PDA

View Full Version : Your thoughts on whether/to what extent restraining orders should bar gun possesion?


TonyNorCal
03-19-2006, 3:45 PM
They have been a few threads recently that addressed the issue of restraining orders barring one from firearms possesion. I am curious what your thoughts are on the matter? It really seems to be a rather frightening proposition....

-A vindictive ex-spouse or dating partner can use one as a weapon.
-A psychopathic stranger (like in the other thread, although this is probably exceedlingly rare) could slap one on you.
-An angry and vindictive neighbor you quarrel with could use it as a way to separate you from your guns.
-I personally know someone who had a relative (sister) place a restraining order on them during an inheritance settling...he relative refused to communicate, etc and placed the order in an attempt to block my friend from calling to try and settle the matter. My friend owns no firearms, but she said she got a notice telling her she needed to surrender any she had. She felt she was undeserving (and she was) of being restrained. So she ended up going before a judge, along with her sister, and the judge sided with her and threw out the temporary order. But in order to do this she had to take time off work and fly 400 miles.

Anyway...it's scary stuff...there are people who misuse the legal system and it doesn't seem to take much to get an order...and for those who are firearms enthusiasts I'd imagine it could be a horrible predicament.

To what extent do you think restraining orders should preclude possesion?

jmlivingston
03-19-2006, 6:50 PM
There was a HUGE article in todays (Sunday's) OC Register about this; I think it was 4 pages long and it was the major headline on the front page. The gist of the story concerned a number of murders recently commited by people who had a restraining order placed against them by their victim.

The gist of it was that every county in the state has nearly a 100% failure rate in following up and ensuring that any firearms have been removed from posession. It appears that it's essentially been up to the defendant to admin/deny compliance. Definately a very broken system!

Every restraining order in the state supposedly has a mandated requirement that makes simple firearm possesion a crime, and that any firearms must be turned in or otherwise disposed of within 48 hours of the court issuing the restraining order.

Obviously this process is broken, and is one that can be very easily twisted and used for nefarious purposes. On the other hand, restraining orders do serve a legitimate purpose and have value. I don't know the answer to this conundrum, except to say that if an individual is so concerned about their safety that they go through the restraining order process they should consider purchasing an appropriate side-arm and applying for a CCW permit.


John

grammaton76
03-19-2006, 7:22 PM
I personally feel that restraining orders should not even remove firearms possession unless there were impartial witnesses - an ex-wife's sister, for example, is absolutely biased, and should not count! On the other hand, if three or four people on the street see you hit your wife, then absolutely, you SHOULD lose your weapons and serve some time.

Simply put, restraining orders don't do a thing against someone who's already determined to kill someone else. However, restraining orders are so easily abused as weapons. As I understand it, there is no real burden of proof required for a restraining order. A woman can just hit herself in the face with a hammer or something, SAY you did it, then you're getting the order applied, probably even going in for domestic violence. The "Fight Club" office scene, where the guy threw himself all over the other guy's office and said he did it, is totally plausible.

No one should be saying, "That restraining order needs to get tougher, because those guys had weapons!", which I'm sure the media wants people to agree with them.on.

The guys who DID kill the subjects of their restraining orders probably have other offenses they should've been put away for before hand.

Now, one thing I *WOULD* get behind, is that anyone who's filed a restraining order should be shall-issue on CCW's. Of course, then we'd have a whole new set of improper restraining orders going out.

*sigh* CA just needs to become a shall-issue state, but that'll never happen. The alternative, which WILL sooner or later pass, is that all guns will get taken away "for the women and children".

CALI-gula
03-19-2006, 8:25 PM
Some lawyers are now putting it in the divorce doucuments as standard text, even if the two parties are splitting up amicably, and on good terms. I suppose the lawyer might be including it to cover his own butt, should something between the 2 people go bad.

A friend of mine and his wife got married very young and moved to California. They got hitched after knowing each other only 6 months (stupid!). After 2 years, they realized they had nothing in common; she was an actress that wanted to stay in Los Angeles and he was in architectural textile design, but wanted to move to San Diego.

His wife (soon to be ex) agreed to get the lawyer and handle the paperwork (as an actress in LA, she seemed to have a LOT more time - go figure). When he went for an appointment to sign the paperwork, both of them were surprised that restraining order wording (against him) was in the document, and both asked the lawyer to have it removed; both were gun owners!

metalhead357
03-19-2006, 9:05 PM
Definately a very broken system!



