Simple restraining order not enough to end 2nd Amendment Rights.....

[whitehall]

If these people are -so- dangerous they should not have a firearm, then they should be in custody.

Oh? You think subjects of a restraining order should be in custody? Welcome to the club.

 

[Rigby5]

If somebody or government entity wishes to deny your right to keep and bear arms for self-protection, there should be an immediate hearing and your rights protected by a lawyer and if retaining the right, lawyer fees should be paid by the government or the person bringing the action. At the same time, I have no problem whatsoever of a felony conviction removing that right until you are dead and buried, even if it was not a violent felony involving a weapon. Removal of that right, is just acknowledge the guilty, as a person of anti-social low impulse control if not down right malevolence to society.

Remember that in some states, a joint or bouncing a check for $101 are all felonies.
And we have cops deliberately shooting unarmed people to death, and we do not even dock them any pay.

 

[Rigby5]

She was convicted for firing a warning shot, which is illegal.
Obey the law.

Warning shots are always legal.
They used to be required at one time, and it was murder if a warning shot was not fired.

 

[White 6]

Remember that in some states, a joint or bouncing a check for $101 are all felonies.
And we have cops deliberately shooting unarmed people to death, and we do not even dock them any pay.

Heck, you guys got your problems. Tennessee's cops might absolutely beat you to death, but they don't get paid leave. They get fired and brought up on Murder charges, quick, and that was just last month.

 

[Rigby5]

Here you go:
But a previous judge in the case rejected the request, saying Alexander’s decision to go back into the house was not consistent with someone in fear for her safety, according to the Florida Times Union newspaper.

Explains everything.

Wrong.
The "Stand Your Ground" principle is NOT about being fearful of your life, but about property.
If she went back into the house to protect her property, that is EXACTLY what "Stand Your Ground" intended.
The "Castle Doctrine" also applies to where she was living.

{...
In the United States, a law that allows one to use force that would otherwise be illegal against a person that they perceive as posing an immediate threat of serious bodily harm. The name comes from the idea that one can "stand one's ground" rather than retreat.
...}

The fact she originally retreated is irrelevant.
Once she realized all her belongings would have been forfeit, she had the right to go back in and get them.

{...
A castle doctrine, also known as a castle law or a defense of habitation law, is a legal doctrine that designates a person's abode or any legally occupied place (for example, a vehicle or home) as a place in which that person has protections and immunities permitting one, in certain circumstances, to use force (up to and including deadly force) to defend oneself against an intruder, free from legal prosecution for the consequences of the force used.[1]
...}

The judge simply was wrong.

 

[BlackSand]

.

Ask a Law Enforcement Officer ... And they will tell you.

They will always tell you that the most important thing in an investigation when a firearm is discharged ...
Is how well the person who discharged the firearm can articulate their reason for doing so ... At the point they discharged their firearm ...
And when they first make a statement that will be admissible in court.

If one does not feel they are capable of doing so properly ... Without incriminating themselves ...
They should seek or request counsel before they say anything to anyone.

We are talking about the Law ...
Not keyboard warfare and ideology.

.​

 

[M14 Shooter]

Oh? You think subjects of a restraining order should be in custody? Welcome to the club.

Yep.
If they're -that- dangerous, then there's no argument against taking them into custody.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Warning shots are always legal.
They used to be required at one time, and it was murder if a warning shot was not fired.

Not true.

they were never required and were never a good idea.

 

[whitehall]

Yep.
If they're -that- dangerous, then there's no argument against taking them into custody.

A restraining order is a serious matter and has to be issued by a judge. It protects mostly women from a perceived threat when there isn't enough evidence to prove a crime. A stalker's sudden urge to purchase a firearm after being served a restraining order might be enough evidence but it's usually too late by that time.

 

[M14 Shooter]

A restraining order is a serious matter and has to be issued by a judge.

And, if that person is actually a danger to himself or others, not letting the restrained purchase a firearm does nothing to protect anyone.

 

[AZrailwhale]

And, if that person is actually a danger to himself or others, not letting the restrained purchase a firearm does nothing to protect anyone.

If he/she is that dangerous, a judge needs to issue a confinement order to hold him in a mental institution until he/she can be properly diagnosed. But that requires due process something the proponents of red flag laws don't want to happen. They want to seize weapons because it's an "appear to do something solution" to a complicated situation.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If he/she is that dangerous, a judge needs to issue a confinement order to hold him in a mental institution until he/she can be properly diagnosed.

Exactly.
Same issue with red flag laws.
Whatever argument there is for taking/denying firearms, it applies equally to taking the person into custody.

 

[Ralph Norton]

Warning shots are always legal.
They used to be required at one time, and it was murder if a warning shot was not fired.

Wrong on both counts.
Where do you come up with this shit?