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

[Mesatchornug]

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.

It sounds like that woman would be served by therapy, perhaps a period of supervision, or maybe even confinement.

Leaving her free in the world without some or all of the above helps nobody. If we're to assume it's appropriate to remove her access to firearms, would we also block her from cars? knives? hammers? rope? drain cleaner?

 

[Admin]

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

So let me get your amazing logic wrapped around my head.

You think that someone that has a restraining order filed against them needs their guns taken away because the might do harm/murder.

So the law against murder with a life sentence or death penalty won't stop them, but a f-ing restraining order and loss of firearms will?

Did you eat lead paint chips as a kid?

 

[Waher]

The DV system, like Red Flags, is basically a Bill of Attainder. Anyone accused of "x" crime is automatically considered guilty, by act of legislation, until proven innocent which isn't constitutional.

 

[Admin]

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.

Perhaps one of the most surprising statistics about restraining orders is in that roughly half of all cases involving a court-ordered restraining order, there is no allegation whatsoever of physical violence. Restraining orders can be filed against a person who is accused of harassment that allegedly causes any time of emotional distress. This can include repeatedly calling someone on the telephone or creating a disturbance or a scene in a public place. It can also include the mere threat of violence—if a person is accused of threatening to commit physical abuse or harassment, he or she may be slapped with a restraining order.

As such, an estimated 70 percent of all restraining orders are thought to be trivial or false. The vast majority (85 percent) of these are filed against men, while the remaining 15 percent are filed against women. Additionally, more than half a million people are wrongfully arrested—arrested on unsubstantiated allegations—of domestic violence every year. These shockingly high numbers do not even take into consideration temporary restraining orders; an additional 1.5 million temporary restraining orders are filed every year that are discovered to be false or trivial.

There are several reasons why a person may file a restraining order. These include the filing by a jilted spouse during a particularly nasty divorce proceeding, or by a parent attempting to alienate a child from his or her other parent. Even if the allegations for the reason of the restraining order are determined to be false, it does not mean that the accused person will not continue to face consequences.

F all those innocent men, with a vengeful wife looking for the upper hand in divorce court.

 

[Matt_SERE]

F all those innocent men, with a vengeful wife looking for the upper hand in divorce court.

He hasn't addressed this, yet. Though it was asked of him very early.

 

[HuntMaine]

If you have an RO based on a violence against your spouse then yes. If you want to bring up those that are innocent , sure the Justice system is not perfect and if you are innocent you will be found so and firearms returned. As I said before don’t beat your wife and you should be good to go. It’s not that hard.

 

[HuntMaine]

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.

Was not discussing
Red flag crap

 

[pastera]

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.

Would you like to state why they walk so often?
Because the women also are abusive or they "forgive" the guy and won't testify.

Like I said, if there is objective evidence of battery then the person should be arrested, charged and tried. If found guilty THEN rights can be abridged but not before. If the person is so violent that during the trial they pose a significant risk then restrict bail.

Otherwise taking a person's freedoms because another's subjective feelings especially when that complainant objectively stands to gain from restrictions on the other.

 

[Matt_SERE]

sure the Justice system is not perfect and if you are innocent you will be found so and firearms returned.

and the scopes, ammo, holsters and such? Lots of accessories go missing because they are not inventoried after being stolen from the accused's residence. It is amazing how 10k rounds of ammo are confiscated but only 1k get returned. "Sue us."

 

[pastera]

If you have an RO based on a violence against your spouse then yes. If you want to bring up those that are innocent , sure the Justice system is not perfect and if you are innocent you will be found so and firearms returned. As I said before don’t beat your wife and you should be good to go. It’s not that hard.

Do you advocate for the permanent loss of civil rights for the complainant when filing an abusive or false order?
If not, I'll probably get a warning for my opinion of your lack of morality

 

[Matt_SERE]

Was not discussing
Red flag crap

Too inconvenient? The fact you call them crap does not separate them DVRO's. Unfortunately, they are conflated by "family court" constantly.

