Family Court is the trailer park of the legal world. As in, most family court "judges" are... interesting, to say the least.Originally Posted by HCM
Family Court is the trailer park of the legal world. As in, most family court "judges" are... interesting, to say the least.
As some who has been falsely accused by the actual abuser in a relationship, I don't see this a bad thing. Thay was a stressful few hours until they found out she was full of shit and actually the abuser.
Speaking as a layperson in the realm of law and order, is it that simple? If the offender were that dangerous would they not charge them with a felony, which disqualifies gun rights?
Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk
All I know is that I have friends who have been charged with DV for silly reasons and have lost gun rights momentarily due to this law. You don't even have to touch a woman to go to jail for DV. The DV laws give women a lot of power to ruin a man's life if used in the wrong way.
-Seconds Count. Misses Don't-
I have a friend who was falsely accused of DV by a spiteful woman, spent time in jail, and had his firearms confiscated. It took nearly a year for him to regain his constitutional rights and property.
As a father of two daughters, I want them to be safe from domestic and other forms of violence. But red flag laws are a terrible idea for many reasons--including the potential for their abuse as my friend found out.
What other constitutional right can be revoked based on unsubstantiated claims? How can the simple accusation of DV be sufficient to confiscate property? Total BS.
“There is no growth in the comfort zone.”--Jocko Willink
"You can never have too many knives." --Joe Ambercrombie
And it doesn't work in the reverse most of the time... ask me how I know. I had a horrible experience of cops laughing at me when I explained what she did. Tables turned I would of went to jail and probably would of spent thousands in court fees.
A conviction for a domestic violence misdemeanor disqualifies gun right., but even a misdemeanor criminal case is a somewhat equitable process that includes checks and balances, and requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Whereas, restraining orders are civil, and at best require only a preponderance of evidence.
Temporary restraining orders for alleged domestic violence are among the easiest orders to obtain - too easy in my opinion. People do sometimes end up losing rights at least temporarily over allegations which are weak at best. I know an individual who was unable to possess a gun for 18 months over a spurious allegation.
In years past in my region, it was common for the accused and accuser to agree to extend the temporary order rather than put a full protection from abuse order in place in order to preserve the right of the accused to possess a gun. In fact, many accusers felt that they were safer by not angering the accused by doing something that could take guns away. More recent changes in the law now prevent this from working.
From the perspective of gun rights. the long-term effect of this will depend heavily on how our side manages the PR. It is very easy to spin this ruling in a way that looks really bad for us. Our side needs to be careful to express concern for true victims of domestic violence while explaining why taking away people's rights is a bad idea.
If this were upheld, it is easy to envision a push to restrict gun rights over smaller and smaller offenses.
Agree 1000%. The domestic violence statutes are unfair. Your firearms are taken first, before you can prove innocence. Red flag laws are terrible. Here in California, your neighbor or co-worker can ruin you.
If we're thinking we can get rid of red flag laws all at once, too, then count me in. Might be time to rip off the Band-Aid.
Reply With Quote