Justice Department asks Supreme Court to overturn domestic violence gun ruling: people under a domestic violence restraining order retain their guns

[Dennis in MA]

The problem is - anyone can get a domestic violence restraining order on anyone. It is as easy as a woman getting angry and you are f*cked.

If I was a judge and hear that England argument, I would laugh and let the person know he is in the wrong country, with an English accent "you are in the wrong country, mate. Piss off!".

Fixed it for you.

 

[HuntMaine]

Under what logic?
You do realize that restraining orders are ex parte, right?
So you are advocating that a third party is allowed to extinguish your rights without due process. Think about that.

I’ve seen many end badly very badly so that’s my viewpoint

 

[HuntMaine]

Wow…. I believe that domestic violence and animal cruelty are really good indicators of future violence; and should be considered strongly when evaluating the danger someone poses is to public safety…. and I think your position on this is bonkers.

If someone is a threat, arrest them. Then convict them. Then exact punishment or remedy.

But to confiscate guns (and all accessories) and leave the person loose, thinking that they’re not a threat anymore is insanity.

Yeah because someone is is beating his wife and she is gearing for her life should just take her chances. Sure ok.

 

[HuntMaine]

He was an enforcer. He understands. He doesn't care.

Actually I do care, which is why I have that opinion. What you are advocating is that ROs are
Nonsense just let whatever happens happen.

 

[HuntMaine]

Omg do you even know what due process is? Your saying that it's proper for the government to take away your rights BEFORE the trial? Your NOT a friend to freedom at all if you believe this.

A temporary restraining order and a temporary removal of firearms is indeed warranted in many of these situations. I’m not fan of men beating up women nor allowing them to do further damage before it gets settled in court. Many of thee aholes walk free the same day due to the terrible court system so yeah this is warranted. If you are concerned about it, don’t beat your wife.

 

[milktree]

Yeah because someone is is beating his wife and she is gearing for her life should just take her chances. Sure ok.

Don't be an idiot.

If someone is beating *anyone*, they should be arrested.

That's what happens if any random person beats any other random person. But when that happens, the person who did the beating doesn't get to wander around free (like with a RO), they have to make bail, if that's even allowed. And they don't have their stuff stolen until they actually get convicted.

 

[HuntMaine]

Don't be an idiot.

If someone is beating *anyone*, they should be arrested.

That's what happens if any random person beats any other random person. But when that happens, the person who did the beating doesn't get to wander around free (like with a RO), they have to make bail, if that's even allowed. And they don't have their stuff stolen until they actually get convicted.

sure right after you.
They walk on these charges most of the time and should be restricted from firearms and a RO. Maybe familiarize yourself with the court system. I’ve seen it many times end bad either by a further beating or in cases a bullet. So as I said before if you are worried about this , don’t beat your spouse.

 

[StevieP]

again. still.


So the ERPO bills take peoples' guns because "The person might be a threat to themselves or others."

Do they also take the person's cars, ropes, knives, baseball bats, or golf clubs? Do they take away the person's access to high places, or eliminate gravity? Do they take away the person's prescription drugs? Do they prevent people from buying pressure cookers and fireworks? Can they buy a gallon of gas? Can they still rent a UHaul truck?

Because there are many ways for people to hurt themselves or others beyond just guns.

Do they provide ANY counseling or other services to these ostensibly despondent people? Or just take away their guns, thereby PROVING that "they really are out to get them"?

Answer the questions honestly and it becomes evident pretty quick that these bills have nothing whatsoever to do with anyone's safety, and everything to do with just taking guns for the sake of taking guns.

 

[Mesatchornug]

Actually I do care, which is why I have that opinion. What you are advocating is that ROs are
Nonsense just let whatever happens happen.

We know how proud you were to beat kids and call it a lesson. Forgive me if I don't take your side.

If someone is a danger, put him in a cell. If the system is broken, fix it. Stop giving people the power to arbitrarily destroy the lives of others.

 

[SgtHal75]

A temporary restraining order and a temporary removal of firearms is indeed warranted in many of these situations. I’m not fan of men beating up women nor allowing them to do further damage before it gets settled in court. Many of thee aholes walk free the same day due to the terrible court system so yeah this is warranted. If you are concerned about it, don’t beat your wife.

You do realize that a shitload of cops shoot thier wives in domestics right?…

 

[SgtHal75]

We know how proud you were to beat kids and call it a lesson. Forgive me if I don't take your side.

