Supreme Court upholds domestic violence gun restriction
- Thread starter Old_Me
- Start date
HayesGreener
Ronin
A good decision.
USMC6094
Custom
Most states already have this as part of their Domestic Violence laws, but a Domestic Violence Protective Order is NOT a conviction, and only allows the removal of firearms while the Order is in effect, i.e., until its hashed out in court.
My stick is that a Domestic Violence conviction isn't a felony..........
If a right is forfeited, the conviction should be a felony.
My stick is that a Domestic Violence conviction isn't a felony..........
If a right is forfeited, the conviction should be a felony.
KillerFord1977
SAINT
Woman shot 3 times by estranged husband pens warning from hospital to others in abusive relationships
Jonni Boyd was shot in the head, leg, and hip on June 9 at a park in Arlington by her husband of 15 years before police arrived and gunned him down.
www.wfaa.com
Agree, As despicable as it is to our moralities they haven’t been convicted of anything. I’ll be very interested to hear the breakdown of the ruling.
Bassbob
Emissary
While I agree with the ruling in principle, I think the distinctions need to be made that due process is followed, that is to say a court has to deem you a danger to others BEFORE the cops kick your door in and take your guns, and also once the ex parte is no longer in effect, if you are NOT convicted of a felony they need to give you your guns back. However we already know the lengths democrat politicians and activist judges will go to in order to misinterpret a SCOTUS ruling. And besides, once cops take your guns for whatever reason it is highly unlikely you will ever get them back.
PAGunGuy
Master Class
Terrible ruling.
The PFA system is ripe with abuse. Way too easy to get a protection order. And frequently they are used as tools for angry women to hurt their significant other. And the court system just rubber stamps them.
Personally, I think it should be a very, very rare thing for anyone to get barred from owning a gun, and that felons should get their rights restored once they serve their time (including probation/parole).
As Bass Cliff said, we can't be thought police. We don't live in Minority Report.
Heck, it's called law enforcement, not crime prevention.
I'd much rather see programs that help abuse victims get cheap or free guns, training and safe storage then to take someone's gun.
Reality is bad guys will get guns, OR, find another way to hurt/kill.
The PFA system is ripe with abuse. Way too easy to get a protection order. And frequently they are used as tools for angry women to hurt their significant other. And the court system just rubber stamps them.
Personally, I think it should be a very, very rare thing for anyone to get barred from owning a gun, and that felons should get their rights restored once they serve their time (including probation/parole).
As Bass Cliff said, we can't be thought police. We don't live in Minority Report.
Heck, it's called law enforcement, not crime prevention.
I'd much rather see programs that help abuse victims get cheap or free guns, training and safe storage then to take someone's gun.
Reality is bad guys will get guns, OR, find another way to hurt/kill.
Old_Me
SAINT
and that's the rub, the good law abiding people obey the laws, and the criminals laugh at them, and will absolutely obtain all the guns, magazines, and ammo they want, while we are slowly being disarmed.
it's a twisted society that goes after the wrong people for punishment, and allows others free will.
Bassbob
Emissary
I don't know how it is anywhere else, but here in order to get a restraining order, ex parte, whatever you want to call it, other than a temporary ( I think 30 day) both parties have to appear in front of a judge and someone has to show cause. It isn't possible to have a valid order filed against you if you haven't been served and appeared in front of a judge.
PAGunGuy
Master Class
Full ones. yes. But temporary don't like you said, and that's bad enough.
But even the full ones, they bully you into just agreeing to it instead of fighting it. I know, I have sat through the court proceedings many, many times. Not as a subject, but because of my work in the legal filed and law enforcement.
bc22wm
Custom
I will not get on my soap box about enforcers of the law vs protect and serve. nope won't do it
ME. has a "yellow flag" law where one has to go through a leangle hearing BEFORE firearms can be taken. Of course, that's not good enough for Czaria Mills and her cohorts of socialists demoKKKrats, while the yellow stain reDUMBlicnas do nothing. Was supposed to be a "reasonable compromise" but once again we see it was just the first step in how to boil a frog.
Guy Reliford a 2A attorney in Indiana (The Gun Guy) broke down the ruling on last nights show 6/22/24
In the ruling the Justices actually mentioned nothing about “due process “ was brought up by the party.
Well worth the listen. And you can forward through the couple commercials
wibc.com
In the ruling the Justices actually mentioned nothing about “due process “ was brought up by the party.
Well worth the listen. And you can forward through the couple commercials
The Gun Guy
BLOGS | RELFORD LAW | TACTICAL FIREARMS | OMNY | ITUNES Guy A. Relford is the founder of the Law Offices of Guy A. Relford in Carmel, Indiana. His legal practice includes both civil and criminal litigation, focused exclusively on the defense of the U.S. and Indiana Constitutions and the...
wibc.com
Bassbob
Emissary
In Roberts's opinion he stated something to the effect of " found by a court to be a danger to themselves or others. Sounds like due process to me.Guy Reliford a 2A attorney in Indiana (The Gun Guy) broke down the ruling on last nights show 6/22/24
In the ruling the Justices actually mentioned nothing about “due process “ was brought up by the party.
Well worth the listen. And you can forward through the couple commercials
The Gun Guy
BLOGS | RELFORD LAW | TACTICAL FIREARMS | OMNY | ITUNES Guy A. Relford is the founder of the Law Offices of Guy A. Relford in Carmel, Indiana. His legal practice includes both civil and criminal litigation, focused exclusively on the defense of the U.S. and Indiana Constitutions and the...
Yes and in this case he was ruled to be a bad dude however had he or his attorneys brought that up as a secondary argument it could have helped all the cases if She said .
Reliford covered it in the show and my Son has a woke progressive Dem in Seattle that he is going through custody with. She claimed domestic violence in 2019 there is no police incident (because it never happened) she simply is being vindictive. And she’s extremely anti gun and filed it when he purchased his first handgun and without a hearing or proof had to turn it in to King County Sheriffs.
This was sept he went back and forth with “commissioners” not real judges since it was a civil thing so basically he won’t get it bac til January 2025 and he did nothing wrong. Because Jayapal and her minions in the state system there have jockeys back door gun control to evil men!!!!
Had a due process issue need a core and they could have ruled it would have helped a ton of folks in my sons case
Bassbob
Emissary
And he was never taken in front of a judge ? They do ignore the parts of the constitution they don't like in Washington State don't they ?