The SC will decide if domestic abusers get to possess firearms.

[rightwinger]

They steal your property based upon specious accusations, and getting that property back is no simple feat. There couldn't even be a case if the state was confiscating property with valid search warrants and probable cause. That is what's missing here.

You will have your day in court to prove the charges are specious
Restraining Orders are generally for a limited time period.

 

[Rogue AI]

You will have your day in court to prove the charges are specious
Restraining Orders are generally for a limited time period.

Confiscation of private property has requirements, none of which are met with these 'restraining orders'.

 

[Mac-7]

Yes you can

But for some strange reason, it is most often a gun

No it isnt

They might shoot a woman if they catch her in bed with another man

But being bigger and stronger they seldom intend to kill her just for being bitchy

In fact the woman is more likely to shoot the husband to protect herself

 

[Independentthinker]

Restraining orders are very effective. Violate it and you get arrested. All it takes is a phone call.

The intent is to keep warring parties apart. Keeping guns out of the picture helps prevent escalation

By the time you violated it, you have already attacked the person, who obviously wasn't protected by the protective order.

 

[DBA]

God forbid......that 'fact' is part of the mix in decision making.

WTH?!!

My post meant to say inject race not fact.

 

[DBA]

Just goes to show you that liberals, even when they are SC justices, are unable to escape the indoctrination that makes them inject fact into every single issue. All liberal SC justices will be in lockstep, they always are. They rarely think for themselves.

This should say inject race into every issue.

 

[Polishprince]

You will have your day in court to prove the charges are specious
Restraining Orders are generally for a limited time period.

And in the mean time, what are you supposed to do? The possibility of being confronted by armed thugs is even greater if they know you have few defenses.

 

[rightwinger]

By the time you violated it, you have already attacked the person, who obviously wasn't protected by the protective order.

If you are intent on killing someone, a restraining order will not stop you

Many of these killings are a couple that just doesn’t get along and a simple encounter escalates into a fight

That is what restraining orders are for

 

[berg80]

I have but you refuse to accept them

It's true I've refused to accept horseshit......which is all you peddle.

 

[berg80]

You weren't there

Why assume the husband is at fault?

If he is a danger he should be locked up rather than allowed to run around loose

You seem to think getting a restraining order does not required a court to issue one based on evidence presented by the victim.

 

[berg80]

In fact the woman is more likely to shoot the husband to protect herself

Please stop offering opinions without substantiating them.

 

[Rogue AI]

You seem to think getting a restraining order does not required a court to issue one based on evidence presented by the victim.

These 'restraining orders' are based upon accusations that would never stand up to the scrutiny required for a proper search warrant. Violating the rights of citizens should always be wrong, sadly today's liberals don't seem to understand that.

 

[Polishprince]

If you are intent on killing someone, a restraining order will not stop you

Many of these killings are a couple that just doesn’t get along and a simple encounter escalates into a fight

That is what restraining orders are for

A lot of times these people live in very dangerous cities. That's going to put them in a bad way- and probably in the morgue- if they get approached by a thug with a gun that hasn't been confiscated.

 

[rightwinger]

These 'restraining orders' are based upon accusations that would never stand up to the scrutiny required for a proper search warrant. Violating the rights of citizens should always be wrong, sadly today's liberals don't seem to understand that.

If that is the case, the restraining order is dropped.

Most restraining orders are legitimate. To protect someone against a stated threat or keep domestic partners apart during a time of conflict.

Your accusations that “women always lie about these things” is bullshit

 

[Rogue AI]

If that is the case, the restraining order is dropped.

Most restraining orders are legitimate. To protect someone against a stated threat or keep domestic partners apart during a time of conflict.

Your accusations that “women always lie about these things” is bullshit

Yet the property is already taken. That is the point, in order for government to seize property, they must first go through all reasonable measures to ensure the rights of the citizen are protected. Using accusations or third party statements is not due diligence.

 

[berg80]

These 'restraining orders' are based upon accusations that would never stand up to the scrutiny required for a proper search warrant. Violating the rights of citizens should always be wrong, sadly today's liberals don't seem to understand that.

Temporarily keeping a gun out of the hands of someone who has been recognized by the court as being a danger to the person seeking protection is a violation of nothing.

 

[Rogue AI]

Temporarily keeping a gun out of the hands of someone who has been recognized by the court as being a danger to the person seeking protection is a violation of nothing.

Show me in the Constitution where our rights are temporary. You folks want to avoid due process and the highest standards of probable cause and actual evidence in lieu of accusations and third party utterances. No thanks.

 

[WEATHER53]

If a person has a history of proven physical aggression toward a party who cannot put up an adequate defense then that person should not have a firearm.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If a person has a history of proven physical aggression toward a party who cannot put up an adequate defense then that person should not have a firearm.

Why shouldn't that person instead be in custody?

 

[WEATHER53]

Why shouldn't that person instead be in custody?

I guess there is just not enough proof?