If someone is a danger, put him in a cell. If the system is broken, fix it. Stop giving people the power to arbitrarily destroy the lives of others.

He knows the RO process is an abused system. He also knows that more woman commit domestic abuse than men.

 

[SgtHal75]

sure right after you.
They walk on these charges most of the time and should be restricted from firearms and a RO. Maybe familiarize yourself with the court system. I’ve seen it many times end bad either by a further beating or in cases a bullet. So as I said before if you are worried about this , don’t beat your spouse.

When you say court are you referring to just criminal court?….ever pop in on a session of family court? I know for fact cops don’t ever see the inside of a family court, unless they are the victim of a woman’s rage in thier own marriage.

 

[Mountain]

The issue with ROs is you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. In the case of real danger, then access to weapons needs to be removed. However in the case of a bogus RO there is abuse of the system and rarely any recourse for that. If you are gubmint what do you do? Deny an RO and then have a homicide, or hand them out like candy and do your best to prevent homicide. Just in the other F*ck around and find out thread you see a perfect example.

What needs reform is the process by which these are vetted and ultimately resolved. There is no priority to get people back their rights and seek justice.

In the case of real danger, the perp should be facing serious charges. RO's don't short circuit constitutional rights.

 

[Mesatchornug]

In the case of real danger, the perp should be facing serious charges. RO's don't shouldn't short circuit constitutional rights.

FIFY

 

[Lucus]

Do you realize how easy it is for a woman to put a restraining order on someone. It's a tool they use to sell all your stuff at a yard sale and to keep you from seeing your kids so they can brain wash them if they're young enough. They have to show up in court to justify it ,if not it gets dismissed. Even if she puts ten RO on you and they all get dismissed it still goes on your permanent
record. This in its self brings up a red flagat the police station depending on who the chief of police is. Some RO are warranted but since 1989 a lot of guys lives have been ruined because of it.

 

[drgrant]

The issue with ROs is you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. In the case of real danger, then access to weapons needs to be removed. However in the case of a bogus RO there is abuse of the system and rarely any recourse for that. If you are gubmint what do you do? Deny an RO and then have a homicide, or hand them out like candy and do your best to prevent homicide. Just in the other F*ck around and find out thread you see a perfect example.

Lol this is largely illusory. The whole DV RO thing is anti gun virtue signaling, there is no such thing as "access to weapons being removed". The idea that you can remove a threat without putting someone behind bars is retarded. And if there's not enough evidence to arrest someone then the whole thing is farcical to begin with. The idea that they can "take all the guys gunz and be 100% sure" is ludicrous. In one case a guy literally buried like a mac 10 or an uzi or some shit behind his ex wife's house. They came to his house and stole all his shit, but then less than a week later caught him menacing her with yet another gun. DV ROs are basically garbage.

 

[Picton]

A temporary restraining order and a temporary removal of firearms is indeed warranted in many of these situations.

Then so is temporary imprisonment. Right?

Because here’s the thing you’re not getting. Bruen affirms what most of us believe: that RKBA is not special, in the sense that courts get to infringe on it with a lesser standard than other rights. It is coequal. It is EVERY BIT AS IMPORTANT AS 1A, 4A, etc.

So if you, in this new post-Bruen climate, are advocating that people get RKBA removed without due process, then why stop there? Why not remove all the rest of their rights? Why not immediately bar them from speaking, or being at liberty? If they’re dangerous enough that one right should be yanked, why not all their rights?

Now you see why people think you’re being a statist. Like it or not, 2A is just as fundamental as the rest. Deal with it.

 

[Drix]

The problem is - anyone can get a domestic violence restraining order on anyone. It is as easy as a woman getting angry and you are f*cked.

If I was a judge and hear that England argument, I would laugh and let the person know he is in the wrong country, with an English accent "you are in the wrong country, mate. Get out of my court".

I have a suspicion that what will happen is that red flags will still be a thing, but be different than a restraining order with more "requirements" to be able to apply one. Those requirements will end up being less than a minimum standard when applied and basically do the same thing.

Practically speaking, I know this is a rough one and not generally accepted by the community, but... Federally, the ability to remove firearms from a dangerous individuals home I think is important, but the application of its use I think is far to broad with minimal reprocussions to misuse.

We've seen shooters being tracked by the fbi- I'd be ok with someone stepping in and taking those guns and am uncomfortable in the fact the fbi knew about the problem and did nothing. On the other hand, we are probably all on the same list.