 

[snax]

Two of my friends were blindsided by ROs and divorce papers. Lawyers used the as leverage to separate them from house and kids. No guns involved. No threats of violence. Seemed like a divorce lawyer standard op.

 

[Admin]

If you have an RO based on a violence against your spouse then yes. If you want to bring up those that are innocent , sure the Justice system is not perfect and if you are innocent you will be found so and firearms returned. As I said before don’t beat your wife and you should be good to go. It’s not that hard.

So, in your head someone that was planning on murdering the person who filed the restraining order, will abandon that plan because the police took the firearms away?

What world do you live in?

 

[Dadstoys]

If you have an RO based on a violence against your spouse then yes. If you want to bring up those that are innocent , sure the Justice system is not perfect and if you are innocent you will be found so and firearms returned. As I said before don’t beat your wife and you should be good to go. It’s not that hard.

No you won't and they won't .
Seriously , did you just land on this planet or just wake up from a 40 year coma ?

 

[Dadstoys]

and the scopes, ammo, holsters and such? Lots of accessories go missing because they are not inventoried after being stolen from the accused's residence. It is amazing how 10k rounds of ammo are confiscated but only 1k get returned. "Sue us."

A buddy of mine NEVER got his guns back.
His crazy ex kept refiling over and over and over again.
Even though he never touched her , all she had to do was walk in and say she was in fear of her life and the judge just kept renewing it.
The kicker is , he was f*cking deployed overseas!

 

[whacko]

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.

If he beat his wife he'd be arrested. Grow up and open your eyes.

 

[Dadstoys]

Two of my friends were blindsided by ROs and divorce papers. Lawyers used the as leverage to separate them from house and kids. No guns involved. No threats of violence. Seemed like a divorce lawyer standard op.

It is.
My sisters lawyer pushed it to point where my sister fired her because she wouldn't let up on it and just get down to the business of squaring away the paperwork .
That's all my sister wanted , she didn't hate the guy and they got along fine after till the day he passed away.
The bitch lawyer was more interested in destroying the guy's life than doing her job.

 

[StevieP]

Was not discussing
Red flag crap

It is the same. ANY sort of "restraining order" that attempts to limit someone (abusing their civil rights in the process without due process) from causing harm (or staying away from someone, etc.) with a PIECE OF PAPER, is f***ing stupid. I keep a running .tXt file with various quotes. I've pasted the one about ERPOs several times. Here are some more...

What these people fail to realize is, laws were never intended to control people, behavior or crime! Laws were intended to give the Judicial system a means to punish people who violate the Rights and Freedoms of others! No law will ever prevent a crime or stop a criminal.

When they start trying to write laws that control people or prevent crimes the only thing they accomplish is violating the Rights and Freedoms of the law abiding, the very people that would have never committed the crime in the first place!

If laws prevented crime, the one banning assault is all we'd ever need.

 

[SgtHal75]

If you have an RO based on a violence against your spouse then yes. If you want to bring up those that are innocent , sure the Justice system is not perfect and if you are innocent you will be found so and firearms returned. As I said before don’t beat your wife and you should be good to go. It’s not that hard.

U just don’t get it. U have to be trolling!

You do realize that women assault and beat men too right?… majority of time when a man does beat up his wife she does a pretty good job about getting him to a point to do it, still not an excuse. So, for every RO that’s legitimately served against a man beating up his wife there are hundreds that are complete bogus. And because you’re being so dismissive of that and saying oh well, just go through the justice system and you’ll pay 30k to get your 15k collection back plus legal fees for you and her is hilarious!

Karma is a real thing dude.

 

[67ray]

And a piece of paper would fix it?

The paper is the final written warning. Any contact after that is jail.

Could be a text message, or could be bludgeoning. Either way it means jail.

 

[Roadglide]

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.

 

[StevieP]

The paper is the final written warning. Any contact after that is jail.

Could be a text message, or could be bludgeoning. Either way it means jail.

Why does anyone think "fear of jail" is an actual thing?

 

[67ray]

Why does anyone think "fear of jail" is an actual thing?

