Oh? You think subjects of a restraining order should be in custody? Welcome to the club.If these people are -so- dangerous they should not have a firearm, then they should be in custody.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Oh? You think subjects of a restraining order should be in custody? Welcome to the club.If these people are -so- dangerous they should not have a firearm, then they should be in custody.
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.
She was convicted for firing a warning shot, which is illegal.
Obey the law.
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.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.
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.
Yep.Oh? You think subjects of a restraining order should be in custody? Welcome to the club.
Not true.Warning shots are always legal.
They used to be required at one time, and it was murder if a warning shot was not fired.
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.Yep.
If they're -that- dangerous, then there's no argument against taking them into custody.
And, if that person is actually a danger to himself or others, not letting the restrained purchase a firearm does nothing to protect anyone.A restraining order is a serious matter and has to be issued by a judge.
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.And, if that person is actually a danger to himself or others, not letting the restrained purchase a firearm does nothing to protect anyone.
Exactly.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.
Wrong on both counts.Warning shots are always legal.
They used to be required at one time, and it was murder if a warning shot was not fired.