It had to have WORKED at one time to be considered broke. Denying people thier property without Due Process is an Unconstitional thingy on its face.......... It aint lawfull. As its been noted, its all based on the "defendants" truthfulness. Wanna show me where the lawer is for a "defendant" when he's served and has to dispose of his weaponry BEFORE he can even see the inside of a courtroom?

Ludicrous law designed to make stoopid people "feel" safer. Need I remind all that Cops have NO DUTY to protect an individual? Is THAT supposed to make the "defendant"....or even the "plaintiff" feel safer?

I too know peeps that have gone through this asinine system. To complicate matters, even if "they" are quick to get somebody INTO the system....expect 3-4X longer to get OUTTA the system; so you're clear...so what...go try and buy a gun............ yea right......


Metalhead

m1371
03-19-2006, 11:23 PM
Some lawyers are now putting it in the divorce doucuments as standard text, even if the two parties are splitting up amicably, and on good terms. I suppose the lawyer might be including it to cover his own butt, should something between the 2 people go bad.

A friend of mine and his wife got married very young and moved to California. They got hitched after knowing each other only 6 months (stupid!). After 2 years, they realized they had nothing in common; she was an actress that wanted to stay in Los Angeles and he was in architectural textile design, but wanted to move to San Diego.

His wife (soon to be ex) agreed to get the lawyer and handle the paperwork (as an actress in LA, she seemed to have a LOT more time - go figure). When he went for an appointment to sign the paperwork, both of them were surprised that restraining order wording (against him) was in the document, and both asked the lawyer to have it removed; both were gun owners!


Just went through this exact situation with the ex-wife's lawyer. The money-grubbing @#$*$%! tried to convince the judge to enforce a restraining order to make me sell or turn in my firearms. Personally I think she was going after the "sell" angle in order to get the max $$$ out of me as possible.

I had to argue that I did not present ANY threat to my ex- and that disposing of my firearms would cost me my job. No guns, no job, no cash. Ended up being the only thing she understood was "NO JOB, NO CASH". Funny thing, the ex-wife had no issue whatsoever with me keeping my firearms and hadn't even mentioned anything to her lawyer about my guns.

And people wonder why I freaking hate lawyers.

paradox
03-20-2006, 6:21 AM
"cost reversal" as described above combined with the elimination of 10 day waiting periods and Vermont style permitless CCW would be my solution.

The 10 waiting period is stupid because those who want to commit murder in the heat of passion will use whatever is handy, they won't go to the gun store, wait in line, and fill out forms just to aquire a murder weapon. Last year my small county had four murders, one was commited with an SUV, one with a walking cane, one with a kitchen knife, and one with a boot. This is in a county that probably has more guns than people. Making people wait ten days will not stop murders, but it will make those afraid of being murdered defenseless for two weeks.

m1371
03-20-2006, 10:59 PM
"cost reversal" as described above combined with the elimination of 10 day waiting periods and Vermont style permitless CCW would be my solution.

The 10 waiting period is stupid because those who want to commit murder in the heat of passion will use whatever is handy, they won't go to the gun store, wait in line, and fill out forms just to aquire a murder weapon. Last year my small county had four murders, one was commited with an SUV, one with a walking cane, one with a kitchen knife, and one with a boot. This is in a county that probably has more guns than people. Making people wait ten days will not stop murders, but it will make those afraid of being murdered defenseless for two weeks.

That's it!!!!! We need to alert the media and start a campaign to ban boots! And walking canes!

Do it for the children....... :D






















> ..... sorry..... couldn't help myself..... :o <

artherd
03-21-2006, 2:25 AM
Restraining orders by definition only work on the law-abiding, since they carry only legal and not physical restraint. They're basically useful for escelating a minor harassment charge (or no actual crime) into a very serious crime of disobeying a court order which should lead to immediate arrest&jail (usually).

They serve a definate purpose, a "STOP IT" in no uncertin terms.

Should they immediately remove a person's most effective tools for self-defense? I don't think so, no.

In a perfect world: A person who cannot be trusted around guns cannot be trusted around autos, bleech, pruning shears, chainsaws, or even string. Those people need to be REMOVED FROM SOCIETY, not to have their guns removed from their house.

metalhead357
03-21-2006, 5:41 AM
In a perfect world: A person who cannot be trusted around guns cannot be trusted around autos, bleech, pruning shears, chainsaws, or even string. Those people need to be REMOVED FROM SOCIETY, not to have their guns removed from their house.

Ohh Artherd! Stop turning things political! Politicians need lovin' too~ we cant just throw 'em out............can we????????:p