I don't think it is 'fear of jail'. In one way it is an implicit assumption of innocence of the charge of the RO, allowing one to not be locked up. Innocence until proven guilty is the basis of our legal system.

But eff up once and then you're in the clink.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

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.

 

[Waher]

The kicker is , he was f*cking deployed overseas!

I met a homeless veteran that lost visitation rights to his kids because he was in federal prison (taxes, had owned a failed restaurant that he tried to save by dodging taxes trying to dig himself out debt) and couldn't appear on a court date set by a moron state judge. When he was released from federal custody and went back before the moron state judge to try and regain visitation rights, the state judge threw him in jail for his previous failure to appear. Judge gaveled in the proceedings, said "oh I remember you", immediately recessed, went to his chambers, walked back out with a bench warrant and had him taken into custody. "Because you are going back to jail for x months for failure to appear, your appeal is denied."

He didn't get to see his kids until they graduated high school and got away from mom & her new husband.

 

[drgrant]

and the scopes, ammo, holsters and such? Lots of accessories go missing because they are not inventoried after being stolen from the accused's residence. It is amazing how 10k rounds of ammo are confiscated but only 1k get returned. "Sue us."

Don't forget the thousands in legal fees to get your RO vacated. Even if your attorney is the best around he or she still gotta get paid. And the cost of basically being a prohibited person for anywhere from months to years before that happens.... not to mention anybody who works in security or has to lean on their LTC is basically going to lose their job until that whole thing is done. Fudds think ROs are ok though because of smoothbrain mcretard thinking.....

 

[GL2020]

It sounds like that woman would be served by therapy, perhaps a period of supervision, or maybe even confinement.

Leaving her free in the world without some or all of the above helps nobody. If we're to assume it's appropriate to remove her access to firearms, would we also block her from cars? knives? hammers? rope? drain cleaner?

Indeed I would most advocate for most of those.

Therapy did little. Meds only marginal improvement and for a short time. She needs to be in some kind of supervised living situation. Not saying locked psych ward, but a group home perhaps. But she knows how to beat the system to archive the outcome she wants. Thankfully I believe she is a prohibited person federally.

there are people who know how to game the system to get the meds they like. She is one of those rare few. A truly empty soul that does not feel remorse. Borderline Personality and Narcistic disorders produce some seriously eff’d up people

the true beauty of the system is the state of MA says I pay alimony because she’s nuts and can’t work. Now that’s nuts!

 

[snax]

Oh I forgot another one, a neighbor of mine caught his wife cheating, she went down and filed a restraining order. Some other legal ramifications at play I wasn't privy to, but the result was he had to move back to Sweden because of it.



She then sold the house kept the $$ and moved in with the boyfriend

 

[drgrant]

Indeed I would most advocate for most of those.

Therapy did little. Meds only marginal improvement and for a short time. She needs to be in some kind of supervised living situation. Not saying locked psych ward, but a group home perhaps. But she knows how to beat the system to archive the outcome she wants. Thankfully I believe she is a prohibited person federally.

there are people who know how to game the system to get the meds they like. She is one of those rare few. A truly empty soul that does not feel remorse. Borderline Personality and Narcistic disorders produce some seriously eff’d up people

the true beauty of the system is the state of MA says I pay alimony because she’s nuts and can’t work. Now that’s nuts!

IMHO bring back looney bins. My ex was bipolar herself although the people she worked with were schizos. She had one broad who liked to swallow f***ing batteries and randomly escaped the facility and tried to run in front of trains on a couple of occasions, and then there were others that would snap and start giving the mental health workers bruises and shit. Thankfully for her sake she started working in another facility that had only elderly people in it.... but seriously though they need to bring back the bins. its f***ing rediculous, letting the people float around in the breeze is absurd but its also unfair to the people suffering from the problems because their care is barely managed. So the current system basically has the worst of both worlds.

 

[HuntMaine]

If he beat his wife he'd be arrested. Grow up and open your eyes.

Wake up. You clearly have zero knowledge of this. They walk all the time. Especially in lib courts.