is certainly a form of abuse, can they get their guns back later? How does all that work out? I would also note that abuse cases, like rape cases, are heavily biased towards a female accuser. You basically have to prove you didn’t do what she said you did or you’re guilty. That’s an issue. And to top if all off what if you’re found not guilty, how long until you get your guns back? All those folks who were told that they’d get their guns back after Katrina are still waiting for their firearms to be returned or for compensation and let’s be real here: this late on we know those guns were either destroyed or are rotting in a lock-up somewhere unloved, uncared for and unserviceable at this point.
Allowed? Why are you talking about “allowed”? If they are not incarcerated after being convicted by a jury of their peers then they have the RIGHT to own arms.
Yes. The 2A has no exceptions.
no. Innocent until proven guilty. If the accuser believes the person to be a danger then he/she should arm him/herself or remove him/herself from the accused or both.
I have very mixed feelings on this one.
On one hand I really value the entire bill of rights and believe it should apply to all Americans without discrimination.
On the other hand I also feel safer living in a state that will make it harder for my abusive ex-husband to be legally armed if he continues to stalk me and succeeds in finding me because of the restraining order I filed against him before I changed my name, moved and got my concealed carry permit, and met a better guy.
No. Not all restraining orders are based on threats and/or violence. It should only be an option that must be imposed by a Judge based on evidence and rebuttal as it restricts a persons Rights.
make sure to call first.
it still sounds better than a michigan divorce.
I generally agree with this legislation, and before folks go ballistic on me, yes, I have had an idiot try to get a PPO against me. She was a crazy former tenant. Now if the court felt I was an immediate threat to her, while I would be pissed off, I can see why they should not allow me to have my weapons. After the full hearing, and my crazy tenant is denied the PPO, I get to sue her for all court costs, attorney fees, and she gets to pay to have my weapons cleaned and inspected. I understand it doesn’t seem fair, but in my city, Detroit, we actually have nut jobs that have restraining orders who shoot the protected victims.
Washington has this idiocy. A no contact order can be issued and the first time the victim knows about it is when police arrive on the doorstep to seize the guns. As the victim is armed, and someone felt they were in danger of being shot, and a judge agreed, no doubt SWAT will treat this as a dangerous situation.
Now, there is no defense. There is nothing that can be done until the guns are seized. Then, the victim has to go through the expensive process to maybe get the guns back.
Comments are closed.