 

[sig shooter]

Can’t agree with this. If you are under a restraining order you should temporarily lose access to firearm until you have your day in court

Do you loose any other rights when you’re subject to a restraining order?

 

[nstassel]

I'm still lost

Garland: bad

 

[Mountain]

FIFY

I realize we are on the same page for this, but to make a finer point: RO's do not suspend your constitutional rights. They may violate them, but they do not suspend them.

 

[SgtHal75]

I wonder how many RO’s HuntMaine has actually seen work?….cuz a piece of paper will always stop someone

 

[Dadstoys]

Can’t agree with this. If you are under a restraining order you should temporarily lose access to firearm until you have your day in court

If not for the over the top abuse of them I might agree , but it's crazy.
It's now SOP in just about every divorce case.
Doesn't matter if he's never even raised his voice at her , never mind a hand.
Her lawyer will tell her to make it up and file one.
Sure you'll get your guns back in a year or two.
Busted up
Rusted to shit
And with a storage bill from a bonded warehouse that may be higher than the value of the guns.
But you'll get your day in court and lose because she will lie again and the judge will extend it out another year.

 

[Mesatchornug]

If not for the over the top abuse of them I might agree , but it's crazy.
It's now SOP in just about every divorce case.
Doesn't matter if he's never even raised his voice at her , never mind a hand.
Her lawyer will tell her to make it up and file one.
Sure you'll get your guns back in a year or two.
Busted up
Rusted to shit
And with a storage bill from a bonded warehouse that may be higher than the value of the guns.
But you'll get your day in court and lose because she will lie again and the judge will extend it out another year.

Doesn't matter that she was the one that beat the kids...

 

[nstassel]

A temporary restraining order and a temporary removal of firearms is indeed warranted in many of these situations. I’m not fan of men beating up women nor allowing them to do further damage before it gets settled in court. Many of thee aholes walk free the same day due to the terrible court system so yeah this is warranted. If you are concerned about it, don’t beat your wife.

Because restraining orders are only issued when men beat their wives?

 

[Broc]

I have a suspicion that what will happen is that red flags will still be a thing, but be different than a restraining order with more "requirements" to be able to apply one. Those requirements will end up being less than a minimum standard when applied and basically do the same thing.

Practically speaking, I know this is a rough one and not generally accepted by the community, but... Federally, the ability to remove firearms from a dangerous individuals home I think is important, but the application of its use I think is far to broad with minimal reprocussions to misuse.

We've seen shooters being tracked by the fbi- I'd be ok with someone stepping in and taking those guns and am uncomfortable in the fact the fbi knew about the problem and did nothing. On the other hand, we are probably all on the same list.

And how do you define a dangerous person?

Your neighbor can see you carrying a few cases of ammo in your house and say you are dangerous.

 

[Drix]

And how do you define a dangerous person?

Your neighbor can see you carrying a few cases of ammo in your house and say you are dangerous.

Well thats the problem- abuse of the standard.

I'd start with anyone making threats that they have the motive and ability to carry out.

 

[Dadstoys]

Doesn't matter that she was the one that beat the kids...

There was a couple that the wife and I knew .
She was an amazon with a temper and he was a meek guy.
They got into an argument one night and she busted his head with a pan (Ten stitches worth )
He called the cops .
They show up and he's standing there bleeding all over the kitchen, she doesn't have a scratch.
She says to the cops "He hit me"
He got hauled off in cuffs and didn't see his own house again for two years and the bitch had trashed it.
She called my wife to brag about it and the wife told her to never call her again.
Anyone who thinks they will get a fair shake or get any kind of justice especially in this state has been touching it too much.

 

[GL2020]

I gotta admit I'm conflicted on this one

I was the guy who had his (former) wife call the police and say I hit her just to get me out of the house....oddly enough I wasn't even the same room.
The police were there for all of two minutes, started questioning her motives and constantly changing details and she recanted.

That was the last time I ever saw her outside of a court room. If she hadn't backed off and decided to file the RO my life would be different.
The one thing I always remember with her single friends is she was the first one to recommend they go down the court and get an order when a relationship went south if a guy just called back after he was asked to stop.

So yeah, it's horribly abused.

By the same token, that same women (off her meds) was hauled out of the house in cuffs years before and had an RO against her and I wouldn't want her to get anywhere near a firearm, or a drink or drug.

What sucks its impossible to tell who the psycho is.

 

[pastera]

I’ve seen many end badly very badly so that’s my viewpoint

And a piece of paper would fix it?